Birthers and the paranoid center
[Posted by Karl]
CNN released a poll showing 27% of Americans — and 41% of Republicans — say Pres. Obama was probably or definitely not born in the United States. This prompted the usual hand-wringing from some of the usual hand-wringers. The poll — or the persistence of such polls — may say more about the media and certain members of the chattering classes than it says about “birthers.”
The results of such polls are likely overstated. As Scoop Daily explained when the dKos/R2K birther poll was news:
[S]orry to rain on the parade — this poll isn’t such a good indicator of that phenomenon, from a survey research perspective. In fact its descriptive value of birtherism is nearly zero.
Remember, most people in the U.S. have probably never heard of this particular conspiracy theory (Lou Dobbs’s radio audience doesn’t exactly rival the NFL). I doubt 90% of the American population has ever given so much as a thought to Obama’s birth certificate, and for good reason. This is a tiny, lunatic fringe belief.
But if most people have never heard of the topic at hand, how do they answer questions about it? Public opinion research has shown consistently that survey takers almost never skip questions no matter how uninformed they are (and whether or not an option to say “I don’t know” is presented). As a rule, respondents just guess, using whatever contextual clues are available to them. They will reduce the question to analogies and terms they can relate to, which in survey research are called heuristics. So in this instance, a respondent unfamiliar with birtherism will parse the question roughly like:
Do you think Barack Obama (something basic to his character)?
And they will answer the question based on that heuristic. Now most people, regardless of their opinions of Obama politically, will probably grant at least that he’s a carbon-based lifeform with a verifiable lifestory, intellect, and conscience; but there’s a small hard core of conservatives who mistrust the President implicitly, and will either respond reflexively in the negative to anything whatsoever that involves him, or will consciously and forcefully express doubt about any available element of his humanity and honesty. (This is not dissimilar to the way many of us on the left readily argued that George W. Bush was both a coked-out fratboy moron and a nefarious scheming dictator-in-waiting, simultaneously.) Of course this group of snarling partisans is concentrated overwhelmingly in the Republican Party and in the areas where extreme to-the-bone conservatism is most socially acceptible, i.e. the South. That’s the source of these disproportionate “Not sure” and “No” responses.
It has almost nothing, then, to do with birtherism specifically. There’s no material difference between asking people “Do you think Obama was born in the U.S.?” and asking “Do you think Obama tips 15% and likes adorable baby animals?” Or perhaps “Do you think Obama is a werewolf?” You will get comparable results no matter what, perhaps minus the tiny proportion that actually knows and believes the birther theory (and I conjecture that those people would immediately be “werewolfers” too, given the opportunity).
Other examples would be the 2007 Rasmussen poll showing 35% of Democrats were “Truthers,” or the PPP poll showing similar numbers of Republicans and Dems would label Obama or Bush, respectively, as the Anti-Christ. Brendan Nyhan tends to reject heuristics as an explanation, and favors the theory that partisans double down when confronted with contrary information, but the studies cited in his academic paper of the subject produced mixed results. To the extent that the “backfire” theory is in play, it would seem more applicable to truthers (given the long and public investigation into the government’s pre-9/11 failures) than to the birth certificate question. As Steve Benen observes:
For what it’s worth, the reason poll results like these don’t force me into unreachable despair is that I’m not convinced those who are wrong necessarily understand the constitutional implications. For some of those who question the president’s birthplace, it may not matter whether Obama is a natural-born citizen (reality) or a naturalized citizen (fiction). For all I know, some folks find the whole bogus idea charming: “Isn’t America great? Someone can be born in another country, work hard, and eventually become president of the United States.”
Just so (CNN’s poll question gives no context, either). Accordingly, the more interesting question raised by such polls is why people keep conducting them.
In the case of birther polls, the answer is that it feeds the beliefs and biases of the paranoid center that dominates the establishment media. Based on the principles just mentioned, media outlets and bloggers fretting over birthers and exaggerating their numbers are either ignorant of the heuristics problem and (ironically) fill in their negative attitudes about the Right, or (per Nyhan) they know about the heuristics problem and are simply doubling down on their anti-Right bias.
–Karl
Not being a statistcian, I wonder. Would the answers likely be different if there were an option for ” I don’t know” ? I note that there is a “no opinion” , but, suspect that there are few people whom find the ” no opinion” answer accurate. Or, maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree.
Edward Lunny (ca0e48) — 8/5/2010 @ 2:24 pmStupid question, really deserves that kind of response,
ian cormac (6718a9) — 8/5/2010 @ 2:27 pm(This is not dissimilar to the way many of us on the left readily argued that George W. Bush was both a coked-out fratboy moron and a nefarious scheming dictator-in-waiting, simultaneously.)
Heh.
Takes one to know one.
scrubone (8bf6fb) — 8/5/2010 @ 2:32 pmEdward Lunny,
Read the quote from Scoop Daily again — Public opinion research has shown consistently that survey takers almost never skip questions no matter how uninformed they are (and whether or not an option to say “I don’t know” is presented).
Karl (b04433) — 8/5/2010 @ 2:39 pmKarl – Is this a CNN survey in which the sample was skewed to the right for a change?
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/5/2010 @ 2:46 pm5
yep
EricPWJohnson (0f0a26) — 8/5/2010 @ 2:57 pmIn other news – Boxers slipping well below 50 heading to 40%
Going… going…
EricPWJohnson (0f0a26) — 8/5/2010 @ 2:59 pmSo something north of 10% believe this theory, probably all the efforts he has done fighting the release of the document, about a million dollars in legal fees, had something to do with it
ian cormac (6718a9) — 8/5/2010 @ 3:04 pmI hope so. Although having the likes of Rush Limbaugh fan the birther flames as we was doing yesterday doesn’t exactly do much to keep the issue on the fringe.
Sean P (4fde41) — 8/5/2010 @ 3:05 pmSean P
Exactly how was Rush fanning the flames Obama himself lit by suing every candidate for legal records in every race he has been in including McCain
How EXACTLY is Rush fanning a flame lit by Obama?
EricPWJohnson (0f0a26) — 8/5/2010 @ 3:10 pmdaleyrocks,
Interviews with 1,018 adult Americans,including 335 Democrats, 398 Independents, and 285 Republicans.
