Why it doesn't matter if Obama was born in Kenya

Ok, so I'm still relatively new to this forum and I'm sure some people see me as just a typical Republican. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am an independent who strongly support a nation's right to defend itself (strategic realism), but to prove I'm not a neocon or birther, or whatever, I am going to write the LEGAL reason why it doesn't matter if President Obama was born in Kenya.

According to Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States are as follows:

“ 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

Now what exactly is a natural born citizen? The Fourteenth Amendment makes it clear that anybody born in the United States is a natural born citizen, but is that the only way to achieve natural born status? No it is not.

According to Title 8 Section 1409 of the United States Code "a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year."

Clearly President Obama was born after 1952 and to a woman who has lived in the United States for over a "continous period of one year." Ironically, a unanimous but non binding Senate resolution that concluded Americans born overseas to Americans are indeed natural born citizens.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/politics/main3977521.shtml

The laws were enacted to protect the children of diplomats and the military. Nobody would seriously think an American, born overseas to an Ambassador, or service member, doesn't qualify as a natural born citizen. The same law applies to President Obama. And that's why it doesn't matter where he was born he is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president.

Now add to my reputation

 

Very good post!!!!!!!!!!

 

That describes citizenship, but not natural-born citizenship, which a person born outside the US does not have. A person who is not a natural-born citizen isn't qualified to be president, according to the Constitution.

 

Since Obama was born in Hawaii, it is a moot discussion. However, natural born citizen means a person who is citizen by birth. So the statute does indeed describe natural born citizenship.

 

So the son of a diplomat or servicemember serving overseas is not a natural born citizen? Then are they a naturalized citized? Those are your two choices. Or maybe whatever website you read told you they aren't even citizens at all? Ironically, a Congressional Legal Review that began as a result of John McCain eligibility issues reiterated the same point.

 

Yes it does, thank you.

 

Find a legitimate Constitutional lawyer who supports your position. Nowhere does it say he's a "natural born citizen."

 

You said that you were new to this site. There is a birther contingent that, against all the evidence presented, that in order to be a "natural born citizen" a person must be born on US soil to two parents who are both US citizens - regardless of the fact that the Constitution only mentions two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized; regardless of the fact that SCOTUS has ruled that jus soli is sufficient; regardless of what US Code says - these birthers persist in their attempts to rewrite the Constitution, our legal codes AND SCOTUS legal precedent.

 

Obama's father was not a service man overseas or a diplomat. He was a drunkard polygamist.

Define "natural".

 

Yeah it's pretty frustrating. I find myself going around in circles with xenophobes and racists pretty routinely about this issue. Why bother? They'll never be convinced.

And to "WhiteisRight" or whoever- I suppose the aforementioned means nothing, right?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13033154/Hollisterdismissal

He's not a lawyer, but rather a federal judge. Is he stupid, or is this a conspiracy? You tell me.

 

Doesn't matter. The law applies to diplomats and service members the same. You said you can't be born overseas and be a natural born citizen, I've proved you can ad nauseum. What more can I say?

 

you have proved nothing, nor have you had the courage to answer any of my questions.

 

Ok, what haven't I answered? You still believe being a natural born citizen and being born a citizen are two different things? What more can I do to help you except pay for a Constitutional Law class?

 

And once again you misrepresent my character based upon the hatred for anyone who has pride in white heritage that's been fostered by the liberal media. Anyways...

You didn't provide any evidence. All that letter contains is statements that the suit is frivolous and an abuse of the court system, nowhere does it state any support for the position that Obama would be a natural born citizen even if not born in the United States.

My guess is that you assumed nobody would bother to read a 5 page letter, you assumed wrong.

 

I have asked where in Ark or in 14th Amendment here you find "natural born citizen". I have also asked what is the definition of "natural".

Care to try yoir luck?

 

Ok, well if the Constitution, USC, Congressional vote, and a federal judge can't convince you then I am stumped. Surely, talk radio knows more than the all branches of the federal government. I guess McCain's campaign just missed this nugget of intellectual gold you so expertly presented.

 

You are yet to provide evidence for any of those things you claim. And I don't listen to talk radio or watch Fox News.

 

Yes, because you don't understand the law, surely no evidence has been presented. Do you agree that title 8 section 1409 of the USC states:

Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year"


If yes, do you agree that as a citizen of the United States you are either natural born or naturalized citizen? Which type of citizenship is granted to those that the aforementioned section of the USC applies to?

 

Very simply put, if he was born in Kenya, his mother was too young according to the law on the books at the time to covey her citizenship onto him.
However, this is a moot point. Even if he was born in Hawaii, He still took on British citizenship from his father. This fact he does not deny. Since he held citizenship in another country at the time of his birth, according to the 14th Amendment, he was not born a US citizen.

 

The SCOTUS, in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, established the legal precedent that the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment is sufficient enough to determine natural born citizenship.

 

Read more: Types of American Citizenship | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_7582825_types-american-citizenship.html#ixzz19Lne3mfX

If he was born to an American mother and a foreign father on foreign soil he holds a dual citizenship, not a natural born citizenship.

You consistently fail to provide any evidence for your positions while ignoring all evidence presented to you.

 

Once again you provide evidence that has nothing to do with the situation in hopes nobody looks it up. Wong Kim Ark was born to Chinese citizens on US soil, not to a single US and a single foreign citizen on foreign soil.

 

There's not age requirement for citizenship to be passed from mother to child. Once again, I will cut and past the USC

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1409.html

And people with dual citizenship and time of birth are not in risk of losing American citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

Same deal with children of military parents serving overseas.

I can no longer teach you anymore, but I can school you all day

 

The case established that the citizenship clause in 14th Amendment= a natural born citizenship definition. I'm arguing a few different points right now. And according to the § 1409. Children born out of wedlock, well screw it, read it yourself

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

Anybody with half a brain can tell that the law applies to a SINGLE AMERICAN PARENT WITH ONE FOREIGN PARENT, born overseas. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? It's pretty clear.

 

The treaty with China was, at the time, that all Chinese immigrants to the US, for the purpose of supplying labor to the railroads and industry, were to retain their Chinese citizenship and were not to be naturalized. Ark found that decedents of those immigrants did not fall under this treaty and were thus "born" citizens, but because of their parents non-citizen status their grandchildren, not their children could be natural born citizens.