The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Teresa Heilevang on March 25, 2011, 08:18:18 AM
-
Donald Trump is not backing down from his demand that President Barack Obama produce his birth certificate and stepped up his criticism by questioning why he has not released other personal records, including college transcripts and legislative papers.
The billionaire real estate tycoon and star of “The Apprentice” created a stir on Wednesday when he said on “The View” that Trump must release his birth certificate.
Now Trump has reiterated his call in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, with this simple message for Obama: Why don’t you produce your birth certificate and put to rest all speculation that you were born outside the United States?
He says Obama’s birth certificate controversy is a “strange situation” — there are conflicting reports as to what Honolulu hospital he was born at, and the governor of Hawaii claims he somehow remembers Obama being born 50 years ago.
Trump, who says he will soon announce if he will run for president in 2012, also says Libya is a “total mess,” with Iran possibly behind the rebels and waiting to take over the country, and charges that the United States is going to “hell in a hand basket.”
“It’s a very simple situation,” Trump says in regard to the birth certificate issue. “I’d just like to see his birth certificate.
“I’m hearing all sorts of stories that his own family can’t agree which hospital he was born in and lots of other things, and I’m trying to find out where is the birth certificate. I have a birth certificate. Where is his birth certificate?
“If you’re born in this country, to the best of my knowledge people have a birth certificate.”
Obama asserts that he was born in Honolulu, but former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip Berg has claimed that Obama’s paternal grandmother says she was in the delivery room when he was born in Kenya.
There are even differing reports about which Honolulu hospital he may have been born at. During his 2008 presidential campaign numerous reports indicated Obama was born at the Queen's Medical Center. Later, Obama's half sister said he was born at the Katiolani Medical Center.
After questions were raised about his birth, Obama's campaign released a Certification of Live Birth. The form is a summary document and does not include the newborn's location of birth. The long-form Birth Certificate includes such data, but Obama has declined to release it.
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie first ordered the state attorney general and health department director to release more information about Obama’s birth there, then abandoned that pursuit.
“It is an amazing situation,” Trump says of the governor’s actions.
“And later the governor said, but I remember when he was born. I said, what? You actually remember when somebody was born? It sounded very unusual that a Democratic governor would remember when somebody was born 50 years ago.
“I assume that Obama was born in the United States. I assume he was probably born in Hawaii. But I have to get rid of the word ‘assume.’ If somebody wants to run for president you have to be born in this country.
And when the family argues about which hospital it was because they’re not sure, as has been reported, and you don’t have a birth certificate, it’s sort of a strange situation.”
Trump adds: “I don’t want there to be a question. I think it would be wonderful news for everybody, including me, if the birth certificate is found. But at this moment there is no birth certificate.
“Some people say it exists, and if it exists, even worse, why isn’t he showing it? So I would like to see a birth certificate, and when the governor and everybody else say they think it exists, why don’t they produce it?”
Asked if Obama has fulfilled his campaign pledge to have the most transparent administration, Trump responds: “Certainly he hasn’t in terms of his birth, and I guess a lot of college records and other records haven’t been produced, and that’s a little unusual. Why wouldn’t you produce your records?
“There are client lists that haven’t been produced and lobbying lists that haven’t been produced, so there are a lot of things that haven’t been produced for somebody who is supposed to be so transparent.
“There’s certainly not a lot of transparency.”
Asked about the Obama administration’s handling of the rebellion in Libya, Trump tells Newsmax: “For one thing, if you’re going to save lives on a humanitarian basis you should have started sooner, because many of those lives are gone.
“For another thing, you really have to find out who you’re fighting for. Who are the rebels? You have some people who say that Iran is controlling the rebels, that Iran is the happiest of all nations because they think as soon as we leave they’re going to go in with the rebels and take over Libya.
“I hear more and more reports that the rebels aren’t the sweetest people on earth either. It looks to me like it’s a total mess.”
Polls show Trump among the leaders in the GOP field for the 2012 presidential nomination. Asked if he has decided whether or not to run, Trump says: “I will be announcing one way or another somewhere prior to June.
“I hate what’s happening to this country. It’s never been at a point like this, ever. We’re not respected. We’re scoffed at. We’re laughed at by other places. People from China and other places cannot believe they’re getting away with what they’re getting away with. We’re rebuilding China. We’re rebuilding other countries, and our country is going to hell in a hand basket.