—
Sean P,
Limbaugh did a one-liner yesterday. In the past, he’s referred to birthers as “wackos.”
Karl (b04433) — 8/5/2010 @ 3:13 pmI’m sure Obama was born in this country. The newspaper article announcing his birth settled it for me. But why won’t he release the long form? So little is known about the past of this president. Given his refusal to make many personal documents public ( transcripts, etc ), it is inevitable that some people will assume there must be a reason he won’t release it. I agree with #7.
Eric K (2fe88e) — 8/5/2010 @ 3:23 pmKarl – this was prolly racist, so consider yourself denounced. Off topic, but did you see Weigel’s pre-emptive RACIST column at Salon?
JD (f89659) — 8/5/2010 @ 3:25 pmLet’s test it.
Give a survey asking people if Obama is a molester, or Obama is a space alien, or any othjer ridiculous notion. If you’re right then you should get similar number of responses regardless of the question. If not … well, then maybe you should consider it possible that that many Conservatives really do specifically believe he is not a citizen.
libarbarian (90bd00) — 8/5/2010 @ 3:26 pmJD
Did you vote in the Dem primary?
EricPWJohnson (0f0a26) — 8/5/2010 @ 3:28 pm47% of all Republicans?
I really doubt that one… seems way high to me… I live in a Democrat bubble with very few Republicans around, but none of my Republican friends think that Obama was born overseas.
SteveG (f6fb69) — 8/5/2010 @ 3:29 pmI realize that anecdotal evidence… well, isn’t evidence but this one smells bad to me.
Maybe they did their poll using that crazy birther lady’s mailing list
Perhaps another factor contributing to the mis-perception that Obama was born outside the country is the fact that he did live in Indonesia for a few years as a child. Add in that with his Kenyan father and his exotic name and it is no wonder that some people get the wrong idea. Not to mention the fact that Obama doesn’t seem to particularly like America. [OK, that last part was just a snarky joke, folks.]
JVW (a52530) — 8/5/2010 @ 3:30 pmSuppose, for supposin’s sake, that zero really is not eligible.
Richard Aubrey (2b1251) — 8/5/2010 @ 4:02 pmWhat do we expect those who defended him and sneered at the birthers to do?
My guess is to say, “So what? Constitution, shmonstitution.”
Also, “yeah, that’s right. but it’s too late, chump. Deal.”
my theory, fwiw, is that this comes from the desire to find an easy way out of this Obama nightmare.
Of course then we would have… President Biden.
That’s why Biden’s reported secret service code name is “Assassination Insurance.”
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (f97997) — 8/5/2010 @ 4:13 pmJD,
Actually, Weigel did two at Slate on his frist day. I assume you mean the one where he made up an attack ad to rehash the Willie Horton story (w/o mentioning Al Gore), but he also did a piece where he called black Tea Partiers a joke (and asked them about birthers, of course).
Karl (12dcea) — 8/5/2010 @ 4:32 pmExcept Rangel and Waters are about money and privilege, not race
ian cormac (6718a9) — 8/5/2010 @ 4:36 pmObama was born in Hawaii, the reason he’s concealing his birth certificate is that it accurately list his father as Frank Marshall Davis.
When Stanley Ann Dunham got pregnant, Davis was already married, so she needed a black husband quick. Barack Obama Sr was a student who needed a green card, so a bargain was struck. He married her and got permanent residence, she got the cover she needed, and both went their separate ways.
ropelight (f9bf6c) — 8/5/2010 @ 4:37 pmYes, Karl. It was puke inducing.
EPWJ – did you take your anti-psychotuc medication today?
JD (3f6928) — 8/5/2010 @ 4:40 pmI’d like to see a companion question with that one:
Does it matter?
Given Obama’s exotic name and ancestry, there are probably a lot of Obama supporters who think he was born out of the U.S.
Rich Rostrom (42578d) — 8/5/2010 @ 4:49 pmDU reports that 9-11% of Americans think Elvis is still alive (2002).
AD - RtR/OS! (f9156e) — 8/5/2010 @ 4:51 pmTruthers, Birthers, Roswellians: That’s the beauty of America, we’ve got room for a lot of different kooks.
I mean, if you want to see krazy, just look at the majority party in the House of Representatives.
Comment by ropelight — 8/5/2010 @ 4:37 pm
Works for me!
AD - RtR/OS! (f9156e) — 8/5/2010 @ 4:51 pmIt is aleays interesting to watch the MFM prattle on about Birthers, when they so studiously avoided the significantly larger groups of leftist Twoofers, the LIHOPs and MIHOPs.
JD (3f6928) — 8/5/2010 @ 5:00 pm????
AD - RtR/OS! (f9156e) — 8/5/2010 @ 5:04 pmToo many acronyms.
Let it happen on purpose, made it happen on purpose
ian cormac (6718a9) — 8/5/2010 @ 5:06 pmThanks for the translation ian.
AD - RtR/OS! (f9156e) — 8/5/2010 @ 5:12 pm(rhetorical question) Why would I listen to the opinion of any of them?
Instead of being out and about, those people should be under close supervision to ensure that they do all their coloring within the lines.
Eric: On Limbaugh’s show yesterday he mentioned how todays was “supposedly” Obama’s birthday but we can’t know for sure because he hasn’t provided proof. The first time I thought he might be making some kind of inside joke, but then he repeated at least three times before I shut him off.
Sean P (4fde41) — 8/5/2010 @ 5:19 pmI know that’s all flavors or crazy, AD, it’s a BS question that deserves little response
ian cormac (6718a9) — 8/5/2010 @ 5:35 pmThe left’s equivalent to the Birthers are not the Truthers, but the TANGers.
You remember how it was the accepted wisdom on the left that Bush engaged in all sorts of cheating in getting into, and out of, the Texas Air National Guard. The fact that zero evidence existed to support this theory never even slowed them down.
The Truthers are a much more creepy and deranged bunch.
Subotai (1075f6) — 8/5/2010 @ 6:04 pmNBC pulls Olbermann from Football Night In America!
Maybe I can watch the broadcast again now.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/5/2010 @ 7:48 pmdaleyrocks – That is some of the best news I have heard all day.
