From the site which shall not be named:
Gov. Richardson was born on US Soil and is a US Citizen by Birth under the Immigration and Nationality Act 1952 and the XIVth Amendment to the Constitution of the USA. Unfortunately, under Article 30 of the Mexican Constitution and the Mexican Federal Law of Nationality, Governor Richardson is also a Natural Born Citizen of Mexico. There seems to be no mechanism whereby he could have ceased so to be, and it is my contention that under Article II of the Constitution and all Precedent Law no Dual National is Eligible for President. Governor Richardson probably is Eligible to be President of Mexico but not POTUS!
So now in their quest to claim that Obama is ineligible to be President, they’re going to throw Richardson under the bus. Nice.
So it looks like the PUMA’s initial claim is that you not only have to be a “natural born citizen,” but that you have to be a “natural born citizen” of only the United States. I must have skipped over that part in the Constitution.
But apparently that the same thing might have happened to McCain? No problem:
Senator John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was not, according to the State Department, US Territory. He was apparently born either on a US Naval Base, or in any event in the purlieus of one, which was not, according to the State Department, US Territory. According to Panamanian Law he may have been a Citizen of Panama by Birth. Unlike Richardson, or Obama, there is no evidence MCain ever used his Involuntarily Acquired Dual Citizenship, or that he ever, in any way, acted as if he had it. The Panamanian Government never acted as if he did either. Sen. McCain was a Citizen by Birth of the United States under the appropriate US Laws at the time of his Birth and according to a non-Binding Resolution of the US Senate acting under the implied powers of the XXVth Amendment to the Constitution of the USA.
OK, I still think their argument about McCain is still irrelevant, but lets swing with it for the moment. How exactly has either Richardson or Obama “acted as if [they] had” their second citizenship, if they ever formally had it to begin with, since this seems to be their argument as to why McCain is eligible.
Unfortunately, they don’t answer this question, and they push on with another argument of why Obama is ineligible. They quote this policy from the State Department (I’ll link to it since they don’t) saying thus:
The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws
So how does this make Obama supposedly ineligible? They just make up a reason, basically:
This, in plain terms means that a Dual National could not, under any circumstances, be Eligible. Additionally, if Naturalized Citizens are Ineligible because of the Legal principle of “The Appearance of Foreign Allegiance” which they are, and always have been, a former Dual National/Dual Citizen MUST be in exactly the same position vis a vis Article II.
So, since a naturalized citizen can’t become President due to so-called “Appearance of Foreign Allegiance” because they were once a citizen of another country, then, the PUMAs argue, that someone who was born with citizenship to another country (except apparently John McCain) is ineligible for President, even if they are a natural born citizen of the US. This is, of course, notwithstanding the fact that the US Constitution has no such requirement.
On top of this, someone born solely as a naturalized citizen and thus clearly eligible to be President could, theoretically, make themselves ineligible if they become a citizen of another nation (while retaining their US citizenship). This clearly seems to go against the understood meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause.
In short, the PUMAs are arguing that, not only do you have to be a natural born citizen, but you must have been a US citizen and ONLY a US citizen for your entire life. Your parents got divorced, and you moved with your mother moved to another nation when you were little where she got married, transferring that nation’s citizenship to herself and you? Touch luck kid, you can no longer become President.
That example right there shows the silliness of their argument and again, goes against the clear meaning of the Constitution, especially since a minor cannot lose their US citizenship, period.
And to boot, they claim that it is Obama’s fault, since he has “covered up” his childhood. So how exactly is it Obama’s fault if he is ineligible to be President if he was born with dual citizenship (something which has never even been confirmed). And I’m still trying to figure out how McCain is eligible if he was born with Panama dual-citizenship (also something not shown to be true) but Obama isn’t eligible if he was born with Kenyan dual-citizenship (or Richardson with Mexican dual-citizenship).
In any case, let’s go back to this matter of “Appearance of Foreign Allegiance.” The PUMAs make the obvious statement that location alone doesn’t determine whether one is a natural born citizen:
The United States Naturalization Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104, which was written, partly, to clarify Article II says this, “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”. The Framers were clear that you did not have to be born in the USA, or in a State; you could be born anywhere.
This is a fact that pretty much everyone already knows. However, they then make a startling claim: the being born on US soil does not automatically make you a natural-born citizen. Because, they argue, citizenship is based on loyalty, not location:
No, the Framers were talking about Allegiance, Loyalty. The POTUS had to have only ONE Allegiance.
They attempt to use the case United States vs. Rhodes (can’t find a full opinion) to argue, well, something. Rhodes said this:
All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this Country…since as before the Revolution.
They then go on to claim that Rhodes means that, under the constitution, one can only hold one true citizenship. Unfortunately for the PUMAs, if this is the case, it appears that United States vs. Wong Kim Ark answered that question of “what country are you a citizen of” as “where you were born”:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
Do you see that? Based on English common law, which is what the PUMAs are trying to rely on, if you are born within the territory of a nation (in this case, the United States), you are a natural born citizen of that nation.
