A Subversive Congress...Citizenship...Eligibility Laws...Nationality...and more Birther talk...

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Excellent topic, excellent research, and excellent presentation.
-- thank you!

It occurs to me that many of these same factors will necessarily be part of the upcoming 14th Amendment discussion 're citizenship at birth.

originally posted by: Greven
Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii, so that 1952 Nationality Act which says everyone born in Hawaii since 1898 is a U.S. citizen doesn't really help any case against that.

According to THIS Sun Yat-Sen was born in Hawaii.

Yet he was not.

Now, we can go with Obama's grandmother's testimony (there is a recording of this) that he was born in Kenya.

Unfortunately, we cannot ask her about this because she died peacefully in her home of cancer on the night before the Presidential election.

Not a conspiracy theorist here... but I am a coincidence theorist.

I will leave it at that.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Excellent topic, excellent research, and excellent presentation.
-- thank you!

It occurs to me that many of these same factors will necessarily be part of the upcoming 14th Amendment discussion 're citizenship at birth.

Thanks, Boadicea!

I agree. I think the Fourteenth Amendment needed rehauling after Congress decided to confer nationality to some citizens, but not to others.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MotherMayEye

But he was not born a U.S. National via the 1952 Nationality Act when read with the 1959 Statehood Act.

Wouldn't that apply to anyone born in Hawaii, or Alaska? Are you suggesting that all Hawaiian and Alaskan citizens are unqualified to run for President?

No, I'm not saying that. Nationality can be derived through a person's parents, too. But, Obama's mother did not meet the residency requirements to confer nationality to him at birth.

But that law only applies to people born outside the geographical limits of the United States. Obama was born in the United States.

SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of w'hom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.../ex]

Ah, a bunch of posts since I was looking for it...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven
Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii, so that 1952 Nationality Act which says everyone born in Hawaii since 1898 is a U.S. citizen doesn't really help any case against that.

Correct. But he was not born a U.S. National via the 1952 Nationality Act when read with the 1959 Statehood Act.

That's what this thread is about.

Your premise is wrong, however.

A U.S. citizen must be a U.S. national per U.S. law.

You can't be a U.S. citizen and not a U.S. national.

Show me the law that says this. I invited you to do so in the OP.

Immigration and Nationality Act Section 101(a) 21 and 22:

(21) The term "national" means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

(22) The term "national of the United States" means:

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

originally posted by: Greven
(21) The term "national" means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

(22) The term "national of the United States" means:

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

That says that some U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens and some are not.

Where's the law that says all U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals or a law that expressly prohibits a non-U.S. national from being born a U.S. citizen?

a reply to: Greven

And, btw, if you find any such laws, then it just means that Obama was not born a U.S. citizen, at all. Is that really your position?

The Hawaii Statehood Act says this:


There's no getting around that. And there's no getting around the fact that nationality is not conferred to people born in Hawaii pursuant to 8 U.S. Code Section 1405:

1952 Nationality Act (current)

8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

AND

Notes
Admission of Hawaii as State
Hawaii Statehood provisions as not repealing, amending, or modifying the provisions of this section, see section 20 of Pub. L. 86–3, Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 13, set out as a note at the beginning of chapter 3 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

 

NOTES

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's right there...

A citizen must be a national.
A national may be a citizen.

Citizens are a subset of nationals.

This isn't just my interpretation. The IRS - Immigration Terms and Definitions Involving Aliens and State Department - Certificates of Non Citizen Nationality interpret it the same as I have.

Think of it like this - all lions are cats, but not all cats are lions.
Likewise, you'd see - all citizens are nationals, but not all nationals are citizens.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Greven

And, btw, if you find any such laws, then it just means that Obama was not born a U.S. citizen, at all. Is that really your position?

The Hawaii Statehood Act says this:

There's no getting around that. And there's no getting around the fact that nationality is not conferred to people born in Hawaii pursuant to 8 U.S. Code Section 1405:

1952 Nationality Act (current)

8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

AND

Notes
Admission of Hawaii as State
Hawaii Statehood provisions as not repealing, amending, or modifying the provisions of this section, see section 20 of Pub. L. 86–3, Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 13, set out as a note at the beginning of chapter 3 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

 

NOTES

The Hawaii Statehood Act said it shall not confer nor terminate nor restore nationality.