“One thing I can say, if I ran and if I won, that would stop, and everybody knows it. I think that’s why I do well in the polls.”
-
The fact that his Mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth makes the location of the event completely irrelevant, He is in fact a "Natural Born" citizen of the US.
That being said, there are still 2 questions that desperately need answers:
1- Why all the secrecy and deception about his past, what is he hiding ?
2- Is this guy actually who he claims to be ? He has never even proven that .
-
The fact that his Mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth makes the location of the event completely irrelevant, He is in fact a "Natural Born" citizen of the US.
That being said, there are still 2 questions that desperately need answers:
1- Why all the secrecy and deception about his past, what is he hiding ?
2- Is this guy actually who he claims to be ? He has never even proven that .
Amen to all of the above. I was watching the news earlier and Ron Reagan was beating his head on the desk. "So far we have Palin, Bachman and Trump. All the GOP needs now is for Snookie to get into the race". ;D I agree. Is there anyone serious other than Pawlenty and (I hate to say this) Barbour and Gingrich?
FQ13
-
I'm glad to see this resurface, and for it to come from a person like Donald Trump. The BHO supporters will start screaming "birther" and all that crap. But at some point he needs to put this to rest.
If everything is legal and above board Pres. BHO needs to pull out the birth records, and all of his school records. Simple as that. I know they love to watch some groups rant over this, and they are trying to make political hay on it, but the question has never been answered.
Until all the facts are put on the table I will continue to assume that where there is smoke there is fire, and Pres. BHO can extinguish the smoke quickly if he chooses - But he continues to let it show >:(
-
There is something seriously fishy about bho from the very get go.
If he was born abroad, he has to have paperwork to certify his citizenship, normally a straight-forward process. There was a story just this week about a 95 year old WWII vet who was born in Canada to American parents, who somehow never got the paperwork completed. My guess on this is that the paperwork was never certified for bho, and in fact he was declared as a citizen of some country where we do not have reciprocity, which was a rare thing in those days. IIRC, dual citizenship was only allowed with Israel in the 50's.
Moving on, who paid for his stint at Harvard? Not his commie mommie.
Why does his SSN not match anything anyone knows about his life and where he lived. The SSN comes from CT, bho never lived there.
What passports did he travel on as a student?
IIRC, there was also a question about a scholarship he received that is only for foreign (i.e., not US citizens) nationals.
Too many questions. Good for Trump, let's start getting some answers.
-
The fact that his Mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth makes the location of the event completely irrelevant, He is in fact a "Natural Born" citizen of the US.
That being said, there are still 2 questions that desperately need answers:
1- Why all the secrecy and deception about his past, what is he hiding ?
2- Is this guy actually who he claims to be ? He has never even proven that .
I don't buy that. Simply because of anchor babies. The kid is a citizen of the country of birth, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. The only exception is military bases or embassies. They are sovereign territory of the country that occupies the installation. That's why McCain is a natural born U.S. citizen.
-
Historically in the US citizenship of the child follows that of the mother, unless the parents were married. A father's citizenship won't cut it which is why a lot of Korean and Vietnamese kids got screwed. Too bad because if daddy was black they had a sh@tty life. If you were born on US soil you are a "natural born citizen" according to the 14A. But before that, if Mom was Amercan, so were you. Its kind of ironic in that a woman's citizenship was encompassed under her husband's back in the day, but her child's wasn't. So, an American woman marrying a British man was British, but her kids were American. ::) Anyway, BO is eligible for office regardless of where he was born. Its just the secrecy about the whole thing that is grating.
FQ13
-
The fact that his Mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth makes the location of the event completely irrelevant, He is in fact a "Natural Born" citizen of the US.
That being said, there are still 2 questions that desperately need answers:
1- Why all the secrecy and deception about his past, what is he hiding ?
2- Is this guy actually who he claims to be ? He has never even proven that .
Not if his mother isn't his REAL mother...
-
There is something seriously fishy about bho from the very get go.
