The only facts that differ are that one parent was a born citizen, and the other was ‘merely’ here on a long term visa for study rather than employment - although as the husband of an American, he could have chosen to apply to stay here permanently.
To rule Obama isn’t a NBC, the court would have to toss out the reasoning of WKA and come up with an entirely different rationale, and do so to overturn the popular election of a sitting President.
Ain’t going to happen. Someone trying to overturn Obama’s agenda would be better off donating to good candidates than supporting BS cases like this.
May I ask if you are a lawyer?
The differences between the parental ties of WKA to the U.S. and those of Obama’s parents are quite easily distinguishable. Although a court could still find that Obama is a NBC — on whatever ground — it is simply incorrect to say the “only difference” is a “mere” one. It doesn’t matter what Obama’s parents “could have chosen” to do; what matters is what they did — where they resided, where their domiciliary was, what kind of contacts they had and retained with this country.
Legal residency is not an inconsequential status. Neither is legal domiciliary.
Rahm Emanuel, for example, is facing questions about his eligibility to run for Mayor of Chicago because, it is argued, he is not a legal resident of Chicago, having changed his legal residence to Washington D.C. for the last 18 months or so.
Those arguments may not prevail, but they could. They are not inconsequential, depending on the law.
None of my comments are based on the likelihood of Obama being ruled ineligible or not. I am simply observing that, when the usual legal analysis is applied to WKA, there are arguments to be made that the facts of the Obama case are distinguishable from the facts of the WKA case.