Birther Questions & Answers

A Hollywood Republican ^ | 04/25/11 | Tim Ross

[Tennessee Nana]

PING

[InterceptPoint]

Ping

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Nice, orderly summary.

Thanks for producing it.

When Jerry Corsi’s book comes out in May, it may contain some more information on this question.

We will just have to wait and see.

The Connecticut Social Security Number issue is both interesting and troubling. Has the Social Security Administration said anything about it?

[max americana]

Easy summarized points to use when talking to your idiot drooling ‘friends” who still drink the Obama Kool Aid...like Robert De Niro.

[sten]

Missed an important tidbit

In order to be a natural born citizen, not only must the person be born on US soil, but BOTH parents MUST be US citizens at the time of his birth.

Although it is common knowledge 0bama’s father was a Kenyan, thereby British, citizen at the time of his birth, there is no formal documentation of this.

Not without the long form.

[mowowie]

bookmark

[bruinbirdman]

"Although it is common knowledge 0bama’s father was a Kenyan, thereby British, citizen at the time of his birth, there is no formal documentation of this."

So, everything would be OK if The Kenyan's daddy was a U.S.A. citizen. Say, a Mr. Davis?

yitbos

[Ladysforest]

One word of caution to all of us who have been long time “birthers”.

I have noticed that “newbies” - the sincere ones - are sometimes treated like obots just because they come lately to this issue.

We have spent three years earning our spurs, we should not hack the newbie to bits.

I ain’t easy teaching people facts that we know by rout.

We were all there once with all the same questions - so, “get them educated.”

If I had been bashed about the way some of the newbies are now.........well, I wouldn’t have gone on to uncover some enormous anomalies that occurred with the obama newspaper birth announcements, and most especially- the Birth Index books in the Honolulu Dept. of Health.

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/extra-extra-announcing-obamas-birth

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/its-a-date

[Balata]

TOPIC: Obama’s true birthplace WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: Obama was born in Hawaii WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia

You might want to add "...or Canada" to this.

Welcome to FR.

[justrepublican]

Additionally, the address for the birth announcement, which occurred three days later, was 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., an address that belonged to Obama grandparents.

This is absolutely false.

This house belonged to Orland LaFarge & Thelma Young, who died recently.

My father lives three blocks from there.

[philman_36]

You look geared up and ready to rumble. Something rare among most newbies.

[kabar]

In order to be a natural born citizen, not only must the person be born on US soil, but BOTH parents MUST be US citizens at the time of his birth.

That has never been tested in the courts. Currently, if someone is born on US soil, they are automatically a citizen regardless of who the parents are (with a few exceptions such as diplomats accredited to the US.) We have birthright citizenship based on jus solis.

[Ladysforest]

“Additionally, the address for the birth announcement, which occurred three days later, was 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., an address that belonged to Obama grandparents.”

“”This is absolutely false.

This house belonged to Orland LaFarge & Thelma Young, who died recently.””

Please don’t overlook the fact that OBAMA SR. never lived at the address listed as his own in that birth announcement.

NEVER

[Ladysforest]

SIGH.

Citizenship by statute is NOT the exact same thing as natural born Citizenship.

A created citizen is not the same as a natural born citizen.

[kabar]

If I had been bashed about the way some of the newbies are now.........well, I wouldn’t have gone on to uncover some enormous anomalies that occurred with the obama newspaper birth announcements,

Fantastic and thorough research. Question re the birth announcements: Have you considered looking at other repositories for the Hawaian newspapers beyond the LOC and Hawaii? For example, large university libraries?

[kabar]

Citizenship by statute is NOT the exact same thing as natural born Citizenship. A created citizen is not the same as a natural born citizen.

Currently, we have three ways to acquire citizenship: (1) jus solis or birthright citizenship; (2) jus sanguinis or by blood, i.e., being born to two US citizens overseas or to an unmarried US woman citizen abroad (and now there are new regulations governing US citizen fathers for births abroad;) and (3) naturalization. The first two are automatic citizenship. Some could call it natural born citizenship.

All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is whether a child born abroad of American parents is ''a natural born citizen'' in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. Whatever the term ''natural born'' means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ''naturalized.''

Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that ''[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States'' are citizens. Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ''the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .'' This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown.

There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a ''case or controversy'' as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated about.

While some have suggested that perhaps a "natural born citizen" must have been born on US territory (i.e., in keeping with the definition of a citizen given in the 14th Amendment) -- and news reports dealing with presidential eligibility almost invariably misstate the rule in this manner -- the majority opinion of legal experts seems to be that the term refers to anyone who has US citizenship from the moment of his or her birth -- i.e., someone who did not have to be "naturalized" because he/she was born "natural" (i.e., born a citizen).

The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

[RegulatorCountry]

The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

Whenever I see this cite of the 1790 Act, without being followed by a recognition that the Act was repealed and replaced with that of 1795, I'm dubious. The "natural born citizens" language was removed, with just "citizens" in its place.

The enumerated powers of Congress do not allow such an Act. Congress is limited to enacting "an uniform rule of naturalization." Statute law, in other words.

One thing a natural born citizen isn't, is naturalized. Or a citizen created via statute.

That the first Congress believed the matter to require addressing via the 1790 Act indicates that they understood the term natural born citizen not to cover individuals born "beyond the sea." Their attempt to address the matter collided with the separation of powers and enumerated powers under the Constitution, however.

The 1790 Act was unconstitutional and was recognized as such, having been repealed and replaced with language that did comport to enumerated powers.

[jarofants]

What are the houses worth around that area? Just a ballpark. I don't think the Obamas could afford that area. CNN has reported the address as an apartment complex, they even showed it. Boy do they lie.

[TigerClaws]

Discussion of Orland and Thelma:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2150358/posts?page=36