If he was born abroad, he has to have paperwork to certify his citizenship, normally a straight-forward process. There was a story just this week about a 95 year old WWII vet who was born in Canada to American parents, who somehow never got the paperwork completed. My guess on this is that the paperwork was never certified for bho, and in fact he was declared as a citizen of some country where we do not have reciprocity, which was a rare thing in those days. IIRC, dual citizenship was only allowed with Israel in the 50's.
Moving on, who paid for his stint at Harvard? Not his commie mommie.
Why does his SSN not match anything anyone knows about his life and where he lived. The SSN comes from CT, bho never lived there.
What passports did he travel on as a student?
IIRC, there was also a question about a scholarship he received that is only for foreign (i.e., not US citizens) nationals.
Too many questions. Good for Trump, let's start getting some answers.
All those things are possible for those who have committed various frauds. He might just be the most successful grifter ever!
I keep hearing that nobody remembers him from here or from there but they remember him from Indonesia, somebody remembered him from Kenya... That is odd to me. Take me for example. Put my face on TV and you'll likely have somebody from every one of the 13 places I lived before I was 18 who remembers me. For previous Presidents many have come forward with various anecdotes about their earlier life, childhood, etc. yet we just don't hear these about Obama. Why?
-
The fact that his Mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth makes the location of the event completely irrelevant, He is in fact a "Natural Born" citizen of the US.
That being said, there are still 2 questions that desperately need answers:
1- Why all the secrecy and deception about his past, what is he hiding ?
2- Is this guy actually who he claims to be ? He has never even proven that .
Not true. There is some sort of 8 consecutive year thing before Ovomit was born, I'll need to look up the details but that is in question as well.
-
Yes, Haz, you do need to look it up because I posted on here with State Dept references a year or more ago.
The "anchor baby" thing was another step toward an amnesty for illegal aliens and has nothing to do with any other country. Kids automatically assume the citizenship of the mother.
I can not believe this stupid shit is still being argued about.
And for the especially pin headed, an American military hospital any where in the world is US soil ::)
In fact, the Birth certificate debate itself is for assholes, it however stands to represent the secrecy surrounding his entire life.
Based on what I have read, if this guy even is the son of Anne Dunham, she committed fraud getting him into school in Indonesia,
He was a crappy dope smoking B-Ball shooting punk who may very well have been molested as a child, who again committed fraud on college applications, and had his education paid for by the CPUSA.
-
The fact that his Mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth makes the location of the event completely irrelevant, He is in fact a "Natural Born" citizen of the US.
According to a recent new report about a WWII Vet who was born in Canada while his parents were living in Canada back in 1916. The parents need to inform the US government of the kids birth for your statement to be fact. This man of 95 is seeking to have his citizenship recognized as I type this, Because his parents failed to register his birth in the US in a timely manner, he is, according to the INS, a Canadian by birth and not a citizen.
Surprised the shit out of me too! I'm waiting to here the outcome...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/23/world-war-ii-vet-finds-citizen/?test=faces
-
According to a recent new report about a WWII Vet who was born in Canada while his parents were living in Canada back in 1916. The parents need to inform the US government of the kids birth for your statement to be fact. This man of 95 is seeking to have his citizenship recognized as I type this, Because his parents failed to register his birth in the US in a timely manner, he is, according to the INS, a Canadian by birth and not a citizen.
Surprised the shit out of me too! I'm waiting to here the outcome...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/23/world-war-ii-vet-finds-citizen/?test=faces
That would give the "Birther's" some credibility. It would not matter where the paper work was filed with the USG, as long as it was.
-
That would give the "Birther's" some credibility. It would not matter where the paper work was filed with the USG, as long as it was.
Try re-reading my post - either it was never filed, or he was declared a citizen of another country.
-
Try re-reading my post - either it was never filed, or he was declared a citizen of another country.
I did, the SSN# has nothing to do with where you "live".
It depends on "the office you filed the paper work at"
I've never lived in WV, but I needed to come up with some kind of ID while passing through Covington, I was in the state less than 24 hours. The card with a WV number was delivered to my PO box in NH several weeks later.
-
Not to muddy the waters even more, but citizenship would NOT have been transferred through his mother. IF he was not born on U.S. soil he is NOT constitutionally the President.
At the time of his birth, this was the law:
In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child's birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14.
His mom gave birth at 18, therefore it was impossible for her to have been physically present in the U.S. for 5 years after 18.
