Posted on 09/23/2015 10:18:47 PM PDT by Ray76
In this era of wikileaks, Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, I’m surprised that no one has successfully hacked Obama’s records. Even our Top Secret files get hacked these days.
Student visa records would also provide that information. College records are confidential, visa records aren’t.
The school registration form from 1967 to attend St. Francis of Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia was released years ago.
https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+st.+francis+of+assisi+school&safe=off&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS644US644&hl=en-US&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAmoVChMI78Ko-tCQyAIVEjuICh3Hjg3h&biw=1024&bih=653#imgrc=J57Tfcu8xlX4CM%3A
Maybe if the MSM had done their job before he got into the whitehut, they would have known that!
What exactly are the citizenship rules/law for children born overseas of an American mother or father, or both?
See my Comment #64. Do you have the answer?
If they have , they are blackmailing him!
Well, there were birth announcements for him in two Honolulu newspapers on August 13 and August 14, 1961. Three weeks later on August 31, 1961 his father named Hawaii as his birthplace in an interview with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and that 1967 school application form says Honolulu as the birthplace.
In the absence of definitive proof of birth somewhere else, I would bet on Honolulu.
Anything’s possible!
That’s the way it is where Obama is concerned. Everybody (including Dear Leader himself) “makes mistakes” or “misspoke.”
My pleasure!
The current situation is either an American mother or an American father can impart citizenship to a child born abroad provided they have spent a sufficient time (five years I think) after their 14th birthday in the United States.
This was not always the case. Prior to the Cable act of 1922, only fathers could impart citizenship to children born abroad.
DiogenesLamp is correct. Here’s the section of current law on who qualifies as a “Citizen of the United States At Birth,” if born abroad:
“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”—8 U.S.C. § 1401
If what you say is true, then I don’t know what all the fuss about Obama’s citizenship is except people not liking him or his views.
There are people who don’t believe that he was born in the United States (some think Kenya, some think Indonesia and others say Canada) and under the rules in place in 1961 his 18 year old mother was three months too young to qualify him for Citizenship At Birth. She would have had to be 19 years old at the time of his birth if he was born abroad.
That’s a legitimate legal/constitutional argument.
Speaking as a woman, that age thing seems terribly unfair. Was there ever a Supreme Court test case? Of course the men only was even more unfair, as a hundred years ago, paternity was a lot harder to prove than maternity before DNA testing existed.
Which ever parent is the United States citizen has to have been present in the United States for five years after the age of 14, that could be the male parent or the female parent.
This is not recently on covered as the same website published an article on it back in 2010
http://www.obamareleaseyourrecords.com/2010/08/in-2007-on-msnbc-chris-old-school.html
make that uncovered.
There are a couple of different issues regarding Obama's citizenship status. The first is whether he was actually born inside the borders of the United States. This aspect of his citizenship was only a topic of discussion because of the general assumption/assertion that he was born in Kenya.
The law on this is quite clear. If he was not born inside the borders of the United States, he is not a US Citizen at all, so the speculation as to where he was born became somewhat important.
The Second issue with his citizenship status was whether or not the requirement of "natural born citizen" could be fulfilled by being just a "citizen." The consensus among the legal "experts" is that any sort of citizen is good enough to meet the requirement of "natural born citizen" as outlined in article 2 of the US constitution.
This claim is of course hogwash, and can be demonstrated to be a false assertion by referencing several past statements and events in history, not to mention that it doesn't even make sense logically.
But it doesn't really matter anymore because we are way through the looking glass of legal insanity. Our laws simply mean whatever the current crop of judges want them to mean. They have no solid meaning and have now become infinitely flexible.
Obama is not a "natural citizen" and there is reasonable possibility that he's not even a US Citizen of any sort at all.
That might be the current law, but I believe the law at the time Obama was born is more stringent regarding the necessary residency in the US prior to birth of the Child. If I recall properly, it required five years of residency after attaining the age of 14.
Of course this begs for the question, why doesn't a "natural citizen" have a mother residency requirement?
A natural citizen has neither a residency requirement for the mother, or a residency requirement for the child. A natural citizen has to meet no further requirements to keep their citizenship.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.