JD (3dc31c) — 8/5/2010 @ 8:07 pmI think it was Mark Steyn, that once pondered what kind of mindset would motivate 9/11 denialists, if it were true, they would never ever voice such a view, for fear of real repercussions
ian cormac (6718a9) — 8/5/2010 @ 8:14 pmThe conspiracy theorists have always been a factor in this country, going back to our pre – Revolutionary days. The fact that Lincoln’s assassination was in fact a conspiracy didn’t help matters for the future.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 8/5/2010 @ 8:32 pmdaleyrocks, that’s awesome! I understood why they pulled Rush, even though the micro reason was crap. People just don’t need to think about politics when they watch football, and Olbermann has done all he can to demonize even extremely moderate Republicans and Tea Partiers.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/5/2010 @ 8:38 pmThe left’s equivalent to the Birthers are not the Truthers, but the TANGers….The fact that zero evidence existed to support this theory never even slowed them down.
The Truthers are a much more creepy and deranged bunch.
If the leftists happily suspend disbelief based on assumptions that rest on nothing, compared with the ambiguity and contradictions swirling around Obama, I’d say the conspiracy club on the left is far more creepy and deranged — if not flat-out stupid — than the conspiracy club on the right.
Mark (411533) — 8/5/2010 @ 8:48 pmWell the Journolist proved Sullivan wasn’t the only wacko in the bunch
ian cormac (6718a9) — 8/5/2010 @ 8:50 pmThat was very disturbing. I realize that chatter was before Bristol’s actual pregnancy proved she couldn’t be Trig’s mother (and thus, there was no plausible conspiracy). But still. That’s some nasty crap. Trig conspirators are way, way, way worse than birthers.
An interesting facet of that Journolist saga was how the journalists resorted to a bunch of scientific claims to prove how it was more likely a woman like Bristol would have a Down Syndrome child than Sarah having any child. The ‘science’ was laughably wrong, much like a lot of other fake-science claims. A very healthy Sarah aged mother of several children, pre menopausal, sexually active, is very probably to become pregnant unless birth control is used, but Bristol’s odds of a Down Syndrome child were 1 in 1200. Yet these ‘experts’ say the science forced them to say something fishy was going on.
When someone wants to shut down a drill or sell a GM car, or spend $150,000 per job, it’s always some completely wrong ‘scientific’ analysis, and those who actually think things through are treated like morons. Like the Tea Party… the group that notes the government needs to spend only what it can afford, is treated like redneck morons even though their claims are solid as a rock.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/5/2010 @ 9:05 pmEven making the assumption that Obama was born in the US thereby making him a native-born citizen, there is no way in hell Obama can ever be natural-born. Not with a Kenyan father never being a US citizen he can’t. And that is the issue, the natural-born status of Obama. Historically, the definition of ‘natural-born’ has never been addressed by the courts, yet being a natural-born citizen is a requirement for only two specific jobs in the US, the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency. A natural-born citizen is different from a native-born citizen is different from a naturalized citizen, as laid out in the Constitution. While all are citizens, not all are natural-born. It is a distinction with a difference. And Obama fails in that distinction.
If questioning Obama’s natural-born status makes me a Birther, then so be it.
RickZ (7c3f16) — 8/5/2010 @ 9:49 pmI think Obama told Occidental he was born in Kenya just to get some kind of preference or grants. Why else are they afraid to release his records?
He probably was born in Hawaii. But let’s face it, he still hates America.
Arizona Bob (e8af2b) — 8/5/2010 @ 9:54 pmThat seems unlikely, but then again, Aulaqi did the same thing, despite having been born in New Mexico
ian cormac (6718a9) — 8/5/2010 @ 10:06 pmRickZ, if he was born on USA soil, he’s a natural born citizen. Even if his father was God, which some people probably believe.
There is nothing laid out in the constitution saying that ‘natural born’ has something to do with whether or not someone’s father wasn’t a citizen. Until Hillary’s movement floated this question about Obama, just about everyone thought this requirement meant born in the USA.
Regardless, we both know that the rubber meets the road in the Supreme Court. They would read around any problem conceivable to avoid changing the popular result of this election, and it’s not like they’d have to overturn anything to do so.
Arizona Bob is right. They are covering something up, acting guilty, and naturally a lot of people are reading that as something truly awful (Obama being ineligible for the presidency would amount to one of the most egregious crimes against this country ever committed).
You know you’re essentially filling in a blank left in the constitution to inform the definition of ‘natural born’. The Supreme Court hasn’t had a chance to do that themselves, but we they won’t do so to say someone born in Hawaii and popularly elected cannot be President. And it would be absolutely awful if they were to do that.
We have to find a better way to beat Obama. Such as showing people Obama’s record of broken promises, bankrupting the country, and ineffective leadership. And Bob’s ‘he hates America’ point seems pretty easy to show, too. Oh, and picking a great nominee would help.
I don’t mean to be rude to you, but when you add up what you appear to be asking for, it doesn’t sound practical or even good.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/5/2010 @ 10:11 pmDustin,
You are wrong. The Constitution lists three classes of citizenship, but only natural-born can be President. Many people make the mistake that native-born = natural-born. That is absolutely not what the Founders envisioned.
There was an acceptance or convention as to what natural-born meant at the time; that meaning has been lost and papered over. The reason for natural-born status for the Presidency is the Founders feared dual loyalties in the personage of a sitting president. We see that dual loyalty issue with Obama. It is my understanding that to be a natural-born citizen, you must be born in the US, or its territories, to parents who were both US citizens at the time of one’s birth. To be a native-born citizen, or an anchor baby, one only has to be born here. Naturalized citizens actually seek out and apply for citizenship. But neither of the latter two classes of citizen are Constitutionally allowed to be President.
RickZ (7c3f16) — 8/5/2010 @ 11:13 pm“. It is my understanding that to be a natural-born citizen, you must be born in the US, or its territories, to parents who were both US citizens at the time of one’s birth. To be a native-born citizen, or an anchor baby, one only has to be born here. ”
I don’t see this in the constitution.
Where is it?
I read this as saying someone has to be a citizen when they are born, as they call it, a citizen naturally, if they weren’t a citizen when the constitution was ratified. You say it must be something else. Why isn’t that something else explained?
Remember no mere congressional law on citizenship can have any impact on the constitutional eligibility to be president. Only an actual constitutional amendment can change the constitutional eligibility. And the eligibility simply says ‘natural born citizen.’