This is the crux of the "birther's" argument. He had to be born on U.S. soil, and that fact has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by means of a long-form birth certificate.
-
Not to muddy the waters even more, but citizenship would NOT have been transferred through his mother. IF he was not born on U.S. soil he is NOT constitutionally the President.
At the time of his birth, this was the law:
In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child's birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14.
His mom gave birth at 18, therefore it was impossible for her to have been physically present in the U.S. for 5 years after 18.
This is the crux of the "birther's" argument. He had to be born on U.S. soil, and that fact has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by means of a long-form birth certificate.
Wrong.
You state:
"His mom gave birth at 18, therefore it was impossible for her to have been physically present in the U.S. for 5 years after 18."
Where did after 18 enter into play? Present in the US for ten years (and born here)? Check.
Now, the question hinges on whether she spent 5 years after. I could be a jerk and point out that according to the religious right, life begins at conception and so she would have in fact been 19 according to anti-choice calculations, rather than 18 when she gave birth (thus taking care of the five years post 14 argument). As amusing as it is to picture a Pat Robertson protege argue against this, I will defer.
It boils down to the 14A and the guarantee of citizenship and the privileges and immunities clause, coupled with equal protection clause (essentially all of section 1 of the ammendment) that makes it a non-starter to argue that an adult American woman who MAY have been living abroad surrenders her right to pass on citizenship to her child. Its a joke to even go there. Do you really want to suggest that the child of a Kansas farm girl born in Kenya, Indonesia or Mars isn't an American? Sorry, the 14A is pretty clear here. Its not just about the child's rights but the mother's. You don't give up your rights by going abroad. The law may say so (and I'd like a cite), but the Constitution says that the law is wrong. Its clear on its face. Don't like it? Change the Constitution (and I'm not opposed to ending the anchor baby thing). Still, telling an American born woman that her child isn't American because she had him while a teenager is not only flat wrong, but unconstituional. Before you flame me, consider the situation in the abstract. Your daughter goes overseas on a study abroad. She gets knocked up and married at 18. Is your grandkid an American? This isn't about party and it isn't about BO. Its about the Constitution.
FQ13
-
FQ, you have misunderstood that so badly, it's really sad.
Little Red, editorial criticism, Post references when you put up stuff like that.
That way the curious,or those like FQ with no reading comprehension, can read the original legalese.
-
FQ, you have misunderstood that so badly, it's really sad.
Little Red, editorial criticism, Post references when you put up stuff like that.
That way the curios,or those like FQ with no reading comprehension, can read the original legalese.
Re-read the post Tom, tell me where I'm wrong. I'm not carrying water for BO here, just making a point. As long as he is Dunham's son, he is as American as you or I. The rest of the weirdness bothre's me. Where he was born should not be an issue. If his mom is American, so is he he. Its about HER 14A rights (and by extension all of ours).
FQ13
-
You reread the post, until Little Red posts a link so I can check it for my self I'm not going to put much faith into it but his post said;
"In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child's birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14."
Which you totally mis understood. Going on off on some rant about the 14th Amendment which actually says this about citizenship:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html
"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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Because I have no respect for your intellect I will post the rest of the Amendment to show that it has nothing to do with People born Overseas to only one citizen. It has nothing to do with your right to go whelp your little package in foriegn countries because you're considered a whore at home.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The age of majority in 1961 was 21, so that more than allows for "5 years after the age of 14"
-
And sections 2-5 have what to do with my argument? I think we agree that Dunham did not serve in the Confederate Army and BO is over 35. Your point, beyond the gratutious shot at his dead mother who neither of us knows is what exactly?Seriously Tom, if there was a point there I missed it. Try explaining in small simple words since you have no respect for my intellect. ;D
FQ13
-
I posted sections 2-5 so you could not say I cherry picked parts other than what you were referring to.
You base your argument against little Red's post on Sec 1 of the 14th amendment, but that has nothing to do with regulating naturalization or citizenship of those born overseas.
It was not a shot at his mother, it was a simple statement of fact. In 1961 even trashy white girls did not sleep with black men, only real skanks did that.
-
I posted sections 2-5 so you could not say I cherry picked parts other than what you were referring to.
You base your argument against little Red's post on Sec 1 of the 14th amendment, but that has nothing to do with regulating naturalization or citizenship of those born overseas.
