------------------
1986 SE 350 V8

[This message has been edited by heybjorn (edited 02-06-2010).]

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-06-2010).]

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 02-06-2010).]

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

To answer Boonies question it is YES; however, Citizenship is not enough by itself. The Prez is supposed to be natural born...BOTH parents must be citizens....


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A person born on or after November 14, 1986, is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:[6]

One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
The citizen parent lived at least five years in the United States before the child's birth
A minimum of two of these five years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

Yes, for After 1986 Dear Leader was born in 1961, so No (in his case.) lol

For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true [6]:

One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth;
A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday

Where dear leaders problems arise is the residence, and where (location) he was born along with "dual status" citizenship.

The requirement for the US Presidentcy is more strigent (I believe) Ill look it up too.

For President, Natural Born means BOTH parents must be US citizens, in this case Dear Leaders problems well, grow.

A person who becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization is not considered a natural born citizen. Consequently, naturalized U.S. citizens are not eligible to become President of the United States or Vice President of the United States, which would ordinarily be the case as established by the Presidential Succession Act. For example, though the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor are tenth and eleventh in the presidential line of succession, Elaine Chao and Carlos Gutierrez (respectively former U.S. Secretaries of Labor and Commerce under President George W. Bush) would have been unable to succeed to the presidency because they became U.S. citizens through naturalization. The highest-ranking naturalized citizens to have been excluded from the Presidential Line of Succession were Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright, each of whom would have been fourth in line as Secretary of State had they been natural born citizens.

Whether this restriction applies to children born to non-U.S. citizens but adopted as minors by U.S. citizens is a matter of some debate, since the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 is ambiguous as to whether acquisition of citizenship by that route is to be regarded as naturalized or natural-born. Those who argue that the restriction does not apply point out that the child automatically becomes a citizen even though violating every single requirement of eligibility for naturalization, and thus the case falls closer to the situation of birth abroad to U.S. citizens than to naturalization. This interpretation is in concert with the wording of the Naturalization Act of 1790, that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens", which does not draw a distinction between biological children and adopted children, even though the process of adoption was certainly well known at the time.

Some[who?] argue that the phrase "natural born citizen" is distinguished as a separate legal entity from the phrase "U.S. Citizen" in Article Two of the United States Constitution. While it is true that "natural born citizen" is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution and that the Constitution makes use of the phrase "citizen" and "natural born citizen," Supreme Court Decisions from United States v. Wong Kim Ark to the present have considered the distinction to be between natural-born and naturalized citizenship.

Most legal scholars believe that the phrase "natural born citizen" is derived from the works of William Blackstone and depends on the legal doctrine of Jus soli. For example, in her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, "It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born."[15]

An April 2000 CRS report by the Congressional Research Service, asserts that most constitutional scholars interpret the phrase "natural born citizen" as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.[16]

A distinct minority view is that "natural born citizen" requires two citizen-parents. This view is based on the works of Emerich de Vattel, specifically his "Law of Nations," which, among other things, expressed the international law view that citizenship followed the doctrine of Jus sanguinis - that the citizenship of the child was determined by that of its parents. While Vattel was influential in his views of the relations of nation-states in international law, there is no evidence that his views on citizenship were influential to the founders.[17]

A person who becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization is not considered a natural born citizen. Consequently, naturalized U.S. citizens are not eligible to become President of the United States or Vice President of the United States, which would ordinarily be the case as established by the Presidential Succession Act. For example, though the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor are tenth and eleventh in the presidential line of succession, Elaine Chao and Carlos Gutierrez (respectively former U.S. Secretaries of Labor and Commerce under President George W. Bush) would have been unable to succeed to the presidency because they became U.S. citizens through naturalization. The highest-ranking naturalized citizens to have been excluded from the Presidential Line of Succession were Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright, each of whom would have been fourth in line as Secretary of State had they been natural born citizens.

Whether this restriction applies to children born to non-U.S. citizens but adopted as minors by U.S. citizens is a matter of some debate, since the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 is ambiguous as to whether acquisition of citizenship by that route is to be regarded as naturalized or natural-born. Those who argue that the restriction does not apply point out that the child automatically becomes a citizen even though violating every single requirement of eligibility for naturalization, and thus the case falls closer to the situation of birth abroad to U.S. citizens than to naturalization. This interpretation is in concert with the wording of the Naturalization Act of 1790, that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens", which does not draw a distinction between biological children and adopted children, even though the process of adoption was certainly well known at the time.