Someone born in Hawaii is a U.S. citizen (since 1898, citizenship starting in 1900) per the 1952 Nationality Act.
Someone who is a U.S. citizen is automatically a U.S. national.
Therefore, he retains U.S. nationality just as he has U.S. citizenship.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's right there...

A citizen must be a national.
A national may be a citizen.

Citizens are a subset of nationals.

This isn't just my interpretation. The IRS - Immigration Terms and Definitions Involving Aliens and State Department - Certificates of Non Citizen Nationality interpret it the same as I have.

Think of it like this - all lions are cats, but not all cats are lions.
Likewise, you'd see - all citizens are nationals, but not all nationals are citizens.

No.

This defines a 'national of the U.S':

(22) The term "national of the United States" means:

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

It doesn't define a citizen, it defines a national.

I understand that the 'opinion' of the federal government is that all U.S. Citizens are U.S. Nationals, but I need something with more legal weight than opinion.

I gave a very good effort into finding a law that declares all U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals and I could not find one. But If I did, it would just prove that Obama was not born a U.S. citizen, at all, and that would make for a much more interesting thread.

originally posted by: Greven
The Hawaii Statehood Act said it shall not confer nor terminate nor restore nationality.

Someone born in Hawaii is a U.S. citizen (since 1898, citizenship starting in 1900). Someone who is a U.S. citizen is automatically a U.S. national. Therefore, he retains U.S. nationality just as he has U.S. citizenship.

He wasn't alive in 1959 so he did not have any nationality to terminate.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's right there...

A citizen must be a national.
A national may be a citizen.

Citizens are a subset of nationals.

This isn't just my interpretation. The IRS - Immigration Terms and Definitions Involving Aliens and State Department - Certificates of Non Citizen Nationality interpret it the same as I have.

Think of it like this - all lions are cats, but not all cats are lions.
Likewise, you'd see - all citizens are nationals, but not all nationals are citizens.

No.

This defines a 'national of the U.S':

(22) The term "national of the United States" means:

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

It doesn't define a citizen, it defines a national.

I understand that the 'opinion' of the federal government is that all U.S. Citizens are U.S. Nationals, but I need something with more legal weight than opinion.

I gave a very good effort into finding a law that declares all U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals and I could not find one. But If I did, it would just prove that Obama was not born a U.S. citizen, at all, and that would make for a much more interesting thread.

You are disagreeing with the State Department and the IRS about what the laws I cited say.

Plus there's what you cited earlier:

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

e: Let's try this...
A U.S. national is either:
a) a U.S. citizen
b) non-citizen

If we go down a line of people and ask them about their citizenship there are two answers (one is more complicated but irrelevant here)..
Are you a U.S. citizen?'
YES = U.S. national per cited law.
NO = may or may not be a U.S. national, dependent on other law

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven
The Hawaii Statehood Act said it shall not confer nor terminate nor restore nationality.

Someone born in Hawaii is a U.S. citizen (since 1898, citizenship starting in 1900). Someone who is a U.S. citizen is automatically a U.S. national. Therefore, he retains U.S. nationality just as he has U.S. citizenship.

He wasn't alive in 1959 so he did not have any nationality to terminate.

That law wasn't repealed and is still in effect.

It can't prevent U.S. nationality conferred by other means such as that mentioned (citizens are nationals).

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven
The Hawaii Statehood Act said it shall not confer nor terminate nor restore nationality.

Someone born in Hawaii is a U.S. citizen (since 1898, citizenship starting in 1900). Someone who is a U.S. citizen is automatically a U.S. national. Therefore, he retains U.S. nationality just as he has U.S. citizenship.

He wasn't alive in 1959 so he did not have any nationality to terminate.

That law wasn't repealed and is still in effect.

It can't prevent U.S. nationality conferred by other means such as that mentioned (citizens are nationals).

