Patterico's Pontifications

1/19/2011

Debunking Fail! Hawaii’s Governor Can’t Find Obama’s Birth Certificate

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 12:10 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Now, let me start by saying that I am not a birther.  Indeed, given that this would put Joe Biden into the presidency, I am not even sure I would want the birther theory to be true.

Still, for Neil Abercrombie, as the new Governor of Hawaii, it was his self-declared mission to finally put this to rest:

“It’s an insult to his mother and father,” he told KGMB. “How would anybody like to have their mother and father in that kind of a situation? I was friends with his mom and dad.”

“It’s a matter of principle with me… I was here when he was born,” he told CNN.

“His father was one of the first scholarship students coming to the United States and he came to the University of Hawaii, which we were very proud (of),” the governor added. “We became good friends.”

Hey, good for him.  Although this is poorly stated:

“This has to do with the people in Hawaii who love him, people who loved his mom and dad. This has to do with the respect of the office that the president is entitled to,” Abercrombie told CBS affiliate KGMB over the weekend.

Um, the correct words are not “entitled to” but “eligible for.”  No one is entitled to be President.  But then, maybe he didn’t mean it the way it sounded.  Anyway, so Mr. Abercrombie, how’s it going?

Q: You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plans to release more information regarding President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. How is that coming?

A: I got a letter from someone the other day who was genuinely concerned about it; it is not all just political agenda. They were talking on Olelo last night about this; it has a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have.

(Abercrombie said there is a recording of the birth in the State Archives and he wants to use that.)

It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down …

…What I can do, and all I have ever said, is that I am going to see to it as governor that I can verify to anyone who is honest about it that this is the case.

If there is a political agenda then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president.

So in other words, no birth certificate?

Like I said, I don’t think there is any reasonable doubt that Obama was born in America, specifically Hawaii.  Birth announcements at the time constitute powerful evidence to that fact.  But if you are going to rebut the birthers, releasing the original is the least you can do.

Finally, to anyone who argues that Obama is not a natural born citizen please do not waste my time with theories that because Obama was the son of a Kenyan that somehow British law could deprive a man of his birthright as a natural born citizen.  The founders did not rebel against England in order to allow England to decide who was and was not a citizen of this country.

Update: Hat tip to Eric Johnson.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

179 Responses to “Debunking Fail! Hawaii’s Governor Can’t Find Obama’s Birth Certificate”

  1. In fairness, I think the Gov’s line “respect of the office that the president is entitled to” doesn’t say Obama is entitled to be president. It says that Obama is entitled to the respect due to anyone who holds that office.

    Roscoe (d3d979)

  2. Oddly, I thought I saw a couple of years ago the relevant Hawaii official claim to have located the birth certificate and safeguarded it.

    I’ll have to search.

    I’m still puzzled at how Obama allows this silly nonsense to continue.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  3. spqr

    i like taranto’s theory that obama lets it continue because he thinks it does more harm to his enemies than to him.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  4. Wow. When I read the headline of this post, I expected to see something in it demonstrating that the Hawaii governor failed to find Obama’s birth certificate.

    I’m still puzzled at how Obama allows this silly nonsense to continue

    Yes, it’s Obama’s fault.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  5. Obama allows this nonsense to go on because it’s a side show.On substance he will lose. This makes him almostt sympathetic because as a baby he ahd no say in where he was born anyway. It allows him a free shot at making his enemies look like yahoos rather than spend poltical capital defending his socialist policies.

    Would still love to know what passport Obama produced to enter Zia Era Pakistan(which he pronounces so well) in the 1980s. It may be lost on people now, but traveling during the Cold War meant always producing and safeguarding your passport even in western Europe . Americans were barred from entry into Pakistan. How did he do it? Will he ever show us the stamp on that specific passport? If he did use a US passport, he probably had to produce that passport with each applciation for a new one. Where is it? And if he used the passport of another country…well, there would be a whole host of questions.

    It is not unheard of for some Americans to get dual citizenship in order to travel more freely.Growing up as a grandchild of and among Irish immigrants, some got Irish passports. But if our President did such a thing as a young man, it should be disclosed and discussed.Did he make any statements to a foreign consulate or authority that required him to renounce American citzenship? Ireland, for example, does not require that. But some foreign countries do.

    Bugg (9e308e)

  6. Gov. Abercrombie – GIANT FACE PALM

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  7. i like taranto’s theory that obama lets it continue because he thinks it does more harm to his enemies than to him.
    Comment by Aaron Worthing

    On the surface it should seem unbelieveable that any serious candidate for President, let alone the nominee of a major party, has kept so much of his personal history off limits (college records, etc.). Hard to even imagine it wasn’t an organized conspiracy but simply the shared agenda of the major media.

    I know enough about Obama’s background (Bill Ayers and company, voting record in Ill state legislature) to make a decision on him. As far as what is on a birth certificate, if one exists, and his college records, etc., I could believe anything, from nothing at all surprising to … well, I won’t speculate and use hyperbole, let’s just say whatever it shows.

    I will say, FWIW, that in PA a certificate of live birth is not adequate to register for public school.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  8. I am not a birther. However,I wonder why everything that Obama has ever done…in school, law review writings….is NEVER available. After a while, inquiring minds DO want to know. I don’t think it is that hard.

    Spook (7f46d4)

  9. “This has to do with the people in Hawaii who love him, people who loved his mom and dad.”

    Yeah, I’m sure Barack’s daddy is adored by the people of Hawaii. Who wouldn’t love a guy who left his young wife and infant daughter in Kenya, moved to Hawaii, stayed there long enough to bang Obambi’s mammy, thereby producing the great Obambi, then having sired the future POTUS, promptly put the ditch on both Obambi’s mammy and the infant Obambi and took the first available plane back to Africa?

    I mean we’re talking a model citizen here. A standout guy who couldn’t even be arsed to visit his own foul spawn more than once in said foul spawn’s entire life.

    I’m betting Baracky the elder is so well loved in Hawaii, that they’re probably planning on erecting a statue to him. The legend on the statue will probably say: Thanks for coming over to America, spending a couple of years in Hawaii, knocking up Stanley Anne, and then hightailing it back to Kenya. We love ya bro’!

    Dave Surls (c13c16)

  10. Didnt they pass a law that the Governor could even see the birth certificate?

    However – if this turns out to be what the birthers claim it to be –

    A challenge to his certificate can be made and may exclude him from getting on the ballot in serveral states

    unchallenged in the Primary not a problem

    The National Election – big problem

    If there is no B-cert – and someone said the information is “written” down (is this a “Report of Birth”from an Embassy?) but it may indicate that Obama was not born in US jurisdiction

    And I don’t think deep down anyone left or right will be all that surprized

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  11. Yes, it’s Obama’s fault.

    Comment by Kman

    Well, yes… of course it is. Why wouldn’t it be? If you read Obama’s books, you know he talks about having the original birth certificate.

    As the Hawaii governor says, there are people with genuine concerns. Why should we just put the burden on them of trusting Chicago politicians, when the original document was actually available?

    It’s very similar to Bush’s Form 180. This is a man who is running for US President. We have a right to see as much information about him as is reasonably available. We have a right to know, unlike with a private citizen who doesn’t hold so much power.

    I used to be pretty concerned he wasn’t eligible, just based on behavior that doesn’t make sense to me. Eventually I learned there was that contemporaneous birth announcement and decided the birthers are wrong. Perhaps Obama lost his certificate, or he lied on an application at some point (about being a citizen, for a scholarship?) Perhaps it’s that Machiavellian theory that he’s just trying to make the right look awful, by stirring up fears that the constitution has been defrauded?

    I don’t know. I do know that lefties who are angry about disclosure on this issue are complete liars. It’s pretty obvious that people should document their eligibility for things. Drivers License, Social Security payments, custody of a child, eligibility to be the leader of the free world, etc.

    I think the solution to this is murky, because some courts will say merely asking for proof someone is eligible for office constitutes an additional requirement than is listed in the constitution. I also know that Obama has had people thrown off ballots when he’s afraid the voters will not elect Obama. The last person who can complain about such a requirement is a Chicago politician like him.

    I just want to add: if you’re born in the USA, the 14th Amendment shows you are a citizen. The plain language of the constitution means, and has always been interpreted to mean, that if you are born in the USA, you are eligible to be president (once you’re 35 years old). Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, and he’s older than 35, even if he acts like a 20 year old.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  12. EPWJ, if it turned out Obama wasn’t born here, it would be such an historic fraud. I can’t even imagine. There would probably be a lot of violence. I also think, if it came to pass that Obama failed to win reelection because he wasn’t on the ballot in some swing states, it would lead to violence. That’s not the best argument against birthers, but the fact is that Americans chose this guy to be their president. That’s the core problem. If not Obama, they’d have picked someone with similar ideals.

    It really bugs me to think of this country losing their choice for leader because of this sort of technicality. If it happened, I’d put the blame on Obama (and he’d happily have done it to Mccain), but I still don’t want it to happen.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  13. Yes, Kman, it is in part Obama’s fault.

    Now certain flaming morons of Blubonnet’s ilk won’t alter their beliefs no matter what.

    But Obama has refused to release the original certificate for some reason. We are left to speculate what that reason is, since he won’t tell us.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  14. Dave Surls has a point. Anyone making comments to honor Obama’s father is a clown. We don’t need to deify Obama and pretend his parents were heroic people. That’s ridiculous, and I think it’s an insult to Barack, even.

    Spook, I to wonder why we don’t know more about Obama’s actual life. His birth certificate is something he had no control over, but his life at Columbia, who his cocaine dealer was, how he met Bill Ayers, etc… that’s very important.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  15. I don’t understand why this has such consequential import to the 2012 election, as Abercrombie says.