Actually it does. Do you lose rights by being outside the soveriegn teritory of the US? Are those rights suspended until you once again reach US soil? That is the crux of the matter. If you are an American citizen and have a kid in New Hampsihre its American. If you go to Toronto to catch a hockey game and give birth there at 16, is the kid Canadian? What if Canada, or country X does not regognize citizenship based on place of birth, but just on blood? Does the child then have no citizenship? Does birthright citizenship mean you pass that on to your kid? Is that part of the 14A's guarntees of citizenship to the mother? I think the 14A is clear on this, but they are serious questions, and they deserve serious answers.
FQ13
-
The Mother, who was a citizen, didn't lose any rights so your argument is crap.
It all hinges on the exact regulations covering Citizen /non citizen mixed marriage overseas births.
-
The argument about President Walkabout's citizenship has been put to rest once and for all. Yesterday's Des Moines Sunday Register (The Newspaper The Liberal Left Depends On), in a piece addressing Trump's question (and pretty much doing their best to trash his potential candidacy) stated emphatically that the Dipshit-In-Chief was, in fact, born in Hawaii and is a US citizen. Inasmuch as the Register is the final arbiter in ALL things political (at least, according to the left), this effectively ends the argument.
*sarcasm off*
-
The argument about President Walkabout's citizenship has been put to rest once and for all. Yesterday's Des Moines Sunday Register (The Newspaper The Liberal Left Depends On), in a piece addressing Trump's question (and pretty much doing their best to trash his potential candidacy) stated emphatically that the Dipshit-In-Chief was, in fact, born in Hawaii and is a US citizen. Inasmuch as the Register is the final arbiter in ALL things political (at least, according to the left), this effectively ends the argument.
*sarcasm off*
Did they go so far as to clear up all the issues with giving up his citizenship or claims to U.S. citizenship in order to be a student and or resident elsewhere. To me it is what happened when they lived in the sandbox that is a larger issue.
-
Did they go so far as to clear up all the issues with giving up his citizenship or claims to U.S. citizenship in order to be a student and or resident elsewhere. To me it is what happened when they lived in the sandbox that is a larger issue.
He never did, although he made a trip to Pakistan. Indonesia, a collection of jungle covered islands is north of Australia.
Giving up your Citizenship is an administrative action that requires various specific actions and forms that there is no record of him or his mother ever filing. These are not "concealed", they never existed. The more I see of the "Birther" question, the more I see ignorance, and uncited BS.
Let's stick to the proven, he's a f*cking communist who associated with hate mongers, terrorists and crooks his entire life.
-
Not true. There is some sort of 8 consecutive year thing before Ovomit was born, I'll need to look up the details but that is in question as well.
I had read that the law at the time of BHO's birth stated that if you were born outside the US one of your parents had to have been a US Citizen and had to have resided in the US for 5 years after their 18th birthday. (or 16th birthday...some upper teen birthday)
BHO's mother was too young at the time of his birth to have lived anywhere for 5 years after her 18th (or any upper teen) birthday.
However, I cannot find any reference to support the claim that this was, indeed, the law in effect at the time of his birth.
-
Little Red, editorial criticism, Post references when you put up stuff like that.
Good point. Keep me honest ;)
The current law, via the USCIS:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375 (http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375)
See paragraph (g). Current law has decreased the amount of time the citizen-parent must live in the U.S. after 14 to 2 years from the 1952 Act. Under current law, there would be no birther argument at all. Done. Nada. Zip, etc.
HOWEVER, via usa.gov (that's as official as it gets):
http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfservice.controller?CONFIGURATION=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&ARTICLE_ID=9694&USERTYPE=1&LANGUAGE=en&COUNTRY=US (http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfservice.controller?CONFIGURATION=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&ARTICLE_ID=9694&USERTYPE=1&LANGUAGE=en&COUNTRY=US)
For births between December 24, 1952, and November 13, 1986, this is a period of 10 years, five of which must be after the age of 14.
THEREFORE, Obama had to have been BORN ON U.S. SOIL to be qualified for the office of President.
These areas are pretty cut and dry. Are there still gray areas? Sure. The birth certificate produced is the short form, not the original signed by the physician and witnesses. Why not show the original and be done with it?
