"Barack Obama is not legally a US natural-born citizen"

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4375 ^

[xjcsa]

So far I have not seen any thread where Techdude has come out with HIS findings.

Did I miss a thread somewhere?

He has not published that portion of his proof yet, but he has confirmed that it was Maya's name, after several other investigators figured it out on their own.

[Non-Sequitur]

The same as the story mentioned, of course...

Yes. That would be the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act. Title III, Act 1, Chapter 301 would be the relevant section relating to the naturalization status of a person born outside the U.S. to a U.S. parent and a foreign national. It reads: "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..." is a natural born U.S. citizen Even if Obama was born overseas then he's still a natural born citizen according to this act.

INA

Link to the Act itself is at the bottom.

So if the act passed in 1952 did not say what the article claims was the law in effect when Obama was born, then when was the law changed to the requirements the article claims?

[Raycpa]

Here is the best explanation I have read on the accepted vs. filed question:

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/obama-birth-mystery-cont/#comment-2061

#

Aragon // June 23, 2008 at 1:36 pm

It’s right there and you all can’t see it.

I am an attorney of 13 years so am used to working with lingo and working my way backwards to figure out which laws and regulations are in play.

What do the two following discrepancies have in common:

1. A regular Certification of Birth says “Date Accepted By State Registrar” vs. Obama’s “Date Filed By Registrar”;

2. There is a black field where the certificate number should be.

The Answer to the discrepancies noted in 1 and 2 above are the same. You get a birth cerficate number when the proposed certificate is accepted by the State Registrar!

There is no certificate number because, while a proposed certificate was submitted (Date Filed by Registrar), it was never accepted (Date Accepted by Registrar).

The black field you see does not cover a certificate number rather it hides the fact of its non existence.

As an attorney allow me to work backwards here. Given my familiarity with legislating I submit that the State of Hawaii had a system in place wherein if a proposed certificate of birth was submitted by a hospital or registered medical facility it would, as a matter of administrative rule, be routinely approved and accepted by the State and a Birth Certificate issued. However, if not born in a major hospital or registered medical facility then further proof would be needed upon submission of the proposed certificate. In the instant matter, while a proposed certificate was filed with the Registrar it was not accepted for any number of reasons.

Where a proposed certificate is not accepted then an applicant can ask for a hearing or otherwise submit proof surrounding the circumstances of birth for purposes of having a birth certificate issued. My guess is that Barrack’s mother never provided adequate proof to the Registrar of the circumstances surrounding Barrack’s birth. This may be because Barrack was born elsewhere, adopted, or who knows.

As further proof of matters as surmised above, the fact that the certificate of birth we see references African as race testifies not to the State’s labelling practices (which practices did not include such a label) but rather to how the mother or father classified themselves as it was they that submitted the proposed certificate of birth. This explains this oddity “African” very well.

So what we have here is a State Summary of a Proposed Birth Certificate which certificate was never accepted by the State. Perhaps Barrack was born in the U.S., however, what he doesn’t want is to have to apply for a hearing with the Registrar’s office for purposes of submitting proof of the circumstances of his birth. This would be a zoo. And it may be too late to ask for such a hearing in which case he would have to apply for the hearing, be rejected, then appeal to the higher court’s for resolution of the matter. Further, the their may be a constitutional requirement of U.S. birth, a birth certificate while likely presumptive evidence of the fact, is not the only means of proving the fact. Here, Obama, if challenged on his place of birth could file a declaratory action with the Federal Courts seeking to establish his birth in the U.S. for purposes of satisfying, not the State of Hawaii, but the constitutional requirements of one seeking to hold the office of presidency. But this again would be a zoo and legally murky.

Anyway, my familiarity with the law indicates that the above explanation is a good one and accounts for many things:

1. Why reference is made to filed and not accepted;
2. Why there is a black field where the certificate number should be;
3. Why Obama refuses to state what hospital he was born in;
4. Why there is a discrepancy in accounts as to which hospital Obama was born in;
5. Why there is no attestation and seal on the certificate of birth submitted by Obama; (Note what has been produced is not a birth certificate nor a substitute for same as it was not accepted, therefore, no seal was necessary as it is merely a public document.)
6. Why Obama won’t release his birth certificate.
7. Why Obama can say straight faced he was born in Hawaii (because he thinks he was or can say he thinks he was and can just say the birth certificate was nothing but a mere formality that his family never took care of.).

[usmcobra]

Here check this out ,,,,

[Alter Kaker]

This article brings up the question of whether Obama's Mama Stanley was old enough to qualify to confer citizenship on her child. She does not appear to have been, by the explicit criteria in the stated law. His place of birth is irrelevant.

No, I'm afraid your understanding isn't correct. Citizenship has always, since the 14th Amendment been automatically conferred on those born on US soil, with only a few narrow exceptions (the children of diplomats and POWs being chief among them). The law you cite only applied to those born outside the United States.

