Posted on 10/16/2008 11:25:39 PM PDT by Chet 99
Echoing the theme of recent John McCain campaign ads that claim Barack Obama associates with terrorists, Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle told a small Henderson audience that in this presidential election “it’s the protection of your families that’s at stake.”
If the choice between the Republican and Democratic nominees is “posed in this fashion,” she said, then voters are “going to say McCain.”
Lingle’s stump speech for McCain attracted only about 60 people to the Henderson Convention Center on Wednesday afternoon — chairs were taken away shortly before she arrived. By contrast, nearly a thousand came to the same venue to hear Mitt Romney speak in August.
Besides mentioning McCain’s history of crossing party lines, Lingle hardly touched on the Arizona senator’s record and instead focused on Obama.
Policy wasn’t mentioned. In fact, she said the two candidates can “talk all they want” about their plans on issues such as health care and energy, but it “really comes down to: Who do you want to be sitting in the White House when it comes down to the security of America?”
McCain’s campaign has come under fire recently for what some have called scare tactics, and McCain was forced to diffuse the fears of his supporters and defend Obama at a recent rally: “He’s a decent family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that’s what this campaign is all about.”
Lingle, though, repeatedly framed the presidential election in terms of the physical safety of Americans and painted Obama as a mysterious figure who is uncomfortable with leadership.
She said voting for Obama would put the safety of the country’s children in the “hands of someone we hardly know.” (She also added that despite Obama’s touting he is from Hawaii, she has never met him and he has “never called me on the phone.”)
Ultimately the country judges the president by how he deals with the unexpected, Lingle said, and Obama “is not a person who will make the tough calls.”
“The residence requirement on her (for conferring citizenship on her baby) was different, as an unmarried mother, from the requirement for married women; and she did satisfy the requirement as it existed then, so that she would have conferred citizenship on her baby simply by returning to the States and continuing to live there.”
The marraige requirements you speak of are if BOTH parents are US citizens. They were not as Barack’s father was a Kenyan (British at the time) citizen, not American.
“My understanding is that the law does indeed (or did indeed) distinguish critically between married and unmarried mothers, and impose different residence rules. “
Only if he was a US citizen, which Sr wasn’t. There are specific rules for those whose parents are of American citizen and father of foreign citizen.
1. Am I correct in thinking that there are people here saying that it doesn’t matter where Obama was born or whether his mom was married, he would never be a natural born citizen? And therefore, would NEVER be qualified to run for President?
>>>
That is in question. Citizen, maybe. Natural born, questionable.
2, Was there some kind of procedure his parent had to do when Obama was 18 in order for him to become a US Citizen?
>>>
Yes, denounce his Indonesian citizenship bestowed on him by his stepfather and if that is the case, he would then become NATURALIZED, not natural born.
I’m afraid Barack’s mother screwed him up on this whether she intended to not.
had he been born in the USA he would have been a natural born citizen. If he was born in Kenya then he is not a natural born citizen but maybe be a citizen.
At this time, still, no actual proof he was born on US soil or in juridical controlled territories thereof.
Only if who was a U.S. citizen? The father? The father doesn't count, if the mother is unmarried. That's what I understood.
The father might as well be a phial of refrigerated, unprovenanced sperm, if the mother is single. I don't understand why you keep trying to drag that rolling stone into it. He was never in the picture legally, because his "marriage" to Obama's mother was not legit. No marriage, no fatherhood. No fatherhood, no impact on Obama's citizenship status.
Do you have a 1961 copy? That would be the governing definition.
.......without a certified vault copy of BO's COLB from Hawaii, his legitimacy as meeting the Constitutional requirement is in serious doubt.
That is a paperwork requirement, one supposes. But all one needs, and I suppose Philip Berg is working on that issue among others, is a clarification of Miss Dunham's marital status and citizenship status when Barack was born.
At this time, still, no actual proof he was born on US soil or in juridical controlled territories thereof.
Please scroll up. If Miss Dunham were a) unmarried and b) a U.S. citizen resident in Hawaii/the U.S. for a year before Barack Obama's birth, my understanding -- as elucidated by posters on another thread -- is that Barack H. Obama was, and is, regrettably, a natural-born United States citizen, despite the fact that he was born (stipulated arguendo) in Mombasa, Kenya.
It's the citizenship and marital status of his mother that governed, under U.S. law as it existed at the time.
First of all, the “marraige” of OBama Sr. in Kenya was a tribal marriage and not validated by British law (Kenya was a british nation at that time), so by all respects, the marriage IS valid.
But here are the specifics. Take what you will from them.
>>>
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:
1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant’s birth;
3) the father (unless deceased) had agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and
4) while the person is under the age of 18 years —
A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,
B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
First of all, the “marraige” of OBama Sr. in Kenya was a tribal marriage and not validated by British law (Kenya was a british nation at that time), so by all respects, the marriage IS valid.
