So, are Obama birth certificate threads not conspiracy theories anymore?

You have yet to prove your point...

And I won't hold my breath, because I know you can't...

 

I have no problem with this one, his Father was in FACT a "Citizen" when he was Born...

Why would you think that helps your case and not mine? It says exactly what I have said it needs to, his parents were in fact "Citizens" when he was Born, so he is in fact a "natural Born Citizen".

Thanks for your help.

 

Too bad both parents don't have to be citizens for one to gain NBC status...

So your point is moot...

 

I have done it, time and again, just as I have show w e do in FACT recognize a difference between "Native" and "Natural" Born Citizens....

Again, for those who seem to be having a hard time understanding here is the LAW that recognizes them:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born.
Posted in Uncategorized on January 25, 2012 by naturalborncitizen
I was just made privy to a very important piece of research I had not previously been aware of. It comes by way of a comment forwarded to me by the author of the h2ooflife blog:

“I had presumed that the idiom “natural born citizen” appeared nowhere in U.S. Law other than A2S1C5, but I found it in administrative law and it is contrasted with native and naturalized citizenship. I’ve never seen any mention of this fact before and wonder how many are aware of it in the ineligibility camp. Here’s the quotes:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html

He then quoted two provisions from the link provided, but there’s actually three at the official INS “.gov” site which establish official recognition by the federal government that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated. When you visit the suggested link to the Immigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”

Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:

“The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…” (Emphasis added.)

Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:

“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.

The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.” (Emphasis added.)

And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:

“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.” (Emphasis added.)

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48438.html

Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status.

 

Try to keep up.

 

I will listen to the Supreme Court, and not you on matters pertaining to this.

They have in fact said it takes "parents" to be a "Natural Born Citizen". Just one or none makes you a "Native Born Citizen". There is a difference, whether YOU realize it or not.

 

They are not making a distinction between native and natural born...

It is the same thing, except in your imagination...

 

If they weren't, then why make the distinction at all?

 

Too bad the SC says no such thing...

The fact that the word "children" was used in the phrase that you are referencing when the word "parents" was used doesn't imply that both parents have to be citizens...

Your grammar must suck...

How many people do you know, when making a generalized statement about "children" would go on to say "parent" in the singular form?

I hope not a lot...

That would be a sad thing indeed...

 

They didn't...

It was the point that they are the same thing...

Why else do you think they are always mentioned together???

 

The legislature could have drafted the amendment so that those born here were deemed to be “natural born Citizens”, but the legislature didn’t. And our federal courts are barred, according to the rules of statutory construction, from holding that the 14th Amendment creates natural-born citizens. Had Congress intended the Amendment to do that, their intention to do so must have been clear and manifest. Therefore, such a construction is not only wrong, it is inadmissible according to Chief Justice Marshall’s majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison.

The issue now confronting the nation as to the true Constitutional meaning and intention of the natural-born citizen clause is not as complex as it appears. When one analyzes it in the context of the firmly established rules of statutory construction, it becomes clear that 14th Amendment citizenship is not, by itself, enough to be POTUS eligible. In order for a court to hold that 14th Amendment citizenship alone makes one a natural-born citizen, the court would be required to completely overrule the very foundation of law in this country; checks and balances created by the separation of powers.

Perhaps the judicial branch is willing to do that to protect President Obama from the Constitution’s authority. But in doing so, the judiciary would destroy our legal system. This is because such a construction would be a complete usurpation by the judicial branch of the power granted by the Constitution to Congress.

Therefore, the only possible way to Constitutionally construe the natural-born citizen clause is to require something more than 14th Amendment citizenship. That something more is citizen parentage. And that is exactly how the Supreme Court construed it in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874).



http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

 

Jesus Christ, stop quoting blogs...

 

Parents is plural for a reason. Not my fault you don't understand that.

And I have pointed out, time and again, that the Supreme Court does in FACT say "parents" when refering to a "Natural Born Citizen".

Again, not my fault you aren't getting it.

 

Maybe you should go read the entire thing.

It does an excellent job in bringing the entire argument to a clear and concise end. Not my fault you don't care to enlighten yourself.

If you think it is wrong, then PROVE IT!

You have offered nothing but your own "opinion" that it is wrong. And you will have to excuse me if I choose to believe someone who has offered multitudes of EVIDENCE to support their claim, when you offer nothing.

 

Because they used the word "children"...

Did you pass the third grade?

(*)(*)(*)(*), even my 6-year old son knows you don't use a singular & plural together...

 

You've been proven wrong repeatedly...

Just like your fellow birthers...

Not my fault you seem to lack reading comprehension skills...

 

You and yours have proven nothing. And you are unable to address ANY of the evidence offered you.

Why am I not surprised.

 

if a foreign national marries a citizen they then become citizens after 5 years under the law, the child is then a citizen without having to be an 'anchor baby'. it is only illegal if the authorities prove it was a business transaction for the green card

but even if they weren't married the law still cannot discriminate against bastard children as long as one parent is a citizen.

 

no SCOTUS decision has ever reached that conclusion. EVER. not once. there are only2 types of citizen recognized in US law. citizen at birth, and naturalized. that's it.

 

no, there is no difference.

 

no SCOTUS decision has ever stated that. why do you continue to misrepresent this?

 

there is no court case currently underway.

 

the court has NEVER said it takes "parents" to be a natural born citizen. and there is no legal difference between a native born or natural born citizen.

 

any child born on US soil is a natural born US citizen. ANY CHILD(unless they are the child of parents who have diplomatic immunity, since the parents are not "subject to the jurisdictin" of the US)

this has beensettled law since 1898

 

There's half a dozen there now.

Exactly. There's no proof of a conspiracy. That's what puts it in that subforum. Like 9/11 bull(*)(*)(*)(*). And "The CIA killed Kennedy" nonsense. And "The British crown killed Diana". All that.

Do you even know the rules of the board you're modding? I think you do, but it's obvious your anti-Obama bias is affecting your ability to moderate this issue, which is why I asked for another mod to contribute.

Umm... Huffpo is reporting what a ridiculous bit of nonsense it is. Did you read the article?

How about this thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...certificate-mombasa-kenya.html#post1060806389

Current events? A three-year-old fake Kenyan birth certificate?