-
Good point. Keep me honest ;)
The current law, via the USCIS:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375 (http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375)
See paragraph (g). Current law has decreased the amount of time the citizen-parent must live in the U.S. after 14 to 2 years from the 1952 Act. Under current law, there would be no birther argument at all. Done. Nada. Zip, etc.
HOWEVER, via usa.gov (that's as official as it gets):
http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfservice.controller?CONFIGURATION=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&ARTICLE_ID=9694&USERTYPE=1&LANGUAGE=en&COUNTRY=US (http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfservice.controller?CONFIGURATION=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&ARTICLE_ID=9694&USERTYPE=1&LANGUAGE=en&COUNTRY=US)
THEREFORE, Obama had to have been BORN ON U.S. SOIL to be qualified for the office of President.
These areas are pretty cut and dry. Are there still gray areas? Sure. The birth certificate produced is the short form, not the original signed by the physician and witnesses. Why not show the original and be done with it?
It's a sleight-of-hand game. When people are paying attention to his left hand (the birther discussion), they can't see what mischief his right hand is up to.
-
Good point. Keep me honest ;)
The current law, via the USCIS:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375 (http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375)
See paragraph (g). Current law has decreased the amount of time the citizen-parent must live in the U.S. after 14 to 2 years from the 1952 Act. Under current law, there would be no birther argument at all. Done. Nada. Zip, etc.
HOWEVER, via usa.gov (that's as official as it gets):
http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfservice.controller?CONFIGURATION=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&ARTICLE_ID=9694&USERTYPE=1&LANGUAGE=en&COUNTRY=US (http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfservice.controller?CONFIGURATION=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&ARTICLE_ID=9694&USERTYPE=1&LANGUAGE=en&COUNTRY=US)
THEREFORE, Obama had to have been BORN ON U.S. SOIL to be qualified for the office of President.
These areas are pretty cut and dry. Are there still gray areas? Sure. The birth certificate produced is the short form, not the original signed by the physician and witnesses. Why not show the original and be done with it?
Cause Mommy was to young, he didn't qualify for citizenship ?
-
Bottom line:
1. There is something fishy;
2. If he was truly legal and correct, Pres. BHO could clear it up and make it go away very easily;
3. Pres. BHO's minions love painting us as whack jobs for not letting go of it;
4. Pres. BHO loves to watch us twist in the wind.
I'm done for this round!
-
Cause Mommy was to young, he didn't qualify for citizenship ?
Weren't we arguing about this last night? My point was if a 30 year old's kid is a citizen an 18 year old's sure as heck should be. Seems we agree. Scary. I'll try not to do that again. ;D
FQ13
-
Weren't we arguing about this last night? My point was if a 30 year old's kid is a citizen an 18 year old's sure as heck should be. Seems we agree. Scary. I'll try not to do that again. ;D
FQ13
Under current law, should could have been a minimum of 16. Back in 1961 the law was 5 years residency AFTER 14 making the minimum age 19. Does it make sense? No really. Have our citizenship laws grown more lenient? Yes. Would this matter in ANY other situation other then POTUS? No.
But our Constitution requires that that Commander-In-Chief be a natural-born citizen. Through the specific set of circumstances surrounding his parents, the only way for him to be a natural born citizen is through birth on U.S. soil.
As a hobby, a did some genealogical digging and was able to obtain certified copies of long-form birth certificates dating back to 1870, from Oklahoma, which wasn't even a state then.
Yet, we are told by the powers that be that were nut jobs, for asking someone to dig up a document from 1961, that shows a doctor's and witness's signature attesting to the claim that BHO is a natural-born citizen.
A few questions, then I'm done.
What IF it were true and evidence corroborates it?
Would he hand over the keys to the front door and be out on the street? Would all legislation he has signed, be thrown out? Would SCOTUS justices be removed from the bench? Would all executive orders be nullified?
Or, would we collectively say oops and accept things as they are.
For tomorrow's topic: Did we really land on the moon? ???