You say I’m wrong. I’m not sure about what.
Am I wrong that the Supreme Court would not interpret (for the first time) this section of the constitution in a way that said a man who won an election and was born in the USA is no longer the president?
Am I wrong to claim that it would be bad for our country if such a thing happened?
Am I wrong that your argument is impractical? What good can come of taking the winner of the election, who was born here, and saying he isn’t eligible because, as you claim, he’s merely an anchor baby?
You’re not making clear what law shows your definition has informed the meaning of the constitution, but if that law isn’t an amendment to the constitution, it probably wouldn’t matter anyway.
Regardless, if a man is born a citizen, and wins the general election, it would simply be horrible for that person to be removed from office because of novel legal ruling. It simply won’t happen, and it shouldn’t happen.
What do you think this means? Do you understand that the two sections I just cited are the supreme law of this country, and absolutely nothing can amend it aside from a constitutional amendment (or Justice Kennedy having a bad day)?
You’re saying ‘natural born citizen’ doesn’t mean someone born a citizen. Natural born, to me, is a distinction from the ‘alive at the time of the ratification’ type. I think you should sincerely reevaluate your ideas. Not just because it’s bad for the cause, but because I don’t think you’re being reasonable.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/5/2010 @ 11:33 pmbtw, I’m not trying to call you a kook or crazy. I’m trying to change your mind. If that’s possible, I think you can see that the law makes Obama a citizen upon birth in Hawaii. Whether this is natural or not is a silly debate, but I’m sure it was natural.
You say the requirement is for loyalty. Indeed, that’s what it’s about. Obama fails to live up to the loyal and lifelong American spirit of the citizenship requirement, in that he lived abroad and sometimes appears to have a real problem with what America is. He shouldn’t have been elected. But he was, and it was fair, and he meets the plain eligibility requirements.
I can only imagine how this country would tear itself apart, thousands dead, if the Court said ‘natural born means you can’t be an anchor baby.’ That’s why I say what you’re arguing for isn’t even good. Do you really want Obama kicked out on these grounds? Doesn’t that just seem wrong?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/5/2010 @ 11:47 pm“#41 If questioning Obama’s natural-born status makes me a Birther, then so be it.”
As has been pointed out a number of times, Obama’s father’s lack of US citizenship combined with his mother’s youth, and the law at the time; made it impossible for her to pass her citizenship on to him even were he born in the US. Interestingly enough, though his mother could not pass her cotizenship on to him, he could still claim to be a natural born citizen on the basis of “birthright citizenship”. Of course, the legal arguments should the issue come to court, could destroy the whole concept of “Birthright citizenship”. After all, if I understand correctly and if we push that concept to it’s limits; that would mean that a child born of illegal parents within the US, and then taken back to their native country, would be eligible to run for POTUS 35 years later having never since stepped foot in the US.
Mike Giles (980220) — 8/6/2010 @ 5:38 ama child born of illegal parents within the US, and then taken back to their native country, would be eligible to run for POTUS 35 years later having never since stepped foot in the US.
Not really.
“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.“
Subotai (c9d48b) — 8/6/2010 @ 6:42 amThere is one difference between Birthers and Truthers. Obama has not consented to the release of the original certificate instead of the Certificate of Live Birth. This is a concrete fact, as opposed to completely unsubstantiated claims which form the Truther movement. Without that concrete fact, there is no Birther movement. It’s hard to understand what Obama’s motive is, but one must assume there is some motive. I’ve heard there is more info on the original.
That’s not a defense of the looniness of the Birthers but at least there is something that needs to be explained and so far has no clear explanation.
Gerald A (138c50) — 8/6/2010 @ 8:05 amIt is absolutely gobsmacking to me how you right wing fanatics are willing to make excuses for the deranged birthers in your mist. The birther movement is a poison, and if you indulge it it will spread to the entire society and poison all rational thought with wild conspirational fantasies.
Now, if you’ll excuse me I hear Sarah Palin’s uterus talking to me. She better tell me the truth this time…
Andrew Sullivan (4fde41) — 8/6/2010 @ 8:24 amThis isn’t in the Constitution. You can’t change the Constitution without a Constitutional Amendment.
The 14th Amendment says that anyone born in the USA is a US Citizen. The Eligibility section says that anyone born a citizen, naturally, or a citizen at the time of the ratification, is eligible.
This is cut and dry, if you believe he was born in Hawaii, anyway.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/6/2010 @ 8:26 amThe Dreams of Obama’s father weren’t African dreams, they were Frank’s Chicago dreams of the destruction of the financial foundations of the Republic, dreams of fundamental transformation, dreams of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Frank passed his dreams to his son, and Frank’s son is busy about his father’s work, making those dreams into our reality.
He’s already more than half-way completed the process of turning the American Dream into his father’s Marxist nightmare.
ropelight (7770e7) — 8/6/2010 @ 8:43 am“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ”
do you find yourself shaking you head at this? About to claim that ‘in your understanding’ some babble about the laws of the 1960s and Obama’s mom being too young to pass citizenship?
that’s because you are an enemy of the constitution, free elections, and a traitor. Obama’s the worst president we’ve ever had. Worse than Harding and Wilson and Carter and Nixon. But he was the winner of the election, and he was a citizen when he was born no matter what pretend law you think trumps our constitution.
It’s obvious he’s hiding a lot of things about his past and going to extreme lengths to hide some documentation. He’s acting like a creep. It’s not possible to make an intelligent argument about it, because now this reeks of trying to tear up the constitution and deny a fair election. And that’s wrong.
Frankly, I understand. Obama’s pals are psycho traitors like Rev Wright and Bill Ayers. Even his wife isn’t proud of this nation, and his kids were sent to Wright for brainwashing sermons about the Jews inventing AIDS. These are not good people, and if you were going to pick people who would go along with such a conspiracy, these are the right sort.
but there is strong evidence he was born in Hawaii that is difficult to explain if he were not, and since he was born in Hawaii, he was eligible.