    I find it ridiculous that asking a candidate to verify his constitutional eligibility to be president should be both off-limits and impossible. It should be required.
    I always think the extra anti-birther noise is created to make it just horrible to ask to see a birth certificate. And I think that ‘cuz I think Obama’s is embarrassing.

    MayBee (081489)

  16. His mother was American, so that’s good enough for me.

    Still would love to see that b.c., though…

    JohnW (1478b2)

  17. If it does exist, suspect there is something unflattering on the document, like his parents not being married, or the space designated for “father” has something …unusual in it. But like S notes, does appear that we have a president we know very little about.

    Bugg (9e308e)

  18. Dustin,

    I heard it was a custom at the time that a US Citizens born overseas or in transit could apply for a birth certificate at the state that they first entered or where their parents resided.

    People tell me this used to be very common in Oklahoma (Missionarys)

    and a Co Worker of mine was born in Brazil (Parents were Missionarys) has a State of Georgia birth certificate and he did not arrive in Georgia until he was 2 years old. (or so he claimed – to me it was never an issue)

    I’m going to try and look up some of this suff If possible – pre internet stuff is usually impossible to find without having to actually look stuff up – thats icky

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  19. I still want to know about his Indonesian citizenship status.

    Apparently he went to public schools there as a kid (Barry Soeto) and studied the Koran.

    I read only citizens of Indonesia can go to public schools, so his father apparently naturalized him?

    Upon reaching the age of majority, he could retake / reclaim US citizenship. Some forms or something… Did he go this route? There should be records.

    And how did he travel to Pokestan when the US forbid it? Did he use a US passport? Sneak in?

    I also heard rumors that he has used different SSNs as well.

    Shouldn’t this stuff be researchable?

    Sped (07b7b4)

  20. i like taranto’s theory that obama lets it continue because he thinks it does more harm to his enemies than to him.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing — 1/19/2011 @ 12:21 pm

    I partially agree with this. The apparent (and in some cases, the actual) racism of those challenging Obama’s status as ‘natural born citizen,’ especially when his opponent was born in the Panama Canal Zone, probably turns off enough squishy moderates to make a difference. Ditto “secret Muslim” for that matter.

    The guy has been POTUS for 2 years for God’s sake. Anything outside that window is pointless. There’s plenty of actual performance as President to look at, if you want to look for dirt on the guy.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  21. Dustin,

    I dont think it would be an historic fraud for several reasons:

    Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico, with better campaigning should have beaten Nixon – he and Reagan were splitting the anti Nixon vote

    Obama, when he ran, had no worldly idea that Edwards would split the non-Obama vote with Hillary in Iowa – in other words he gave himself about a million to one shot at beating Hillary (aren’t we just the lucky one’s)

    There also was no legal precedent governing the definition and since his mother was an American – as All Lawyers think they are always right….

    Even if he was not born here, neither was McCain, it would have affected the outcome of the 2008 election but after the fact can only affect his re-election in 2012 if he chooses to run

    So Historic fraud, who knows?, however most it would be another stupid over-reach by a poorly trained lawyer – yes

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  22. EPWJ, one problem, once we get down to this level of gritty detail of ‘maybe he got a certificate after he arrived later’ is that we basically will never be able to absolutely prove much about it.

    This is Obama. State employees will dig into Joe the Plumber, or make up a myth about an IG. If Obama really needed a birth certificate that said he was born on the moon, it wouldn’t be that hard for him to get.

    The best evidence we’ll ever have is the announcement. I’m more convinced by that than I’d be by the ‘original’ document saying he was surely born in Hawaii.

    But I grant your point. I think that’s always been part of the concern about the version of the birth cert we saw on Kos. I also seem to recall the first version of that document was, indeed, photoshopped by some Obama supporter. Hard to imagine the mind that decides to try to fake something like that, but then, Kos also had people faking Jared Loughner’s Republican Voter Registration in “Tuscon” [sic].

    I think that initial bad faith work has poisoned the entire birther issue, but also it’s strongly motivated by the sheer disbelief many had that Americans would elect this empty suit who supported Rev Wright and post birth abortion. I simply accept that the problem isn’t Obama at all, and there is no happy ending other than convincing America to elect someone else.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  23. And how did he travel to Pokestan when the US forbid it? Did he use a US passport? Sneak in?

    This wouldn’t mean he’s not a US Citizen any more. It just means he doesn’t respect American law. We already knew that, though.

    There’s a lot of stuff worth looking into that sheds light on his background, but I agree with Carlitos that it’s the worst way to keep him out of power. The problem is democratic. We have to win the election the old fashioned way, or we just wind up martyring Obama and seeing a different statist win power.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  24. I understand that Tom Hanks is already in negotiations for the movie version of the upcoming Dan Brown novel “The Obama Certificate”.

    malclave (4f3ec1)

  25. I think most folks, self included, think, “If he’s got a birth certificate, why doesn’t he just show it and make people shut up about it already?” Since it is not forthcoming, people ask, “So what’s up with that?” Typically you would expect the rest of America, including the press, to say, “Yeah, what is up with that? Show it to us.” And it would get shown, or it wouldn’t and people would still say, “Well, what is up with that?”

    But not here, which suggests there is a problem (though it might not be citizenship), or a great poker move for some unknown (to me, though I see your speculation) reason.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  26. my question is simple: why do i have to show a higher burden of proof to get a j*b at McDonalds than Ear Leader does to be paid to sit in the Oval Office?

    i’ve got a certified true copy of my birth certificate for when i apply for a j*b, why doesn’t he? how did he fill out his I-9 form?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  27. All this is well plowed ground, it was gone over in detail 2 years ago on this site, nothing’s changed except Abercrombie’s contribution to the confusion.

    At #2 above, SPQR is correct. The official claimed Obama’s long form birth certificate was on-file.

    ropelight (a73f0f)

  28. I don’t think the birth certificate issue at this point would get him out of power (unless it is so embarrassing it hurts his reelection). I do think the world is getting increasingly small, though, and much more mobile.
    As it is now, there is nothing stopping, say, an illegal immigrant from running for POTUS. There’s nothing stopping someone born in another country from writing a book recreating a history for himself and claiming eligibility.

    MayBee (081489)

  29. Sped : Obama’s stepfather, under American law, could not renouce Obama’s citizenship. Therefore there was no need for Obama to reclaim citizenship. That matter was settled long ago when the American-born children of people who had moved to the Soviet Union during the Depression sought to return to the United States. The laws of other countries, whether Indonesia, England or the Soviet Union, cannot change American citizenship. I would venture to say that, even if Obama was born in Kenya, his mother’s citizenship status would suffice since what is a “natural born” citizen is determijned, in this country, not only by the Constitution but by the statutory definitions of terms not by common law. I doubt that even one of the sitting Supreme Court Justices would hold that Obama was not a “natural born” citizen under our laws.

    Longwalker (4e0dda)

  30. 24.my question is simple: why do i have to show a higher burden of proof to get a j*b at McDonalds than Ear Leader does to be paid to sit in the Oval Office?

    i’ve got a certified true copy of my birth certificate for when i apply for a j*b, why doesn’t he? how did he fill out his I-9 form?

    Comment by redc1c4 — 1/19/2011 @ 1:23 pm

    Are you’re claiming that you needed your long-form birth certificate to get a job at McDonald’s? Because I don’t believe you.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  31. Oops – Are you

    carlitos (a3d259)

  32. The strangest part of this whole thing is the total lack of interest by the MSM. I think I read that Democratic party forces have spent upwards of two million dollars to get these inquiries thrown out of court. That in itself should be a minor-major story.

    Where is the media? Queing up at the white house to kiss the guy’s butt?

    VoteOutIncumbents (bd5def)

  33. redc1c4: Why are you censoring the word “job”? You’re talking about employment jobs, right?

    Joshua (9ede0e)

  34. Are you’re claiming that you needed your long-form birth certificate to get a job at McDonald’s? Because I don’t believe you.

    Comment by carlitos

    I needed my birth certificate when I joined the Army. I guess they would have taken me without one, but they did ask for it, and it was in my file, perhaps for clearance.

    Thing is, you don’t have to be born in the USA to work at McDonalds. If there’s a job requiring that, it is fair to require the document. The time for this isn’t post election, but when registering as a candidate.

    I think, when the electoral college elected Obama, they were probably the final word on his eligibility. Maybe that isn’t fair, but that’s the truth.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  35. Our POTUS is a citizen of the world, don’t ya know.

    Icy Texan (ec15e0)

  36. I think, when the electoral college elected Obama, they were probably the final word on his eligibility.

    Just a layman here, but I think that when the joint session of Congress accepts the electoral college’s ballots, that’s the final word. But that may be nitpicking.

    malclave (4f3ec1)

  37. Sped: I find it hard to believe that only citizens of Indonesia would be allowed to enroll in public school there. It’s unlikely that Lolo Soetoro was the only person in the country who married a foreigner (non-Indonesian) and had a stepchild who was not an Indonesian citizen.

    If they said that non-citizen children would be charged additional fees to enroll in public school there, that would make sense, but not that they would ban non-citizen children entirely and refuse to assimilate them into the society.

    Of course, I could be wrong, but I would like to see some kind of source for the claim that non-citizens would not have been allowed to enroll in an Indonesian public school at all.

    Joshua (9ede0e)

  38. #30, VOI, the media isn’t interested because it’s Lefty dogma that electing a black man POTUS would unite the federation, restore hope to the Republic, eliminate racism, heal the Earth, and cause the flood waters to recede.

    Technicalities cannot be allowed to interfere with the holy prophesies of the one true religion.

    ropelight (a73f0f)

  39. malclave, perhaps you’re right as to whose authority it was to make this election of Obama effective, but I guess I’m actually pointing to those who are directly electing Obama in our system.