In any case, the PUMAs attempt to argue (try to stay with me here) that since allegiance determines citizenship, and Obama theoretically had dual-citizenship, and thus conflicting allegiances, and since naturalized citizens can’t become President because of a conflict of allegiance, then someone with dual-citizenship cannot be President for the same reason.
There are several serious problems with this:
1) The PUMAs argue that naturalized citizens were excluded as a check against undue foreign influence in the national government, based on a quote from John Jay. This appears to be a reasonable argument, but it does little to help the PUMA’s cause because it does nothing to clarify what a natural born citizen is. The reasons behind why naturalized citizens weren’t included appear to be largely irrelevant. The question – the only question – is was Obama a natural born citizen at birth, period.
2) The PUMAs try to argue that the meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed through legislation, therefore whatever the meaning of “natural born citizen” that existed at the adoption of the Constitution is the meaning we must use.
Here is the problem, however. Let’s say I agree with them, that we must use the definition of a natural born citizen as it existed back at the adoption of the Constitution. If we do this, then Obama is a natural born citizen per United States vs. Wong Kim Ark due to the fact that he was born within the territory of the United States. The case is quite clear about this: if you are born on US soil, you are a natural-born citizen.
If I disagree with them and say that that, while Congress cannot change the requirement that a natural born citizen must be President, Congress can change the definition of what constitutes a natural born citizen, then their entire argument collapses.
What they’re trying to do is mix both: they’re trying to use today’s definition of natural born citizen and the 18th century definition of natural born citizen simultaneously, using the parts of each which advance their argument that Obama is ineligible.
However, they can’t do that. They either have to agree that we use the 18th century definition where natural-bornness is determined by “allegiance” which is determined where you are born, thus making Obama natural born citizen, or you use the more contemporary definition where “allegiance” doesn’t necessarily come into the equation…but you’re still a natural born citizen if you’re born in the United States, so Obama is still a citizen.
3) They try to argue that McCain is exempt since his father was a citizen, then McCain became a natural-born citizen at birth, even though they were abroad. This seems to be an obvious assumption, though why this is so, while the clear reading that if you born within the territory of the US then you are a natural born citizenship doesn’t make Obama automatically eligible, I don’t now.
However, it seems ironic that they are trying to argue that someone born in a foreign country born of US parents is always automatically a citizen, regardless of the laws of the nation they reside in, but someone born on US soil isn’t necessarily a natural-born citizen due to the laws of the nation or nations of that person’s parents, despite what the court decisions cited above clearly state.
4) They go on to say that any Panama citizenship McCain might have had was “washed away” when he joined the US Navy, thus making him clearly a natural-born citizen. However, Obama still isn’t a natural-born citizen, even if he renounces all but his US citizenship, if he is a citizen of any other nation to begin with, because one can never have been a citizen of another nation, but apparently that doesn’t matter for McCain if McCain ever was also a dual-citizen of Panama. Funny how that works.
The problem the PUMAs have, is that there have always been two, and only two, understood definitions of US citizenship: You are either a “natural born citizen,” and thus eligible to be President, or you are a “naturalized citizen” and thus ineligible.
Therefore the PUMAs are attempting to do one of two things:
a) they’re either trying to create a third designation – something somewhere in between natural-born and naturalized where you are born in the United States, but only have the rights of a naturalized citizen, or
b) they’re trying to argue that Obama, due to being a dual-citizen, is in effect a naturalized citizen.
The second argument appears to be the tact they are taking, even though Supreme Court precedence clearly shows that if you are born on US soil you are a natural-born citizen. Despite what the PUMAs would like, all this other allegiance crap is irrelevant. You are either a natural-born citizen or you aren’t, and it clear that Obama is by virtue of being born on US soil.
5) They then make this patently absurd argument:
If a Dual National, or former Dual National, is allowed to stand for the Office of POTUS, or be Elected to that Office, any Naturalized Citizen could take a case before the Supreme Court and correctly argue that under the Equal Protection Clause of the XIVth Amendment they are allowed to stand, Article II notwithstanding!
This is ridiculous beyond belief. First off, equal protection shouldn’t have any impact on the natural-born citizen clause. You either are a natural-born citizen or you aren’t, and it’s clear what the Constitution says: only natural-born citizens may be President.
If you argue otherwise, then can you start to argue that equal protection should overturn, say, the age requirements for office, if you could argue that someone “who doesn’t act like a 35 year old” became President?
Clearly not, because maturity, knowledge, and experience ultimately has no bearing on whether you can become President or not, even though that is the goal of having the 35 year old age minimum. The age limit is the age limit, regardless of what the founding fathers were hoping to accomplish with it and whether a President actually matches up with those expectations.
The same is true with being a natural-born citizen. The goal is to minimize or eliminate any possible foreign influence on the Presidency. However, the fact that such an influence may theoretically exist or have existed in the past doesn’t nullify the fact that a person is still a natural-born citizen, eligible to be President.