Aren’t you glad? I’m glad. I would be very sad for to see my country tear itself apart if Obama were thrown out. It would be much worse than even Obama’s terrible policies.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/6/2010 @ 9:12 amWhy haven’t they done a poll asking whether or not Obama is a Natural Born Citizen? The Kenya thing is a red herring to distract from the fact that Obama isn’t Constitutionally eligible to serve as POTUS.
j curtis (64f417) — 8/6/2010 @ 9:15 amObama’s the worst president we’ve ever had
I’ll ask you the same question I asked my liberal friends when they were saying that about Bush:
how can you possibly justify saying anyone is a worse president than James Buchanan?
aphrael (73ebe9) — 8/6/2010 @ 9:15 amOr Woodrow Wilson, alpharel, he’s my nomination.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/6/2010 @ 9:18 amBirthers invent legal principles that are not there … Truthers invent physics that are not there.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/6/2010 @ 9:19 amThere’s a difference between inaction and malpractice that’s the Buchanan/wilson dichotomy
ian cormac (e4f5e5) — 8/6/2010 @ 9:19 amj curtis, what Section of the constitution do you think provides any justification for saying a person born in the USA is not a natural born citizen? If your argument is based on something other than the Constitution, you are saying the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. The United States IS the Constitution. When you oppose the Constitution, you are opposing your country, too. I realize this means I am expressing a major problem with some Supreme Court jurists and their rewrites over time.
Natural born citizen means what it says. He was born a citizen (14th Amendment). The word natural doesn’t change anything, but it was obviously a natural birth, too. The idea that ‘natural’ means this convoluted insanity about his mom being too young to ‘pass citizenship’ despite the obvious meaning of the 14th amendment is simply a betrayal of our country.
————-
Aphrael, Buchanan failed to bridge the gap of two groups of people who were about to kill lots of eachother. I don’t think the problem was Buchanan, though. The civil war was not his personal fault. It was the result of a massive divide in our country. What could Buchanan have done to avert the war? At best he may have been able to delay it more (when the real problem was that it was waiting too long).
Was he trying to bankrupt our nation and undermine our financial system so as to reform us along the lines of Ayers or Wright or many other of Obama’s closest friends? I know I probably sound silly to you, but I think this is a good explanation for Obsma’s behavior.
However, I also want to note that Obama has brought this country closer to some kind of horrible conflict that I thought ever possible again. Your comparison to Buchanan actually has some use.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/6/2010 @ 9:31 amWilson is worse than Buchanan to me too. I guess it’s a matter of intent. I suspect Obama is much more like Wilson, too.
It’s hard to really compare them, and it’s not a contest. Obama’s in that league with Wilson. I don’t but Buchanan there, but the results of Buchanan’s presidency, a bloody civil war, would be tough to beat. It’s nice to think the civil war could have been avoided, but I think that was a tall order.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/6/2010 @ 9:35 amI don’t think I’d blame Obama per se for that; I think the fight – whether you view it as a fight between liberals and conservatives, court and country, urban and rural, etc – has been coming for decades, as there really do seem to be two completely different social/political cultures living side by side and operating from completely different assumptions. That is to say, I think Obama is a lightning rod, not a cause.
Similarly, I think the economic crisis is the result of long-term systemic changes to the economy, not specific policies of either the Bush or Obama administrations.
But according to the economist Edmund Phelps, the innovative potential of the U.S. economy looks limited today. In a recent Harvard Business Review article, he and his co-author, Leo Tilman, argue that dynamism in the U.S. has actually been in decline for a decade; with the housing bubble fueling easy (but unsustainable) growth for much of that time, we just didn’t notice. Phelps and Tilman finger several culprits: a patent system that’s become stifling; an increasingly myopic focus among public companies on quarterly results, rather than long-term value creation; and, not least, a financial industry that for a generation has focused its talent and resources not on funding business innovation, but on proprietary trading, regulatory arbitrage, and arcane financial engineering. None of these problems is likely to disappear quickly. Phelps, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on the “natural” rate of unemployment, believes that until they do disappear, the new floor for unemployment is likely to be between 6.5 percent and 7.5 percent, even once “recovery” is complete.
aphrael (73ebe9) — 8/6/2010 @ 9:45 amEh… i don’t want to comment again, but Aphrael deserves more acknowledgment of his point. It’s hyperbole to call Obama the worst president when I’m basing much of that on my guesses as to what he’s trying to accomplish and his presidency isn’t over. It’s true that these are not America’s darkest days by a long shot, and he’s caught me red handed with a case of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
I simply meant that I am not defending his eligibility because I actually like this presidency. I would trade him for Buchanan, Carter, Nixon or a random phone book selection. But I am loyal to the Constitution and our free elections.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/6/2010 @ 9:47 amIt’s easy to admit you’re right to great extent, but there’s an additional issue.
What is Obama doing? He’s spending radically more money than Bush or anyone else ever has, and I think it’s a Cloward Piven strategy. A lot of his behavior seems deliberately meant to reduce this nation’s stature, and I also think he’s attempting to cripple the gulf coast economy.
He means to do this for some greater good of eventual government control and thereby a more fair society.
We’re talking about someone who actually taught Alinsky tactics to students. He is inarguably a believer in this kind of deception and government takeover, and that appears to be why he’s doing the things he’s doing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/6/2010 @ 9:51 amWhat is Obama hiding and why?
Obama’s hidden records: Why would he hide every scrap of his past history? Why are these docs off-limits?
1 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent’s marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records (Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21 Punahou grade school records
22 Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
23 Page 11 of Stanley Ann Dunham’s divorce decree.
24 Why isn’t Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?
25 Why isn’t Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?
Juan (d4460e) — 8/6/2010 @ 10:28 amYeah, most of that stuff ought to be disclosed. Or at least it’s newsworthy and I’d like to see it. Oh the other hand, some of that stuff is stupid to request. You want his grade school records? You want to dig into his mother’s divorce?
I don’t have any of my grade school records. Do you really think that’s important?
When you are making a great argument, but then throw in some unreasonable demands, you undermine yourself.
And this doesn’t change the fact that he’s eligible. And unless you can refute the two sections of the Constitution I have quoted with something in the Constitution, I think that aspect of this conversation is settled for all reasonable folks.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/6/2010 @ 10:36 amI don’t have any of my grade school records. Do you really think that’s important?
Nor do I. And I think it’s entirely possible that the schools I attended no longer have them, either; it’s been almost 20 years, after all, and I don’t expect them to store these things indefinitely.