    Regardless, it’s a legit point that we should continue to shed as much light as we can on Obama, simply as a basic principle of democracy. Even after he’s out of office, I hope people continue to learn more about him. What’s so evil about that, to many hysterical lefties, is beyond me.

    But democrats like to hide. I’m still waiting on John Kerry’s Form 180.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  40. Joshua:Sped: I find it hard to believe that only citizens of Indonesia would be allowed to enroll in public school there. It’s unlikely that Lolo Soetoro was the only person in the country who married a foreigner (non-Indonesian) and had a stepchild who was not an Indonesian citizen.

    I don’t know the laws in Indonesia, but that is absolutely the law in Hong Kong. So it isn’t out of the question.

    MayBee (081489)

  41. It’s very STRANGE that Hawaii celebrated 50th year of statehood in August, 2009. Yet, during the celebrations Hawaii had no fanfare nor did they mention Obama’s birth there.

    Juan (879483)

  42. Obama was a kid when he went to gradeschool. He can’t enter into contracts when he is a kid. If his parent attempted to cancel his citizenship, that’s not really very important.

    however, I think there is a strong issue as to why we want out president to be a citizen. We want someone who has a special affiliation to this country, over all other countries. We want a leader who will advocate for us, not for everyone (since these other countries are also self interested).

    We made a huge mistake electing someone who isn’t American, in spirit. His allegiance is to some unAmerican ideal. His children were baptized into a “God Damn America” church. Obama named his #1 accomlishment at the time after a sermon by Rev Wright. These are the most powerful anti american statements short of taking up arms against this country. We may as well have elected Jane Fonda, if we elect someone who think our military was air raiding civilian villages.

    His bowing routine is meant to reduce the US. It’s going to cause us problems for generations, as Carter’s BS elevated Mugabe.

    Obama met our citizenship requirements by being born here, however, he was quickly taken from this country and raised elsewhere. It’s not in the spirit of the requirement.

    But the only authority on this is the American voter, who decided to elect Obama. Hopefully we learn our lesson.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  43. Dustin, didn’t Kerry already release his form 180 to a couple of chosen reporters, whom he could be trust?

    What more do people want when it comes to transparency? 😉

    malclave (4f3ec1)

  44. It’s only STRANGE if you don’t understand Hawaiian history or politics.

    And Obama signed a proclamation marking Hawaii’s anniversary. I’m not sure who should have “mentioned” his birth there, and as part of what aspect of the anniversary events?

    carlitos (a3d259)

  45. Juan

    i don’t know, if obama was from my town, i am not sure i would want to mention it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  46. #

    #

    Dustin, didn’t Kerry already release his form 180 to a couple of chosen reporters, whom he could be trust?

    I believe even when he did this, the Form 180 was not authorizing a complete release of records. Without a doubt, Kerry was ashamed of the truth about his military service. My understanding is that once he was powerful, he managed to have his discharged changed to honorable. It’s hard to know more about this guy, but it is amazing to me that so many of his unit comrades urged America to see him as dishonorable. I knew many people I didn’t love when I was in the service, but to inspire that degree of anger would take an extraordinary douchebag.

    Swiftboating will always mean “exposing the truth”.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  47. Abercrombie is a deluded fool. His claims to remember baby Barry are highly suspect since that was 50 years ago and Stanley Ann started attending the University of Washington right after Barry was born – the same month in fact. My guess is that even if Abercrombie finds his birth certificate, he’ll see why Barry doesn’t want it public, and he’ll claim he can’t find it and that it’s not so important after all that he does. The coverup continues — of something.

    starboardhelm (e93080)

  48. “His mother was American, so that’s good enough for me.”

    It wouldn’t matter if both his parents were from Uranus, or both were from Dubuque.

    He’s still be a ratbag either way.

    Dave Surls (c13c16)

  49. He’d not he’s.

    I need an edit button in the worst way.

    Dave Surls (c13c16)

  50. Are you’re claiming that you needed your long-form birth certificate to get a job at McDonald’s? Because I don’t believe you.

    Comment by carlitos — 1/19/2011

    Federal Form I-9, which must be filled out by every job applicant, requires an applicant to prove both his identity and his right legal employment in the US.
    A US Passport is accepted as proving both identity and US citizenship.
    Lacking that an applicant must produce two forms of idnetification. Usually a Driver License to prove identity. Right to work in the US/US citizenship may be proved by a birth certificate, valid official Social Security card, green card,naturilazation papers, etc. The I-9 form lists all of the acceptable forms of ID on the back in a one from column A and one from column B format. An employer mst certify (under penalty of perjury) that he has examined the forms and they appear to be valid and unaltered.
    When I was a manager resposible for hiring most hirees presented a DL and SSC, birth certificates were second and several used naturalization documents.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  51. Last year when I went to Connecticut State Police HQ to renew my Pistol Permit I was required to present documents proving I was a citizen although I have had a permit since 1989. Passport, Birth Certificate and original Voters Registration card were accepted for the purpose.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  52. Curiouser and curiouser. I’m starting to wonder whether there might actually be something to this.

    Aaron, the birth announcements are suggestive but don’t actually prove anything. The information would surely have come from the grandparents; if he really was born in Kenya (or Canada), it’s quite easy to understand why they’d lie about it. Ditto if the birth certificate is found, and instead of listing the hospital and doctor it says he was born at home with the information supplied by the grandparents. That wouldn’t prove they were lying, but the possibility would be clear.

    To me the strongest argument against a Kenyan birth is the sheer unlikelihood that a heavily pregnant Stanley Dunham would have been gallivanting around the globe, at a time when flying from Kenya to Hawaii must have taken three days, and was very expensive. If her baby was born in another country, Canada is a far more likely site. She was studying in Seattle, had friends north of the border, and it’s easy to imagine her going up to visit them and going into labour while there. Her parents would have seen the potential for problems if he was registered as having been born in a Commonwealth country, so they faked a birth in the USA. This isn’t a very likely scenario, but it’s a lot likelier than Kenya.

    As far as his Indonesian citizenship is concerned, it’s irrelevant. The only way US citizenship can be lost is by voluntarily renouncing it, and a minor is incapable of doing so. And there’s no law against dual citizens becoming president.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  53. I still rather favor the “dad put ‘Arab’ as race” theory, even though I have no way to verify that his father’s area had the status divide between “Black” and “Arabic.” (Or whatever it would be listed as, back then.)

    Guy’s built his image around being black. By most American measures, he’d be black. Having his much-made-of-idol father identified as a self-claimed Arab would be devastating to his image, and probably that of his wife.

    Foxfier (24dddb)

  54. Nonsense, Milhouse, the parents had no reason to lie about the location of birth of their grandson at the time of his birth.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  55. Have Blue, good points on the I-9. I’m guessing that the back of the form doesn’t specify long-form birth certificate though, right? That’s the specious argument being made by the birthers.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  56. carlitos, there is no argument that the short form of certificate from Hawaii is not legal evidence of Obama’s citizenship. It is. The interesting question is what is being concealed on it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  57. ________________________________________________

    The Honolulu newspaper announcement published back in 1961 of the current president’s birth was a major reason I saw the theories of the “birther” crowd start to crumble. But with a pro-Obama flunkie like the liberal governor of Hawaii coming up empty, and admitting as much, and the observations per below, I think the benefit of the doubt now has to be split down the middle. Morever, Obama (and his kin folk) has such a disreputable, flaky background that there’s plenty of appropriate cynicism and suspicion to spread around.

    But it doesn’t matter. Even if the records indicated the guy now in the White House was born in Timbuktu or the South Pole, this society has become so sloppy — so Banana Republic-ish — about honoring basic standards, post-Clinton, in particular, that I think most people would shrug it off. Many people may even find the notion that the US Constitution requires an American president be born on American soil rather quaint and old-fashioned.

    thesop.org:

    WND has reported that in 1961, Obama`s grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person report of a Hawaii birth even if the infant Barack Obama Jr. had been foreign-born.

    Similarly, the newspaper announcements of Obama`s birth do not prove he was born in Hawaii, since they could have been triggered by the grandparents registering the birth as Hawaiian, even if the baby was born elsewhere.

    Moreover, WND has documented that the address reported in the newspaper birth announcements was the home of the grandparents.

    Mark (411533)

  58. Obama is the 43rd president. Did the first 42 make their “long form birth certificate” public? If not, what were they “concealing”?

    Or by “interesting question” do you mean “vague inferences of blackness, unAmerican-ness, arab-ness and Muslim-ness” which can help get out the racist / conspiracist vote, and make people question his patriotism?

    Just asking questions about this non-issue should be left to the loons on the birther side. Joseph Farah thinks that soy makes you gay, for pete’s sake. Orly Taitz is a fruit loop.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  59. Carlitos, I just find it sort of humorous that while the Dems demanded that McCain release his BC, they largely consider it insane to want to see the exact same document for Obama.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  60. Earlier I made a brilliant comment that was swallowed up for some reason, akin to some other comments.

    I think most people would wonder, “What’s up with that?” upon hearing Obama didn’t want his birth certificate made public. Normally, the media would likely say, “Yeah, what is up with that, anyway?” Then you would have the majority of the public and the media asking the very reasonable question, “Hey, what’s the issue with the birth certificate?” Eventually it would need to be addressed or leave a huge doubt for the majority of people.

    But, we did not get that. Instead, when people wondered, “What’s up with that?” upon hearing Obama didn’t want his birth certificate made public, the press said, “Bunnies! Caribou! Moose! Wolves! Palin! Palin shooting wolves from a helicopter! Salmon! Palin being stupid fishing for salmon with a spinning rod and reel! Tea Party!!, Racists!!”, and finally, “Birthers!!!”

    And that is how we arrived at the Wonderlandesque place where to ask to see the birth certificate of a President, or his college records, or virtually anything else related to his past, gets you ostracized as a nutcase.