The Statehood Act actually does just exactly that. It says nothing in it shall operate to confer nationality.

It even goes further:

§ 23.

All Acts or parts of Acts in conflict with the provisions of this Act, whether passed by the legislature of said Territory or by Congress are hereby repealed.

So even if you think that nationality was conferred through 'other means,' those means are expressly repealed because they are in conflict with the provision that says nothing in the Act shall operate to confer U.S. Nationality.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven
The Hawaii Statehood Act said it shall not confer nor terminate nor restore nationality.

Someone born in Hawaii is a U.S. citizen (since 1898, citizenship starting in 1900). Someone who is a U.S. citizen is automatically a U.S. national. Therefore, he retains U.S. nationality just as he has U.S. citizenship.

He wasn't alive in 1959 so he did not have any nationality to terminate.

That law wasn't repealed and is still in effect.

It can't prevent U.S. nationality conferred by other means such as that mentioned (citizens are nationals).

The Statehood actually does just that. It says nothing in it shall operate to confer nationality.

It even goes further:

§ 23.

All Acts or parts of Acts in conflict with the provisions of this Act, whether passed by the legislature of said Territory or by Congress are hereby repealed.

So even if you think that nationality was conferred through 'other means,' those means are expressly repealed because they are in conflict with the provision that says nothing in the Act shall operate to confer U.S. Nationality.

Again, it says it won't confer or terminate or restore nationality.

Therefore, it doesn't interfere with U.S. nationality at all.
U.S. nationality is conferred by U.S. citizenship, and that act doesn't get in its way.

originally posted by: Greven

You are disagreeing with the State Department and the IRS about what the laws I cited say.

I am disagreeing with them. Neither of the links you posted define citizens as being nationals.

The first one says this:

U.S. Citizen

An individual born in the United States.
An individual whose parent is a U.S. citizen. (NOTE: There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through U.S. citizen parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18. For more information, refer to the USCIS Citizenship Through Parents.
A former alien who has been naturalized as a U.S. citizen
An individual born in Puerto Rico
An individual born in Guam
An individual born in the U.S. Virgin Islands

Nothing there about citizens being nationals.

Your second link refers to the definition of a 'National of the United States' again. No definition of a citizen, at all.

So, I have to disagree...unless we can agree that it defies natural law and doesn't need to be written. I could get on board with that. But then the conclusion is that Obama was not born a U.S. Citizen and his citizenship and nationality come solely through his father.

***

And once again...this statute doesn't apply to Obama:

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

THIS one does:

8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven
The Hawaii Statehood Act said it shall not confer nor terminate nor restore nationality.

Someone born in Hawaii is a U.S. citizen (since 1898, citizenship starting in 1900). Someone who is a U.S. citizen is automatically a U.S. national. Therefore, he retains U.S. nationality just as he has U.S. citizenship.

He wasn't alive in 1959 so he did not have any nationality to terminate.

That law wasn't repealed and is still in effect.

It can't prevent U.S. nationality conferred by other means such as that mentioned (citizens are nationals).

The Statehood actually does just that. It says nothing in it shall operate to confer nationality.

It even goes further:

§ 23.

All Acts or parts of Acts in conflict with the provisions of this Act, whether passed by the legislature of said Territory or by Congress are hereby repealed.

So even if you think that nationality was conferred through 'other means,' those means are expressly repealed because they are in conflict with the provision that says nothing in the Act shall operate to confer U.S. Nationality.

Again, it says it won't confer or terminate or restore nationality.

Therefore, it doesn't interfere with U.S. nationality at all.
U.S. nationality is conferred by U.S. citizenship, and that act doesn't get in its way.

Where is the law that says that all U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals?

You have only been able to show me that some U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens and some are not.

It's clear that Congress did not intend for nationality to derive from birth 'on the soil' in the State of Hawaii. They made it clear...they went out of their way to make it clear.

And, again, Obama was not alive in 1959 and had not acquired any nationality before then to terminate. He wasn't born until 1961.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
But that law only applies to people born outside the geographical limits of the United States. Obama was born in the United States.

