Trump Refuses to Back Down Over Obama's 'Very Strange' Birth

[tombogan03884]

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.

[Timothy]

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

[tombogan03884]

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.

[Pathfinder]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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.

[Sponsor]

[LittleRed]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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

[tombogan03884]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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

[tombogan03884]

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"