    I say if Abercrombie “can’t find” the birth certificate, we’ll be happy with a passport from his prior travels and admission info and transcripts from Occidental, fair enough??

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  61. SPQR

    Nonsense, Milhouse, the parents had no reason to lie about the location of birth of their grandson at the time of his birth.

    You really think it nonsense? You really can’t think of a reason why they would want to establish that their grandson was born in the USA and not in a Commonwealth country? Come on, this is not rocket science or brain surgery.

    Carlitos, no previous president since Chester Arthur has had his birthplace challenged; if they had been, they would surely have had to prove it. Or so one would have assumed, until 2008, when suddenly we found that a person can become president without having to prove his eligibility. And that is very worrying, because now that we all know that what’s to stop Schwartzenegger or Granholm from running for president, and simply brazening it out?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  62. Milhouse-

    Would an American traveling to another country using a passport of and claiming citizenship of a 3rd country constitute a renunciation of citizenship? Obama was in college, not a boy, when he went to Pakistan. At that time Pakistan not only did not honor US passports, travel by Americans was banned. So either he snuck in, or used a Kenyan or British passport(via his dad) or possibly an Indonesian passport(via his stepdad). And I have no idea what requirments those countries require for a passport or citizenship, i.e., possibly renounciation of the former country(the US in this case) or dual citizenship being acceptable. It’s a very simple set of questions no one asks The One.

    Bugg (9e308e)

  63. Would an American traveling to another country using a passport of and claiming citizenship of a 3rd country constitute a renunciation of citizenship?

    No, it would not. I do so routinely; I carry two passports and use whichever is most convenient. So do millions of others. The only thing that constitutes a voluntary renunciation of citizenship is…a voluntary renunciation of citizenship. That means the person must intend to no longer be a citizen. Even an open declaration renouncing citizenship doesn’t count if the person didn’t really mean it; the onus would be on him to prove that, but if he can then he is still a citizen.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  64. I do so routinely; I carry two passports and use whichever is most convenient. So do millions of others.

    This is true. A lot of Americans travel to countries where they need a non US Passport. Let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. Some Americans have loved ones in Iran, or Pakistan, and want to visit them sometimes, even though they still love being Americans. There are more important things than this kind of issue, and family is near the front of the list.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  65. In any event, Bugg, it is simply not true that Pakistan did not admit US citizens. That would have been a very strange policy for Pakistan to have, considering that it was a US ally; and in fact it did not have it. Plenty of Americans traveled to Pakistan in 1981, with American passports, and encountered no problems on that score.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  66. “…that because Obama was the son of a Kenyan that somehow British law could deprive a man of his birthright as a natural born citizen. The founders did not rebel against England in order to allow England to decide who was and was not a citizen of this country.”
    You folks are smart, I suggest reading the dissenting opinion of United States v Wong Kim Ark (especially the point of the difference between civil and political English common law illustrated in 1775 and 1812). Also from Minor v Happerset, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
    Cheers.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  67. For those that comment on multiple passports (citizenships)…our state department does not recognize such allegiances. In fact, perhaps for those naturalized, they should read AGAIN thier oath to these United States. I find it odd that those who might travel abroad on a foreign passport might still expect the protection of a power that they felt uncomfortable acknowledging for reasons expedient, selfish, or unpatriotic.
    Reminder for some, “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  68. Milhouse, indeed its not rocket science, there was no reason to believe that the parents would have thought that their grandson had to have his location of birth covered up at the time. He was a US citizen then and they had no reason to believe otherwise.

    This theory don’t hunt.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  69. Sure it does. Tim McGuire came up with a very good explanation a long time ago. Their daughter’s so-called marriage (which we now know to have been invalid) was probably not going to last long, and they could easily have foreseen a custody battle. And in such a case the child’s birthplace would be very important. Having him registered as having been born in the USA, with birth announcements to corroborate it, would help ensure that any custody case would be heard in a USA court under USA law, which would favour their daughter. If he were born in Kenya, and Barack Sr were to get a Kenyan court to award him custody, chances are good that a US court would have deferred to that decision. Or else a US court might have decided to decide the case under Kenyan law. Lying about his birthplace would avoid that.

    Not that a Kenyan birth is likely, of course.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  70. Milhouse, its really a shame that you can’t see how tortuous this “logic” is. Piling speculation atop speculation atop speculation, and you don’t have a theory – you have a house of cards.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  71. I find it odd that those who might travel abroad on a foreign passport might still expect the protection of a power that they felt uncomfortable acknowledging for reasons expedient, selfish, or unpatriotic.

    I don’t know why you think someone traveling under an additional passport would be selfish or unpatriotic.

    My father visited his dying mother in Iran using a passport that wasn’t American (or Iranian). So what? He’s a great American anyway. He could have shown up with an American passport, and probably would never have been able to come home to his family here in the States. Or he could have let his mother die without seeing her son.

    Is his choice to use a non US passport somehow unpatriotic, or just common sense? Family is important enough to justify dealing with the political differences of Iranians he doesn’t know or care for.

    He expects to be seen as American because he’s just as American as you are. He hasn’t renounced anything. An awful lot of people resort to multiple passports just to be able to travel to certain places. It’s not evil, and it’s not a betrayal of this country.

    This is really reaching for a reason to bash Obama. I don’t get it. He’s left much better criticisms on the table than the fact he traveled to Pakistan. His behavior in Chicago was a lot worse than that.

    If you’re not familiar with the hardships of dictators and theocracies, and don’t have to negotiate through that crap to see your loved ones, I’m very happy for you, but give the high horse act a rest.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  72. Dustin,

    I dont think the guy was insulting you intentionally IMHO

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  73. A brief illustration of semantics;
    Natives and native born- not the same, BTW. Some native born are not natives such as those from ambassadors and foreigners IAW the Civil Rights Act of 1866 “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;…” which led directly to the 14th in 1868 “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
    Natural and citizen- the phrase “natural born Citizen” is used only ONCE in the Constitution, guess where? Sure the framers had to grandfather themselves into eligibility, but what did they intend for those born after the ratification? I suggest each of you research the matter and judge what a reasonable person would assume based on the parameters of the office (i.e. commander in chief and sole executive). Me, I think someone born in the sole “jurisdiction” of American citizens would bar any question of the person’s allegiance or foreign power’s influence.
    The founders (Jefferson and Madison) of this Republic were brilliant and should be recognized as such.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  74. Dustin,
    No insult meant…but it appears expedience won over patriotic allegiance. Life is full of sacrifice. Perhaps the proper course of action entailed FAITH in our government in response to our petition of familial suffering.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  75. Pieter

    Okay at this point go F#ck yourself

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  76. EricPWJohnson,
    Good Lord, pottymouth, what specifically brought that on?
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  77. Its not up to you to decide who’s patriotic

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  78. EricPWJohnson (AKA pottymouth),
    True. I rely on logic and natural allegiance to assume my civic duties as a member of this body politic. Why would anyone ever deny such a blessing and responsibility of our citizenship? Ah, yes, for reasons selfish and when later in trouble, from using another allegiance, our “lessor” called upon in dire need.
    Pfffft.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  79. Pieter

    Ewww,

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  80. Dual allegiance is an abomination to reason and character. Personally, and I’m not alone, it is irresponsible for folks to not choose definitively their choice of belonging. We have fought two wars with England regarding “perpetual allegiance”…we have a choice.
    So, it falls upon us to choose. Is that so hard? I suggest you read the oath of naturalization (as noted above) if it seems odd to your understanding.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  81. Pieter

    again, Dustin’s dad visited a sick relative – you are making an issue that is not there – you are entitled to your opinion

    We have fought two wars with England since 1812 – as a side note to His Majesty – I think we have moved on

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  82. Pottymouth,
    Again, no insult was intended. I only believe that if I had not options (such as another passport) I would trust my government implicitly to assist me in my moment of awful circumstance. For those that rely on other measures, well, perhaps they had faith in something otherwise. Some do not have full faith and allegiance in our Republic, Constitution, fellow American, and our way of Life due to thier confused allegiances. If it were my sick father, well, what exactly is your point?
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  83. I dont think the guy was insulting you intentionally IMHO

    Comment by EricPWJohnson

    I know. It just ticks me off. My father proudly sent his son to forward deployment, for the US Army. That wasn’t expedient of him. He raised me to value my country, even though it’s not perfect and he’s not blind about the way the world works.

    Frankly, full faith in the republic has very little to do with the fact that it’s a pretty nasty world in many places. The USA isn’t perfect, or omnipresent. You just deal with that as it comes up, if you have to.

    This has nothing to do with confused allegiance, either. Having two passports is not a political statement. It’s a travel arrangement that is not convenient, but necessary.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  84. Pieter

    You’re right you are a Moron,

    JD, where are you?

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  85. Dustin

    I know where this tool is going – he thinks all Iranians and Iranian Americans relations are terrorists, he’s just to much of a wuss to come on out and accuse you of it to your face

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  86. Life is full of sacrifice. Perhaps the proper course of action entailed FAITH in our government in response to our petition of familial suffering.

    I didn’t see this. I appreciate EPWJ’s reaction to it. If your reaction to this situation is to sacrifice visiting your dying mom, in order to avoid having a passport that wasn’t stamped by the US Federal Government, you’re … not someone I understand.

    Life is full of sacrifice? Are you kidding? To what end? I’m willing to go very far for my country, but this would be an empty and painful gesture. People have to take personal responsibility. The US government is hardly the end all be all of American existence.

