No, not you Barack, the current holder of the office.
President Bush, it started as a simple matter and became an unnecessarily sad saga. Two loyal protectors of our borders, Jose Campean and Ignacio Ramos, who shot (in the butt) a fleeing drug dealer who had just illegally crossed our southern border, have now been imprisoned for their acts for two years.
Your United States Attorney covering this case, Johnny Sutton, has made a mockery of his duties. Your allowing this case to get this far is disappointing at best.
If a pardon is good enough for these two turkeys, surely you can set aside time in your schedule for those protecting us.
November 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post page13news to Facebook
4 comments:
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[2] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[3]. This has become controversial, as some non-residents enter the U.S. as illegal aliens with the intent to give birth to children. A birth certificate is considered evidence of citizenship. This differs from most western nations; countries of the European Union which awarded citizenship to children born there (such as Ireland) closed this possibility.
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
is born in the United States
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.
ok...I hear you Draco, but you're talking apples and oranges.
We're not talking about whether Barack is a US Citizen. Arnold Schwartzinager is a US citizen as well, but is not eligible to be president because he is not a "natural born" citizen.
Article II, Section 1 (5th paragraph) of the constitution states (and read the words carefully)...
No person except a natural born citizen, or a US citizen at the time of adoption of this constitution (that is alive during the 1770's), shall be elibible to be President of the United States.
Remember, most of the founders were not born here, so they needed a clause which allowed themselves to apply, but make it difficult for anyone not born here to assume the office, like the King of England for example.
Regardless, as Philip Berg pointed out in the October Surprise video, Obama's citizenship was renounced when his step-father enrolled him in an Indonesian school.
At that time, Indonesia was at war and did not allow for duel citizenships. Also, schools would only allow citizens to be enrolled, during war time. His step-father needed to make him a citizen of Indonesia and renounce his US citizenship.
Once that happens, he can at best, only be considered a "naturalized citizen" from that point forward, provided he reapplies for citizenship.
Technically - and i don't like it but it's possible - a child born here to illegal alien parents is eligible to be president, but not Obama ...yet.
see October Surprise video here...
http://page13news.blogspot.com/2008/10/october-surprise.html
for the wording of Article II Section 1....
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html
Thanks for the links.
I guess we're just going to have to pick sides on this one.
But interestingly: if Obama was born in HI, and was therefore a natural-born citizen, and if his step-father did renounce his citizenship in Indonedsia, then we're still stuck. The Amendment says nothing about renouncing your citizenship, much less about the retroactive implications of parents doing it for you.
Either way you look at it, it's a messy issue. Because what you'd basically have to tell the masses is that Obama isn't really a citizen and his motives are questioned based on the relative nature of the decision made by a step-parent, although the man has served this country in elected office. That's a tough sell.
I still think this is an non-issue, but at the very worst you'd almost expect an amendment to the current law.
Post a Comment