Some[who?] argue that the phrase "natural born citizen" is distinguished as a separate legal entity from the phrase "U.S. Citizen" in Article Two of the United States Constitution. While it is true that "natural born citizen" is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution and that the Constitution makes use of the phrase "citizen" and "natural born citizen," Supreme Court Decisions from United States v. Wong Kim Ark to the present have considered the distinction to be between natural-born and naturalized citizenship.

Most legal scholars believe that the phrase "natural born citizen" is derived from the works of William Blackstone and depends on the legal doctrine of Jus soli. For example, in her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, "It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born."[15]

An April 2000 CRS report by the Congressional Research Service, asserts that most constitutional scholars interpret the phrase "natural born citizen" as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.[16]

A distinct minority view is that "natural born citizen" requires two citizen-parents. This view is based on the works of Emerich de Vattel, specifically his "Law of Nations," which, among other things, expressed the international law view that citizenship followed the doctrine of Jus sanguinis - that the citizenship of the child was determined by that of its parents. While Vattel was influential in his views of the relations of nation-states in international law, there is no evidence that his views on citizenship were influential to the founders.[17]

A person who becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization is not considered a natural born citizen. Consequently, naturalized U.S. citizens are not eligible to become President of the United States or Vice President of the United States, which would ordinarily be the case as established by the Presidential Succession Act. For example, though the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor are tenth and eleventh in the presidential line of succession, Elaine Chao and Carlos Gutierrez (respectively former U.S. Secretaries of Labor and Commerce under President George W. Bush) would have been unable to succeed to the presidency because they became U.S. citizens through naturalization. The highest-ranking naturalized citizens to have been excluded from the Presidential Line of Succession were Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright, each of whom would have been fourth in line as Secretary of State had they been natural born citizens.

Whether this restriction applies to children born to non-U.S. citizens but adopted as minors by U.S. citizens is a matter of some debate, since the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 is ambiguous as to whether acquisition of citizenship by that route is to be regarded as naturalized or natural-born. Those who argue that the restriction does not apply point out that the child automatically becomes a citizen even though violating every single requirement of eligibility for naturalization, and thus the case falls closer to the situation of birth abroad to U.S. citizens than to naturalization. This interpretation is in concert with the wording of the Naturalization Act of 1790, that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens", which does not draw a distinction between biological children and adopted children, even though the process of adoption was certainly well known at the time.

Some[who?] argue that the phrase "natural born citizen" is distinguished as a separate legal entity from the phrase "U.S. Citizen" in Article Two of the United States Constitution. While it is true that "natural born citizen" is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution and that the Constitution makes use of the phrase "citizen" and "natural born citizen," Supreme Court Decisions from United States v. Wong Kim Ark to the present have considered the distinction to be between natural-born and naturalized citizenship.

Most legal scholars believe that the phrase "natural born citizen" is derived from the works of William Blackstone and depends on the legal doctrine of Jus soli. For example, in her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, "It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born."[15]

An April 2000 CRS report by the Congressional Research Service, asserts that most constitutional scholars interpret the phrase "natural born citizen" as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.[16]

A distinct minority view is that "natural born citizen" requires two citizen-parents. This view is based on the works of Emerich de Vattel, specifically his "Law of Nations," which, among other things, expressed the international law view that citizenship followed the doctrine of Jus sanguinis - that the citizenship of the child was determined by that of its parents. While Vattel was influential in his views of the relations of nation-states in international law, there is no evidence that his views on citizenship were influential to the founders.[17]

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

http://www.senate.gov/refer...rces/pdf/RL30527.pdf

There is a 2000 ruling on children and citizenship by only one parent who is a citizen, too but no grandfather clause to cover dear leader.

Fuzzy stuff I know.

Just show the birth certificate and shut up the birthers.

McCain did it why not dear COmrade?

[This message has been edited by htexans1 (edited 02-06-2010).]