    I’m radically censoring myself, but you’re not fit to make this evaluation.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  87. Dustin,
    Allegiance is not debatable or a matter of perspective. It is an expectation, both functional and reasonable. At what point do the expectations of a foreign power weigh on a person? A passport is more than a travel document.
    Oh, if it was you that served in our Armed Forces…thank you.
    -Pieter Nosworthy
    1SG, USA
    HHC, 4-101 AVN

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  88. I know where this tool is going – he thinks all Iranians and Iranian Americans relations are terrorists, he’s just to much of a wuss to come on out and accuse you of it to your face

    Comment by EricPWJohnson

    I hope that’s not the case, and won’t even comment on this kind of BS. I don’t have anything to prove on that account.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  89. the first place to check would be the car they were in coming home from the hospital

    maybe they put it in the glove compartment so they wouldn’t lose it and then they forgot

    happyfeet (aa4bab)

  90. Pottymouth,
    Oh my, not only are you uncivil in direct violation of our President’s dearest imploration…you’re touched with a mental defect. I made no dispersions on anyones national origin. I have Irish, English, Spanish, and German heritage…if you look hard enough there is room for heartache. Stop acting like a mindless communist-progressive, for goodness sake.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  91. 1SG, USA
    HHC, 4-101 AVN

    That’s UH-60s for the 101? Where you at Camp Stanley? I was in 6-37 FA (also Army). 13M20.

    I don’t see having an additional passport as a symbol of allegiance. An awful lot of US Troops aren’t even American citizens, and yet are sworn to uphold our Constitution. Allegiance isn’t a piece of paper you get stamped so that you’re permitted to enter a piece of geography.

    So Obama visited Pakistan. Honestly, I don’t even remember why he did that. It’s not his fault his childhood experience was what it was, and I do think it makes sense to consider that when choosing a leader, but we’re moving light years beyond that issue, to one where you think it’s a betrayal to hold a credential. I probably should add that you do not have to renounce American citizenship to hold an additional passport. Perhaps you’re under some illusion otherwise.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  92. @Longwalker:

    “I would venture to say that, even if Obama was born in Kenya, his mother’s citizenship status would suffice since what is a “natural born” citizen is determijned, in this country, not only by the Constitution but by the statutory definitions of terms not by common law. I doubt that even one of the sitting Supreme Court Justices would hold that Obama was not a “natural born” citizen under our laws.”

    No.

    The statutes governing American citizenship for children born of U.S. parent(s) abroad were last amended in 1986. Assuming the publicly available vital statistics regarding Pres. Obama and his mother are correct, if he had not been born in the U.S. then he would not have qualified to have his mother’s citizenship tranmitted to him. It’s a matter of mathematics and his mother’s age at the time of his birth.

    The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) still includes the provisions which applied prior to 1986, you can look them up.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  93. I’m more than touched with a mental defect or two

    you’re still a clueless moron

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  94. Pieter is entitled to believe that “dual allegiance is an abomination to reason and character”. USA law, however, has no problem with it.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  95. It’s a matter of mathematics and his mother’s age at the time of his birth.

    I think his point is that the laws you’re talking about do not change the constitution itself. Though the constitution isn’t satisfied if he was born in Kenya, so you still win. Also, I think his larger, practical point is that it’s ultimately up to the judicial branch. In my opinion, they should just strictly apply the law, and absolutely should have granted standing and required documentation, and then resolved the issue. But they punted on the issue, and if they were to rule on it, I suspect they would do all they could to reach the desired result.

    that’s just the way it would probably work out. Thankfully, I think he was born in Hawaii after all. If America reelects him, then our problems go much farther than Obama himself.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  96. Dustin,
    Been with the unit since OCT, ship next month to Afghanistan. 101 AVN is based out of Campbell. Again, you are to be respected for your time in uniform and, as such, thanks.
    I have an opinion, it is mine alone, regarding dual allegiances and whatnot. As we get older things become clearer, right or wrong, difficult or easy…in my humble opinion, again, it seems foolish and unreasonable for someone to expect the FULL measure of support from a nation that never had such from one of its citizens. I’d love an explanation as to what I might have missed.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  97. @Dustin (#94):

    Correct, however the Constitution puts the authority to make laws respecting citizenship & nationality firmly in the hands of Congress, which has passed a number of laws on the subjects, the latest being the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) of 1954, as amended. The 14th Amendment trumps all of those, of course.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  98. Longwalker and Consul-At-Arms, “natural born citizen” does not mean “citizen at birth”. It’s derived from “natural born subject”, which Blackstone defined as someone born under the protection of the sovereign and his laws. That would be anyone born in the country, plus the foreign-born children of “the king’s embassadors”, but excluding the children of foreign ambassadors.

    That means if Obama was born in Kenya or Canada he would not be a natural born citizen, but even if McCain had been born in Panama outside the Canal Zone he’d still be a natural born citizen, because his parents were subject to US law, not Panamanian law.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  99. Dustin,
    Some have wondered as to the 600 lbs gorilla…the birth certificate is interesting but not central in light of Mr. Obama’s father. My research has indicated the uniqueness of his election with regard to noone knowingly elected after the ratification has ever been born to other than someone born in the United States to both parents of American citizenship. This fact, at the very least, deserves some form of national discussion.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  100. 101 AVN is based out of Campbell.

    I meant with a different unit you may have served with, but never mind that.

    I am not trying to pwn you on the internet, and obviously your military career commands a lot of respect and represents a lot of sacrifice for your family. I simply feel that my experience with the issue you’re talking about is powerful, where someone who loves his country still needs to deal with the fact that a US Passport is not very helpful for travel that he shouldn’t have to avoid out of some misplaced notion of sacrifice.

    I don’t know what you mean by full measure of support. He didn’t ask the US Government for anything at the time. I think his life story is one of working hard in his particular trade, to provide for his family. It’s a huge shame that the country much of his family is in hates the country he made his family in. He doesn’t have dual allegiances. Citizenship is a legal concept. Passports are travel documents and legal identification. Allegiance and loyalty are proven by how he’s honored his community through his honest labor, and by bringing up his family. I could offer a more thorough defense of my father’s support of his country, but I don’t feel this is necessary.

    anyhow, I don’t know what full measure of support is being discussed from our government, but he’s a law abiding American citizen. He takes care of himself as much as any American can. Personal responsibility is more important than government support.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  101. @Milhouse (#97):

    Someone’s been doing their homework.

    Blackstone’s Commentaries notwithstanding, “natural born citizen” is nowhere defined in the Constitution itself. Since the Senate’s non-binding resolution about Sen. McCain’s presidential eligibility, what the U.S. now has is what some have termed “a nonjudicial national consensus” conflating “natural born citizen” with “citizen at birth.”

    When I used to adjudicate citizenship cases for children born abroad of U.S. parents, and I got to the point of telling them their child was officially a U.S. citizen (right after I clicked the appropriate button on the automated system that generates passports and reports of birth), I’d tell them the child always was one, but just hadn’t documented it yet.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  102. Chester A Arthur’s father was not naturalised until Chester was 14. This does not seem to have been a problem for him. Allegations were raised about his own birth — first he was alleged to have been born in Ireland and then in Canada — but once it was established that he was born in the USA his father’s nationality seems not to have been an issue.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  103. Dustin

    Maybe he’s an oath keeper

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  104. Consul-At-Arms,
    No doubt you realize that citizenship must be put in perspective of the Naturalization Act of 1790 (amended in 1795), the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and its formalization in 1868 with the 14th Amendment, 1874 case of Minor v Happerset, and the 1898 case of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. For the past 100 years, folks have taken umbrage in the granting of citizenship merely born within our borders irrespective of the citizenship of the parents. Gee, I wonder why. Only the old world monarchy claim the allegiance of someone born within the realm…last I checked, the sovereign power bestowed FIRST comes from our citizenry and only jurisdiction applied as secondary consideration. No doubt, you are much smarter than I and can rationalize your point of view for us lessor intellects.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  105. Milhouse,
    Great point about President Arthur…when did we know that his father naturalized 14 years after his birth? If you state prior to more than 2 years ago, I’d call you a bald face fibber.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  106. @Pieter (#103):

    I’m aware of the statutes, amendment, and SCOTUS case you reference, although I’ll have to look into Minor v. Happerset. I’m not a lawyer (both my parents were married to one another).

    Folks can take all the umbrage they want, but the 14th Amendment says what it says and is supreme law of the land. I don’t find arguments about the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language to be out-of-bounds, but until either Congress legislates to clarify the matter or SCOTUS rules beyond the U.S. v Wong Kim Ark case, it’s pretty much academic.

    Old world monarchy’s aside (and that also describes the Common Law stuff from Blackstone, &tc.), our supreme law is the Constitution.

    Cheers!

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  107. Dustin,
    Consider my perspective regarding your father. He elected to chuck dice and when things might have gone awry EXPECT the full measure of support of his government. As a dual citizen, what portion of his allegiance can be rendered reciprocally? 100% seems illogical from my perspective.
    God Bless you, your dad, and yours. Again, no direct insult intended.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  108. Consul-At-Arms,
    Fill me in…what does the 14th state? Is that opinion unquestionable? Last I checked, it has been subject to doubt for some time. Minor v Happerset, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
    I’d appreciate a response to what I placed in bold.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  109. Crap…I misspoke, mistyped, whatever. My earlier comment on the 14th reflected the US v WKA opinion on the amendment which has, unfortunatlely, become our common understanding. Again, I encourage folks to read the dissenting opinion in that particular case.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  110. @Pieter (#107):

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the SCOTUS decision in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark settle this question?

    The practical answer about “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been anyone whose parents weren’t either foreign diplomats accredited to the U.S., foreign sovereigns themselves, or foreign members of or accompanying an invading/occupying army or force. Plus if you’re born to foriegn parents on a foreign-flagged warship within U.S. territorial waters.

    Some have suggested that this language extends to the children of illegal immigrants, and I confess I’m not wholly unsympathetic to this view.

    Cheers!

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  111. Jesus, what a giant cluster. A recording of the birth in the State Archives? Hawaii must have the worst records-keeping organization in the US if they can’t even find a simple birth certificate.