-
I guess to me it boils down to this. I don't care if he was born on the moon, and I'm not arguing pro-or anti BO. Lets call him candidate X. Is the child of a woman born and raised in the US, regardles of where the child was born, a citizen or not? My point is that the law is irrelevant. The 14A guarantees egual protection. You cannot justify a law that says you must be a resident in the US x number of years past your 14th birthday to give birth right citizenship to your kid. The equal protection clause on its face will not accept that a person a number of years over the age of majority enjoys more rights that one also over the age of majority with a fewer number of years when we are speaking about something as fundamental as whether her child is a citizen of the country she was born and raised in. You wouldn't last ten minutes arguing against a mother in this sort of case. The birther argument is a loser. The "natural born citizen" clause does not mean born on US soil. It simply precludes a NATURALIZED citizen from holding the office.
Doubt me? The Constitution, pre-14A supplies the Answer. There was what is known as the "Hamilton Clause" in Article II. Alexander Hamilton was born in the British West Indies. He wanted to be President. As a gesture to him, and him only, the natural born citizen" clause had a corrollary. It said that "No person who is not a natural born citizen, OR A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION shall be eligible to the office of President". Clearly, the Founders werre proscribing naturalized citizens, not those born to American mothers. Sorry, but even without the 14A this argument doesn't fly. They made a clear exption to cover a particular circumstance. Yet by desribing the exception so speciffically, they made it clear that those who were not citizen's of other nations WERE eligible. Thus BO, love him or hate him, is a US citizen. Its not about politics, its about the law. Vote him out (I'll be joining you if I have a better choice, and if not I'll vote Libertarian), but don't try this "He's not a citizen" crap. It doesn't fly.
FQ13
-
Hey dumbass, the 14th A hasn't got shit to do with it. The Constitution doesn't regulate who can be a citizen.
If you weren't an over educated liberal you would realize that, since I have posted it on this forum about 12 times since you joined.
But since you suffer from liberal C.R.A.F.T. I will remind you it specifies that CONGRESS has the power to decide who gets in and who doesn't. If Congress makes a law that bans left handers from coming here it is perfectly constitutional.
Secondly, like I posted last night,The Mother, (a minor ) who was a US Citizen, was not deprived of anything, If under existing law her foreign halfbreed kid did not qualify then it had no rights to be deprived of 14th Amendment is irrelevant.
-
Hey dumbass, the 14th A hasn't got shit to do with it. The Constitution doesn't regulate who can be a citizen.
If you weren't an over educated liberal you would realize that, since I have posted it on this forum about 12 times since you joined.
But since you suffer from liberal C.R.A.F.T. I will remind you it specifies that CONGRESS has the power to decide who gets in and who doesn't. If Congress makes a law that bans left handers from coming here it is perfectly constitutional.
Umm, as usual, you are half right and half wrong. Congress can (and should) set requirements on who can come. Personally, I'd as soon go back to the pre-68 laws, but that's just me. Where you are dead wrong though is in dealing with a child born to an American citizen. Here, its not just about which forieners get in. It is about HER right to transfer her citizenship to her child. Spin it how you want, its about an American citizen's rights to bestow the most important thing she has, citizenship in this country. The 14A applies here if it applies anywhere.
FQ13
-
The equal protection clause on its face will not accept that a person a number of years over the age of majority enjoys more rights that one also over the age of majority with a fewer number of years when we are speaking about something as fundamental as whether her child is a citizen of the country she was born and raised in. You wouldn't last ten minutes arguing against a mother in this sort of case.
The age of majority in Hawaii in 1961 was 20. Here is a reference:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:V477oskhWT8J:www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/other/pcs1-3/PC_S1_-3.pdf+hawaii+voting+age+1970&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESimgyAjFt_8RynENwblhuFHCFR709iltMW7RqnsngsVjJUXgYNBGXlEtSCAKZ9DnS_8RTE6t8VTQ5P9wcNSxplSr_sbsr6OlCmfInkM0IoVGR9jNQdJ34mqblSSRmltPXOPoSME&sig=AHIEtbQ5I-efkyytA-QjCtvLSvaM0AP-Vw (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:V477oskhWT8J:www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/other/pcs1-3/PC_S1_-3.pdf+hawaii+voting+age+1970&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESimgyAjFt_8RynENwblhuFHCFR709iltMW7RqnsngsVjJUXgYNBGXlEtSCAKZ9DnS_8RTE6t8VTQ5P9wcNSxplSr_sbsr6OlCmfInkM0IoVGR9jNQdJ34mqblSSRmltPXOPoSME&sig=AHIEtbQ5I-efkyytA-QjCtvLSvaM0AP-Vw)
Under the law at that time, the 5 years after 14 (effectively 19) was actually allowing for a minor to pass on citizenship, which is more lenient than you suggest with the age of majority. I agree with your premise on an adult being able to pass on their citizenship. But laws are constantly changing and the current 14+2 years reflect that even more. At that time in history, she was a minor.