So while I agree that a lot of these things should be disclosed, in this particular case I would think it’s possible that they simply can’t be disclosed as nobody has them.
aphrael (73ebe9) — 8/6/2010 @ 10:38 amSimilarly, Snopes seems to think that (a) Obama never wrote an undergraduate thesis, and (b) what he did write – a seminar paper – has been lost because neither he nor Columbia kept a copy of it.
I don’t find this implausible; I’ve kept most, but not all, of my undergraduate papers, but it’s not impossible that I could lose them in a move, and certainly UCSC wouldn’t have kept them.
aphrael (73ebe9) — 8/6/2010 @ 10:43 amLOL, millions of college grads these days would say ‘what the hell is an undergraduate thesis?’
I know people with B.A.s and B.S.s who have never written a paper longer than 5 pages. Ever. Even though writing is drastically easier to do today.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/6/2010 @ 10:47 amI didn’t have to write a thesis to graduate. I met the equivalent requirement by taking a seminar course and writing a seminar paper. (IIRC it was on the likely result of Denmark’s vote on the Maastricht treaty, but it’s been a long time, and I don’t recall exactlt, and am not willing to dig it out right now).
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/6/2010 @ 11:15 am#66, Dustin, how about making an effort to be fair to Juan. His comment listed documents Obama is refusing to reveal, and he makes no overt “demand” for any of them as you so brazenly assert.
Dustin, you’re so intent on defending your opinion that you mischaracterize Juan’s comment, put words in his mouth he didn’t write, and then attack him for your own fraud. If anyone has undermined himself in that exchange, it’s you.
ropelight (7770e7) — 8/6/2010 @ 12:38 pm“Natural born citizen” is directly derived from “natural born subject”, which is a term Blackstone defines exactly. It means anyone born under the king’s jurisdiction, i.e. under the protection of his laws. When you were born, whose laws kept you safe? For almost everyone, that would be the king of whatever country your mother was in at the time. There are some exceptions, e.g. “the king’s embassadors”. While they are physically in whatever country they’ve been sent to, they remain legally under their own king’s protection and jurisdiction, and so their foreign-born children are natural-born citizens of their king, not of the foreign king to whose court they have been appointed.
This same rule is in the 14th amendment too. Any child born in the USA and under its jurisdiction is a US citizen, and that italicised phrase is universally understood as excluding the children of foreign ambassadors, who are born in the USA but not under its jurisdiction.
What does that mean for us? It means that if Obama was born in Kenya (or Canada), then he’s not a natural-born US citizen, even though he was a citizen at birth by virtue of a statute that grants US citizenship to the foreign-born children of US citizens. McCain, on the other hand, even if the Canal Zone were not US territory at the time of his birth, is a natural-born citizen because he was born on a US military base, to a US serviceman stationed abroad. The same would be true of a child born today on a US base in Germany, to a serviceman posted there. The child was born under the protection of US laws, not foreign ones, and so he is a natural-born US citizen.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/6/2010 @ 12:49 pmhow can you possibly justify saying anyone is a worse president than James Buchanan?
Oh, I don’t know – the more that time passes the worse Carter looks, if that was even possible. And you have to give some serious props to Woodrow Wilson – with a special nod to his wife, who effectively ran the WH in secret after his stroke. That kind of secrecy makes Nixon look almost childlike by comparison, and pretty much makes a conspiracy of silence a de facto statement.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 8/6/2010 @ 1:57 pmObama’s hidden records: Why would he hide every scrap of his past history? Why are these docs off-limits?
There is so much ambiguity and peculiar contradictions related to Obama’s history, that I don’t shrug off the so-called Birther crowd. Even more so when some of the biggest skeptics towards the Birthers are the same people who happily accepted the supposedly authentic (ha!) documents dug up by CBS News that cast Bush in a bad light.
Beyond that, there is a high percentage of Americans who continue to have a ridiculous, Oliver-Stone-level of suspicion about the findings of the Warren Commission on Lee Harvey Oswald and the Kennedy assassination. I know my watching an excellent Nova science documentary over 10 years ago about that controversy totally slammed shut any doubts I might have once had.
Mark (411533) — 8/6/2010 @ 2:15 pmIs that Juan the same Juan that used to comment here but has not been here in quite a while?
JD (3dc31c) — 8/6/2010 @ 2:31 pmMark, the question of the Kennedy assassination isn’t quite as settled as Nova made it out to be. The following is from Wikipedia.
The Warren Commission’s conclusions were “…initially met with support among the American public; however, polls conducted from 1966 to 2004 concluded approximately 80% of the American public have held beliefs contrary to these findings.
The assassination is still the subject of widespread debate and has spawned numerous conspiracy theories and alternative scenarios. In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) found both the original FBI investigation and the Warren Commission Report to be seriously flawed. The HSCA also concluded that there were at least four shots fired, that there was a “high probability” that two gunmen fired at the President, and that it was probable that a conspiracy existed.
Later studies, including one by the National Academy of Sciences, have called into question the accuracy of the evidence used by the HSCA to support its finding of four shots.
ropelight (7770e7) — 8/6/2010 @ 4:35 pmFollowing is an excerpt from Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion, 8/06/10.
“Obama’s ‘Birther’ Strategy has Backfired”
“…But as I wrote in July 2009, and again in February 2010, Obama was misplaying the “Birther” card because the frequency of the strategic accusations merely raised the public consciousness and suggested that Obama was hiding something. Far from disproving the claims of “Birthers,” the Obama strategy simply drove the issue below the surface.
Thus, it is not surprising that yet another poll finds that a significant percentage of the population either does not believe Obama was born in Hawaii, or is uncertain.
According to a CNN Poll, only 42% of Americans believe that Obama “definitely” was born in the U.S.
Put differently, 58% are not certain, or believe otherwise. (The other results were 29% probably born in U.S., 16% probably born elsewhere, and 11% definitely born elsewhere, with 2% having no opinion.)
The results, predictably, where higher among Republicans that Obama was not born here, and lower among Democrats. But among independents, the numbers pretty closely tracked the overall numbers, with the exception that only 37% said Obama definitely was born here.