    Also, LOL at Abercrombie being proud that Obama’s deadbeat dad attended school in Hawaii.

    Another Chris (67858a)

  112. Consul-At-Arms,
    Yes, the 1898 case answered the 1874 question. But, and not only in my estimation, in a most unsettling and unreasonable manner.
    The WKA interpretation answered who was a citizen but, I submit, in no way stated who was natural born. In discussion previous I hazard the opinion that those born merely within our borders should not be considered citizens.
    I argue plainly that there was definition of citizenship prior to WKA synonomous, or nearly so, with that natural born and was later understood to mean those native born irrespective of the parents.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  113. @Pieter(#111):

    Forgive me if I wax philosophical for a moment, but the whole trend for the last century or so in the U.S. has been for existing freedoms and rights to expand in their application to wider and more classes of people: former slaves, women, gays, &tc.

    Which is why I doubt the birthright citizenship genie is going to get back in the bottle anytime soon, absent some motivating calamity.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  114. Consul-At-Arms,
    I have used the terms reasonable and rationale…perhaps you would accept SUSTAINABLE or VIABLE?
    Those merely born within our borders defies the logic of measuring their birth in light of their parantage (natural allegiance) and legality (how is that they were here).
    Foreigners give birth to foreigners. A criminal gives birth to what exactly? An American? Have you no respect for our birthright?
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  115. Barrack Obama was born in Hawaii, as a US citizen eligible for the presidency. His mother registered him as having white skin.

    MM (054d06)

  116. If you’re looking in Hawaii, you’re looking in the wrong place. Anne Dunham lived her teen-aged years in Mercer’s Island, Washington. A mixed race child still not being very well-accepted at the time in the US, there is more than idle speculation that Barack Hussein’s original birth certificate would have come from the more tolerant Canadian city just across the border, Vancouver. As she “showed” up in Washington less than a month after his birth, perhaps Hawaii is just a feint.

    none (c24b9b)

  117. _______________________________________________

    I’ve had only a passing awareness of what the specific stipulations were for a person to be considered a US citizen at birth. Based on the following, the parameters are more permissive than I originally thought was the case.

    The guy now in the White House, even if he were born on non-US territory, qualifies based on #7 below. So how come the pro-Obama crowd doesn’t point out this simple fact? And how come the birthers don’t acknowledge that same fact, and realize it immediately nullifies their theory, even granting their assumption that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii?

    Am I missing something?! Or did Obama’s mother not reside in the US for at least 5 years?

    Case closed.

    usconstitution.net:

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

    * Anyone born inside the United States

    * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe

    * Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

    * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

    * Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

    * Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

    * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

    * A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

    Mark (411533)

  118. …does appear that we have a president we know very little about.

    Q: How did that happen in the United States of America?

    A: There is a powerful force that is engaged in politics, but is not accountable to the people for its behavior. The media.

    sherlock (398698)

  119. @Pieter (#113):

    I’m sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, and that includes the 14th Amendment. I implement and carry out laws and regulations the way they are written, not the way I would necessarily have written them myself.

    You have a reasonable enough argument, I think, on grounds of logic, and if you could get enough of Congress to go along, or even enough SCOTUS justices, re-interpreting the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to cover foreigners not lawfully admitted to the U.S. wouldn’t be all that big a stretch.

    Otherwise, you need to get the president to declare them an invading army.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  120. Upon reaching the age of majority, he could retake / reclaim US citizenship. Some forms or something…

    Sheesh.

    Did you miss the part in the post above where Aaron points out that the United States does not allow foreign states to determine who is, or who is not, an American citizen? When the person is born in the United States, and is therefore an American citizen per the constitution?

    A minor can’t renounce citizenship anyway, so in the end, what that boils down to is the US State Department, with all due respect, doesn’t give a darn what Indonesia did or not consider Barack Obama’s citizenship status to be.

    It might be interesting, but it’s unimportant.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  121. For some that feel that the WKA opinion of the 14th stated there were only two kinds of American citizens; born and naturalized [both defined by statute]. I ask you if, perhaps, the founders who revered the concept of natural law considered those things not requiring explanation a matter of man’s legal opinion? If it requires statute then it doesn’t seem terribly self explanatory [natural] or self evident.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  122. Anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. Anyone born anywhere with one parent who is a U.S. citizen is a citizen. This really isn’t hard.

    If you disagree, good luck with the Supreme Court. You may be disappointed.

    Ag80 (e03e7a)

  123. @Mark (#116):

    * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

    Good research. However, what you’re missing is that the five years of U.S. presence by the American citizen parent have to be after reaching the age of 14 years.

    Given Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro age at the time of the president’s birth, she could not mathematically have achieved those five years after reaching age 14.

    Check the dates and the math for your own satisfaction.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  124. “If you’re looking in Hawaii, you’re looking in the wrong place. Anne Dunham lived her teen-aged years in Mercer’s Island, Washington. A mixed race child still not being very well-accepted at the time in the US, there is more than idle speculation that Barack Hussein’s original birth certificate would have come from the more tolerant Canadian city just across the border, Vancouver. As she “showed” up in Washington less than a month after his birth, perhaps Hawaii is just a feint.”

    No, that’s totally idle speculation.

    You’re saying that she planted newspaper birth announcements in Hawaii newspapers to strengthen his U.S. citizenship claim … and travelled to Vancouver, Canada to give birth to him?

    For crying out oud.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  125. @Ag80 (#120):

    No.

    Mark does a nice job of summarizing this at #116.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  126. Consul-At-Arms,
    Thanks. I consider the entire concept open to rationale discussion. Your admission is appreciated. Lord knows, I’m often wrong and may be in these cases.
    G’night all.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  127. Please note that in S.Res.511 regarding the citizenship of John McCain: Mr. Obama, one of the sponsors of the bill, acknowledged that the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is “one born in the country (or its equivalent) to two citizen parents.” The emphasis in the Senate Resolution was on the citizenship status of the parents.

    Also note that Mr. Obama has stipulated that he was born under British jurisdiction via his British/Kenyan father.

    Finally, regardless of any “vote” on or “feelings” about where he was born, Mr. Obama’s birth place has never been established with anything other than hearsay. Why is it so hard to say, “We don’t know for sure where he was born?”

    So, by his own definition, Mr. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. By his own stipulation, he is not a 14th Amendment citizen.

    Obama has never produced any documentation that proves he is even a citizen. The Hawaii DOH, even with the help and prodding of the Governor, can’t find a birth certificate (which, by the way, a former Hawaii elections official – Tim Adams – confirmed doesn’t exist). Sorry, I also have serious questions about the reliability of photo-shopped computer images with improper seals (and other features) and no source documents available for inspection. Newspaper announcements that reference an address at which the Obama’s never lived aren’t very reassuring, either.

    FiddlerBob (08fe1b)

  128. @Pieter (#123):

    A pleasure.

    For some information about how U.S. citizenship laws are actually applied, see the Foreign Affairs Manual, 7 FAM – Consular Affairs: http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/07fam/index.htm.

    The same guidance applies to citizenship adjudications at our domestic passport agencies in the U.S.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  129. By his own stipulation, he is not a 14th Amendment citizen.

    ?

    This has nothing to do with his parents being citizens. And it’s irrational. I doubt Obama stipulated any such thing, but if he stipulated he was eligible to be President, would that make it so?

    Anyway, I’d like to see a link showing Obama claiming you need two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. I find that to be so stupid, even a bonehead like Obama wouldn’t say it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  130. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
    The phrase in bold is used only ONCE in the Constitution. Why? Some consider mere citizenship sufficient for the office of the Presidency…they are either really old or subject to definition not subject to which caveats (naturalized, children of ambassadors, etc)? Perhaps the discussion should be one of caveats and other political ideology.
    pfffft. I’d like to think it was more straight forward and less subject to OPINION.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  131. No. Sorry. Take it up with the SCOTUS. I’m really not the one to argue with.

    But I’m pretty sure how it would rule. Just my opinion.

    Any natural-born parent confers citizenship to their offspring. If Alec Baldwin actually moved to France for more than five years and fathered a child by a French woman on the day after the deadline, I can assure you that child would be considered a citizen, unless SCOTUS considered otherwise.

    Again, the argument is not with me.

    Ag80 (e03e7a)

  132. @Ag80(#128):

    Please see my #121 above.

    Five years of U.S. presence. Leaving the U.S. for five years, if you’ve already met this qualification, doesn’t negate it, even if you Alec Baldwin moves to France (a development devoutly to be wished for).

    Being born in the U.S. confers American citizenship, except for certain specific exceptions (like foreign diplomats; I cover this in #109 above).

    Citizenship for children born abroad of U.S. parents is not a clear-cut and black & white as you state. It’s more complicated than that and is a matter of federal statute currently incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  133. Ag80,
    As you wag your head in “No. Sorry.” What exactly are you defying? The Constitution, statute, court opinion? Or, perhaps, just as a stubborn hope that no question of the status quo exists? Check it out, slick, some have qualms in some that ASSUME no error has occurred. Some wonder as to whether our Constitution, founded by folks who believed in natural law, has precedence over later court opinion accepted by an electorate befuddled by a “progressive” ideological media.
    Mr. Obama has greater concern than a birth certificate…perhaps those born of foreign fathers are, indeed, citizens per the court opinion of the 14th, but are NOT “natural born” per the first acknowledgment in the 1790 Act.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  134. Again, I hate to disagree, but the IRS might have a bit of a problem with that. I suspect SCOTUS would rule on the side of revenue.

