“Thank you for your expert opinion, you are dead wrong however. The mother did not meet the requirements, because Hawaii was a territory, not a state. Read the Law, wise up.”
Here’s the law:
http://www.theodora.com/ina_96_title_3.html
“(g) 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:”
What’s the first sentence say, genius? He was born in Hawaii, a US possession, so he’s eligible.
Well no.
First place, Hawaii was a state in 1961 when he claims to have been born.
More important to your conclusion is that the statute you quote is not applicable to individuals born before November 14, 1986. The statute was changed to the version you quote by Public Law 99-653--the effective dates are set out in the afternotes to the Codified version of the statute.
The version that was effective required that the US Citizen parent reside in the US for at least five years after age 14. Since the mother was only 18 when he was born, she flunks that test by definition.
Note further, as we pointed out to you earlier, that the statutory citizenship test does not control the Constitutional test of eligibility to serve as President--even if he had been a citizen, which it appears clear from the statute he is not, he still flunks the test of Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4 of the Constitution for eligibility to serve as President.
This is the issue, the age of the mother. Besides I don't give a cr@p, this dufus country is hell bent on electing this marxist, so let them all dwell in the house of Lenin, I am old and enough that it doesn't matter to me.