But here are the specifics. Take what you will from them.
>>>
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:
1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant’s birth;
3) the father (unless deceased) had agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and
4) while the person is under the age of 18 years —
A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,
B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
Also, please note the term “aquire” citizenship.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
So yes, he would be a US citizen, but still would NOT quality as natural born.
If indeed Lingle knows there is no Hawaii birth certificate, she’s keeping quiet about it because McCain has told her not to let the cat out of the bag, at least not yet.
1961 copy if you want....My lawyer has the copy and it's definition of natural born citizen hasn't changed since the release in 1951, and yes he's a Republican and I've verified the definition from that book.
"From Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: "Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad."
There are no loopholes in the law w/ regards to the term 'territorial limits".
Plus, the laws governing US citizenship and natural born citizen between 1953 and 1986 are applicable to BO's status as 'natutal born'.
Furthermore:
Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to “prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters” who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
“At this point, Mr. Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records nor supporting hospital records,” Marquis wrote. “The Hawaii Health Department has violated federal law by ignoring formal Freedom of Information requests for the same.”
Marquis referenced prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee for proof of Obama’s American citizenship.
"If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. There are no conditions placed on retaining this type of citizenship. If your one U.S. citizen parent is your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules apply if your father legally legitimated you before your 21st birthday and you were unmarried at the time. If legitimation occurred after November 14, 1986, your father must have established paternity prior to your 18th birthday, either by acknowledgment or by court order, and must have stated in writing that he would support you financially until your 18th birthday."
Precedence for Berg's suite can be found by:
U.S. Supreme Court Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Rogers v. Bellei
No. 24
Argued January 15, 1970
Reargued November 12, 1970
Decided April 5, 1971
401 U.S. 815
Remember, BO was adopted in Indonesia by his step-father.
Indonesia has never recognized dual citizenship with the US, therefore, BO became an Indonesian at the time of his adoption, releasing him of his US citizenship even if natural born.
We haven't seen a legitimate certified copied of his COLB.
We haven't seen his citizenship papers / certificate after re-entering the US.
The US Supreme Court ruling states in footnote 1 for reference of the ruling:
[Footnote 1]
"SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: "
"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"
"* * * *"
"(7) 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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided . . ."
"(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State[s] for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years."
"(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934. . . ."
Section 301(a)(7) was amended November 6, 1966, by Pub.L. 89-770, 80 Stat. 1322, by way of additions to the proviso, omitted above; these have no relevancy here. Pub.L. 85-316, § 16, 71 Stat. 644, 8 U.S.C. § 1401b, enacted in September, 1957, provides that absences of less than 12 months in the aggregate "shall not be considered to break the continuity of [the] physical presence" required by § 301(b).
This case in particular cites precedence for BO's highly questionable qualification to become POTUS.
I also cite:STUDIES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A Treatise On American Citizenship By John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Company Northport, Long Island, N.Y. (1906)
Most importantly, the state of Hawaii is in full defiance as not providing a certified vault copy of BO's COLB under the Freedom of Information Act.
No one, nowhere can produce authentic documents concerning Obama's birth in Hawaii nor his Citizenship Certificate when he came back to the US.
In the immortal words of Young Frankenstein:
THIS...COULD...WORK!"
The law at the time Obama was born says ten years!
Berg has a number of questions for Obama, not just one.
Even if BHO was born as a natural born citizen, if he was formally adopted by Stanley's second husband, Lolo Soetoro, then he would have lost his "natural born" status when he became an Indonesian citizen. At best he would be a "[re]naturalized citizen" if he signed a loyalty oath to the US when he became an adult. At worst, he may still be a citizen of Indonesia in the eyes of the law.
Thanks LucyT.
My sister was born to two U.S. citizens in Canada, of whom one, her mother, had been recently naturalized about a year before delivering my sister. My sister's citizenship status became a big deal 20 years later, when I was being vetted with a background investigation (not a National Security Check) for a higher-classification clearance in connection with my Navy Reserve training billet. It turned out that she had voted in the U.S. already (the voting age was 18), so that resolved her citizenship status. But if she hadn't, it could have screwed up my B.I.
Back then, though, people didn't talk about "dual citizenship" -- you were "either/or", and people coming of age had to declare themselves. ("Dual citizenship" was whomped up in the 70's to appease the Jewish lobby, I think. I never heard of Americans claiming to hold "dual citizenship" before people began going over to Israel and joining the IDF Reserve or even the government, like Meir Kahane. You'd have thought American Jews would have been totally allergic to any arrangement suggesting "dual/divided loyalties".)
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.