[shield]

You can bet PIAPS has the goods on him IF IT’S TRUE she’ll end up being the nominee and will give all the proof necessary to whomever to nail him. Leave it up to the clintoons’... they’ll handle it. LOL

[Spunky]

The law has changed at various times.

Go to the below link and you will find this on the 2nd page.

He would fit in this law since he was born in 1961.

4. December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986 If, at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.

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.

Now mind you this law is ONLY IF he was born outside the U.S. And if he was born outside the U.S. Obama's mother didn't fit the criteria of 5 yrs after the age of 16 because she was 18 when she gave birth to him.

CITIZENSHIP

[Spunky]

"It does not stipulate that now. When did the law change? What year?"

Also whatever the law is now it was NOT made retroactive.

[Raycpa]

A sample of the rules from the state of Maine for accepting a delayed birth registration (I could not locate Hawaii)

§2764. Delayed birth registration

In order to provide an official record of statements concerning births which have occurred in this State, the state registrar shall accept a registration of any birth of which no record can be found in either the files of the state registrar or the clerk of the municipality where the birth occurred, provided such registration is filed in accordance with this section.

< snip>
4. Deficiencies. When the applicant does not submit documentation as specified in subsections 2 and 3 in support of his statements, or when the state registrar finds reason to question the adequacy of the documentation, the said state registrar shall not sign or accept the delayed registration of birth, but shall advise the applicant of its deficiencies and request that further documentation be submitted.

< snip>

6. Form. Any certified copy of a delayed birth registration filed under this section shall be issued on a form which indicates that it is a copy of a delayed birth registration, and shall contain a description of the documents submitted in evidence.

[cynwoody]

In as much that the 14th amendment is an amendment to the Bill of Rights, how can it trump the original articles of the constitution.

The Bill of Rights is simply the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Although they do have a certain historical significance (hence the name), they enjoy no special status above and beyond other amendments. In fact, later amendments trump earlier amendments, just as they trump articles. The Constitution is meant to be changeable, just not easily.

[usmcobra]

There is a difference between Natural born and Naturalized at birth and it is part of our laws and it does make a difference if someone is illegitimate or not according to past law.

For instance, the child of an American serviceman should be an American citizen right?

Not quite, until very recently bastard children of American Servicemen born overseas had no right to citizenship unless their father went through a formal process to give them naturalized citizenship by birth.

There is a reason why illegitimate children were denied certain rights, it was done to protect those that Obeyed Our laws.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

That contradicts the language of the 1952 act, the text of which I posted in reply 122 along with the link. So I'm back to the question of when was the law changed to require 5 year's residence after age 16? Can anyone answer that?

[cynwoody]

There is no certificate number because, while a proposed certificate was submitted (Date Filed by Registrar), it was never accepted (Date Accepted by Registrar).

The black field you see does not cover a certificate number rather it hides the fact of its non existence.

Very interesting. Thanks for your post! I hadn't thought of nonexistence as a reason for redacting the certificate number.

[Raycpa]

Lets start over and keep it simple:

Sec. 1405. Persons born in Hawaii

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. ,A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

What part of:

A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. , Don't you understand?

[Spunky]

"If this is true, then every child born to an out of wedlock mother under the age of 21 (16+5) would not be a citizen at birth. ...."

Remember we are talking IF the child is born outside the U.S. But the subject of unwed mothers has been addressed in some other law.

David can you help here?

[Spunky]

I don’t see any evidence of an embossed state seal or the signature of anyone certifying that it is a true copy of the orginal COLB.

[Raycpa]

Remember we are talking IF the child is born outside the U.S. But the subject of unwed mothers has been addressed in some other law.

You are talking about if the child is born out of the US. The author and some on this thread are arguing this applies to anyone born in the US. That interpretation leads to the inevitable conclusion that millions of children every year need to line up at immigration in order to become citizens.

It is nonsensical.

As for the unwed mom's I brought that to David's attention because it limits the possible scenarios being thrown around. Basically, a child of an unwed mom has the same citizenship as the mom regardless of other qualifications. David can you help here?

[Raycpa]

The poster of that analysis made a compelling argument which connects a lot of dots.

Although the 4 days between birth and filing are enough to travel anywhere in the US even back in the 60’s, I doubt a new mom would make the trek from Africa to Hawaii so soon after birth.

If the poster is correct, I suspect more practical reasons for the incomplete filing.

[Spunky]

"She has both."

You made the statement that it has been in the baby book for 50 or so yrs. So I imagine that is close to the age you are. My oldest is that age also, so I imagine your mother is about my age. I can tell you that back then I had NO IDEA that the Birth Certificate given to me at the hospital WAS NOT the real deal. It wasn't until after my daughter had children (21 yrs ago) and we asked for the certificate with foot prints, weight, time of birth ect. They said they no longer gave those out. I said; "You mean we don't get their little foot prints"? We had to get a stamp pad and do them ourselves. We were told the actual official certificate had to be sent for.

For your mother to have both in your baby book for 50 yrs she must have known something that most at that time didn't know.

[usmcobra]

Here let me make it simple for you as well....

SHOW ME HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

I don't repeat myself.