    Ag80 (e03e7a)

  135. What is the disagreement? Natural born citizen is equivelant with citizen? Some hazard a respectful argument that they are not equivelant. What is the contention otherwise? Our Constitution differentiated, Minor v Happerset similarly, and even WKA did not state the person in question was a NBC [just merely a citizen].
    What, exactly, is your point?
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  136. Comment by Ag80 — 1/19/2011 @ 9:42 pm

    Actually, you are exempt from federal income tax is your earnings are made outs side of the US, and you have lived outside of the US for at least 330 days…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  137. Dustin,
    Obama stipulated on his own “Fight the Smears” website that he was born under British jurisdiction. This precludes him from being a natural born citizen. See the 14th amendment. “under the jurisdiction of” means the “complete” jurisdiction according to the authors of the amendment. When Obama was born his father and, therefor he, had the right to seek assistance and refuge from the British embassy. They were both subject to being called back to Britain or Kenya. They were both British subjects. Obama was not under the complete jurisdiction of the US. This is exactly the type of dual allegiance that the framers wished to avoid – especially (and ironically) with the British with whom they had just fought a difficult and bloody war.

    Natural born citizenship primarily deals with the parentage. The importance of “natural born” leadership has been recognized since biblical times. It’s not at all irrational. It’s the natural law and deals with natural loyalties and allegiances. We naturally bond with our families and communities. Just ask yourself how you feel about your family, home town, and state compared to people and places with which you are unfamiliar.

    What is irrational is to suggest that our founders would risk their lives, fortunes and sacred honor; engage in a deadly conflict under threat of certain execution if not victorious and then immediately turn around and allow a foreigner – especially a British subject who had not proven his loyalty through the revolution (The grandfather clause)- to assume the office of President and Commander in Chief.

    FiddlerBob (08fe1b)

  138. I’m not sure Obama really did admit he wasn’t born under US jurisdiction, Fiddler. Are you sure that’s the case?

    I also sincerely doubt natural born citizenship is related to who your parents are. That actually isn’t in the constitution. You’re conflating parent with jurisdiction, and you’ll need the power of a constitutional amendment to make that true.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  139. just an aside to answers to my morning post regarding the I-9 form:

    if you don’t have a birth certificate, or naturalization papers showing you can legally w*rk here, you can use, as others noted, an SSN card.

    guess what the SSA requires to get a card?

    How to get an original SSN and card

    and the money quote is:

    We can accept only certain documents as proof of U.S. citizenship. These include a U.S. birth certificate, U.S. consular report of birth, U.S. passport, Certificate of Naturalization or Certificate of Citizenship.

    so how did our jug eared incompetent get a SSN if he doesn’t have a birth certificate?
    how can they issue him a paycheck?
    how does he fill out an I-9 legally?

    if a kid w*rking at McDonalds has to meet this level of scrutiny, it’s not overreaching to ask that the First Failure do so too.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  140. Dustin,
    Your doubts can be settled with a little research. Do this and you’ll understand that what I’ve written is true and verifiable.

    You’re correct in asserting that the Constitution doesn’t define “natural born citizen”. In fact, the Constitution does not include a glossary for any of the “terms of art” used. Yet, if you look at the writings of the founders, study their source materials, review the associated supreme court cases, etc. (as I have) you’ll find that the only acceptable definition of nbc is one born in the country to two citizen parents. Obama used this definition in S.Res.511 which is publicly available if you wish to be informed. There is some gray area regarding place of birth, but there is no question as to the citizenship of the parents at the time of the child’s birth.

    I did not say that Obama wasn’t born under US jurisdiction. I just said that he was born under British jurisdiction and that he has made this claim himself. Use google. You can find these references, too.

    We can’t determine whether Obama was born under US jurisdiction until we determine where he was born. In either case, dual citizenship is not compatible with natural born citizenship which requires birth of singular loyalty and no competing jurisdictions. Just think of the problems inherent in having a commander in chief who was subject to the recall of another nation for service in their armed services.

    If Obama was born in Kenya as the Kenyan government, the Kenyan people, his grandmother, and most of the rest of the world believes; he is not a US citizen because his mother was not old enough at the time to transfer US citizenship. Read the Obama State department citizenship guidelines. It’s in there.

    If he was born in Hawaii he could claim statutory citizenship because of his mother, but he would still not be a natural born citizen because of his father.

    No additional amendment is needed. The 14th already covers those born in the US under US jurisdiction. To declare babies of foreign sojourners to be citizens contrary to their parents rights might be considered an act of war. See War of 1812. The US does not kidnap the babies of foreign visitors. It recognizes the citizenship of the parents according to the Law of Nations which, by the way, is part of our Constitution.

    The problems we’re having with the 14th amendment come from those who wish to ignore its entirety for their own political gain. They intentionally only read the first part about being born in the country and leave off the second, equally important part, about being under US jurisdiction. (Meaning sole and complete jurisdiction.)This amendment was written to recognize the citizenship of newly freed slaves who were born without any ties to any other country. At the same time it recognized the sovereignty of the native American tribes. If it didn’t include the “under the jurisdiction” phrase it would have caused another war.

    FiddlerBob (08fe1b)

  141. I think that the comments here illustrate how productive it is to argue about the birth certificate of President Obama. This issue is the right one to unify conservatives and achieve their legislative goals. Great plan.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  142. So then, according to what you believe. There is no difference between a “natural citizen” that being one that meets the requirements to fulfill that qualification and the very specific “natural Born Citizen”. When I went to school, in civics classes they taught us a “natural born citizen” was one born to parents who were both American citizen. There was never a question about this before Obama. The reason for the requirement was to insure loyalty to the USA. As can be seen, failing that requirement gets someone like Obama who does not have that loyalty, else why does he have resentments against the British? His grandpa was a Mau Mau.

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (17ae16)

  143. about being under US jurisdiction. (Meaning sole and complete jurisdiction.

    Again, you need to prove this, instead of just insisting it’s a fact.

    If you’re born here, you’re a citizen. Period.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  144. Actually, I know there is an exception to birthright citizenship if your parent is a diplomat of another country, but beyond that kind of matter, which doesn’t pertain here, Obama’s a citizen if he was born in Hawaii.

    If people can’t even agree to that, they are reaching so far beyond what is already common legal practice in this country. They have no practical end to their theories.

    Fiddler, was Obama subject to Hawaii’s jurisdiction when he was born in Hawaii? Yes. You stipulate this additional ‘he can’t also be subject to British jurisdiction’, and then stipulate some really strange way that doesn’t seem to limit how Obama is subject to US Jurisdiction anyway.

    When I try to google this issue, I see an awful lot of extremely radical POVs. I’ve invited you to prove your case a few times, and being told to ‘research it’ sounds an awful lot like ‘I can’t back up my case, so I’ll just pretend it’s out there’.

    People saying they always thought you had to have two citizen parents, and this had never been controversial until 2008, are also reaching drastically.

    What was commonly thought was that you had to be born in the USA, or alternatively, it was possible to be a citizen based on parentage. To say no one had this position before 2008 is ridiculous.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  145. @carlitos (#141)

    You are apparently in favor of conceding the point that the legal requirements to determine eligibility to become POTUS are archaic and unenforceable due to public indifference. It seems that represents the attitude of progressives regarding the Commerce Clause, welfare clause, etc. in an infinitely redefinable and elastic interpretation of our Constitution and body of laws.

    While I am not a birther, I do find it fascinating that Obama has spent $2MM+ in defending against the release of his original long form birth certificate, or any other documentation that might speak to his citizenship. And the reluctance of any of the MSM to exhibit even the slightest curiosity about the matter is more than a bit discomforting to many.

    Is he really just being Machiavellian in prolonging the uncertainty to cast aspersions on his political opponents, or are there some uncomfortable facts that put lie to his earlier claims?

    I think a lot of Americans are saying we are fed up with the general indifference to law as long as it benefits progressive plans. The open border, regulators thumbing their noses at the courts, deeming of legislation rather than voting on it, not passing a budget, general appropriations for agencies and letting agencies decide the policies that Congress won’t, mandates on citizens to buy something, etc. We aren’t comfortable with standing by and just wistfully lamenting “another one bites the dust” as our liberties and rights are being tromped for political advantage.

    Having said that, I do agree that as a whole conservatives need to remind themselves that they are subject to being played by this President and the left in this run-up to the election. For example, should we be debating birth certificates when this week Obama signed an executive order instructing federal agencies to re-examine regulations and in weighing costs and benefits for example, to consider “equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts,” and each agency must “select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits including:
    – potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages;
    – distributive impacts; and
    – equity.”

    in_awe (44fed5)

  146. @Pieter (#134):

    Since the 14th Amendment begins with the phrase “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” we may assume a Constitutional differentation between the two classes of citizen. After all, naturalized citizens can have that revoked or reversed whereas citizens from birth may only renounce their citizenship or otherwise expatriate themselves.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  147. @Scott (#136):

    Not quite true. You’re still supposed to _file_ a federal income tax return, but you’re not liable for income taxes themselves for the first $80k, IIRC.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  148. @FiddlerBob (#137):

    You raise an intersting point, but on the U.S. side we went to the trouble of fighting another war (of 1812) with the British greatly because of our insisting that other countries didn’t get to say who was a U.S. citizen or not.

    So I don’t think that argument is operative subsequent to 1814 or so.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  149. 145.@carlitos (#141)

    You are apparently in favor of conceding the point that the legal requirements to determine eligibility to become POTUS are archaic and unenforceable due to public indifference.

    No, I’m arguing that people stupid enough to question the citizenship of the President of the United States (a guy who was born in the United States, a country with birthright citizenship per the 14th Amendment) aren’t particularly the kind of folks I want on my political “side.” And frankly I question their motives as being all pure and Constitution-based, given that the son of a Kenyan Muslim is their only target.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  150. If you’re born here, you’re a citizen. Period.