These numbers are astoundingly bad for Obama, and reflect a strategy which has worked in the short run but failed miserably in the long run…”
ropelight (7770e7) — 8/6/2010 @ 5:03 pmropelight, the House Select Committee on Assassinations was a bad joke. Erich Von Daniken has more credibility than the HSCA report.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/6/2010 @ 5:21 pmaphrael, I’ll never consider a single argument you make here until you find that seminar paper.
j/k
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/6/2010 @ 5:23 pmMilhouse, you’ve explained the idea very well and I appreciate it. You’re 100% right.
Ropelight, you’re right, he didn’t demand anything, he merely asked ‘why hasn’t he shown us x,y,z”.
Of course, all I said was that, for the most part, I agree it would be good to see some of this stuff, but a couple of them are stupid to demand.
I should have stuck to calling that a request instead of an unreasonable demand. It is, however, unreasonable to demand his mom’s divorce records or his gradeschool records. But you’re right, Juan didn’t. Not sure that I’m a “fraud”, however.
I saw his long cut and pasted (seen that several times, verbatim) list as a demand, even if he didn’t use the word demand, but instead just asked ‘why’ 25 times. Obviously that’s just my opinion, but I don’t think I’m really stretching it.
In fact, if you read my reply to Juan, it’s pretty obvious I’m trying to be very fair to him. I’m not sure why that isn’t obvious to you, when I grant him most of his argument but take exception to the nutcase ‘why haven’t I seen’ demands (you don’t think the demands are demands, but call them ‘why points’ or something). It really isn’t necessary to see your mom’s divorce records or your second grade spelling score.
Also, Mark’s dead right in his comparison. A lot of people believe nutty things, both about the JFK assassination and Obama’s eligibility.
My only intent in this thread is to show the ironclad and plain as day constitutional language on whether someone is or is not a citizen, and whether a born citizen is eligible to be president. I’ve been as nice as can be to the birthers in this thread, and if that’s not nice enough for you, oh well. As Mark said, it’s not necessary to shrug off the birthers. Obama has acted pretty shady and his friends are very extreme. I’m sure many birthers are reasonable people, but they are just as wrong as the people who think JFK was shot by two gunmen.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/6/2010 @ 8:20 pmDustin, only page 11 of the divorce document is missing. It’s entirely reasonable to ask why. If there’s valid cause to withhold that page only, yet allow access to the balance of the document, then let’s hear it. But, if page 11 contains information damaging to the narrative of Obama’s fairytale life, then withholding it becomes an issue, and part of a larger deception.
And, nowhere in Juan’s list is there a request for Obama’s spelling tests. You again set up a straw-man in order to ridicule a valid observation. Point #22 notes that Obama’s records are strangely missing from the official records of the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
It’s entirely reasonable to take note of the missing Kindergarten records because like the missing page 11 of the divorce documents, and all the other missing or withheld records of Obama’s past they demonstrate a pattern of concealment, an effort to hide the facts of Obama’s life least they conflict with the bill of goods we were sold during the campaign.
Over and over we were told that Obama’s lack of legislative and executive experience was offset by his wonderful life experience as revealed in his two books, Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope.
Now, when we try to verify the facts of Obama’s life story we find roadblocks at nearly every turn. We are denied access to records which would reveal the truth.
And, your efforts to obstruct the search consist of mischaracterizations and misplaced ridicule. Debate vigorously, but please make an effort to do in fairly.
I happen to think Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is thus eligible, but I also believe that his books and his narrative paint a false picture of his life, from birth to inauguration. I also think the African speculations are a red herring.
That’s why the missing or withheld records are so important. Important for the American people to see, and just as important for the pretender in the White House to keep hidden.
ropelight (2e393c) — 8/7/2010 @ 6:25 amThe constitution spells out WHO is eligible to hold the highest office in the land.
If one can’t PROVE eligibility on filing for such, then they should be summarily dismissed!
We the people have a RIGHT to request a full pedigree.
Those desiring to run for this office have a responsibility to provide it!
On the day they announce!
There is no ambiguity with this requirement, it is indeed the only real black and white issue surrounding this fellow, Barry Sotero, is there?
I propose we put these folks through homeland security application process for federal employment. That will weed them out and real quick!
RTF (6429a9) — 8/7/2010 @ 8:50 amI think you’re the one being unfair.
What’s so odd about you is that I’m obviously trying to meet Juan and those like him half way, being as fair as I can, while making reasonable criticisms. I’m relying on facts and common sense, but of course, also relying on opinion. You point to my opinions and say I’m a liar… that’s so irrational it’s not really worth thinking about.
He’s cut and pasted a list of 25 pieces of information. I interpreted that as a list of information he is asking to see. That’s a very reasonable interpretation. I already granted that this is my opinion, and he didn’t actually use the word demand, but it’s plain enough to me that he’s demanding grade school records and Obama’s mom’s divorce. I haven’t set up a straw man, you have. You’re being obtuse not to see where what I’m pointing to is implied in his list.
But this isn’t worth my time. You’re right, Obama’s eligible to be president. You agree with me that it would be good to see a lot of the material he is hiding. You don’t realize how stupid it is to request completely irrelevant stuff that is too personal and no normal person would disclose (like your mom’s divorce or your 4th grade math score). Grade school stuff? Who cares? It isn’t relevant to anything. At all. Obama didn’t choose his parents, order them to divorce, or pick his grade school.
That’s why the sane people are asking about his college records, not his gradeschool records.
He was born in Hawaii, that’s been proven. Therefore, he is a natural born citizen.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/7/2010 @ 9:10 amropelight – I don’t have my kindergarten records. Do you have yours?
It seems entirely unreasonable to me to expect a man in his forties to have his records from kindergarten; I suspect the man who does to be an exception, not the rule.
aphrael (73ebe9) — 8/7/2010 @ 10:11 amWhat records do you think it is reasonable for the public to expect from their President, aphrael?
JD (3dc31c) — 8/7/2010 @ 10:32 amJD – that’s a pretty broad list that I can’t encapsulate here. his college transcripts, certainly; the campaign donor analysis; his attorney billing records; his medical records; any scholarly articles, etc.
The thing that irritates me about the grade school records is that most people don’t have them. I don’t expect my politicians to have been obsessive record-keepers since the age of 5.
aphrael (73ebe9) — 8/7/2010 @ 10:37 amI guess my point was that we got NONE of the ones that even you think are appropriate.
JD (3dc31c) — 8/7/2010 @ 10:39 amI agree with Ropelight except for the part about him being born in Hawaii.