As far as soil, "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions" (from previous link)—I'll concede that outlying possessions may technically be more than U.S. soil.
Again, I won't, nor will I personally ever been shown the proof he was either born in Hawaii or not. I'm not that important. I can't personally confirm it either way, so I have to trust what someone else says. Am I saying he is not a citizen? No. What I am saying is the only thing he can cling to for his claim of citizenship is having been born in Hawaii. A fact he has done little to substantiate.
As far as the 14A, I don't think the govt. cares too much about that one. If so, TSA shouldn't be able to deprive me of personal property when it isn't a prohibited item—without due process.
@FQ13, please understand all my posts are intended to spur on thought and not "win" a debate. I certainly see your passion for liberty and equal application of the law. Part of me want to see a true Libertarian take office, but I voted 3rd party before and ended up with Clinton (which I think most on this forum will agree, didn't do a lot for the 2A).
-
Part of me want to see a true Libertarian take office, but I voted 3rd party before and ended up with Clinton (which I think most on this forum will agree, didn't do a lot for the 2A).
Surely, you're not suggesting your vote for a 3rd party candidate (presumably Perot) got us Clinton? Even if you give all the Perot votes to Clinton, you don't swing enough states to win the electoral vote. The Republicans forgot to dance with the one who brung 'em.
-
@Herknav,
I probably should have typed out a more complete thought. It was late.
While the actual votes would not have changed the outcome, I believe his campaign did more to hurt Bush's chances than Clinton's.
OK—really—Clinton playing the sax and appearing on MTV probably got him more votes than Bush lost to Perot. He reached out to a virtually non-existent voting block—twenty somethings.
For me personally it was like shock therapy—and now I have a conditioned response.
-
There are legal ways to become a citizen of the US.
There are legal ways to become president of the US.
You follow the laws involved and work to change them if you feel they are faulty.
However, becoming an Undocumented Immigrant or an Undocumented President are not options we should allow.
-
The issue is not B.O.s citizenship but rather his place of birth. He is a citizen do to his mother being a US citizen. The constitution does state the to be president you must be born on US soil. The US also allows any land classified as US soil such as military bases, embassies etc. Since B.O. won't release his birth certificate the question lingers.
-
The issue is not B.O.s citizenship but rather his place of birth. He is a citizen do to his mother being a US citizen. The constitution does state the to be president you must be born on US soil. The US also allows any land classified as US soil such as military bases, embassies etc. Since B.O. won't release his birth certificate the question lingers.
And therein lies the problem. He could easily put the issue to rest, but there must be a reason he doesn't. Only two come to mind:
1) There is some fire imbedded in all this smoke, OR 2) He wants his opponents occupied with the qualification issue so they don't notice him bending us over the desk.
-
Umm, as usual, you are half right and half wrong. Congress can (and should) set requirements on who can come. Personally, I'd as soon go back to the pre-68 laws, but that's just me. Where you are dead wrong though is in dealing with a child born to an American citizen. Here, its not just about which forieners get in. It is about HER right to transfer her citizenship to her child. Spin it how you want, its about an American citizen's rights to bestow the most important thing she has, citizenship in this country. The 14A applies here if it applies anywhere.
FQ13
That is where YOU are wrong, that is not a "Right". it is something the Constitution says will be regulated by rules set by Congress.
The issue is not B.O.s citizenship but rather his place of birth. He is a citizen do to his mother being a US citizen. The constitution does state the to be president you must be born on US soil. The US also allows any land classified as US soil such as military bases, embassies etc. Since B.O. won't release his birth certificate the question lingers.
It does not say that. Look up the definition of "Natural born". It means some one born with undisputed US citizenship. If both Obama's parents were US citizens we would not be having this discussion.
Just like the ignorant azzes who tried to say McCain couldn't be Pres because his 2 citizen parents were in a US Navy hospital in the Canal zone.