    Comment by Dustin — 1/20/2011 @ 10:18 am

    but that presupposes you can prove you were born here…
    say by producing a certified true copy or an original birth certificate for inspection or another document from a very short list of acceptable proofs: press conferences by interested third parties and news paper articles aren’t among them.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  151. While I am not a birther, I do find it fascinating that Obama has spent $2MM+ in defending against the release of his original long form birth certificate, or any other documentation that might speak to his citizenship. And the reluctance of any of the MSM to exhibit even the slightest curiosity about the matter is more than a bit discomforting to many.
    Is he really just being Machiavellian in prolonging the uncertainty to cast aspersions on his political opponents, or are there some uncomfortable facts that put lie to his earlier claims? …
    Having said that, I do agree that as a whole conservatives need to remind themselves that they are subject to being played by this President and the left in this run-up to the election.

    Comment by in_awe

    Indeed. You couldn’t coordinate a conspiracy over this any better no matter how hard one tried. Not that I’m saying there is a conspiracy that involves the entire MSM as well as Obama and the DNC, I’m just saying that even if there was, they couldn’t have accomplished a better job. I’m sure many dictators around the world wished they had a press that was this cooperative.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  152. “CERTIORARI DENIED 10-678 HOLLISTER, GREGORY S. V. SOETORO, BARRY, ET AL.”

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011811zor.pdf

    carlitos (a3d259)

  153. but that presupposes you can prove you were born here…

    That’s right. That is the logical weakness in my argument, as far as I can tell.

    MD’s right that this is really strange, with a compliant press that ought to actually be trying to find out what Obama’s suspicious behavior is meant to hide.

    This seems like a great story, and people are completely justified to suspect something fishy because it is, actually, really fishy.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  154. “CERTIORARI DENIED 10-678 HOLLISTER, GREGORY S. V. SOETORO, BARRY, ET AL.”

    Isn’t it interesting that the two Justices appointed by Obama, who owe their current positions and whose appointments would be in jeopardy if he was found not to be eligible, chose not to recuse themselves from this process? Even in the face of a formal request to do so by the lawyer who filed the case.

    Doesn’t this fall afoul of the official code of conduct? Where are all the lawyers eagerly pursuing sanctions against these people who have made themselves above the law?

    Jay H Curtis (8f6541)

  155. Isn’t it interesting that the two Justices appointed by Obama, who owe their current positions and whose appointments would be in jeopardy if he was found not to be eligible,

    No, those appointments would not be in jeopardy, even if Obama was found not to be eligible for office. The only way any sitting justice can be removed from the court is by impeachment. So, there’s no conflict of interest of any kind.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  156. ______________________________________

    Good research. However, what you’re missing is that the five years of U.S. presence by the American citizen parent have to be after reaching the age of 14 years.

    Given Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro age at the time of the president’s birth, she could not mathematically have achieved those five years after reaching age 14.

    I’m too lazy to research this further, but the stipulation that a person — based on the facts of his birth — can meet the qualification to run for US president as long as only one (1) of his parents is an American citizen creates a big, wide gap to drive through. A lot of wiggle room.

    I previously was under the mistaken impression that the requirement was a person actually had to have been born — meaning physically — on US territory. So if that isn’t a deal breaker, then getting picky about how many years Obama’s mother — whose US citizenship is a given — actually resided in the US ain’t gonna come close to generating much serious controversy.

    So far, I have to proclaim: Case closed.

    Mark (411533)

  157. @Mark (#156)

    It’s possible for someone in that situation to become a U.S. citizen, but the U.S. parent has to petition for them to get an immigrant visa and then the child become a U.S. citizen when admitted to the U.S., skipping the whole “green card” stage of naturalization.

    They remain, however, naturalized citizens rather than citizens at birth.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  158. ____________________________________

    I do find it fascinating that Obama has spent $2MM+ in defending against the release of his original long form birth certificate

    His sneaky behavior is one reason I assumed the birther crowd had more legitimacy to their theory than they really have. But because the life of Obama is so full of nooks and crannies that illustrate the saying “where there is smoke, there must be fire,” it’s hard to know the real reason behind his gameplaying. In the case of his birth records, perhaps he’s secretive about them not because they would indicate he wasn’t born in Hawaii, but because they’d show his mother had, say, VD, or was described negatively by the nursing staff.

    Mark (411533)

  159. Mark conveys my idea very nicely. It’s true Obama’s acting like he’s got something to hide. But once you really grasp how shady this guy’s been about everything, it’s hard to make an accurate prediction about what he’s hiding or why. It could be anything.

    It’s a shame the press hasn’t pushed this the right way.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  160. After all, naturalized citizens can have that revoked or reversed whereas citizens from birth may only renounce their citizenship or otherwise expatriate themselves.

    Not so. Once a person is naturalised, his citizenship is just as strong as that of a born citizen, and it can’t be lost involuntarily.

    What you may be thinking of is that if a flaw is discovered in the naturalisation, e.g. the person lied on the application, or the oath wasn’t administered, or the person administering it wasn’t authorised to do so, then it was never valid in the first place. That’s how they undid Demjanjuk’s citizenship; he was never really a citizen, because he obtained it by false pretenses.

    Milhouse (54f1a0)

  161. @Milhouse (#160):

    You’re precisely right. What I had in mind was the revocation of fraudulent naturalizations.

    On the other hand, there are various expatriating acts that have the potential to cost any American their citizenship.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  162. You guys are nuts. Really. Cut it out.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  163. Consul-At-Arms,
    Per your comment on the 14th; funny the difference 2 and 30 years make…1866 to 1868 and 1868 to 1898.
    “not subject to any foreign power” to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and then, 3 decades later, an opinion that stated jus soli irrespective of the parents nationality was sufficient for citizenship. Again, prior to WKA, citizenship was nearly synonomous with NBC…not so much afterwards.
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  164. Fiddler writes: “Yet, if you look at the writings of the founders, study their source materials, review the associated supreme court cases, etc. (as I have) you’ll find that the only acceptable definition of nbc is one born in the country to two citizen parents.

    False, as anyone who bothered to read the case Wong Kim Ark would know.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  165. Several posters have stated that they beilieve of Obama’s birth in Hawaii because of the local newspaper “announcement”. Remember, newspapers get the information regarding births, deaths, police incidents and other official noticies from the local public agencies themselves. When Obama’s mother filed the Certificate of Birth, the agency listed it and that notice was picked-up by the newspaper. This is how newspapers get local information from public agencies. Doesn’t mean the newspaper got it from a hospital because they must protect privacy and don’t provide public information. Also, look up the distinction between being a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen”. Simply born in the US does NOT make you “natural-born”. That’s why McCain, though not born in the US, was a “natural-born citizen”. It’s based on your father’s citizenship.

    HMS (3e3913)

  166. Hey, are you morons conspiracy nuts “just asking questions?” Cool.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  167. HMS, in the era in question, hospitals did not have a obligation to protect “privacy” as you seem to believe.

    HMS, your summation of the legal definition of “natural born” is simply false.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  168. HMS, no, your citizenship is not always based on your father’s citizenship. In fact, for the vast majority of citizens, their father doesn’t enter into it whatsoever. Just because you can get citizenship based on who your father is does not invalidate the long held constitutional fact that your birth in this country does make you a natural born citizen.

    I don’t understand why this is so complicated. We’ve got people who say, even if Obama was born here, and popularly elected, we should concoct some ridiculous legal theory about his father, to cancel the vote.

    You people who argue that way are no friend of the republic, plain and simple. We elected the douchebag, fair and square, even if he’s a jackass with his private details. The election system itself is more important than any one president.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  169. It’s curious why our president is so secretive about the substantive details of his past

    If there’s nothing to hide, why is it hidden?

    I concede obama was born in Hawaii. But he is not American, not in the way I want my president to be.

    Jones (72b0ed)

  170. From my blog;
    Civil Rights Act of 1866- “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States…”
    and,
    The Fourteenth Amendment (1868)- “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” NOTE: Senator Jacob Howard stated May 30, 1866 “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.” AND Congressman John Bingham “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or the color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.”
    -Noz

    Pieter Nosworthy (91027e)

  171. On the other hand, there are various expatriating acts that have the potential to cost any American their citizenship.

    Not really. The acts themselves do nothing; the law which lists them, and calls them “expatriating acts”, is unconstitutional and void. Their only “potential” is that, absent other evidence to the contrary, the State Dept is entitled to infer from these acts that the person intended to voluntarily renounce his citizenship. But that’s only a guess, and if the person presents evidence that that was not his intent, he keeps his citizenship.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  172. @Milhouse (#172):

    Aw, no far listening to lawyers.

    Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b)

  173. It seems like the Governor needs to talk to the public records people in Hawaii who issued a press release at the end of October 2008 stating that they had seen Obama’s original birth certificate. Were they lying or did it disappear? Abercrombie should just ask the people who issued the press release as a start to stop looking so clueless.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  174. That is a very good point, Daleyrocks.

    They said they saw this document. Now they say they couldn’t have.

    Someone needs to explain that. Probably just corrupt bureaucrats protecting Obama. What’s sad is that they would actually try to cover up something like that, but indeed, a lot of people would tear the Constitution to shreds for Obama.

    Doesn’t mean anything to the ultimate issue, but you’ve found a big problem.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  175. “No, those appointments would not be in jeopardy, even if Obama was found not to be eligible for office. The only way any sitting justice can be removed from the court is by impeachment. So, there’s no conflict of interest of any kind.”

    Comment by Some chump — 1/20/2011 @ 3:46 pm

    I would love to hear how any act he took as President could be viewed as lawful. Please explain this to me? Possibly if Biden were to re-sign all the laws and executive orders that Obama had signed while he fraudulently occupied the office?

    But what about all the appointments, czars, etc? Would these even be legal if he was never eligible? If so, what is the legal basis for this?

    Jay H Curtis (8f6541)

  176. Jay Curtis, because once Congress certified the election, Obama was and is President. He can’t be removed except by impeachment after that.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  177. Will the north star (polaris) always be the north star?

    KVChris (c4f9a7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9029 secs.