So Stanley Ann had compelling reasons to not leave the USA, according to you.
Nevertheless, the PROPER reading of that statute is that Barack Obama was a natural born US citizen *even if*:
- his Mom was not married, AND
- he was born overseas (Kenya, Moscow, North Pole, etc.)
The physically present rule was more than satisfied since Stanley Ann Dunham grew up in the US. Which blows your whole “He’s not a natural born citizen if born in Kenya” theory up in smoke.
To wit: “However, the 1934 Statute permitted either the father or mother to transmit U.S. citizenship. This was construed as also authorizing the transmission of citizenship to an illegitimate child born abroad on or after May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother. “
Obama is a natural-born US citizen.
Not because he was born in Honolulu Hawaii (even though that is where he was born).
And not because his Mom was married (they supposedly were 6 months prior).
But simply because the 1952 and 1934 statutes tranmitted citizenship through a US citizen mother, even if born overseas.
Game over. Barack’s eligible to be President, with 100% certainty, no matter WHERE he is born.
Not so fast, the statutes have different rules for children of married parents than illegitimate children. Currently and in the year Obama was born ,the child of a single mom would be a citizen no matter where the child was born so long as the mom met the residency requirements (which for Obama would have been 1 year).
If they were married, both parents would have to meet certain requirements if the child were born outside of the US.
The second possibility I eliminated with the law is the date of birth being before the statehood of Hawaii. The law provides that retroactively that virtually everyone born in Hawaii is a citizen.
Natural-born? Maybe, the lawyers are arguing the finer points of that right now. I'm inclined towards the side that says natural-born means born on US soil.
Part of what I'm saying isn't the law, it's what Stanley Ann thought was the law. That is what drove her actions.
It is very reasonable to believe that she thought out of country illegitimate birth (there's a phrase loaded with bias!) with a foreign national father would deny her baby citizenship, or at least complicate getting it asserted.
It is very reasonable to expect a new mommy - even a commie mommy - to want the best for her son, and to take steps to insure it.
You keep saying he was born in Honolulu, as if that were a given.
It's not a given. It might well be true, but smart people of good will are debating that, each side has good evidence supporting their views.
Game over. Barack’s eligible to be President, with 100% certainty, no matter WHERE he is born.
It's halftime. A bit early to declare victory.
We agree that he is a citizen, regardless of the location of his birth.
Even given the unquestionable facts of his meeting the age and residence requirements, citizenship, by itself, is not sufficient to hold office.
He has to be a "natural born" citizen. What exactly that phrase means has been the subject of a rather lively debate. I suspect that will be clarified a bit more during this election cycle.
Regardless of the outcome of that particular debate, politically this is a dead issue. If intelligent articulate conservatives can't present the issue clearly to each other what hope does it have for being clear in the minds of the average government school mal-educated voter?