I “Feel” strongly Obama was, but since the extended subterfuge by him – I cannot be certain –
As far as documents asserting – grades – thesis papers – health reports – show stil be voluntary -I feel we intrude enough into candidates lives
Obama should have respected that – but he didnt – contrary he was one of the worst to intrude into the private lives of his opponenets for political gain – even when there was nothing there
EricPWJohnson (0f0a26) — 8/7/2010 @ 11:08 amshow = should
EricPWJohnson (0f0a26) — 8/7/2010 @ 11:09 amDustin, please pay attention. The divorce document is available, only page 11 is missing. It’s not unreasonable to ask why one single page out of the entire document is unobtainable.
Similarly, the State of Hawaii has records of the other students in Obama’s Kindergarten class, but only Obama’s records are missing. And, his grammar school records are also inexplicably being withheld.
Either of these events taken in isolation could be a commonplace oversight or taken together they could be a meaningless coincidence, but viewed in the context of all the other missing or withheld records and documents, they form part of a pattern, they’re bricks in Obama’s stonewall, they reveal a systematic scrubbing of Obama’ past history. It’s more than reasonable to ask why and it’s more than prudent to expect satisfactory answers.
This isn’t about prying into the tawdry details of Stanley Ann Obama’s divorce, nor is it inappropriately digging into Obama’s early educational performance.
The point here is that very nearly every single record which could shed light on the circumstances surrounding Obama’s birth, education, and work history are being systematically withheld.
Pretending otherwise is obtuse.
ropelight (2e393c) — 8/7/2010 @ 7:25 pmDo people actually believe he was born somewhere else than Hawaii, still? How stupid do you have to be…
Chris Hooten (9f7087) — 8/8/2010 @ 9:27 amDustin: The section of the Constitution that needs to be fleshed out, in court, is the phrase within the 14th-A “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. As we already know, there are births within the boundaries of the U.S. that are outside “the jurisdiction” of the U.S. – we just need to get a more definitive ruling from the Robed Wonders and their Chief Conjurer (Kennedy), as to whom that includes, and excludes.
Personally, I believe the HI birth bit, I also believe that there is something very fishy about Teh Won’s refusal to release all of his records, including the HI “long form”. It would seem that he has been living a lie most of his life, and he can’t face people knowing the truth – whatever that truth might be.
AD - RtR/OS! (89e55e) — 8/8/2010 @ 9:55 amIndeed, Chris Hooten, some people believe that. Amusingly, some of them are Democrats (recall that the controversy began thanks to Hilary Clinton’s operatives) … and some of them are Kenyan.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2010 @ 6:36 pmHas crissyhooten shown any evidence of the ability to read for comprehension?
JD (3dc31c) — 8/8/2010 @ 6:47 pmNot in this lifetime.
AD - RtR/OS! (89e55e) — 8/8/2010 @ 7:16 pmBullsh*t. On both counts. The only thing proven about Obama is that he is a first class liar. And once more, with feeling: Native-born does not equal natural-born. That is the major flaw in your argument.
RickZ (7c3f16) — 8/9/2010 @ 5:51 amWow, just wow. I think it interesting as well that not one fellow student at Columbia U remembers him.
Jeff S. (b15751) — 8/9/2010 @ 8:23 amYeah, Jeff, that much is pretty interesting. There’s a lot weird about Obama, and that’s part of why the anger with birthers is so intense. It’s a reflection of how vulnerable Obama is to the weirdo shady label.
Most birthers I know are actually not all that crazy. Of course, the actual kooks, the frothing snarling ones, are also birthers, but some people really just don’t trust a liar. There’s little doubt at this point that Obama will say anything he needs to say, and that his closest allies share a lack of honor.
All that aside, the specific birther issue is a bad one to focus on. I could repeat the tired but true point that there are simply better arguments to be made, but also, Obama’s eligible to be President and no court will ever say otherwise.
It does mean natural born. This is obvious. Sorry, but this is a strong part of my argument. What do you think the term naturally born means? It’s such simple and to-the-point language. Was he born a citizen? Yeah. Was he born naturally? Yeah. There’s always some theoretical room for ‘maybe it means something else’. You can do that for basically any phrase in any document. But I’m firmly right on this because the meaning of the Constitution is determined by our judicial system, so not only in fact, but in practice, you know my ‘interpretation’, which just happens to be the only obvious meaning, is the practical effect of the two sections I have cited.
There’s absolutely no ‘flaw’ in my argument. I have asked for someone to cite language in the Constitution or an Amendment that justifies your proclamation about this pretty oddball meaning you have in mind. Where is it?
Where was the Constitution amended to make such a strange requirement on a very straightforward eligibility?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/9/2010 @ 8:35 amI though the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is not particularly vague or debatable. It includes anyone subject to our laws and elligible to be arrested and punished if they break them. The only people not subject to our jurisdiction are foreign diplomats and other people working here for foreign gov’ts who are covered by diplomatic immunity and subject to the laws of their home country rather than ours. This is a VERY small number of people and almost no one outside DC, New York, and a few other major urban centers. If these people break the law the only thing we can do is put them on a plane home and bar them from re-entry in the future.
You can’t have it both ways – you can’t say that illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of American justice but not “subject to the jurisdiction” of America.
Well, actually you can, but it’s it just means that, in practice, you believe in a living constitution where the meaning of words change with the political landscape.
libarbarian (90bd00) — 8/9/2010 @ 3:35 pmlibarbarian, you are confusing two different issues in an attempt to form a “gotcha” that got nobody.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/9/2010 @ 3:40 pmWas he born naturally? Yeah
Eep.
I don’t think you want to imply that babies born as a result of IVF, or who are incubated outside the womb after being born at a point where ‘natural’ survival is questionable, or were implanted as part of a surrogacy arrangement, are not natural-born citizens.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/9/2010 @ 3:45 pmaphrael, the correct term for that implication is “organic baby”. You know … no IVF, no pesticides, no genetically modifications …
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/9/2010 @ 3:49 pmNo SPQR, you are just too stupid to understand.
libarbarian (90bd00) — 8/11/2010 @ 10:31 amJurisdiction:
1 : the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2 a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
3 : the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
The US clearly has jurisdiction over illegals.
libarbarian (90bd00) — 8/11/2010 @ 10:39 am