Not for the purposes of that section of the code with regard to nationality. The very act that makes Hawaii 'part of the United States' and puts it within 'geographical limits' says that nothing in it shall operate to confer nationality.

The Statehood Act also repeals any act or part of any act of Congress that conflicts with it.

Nothing about the provision regarding nationality in the Statehood Act is ambiguous.

Sorry, I overlooked your comment. I didn't mean to ignore it.

I'll bet I'm the person on this forum who has ever been the closest to Obama in person, about 2ft from body/torso-torso and his hand was even closer than that to me (I didn't reach out to shake, too many others foaming at the mouth to do so). It was 3 months before his first election at a campaign rally and I was in the line as he exited and he came up to a woman with 4 kids right next to me. All I can say was his campaign speech was pretty impressive, inspiring and if he was being honest I had hope that things in the country would be better, but afterwards in the line (off teleprompter) it was like a completely different person. Total lack of personality and unable to really communicate on the supporters level. I saw a lot of ecstatic people turning to soured expressions after he passed by and spoke to them. It was like his magnetic charm only works in front of the camera and he seemed more like an awkward 12yr old talking to his sports hero than a presidential candidate meeting his supporters.

Didn't make a difference to me though, I still voted for my values! which, at the time were neither major party (sorry everyone, I know he was partly my fault).

What struck me as odd is that I've met quite a number of famous actors/celebs while living on the W coast and some other hot spots. They were often exactly the same al smiles and big grins but any simple question by a fan was like kryptonite - as if it was like "# that wasn't on the script", often times answering a completely different question. Now we know that these actors have handlers and PR & press managers, but I think Obama was 100% manufactured from his finely trimmed afro to the exact color of the stitching on his socks. Now I'm not sure I think Trump is any different, they just have a different audience to play to and again, they chose an ACTOR to do the job.

What we are seeing people, are 2 actors in a row in the presidency, one who may have had a lot of blackmail material/extortion against him for sexual perversions (homosexual drug fueled orgies) and rampant drug use/sale via clients (end of law practice and politics). Then we have another president in a very similar role and situation but w/o the drugs & homosexuality but possibly lots of debt, IRS issues and more. Both could have been perfect pawns to weaken and divide the nation.

Both crowds at each of their rallies act like fools in a cult. There is good reason behind this and it ain't their poilitics.

And using Obama to poke fun at Trump and Trump bugging Obama about the birth certificate (which is probably not legit - and it was planned that way) made all this "bread and circus" for the masses and my team against your team - fairly evenly matched - all while america is looted, robbed and enslaved.

keep on looking at the little picture while TPTB finish the larger puzzle.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Regardless, the point is that Obama was not born a U.S. National, even if he was arguably born a U.S. Citizen. And, he is a citizen by virtue of ‘8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii’, but possibly under the 14th Amendment, too.

No. Here's the definition of the "United States" which was expanded with the INA:

8 U.S. Code § 1101(a)(38)

(38) The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

And 8 U.S. Code § 1401 again:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

So that covers everyone born after December 24, 1952. The purpose of 8 U.S. Code § 1405 is to retroactively cover people who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii on the date of the annexation of Hawaii (August 12, 1898) or who were born after annexation but before April 30, 1900 (the date Hawaii became a US territory).

And of course, anyone born in Hawaii after April 30, 1900.

8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't repeal or change anything so it doesn't really play any role at all. I would also note that there are nationals who are not citizens. For example, people born in an "outlying possession":

8 U.S. Code § 1408 - Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth

Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth:

(1) A person born in an outlying possession of the United States on or after the date of formal acquisition of such possession;

The term "outlying possession" is defined 8 U.S. Code § 1101(a)(29)

(29) The term “outlying possessions of the United States” means American Samoa and Swains Island.

I'm not seeing anything conferring nationality to people born in Hawaii prior to the INA though but maybe I missed something, it's a little late.

Kind of a moot point now but why wouldn't you think that 8 U.S. Code § 1401 applies to people born in Hawaii after it became a state in the same way as every other state? Because of 8 U.S. Code § 1405?