Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: visually_augmented
For example, Hawaii was admitted into the Union on August 18, 1959. So if Obama was born just two years earlier, would he still have been a natural-born citizen?

Yes, because he would have been born in a US territory, which is just as good as being born in a state.

How was citizenship of Hawaiian residents determined upon gaining state-hood? I assume not all current residents were citizens let alone natural-born (if any).

If they were born on Hawaiian soil after it became a US territory in 1898, then yes, they are natural born citizens. Those born before then were not. Instead, they were naturalized when the US assumed soveriegnty over the islands. Of course, this is all moot, since I doubt there are very many Hawaiians before 1898 still around.

This is not complicated.

244 posted on 12/16/2008 10:31:41 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies ]


To: curiosity

curiosity:”This is not complicated.”

Of course it is not complicated when you maintain the standards you have chosen. If you just rely upon somebody’s word that indeed they were born in Hawaii, then it is trivial.

How do we know that the documentation and records that Hawaii kept for 60 years prior to statehood were accurate and legitimate? How do we know that the standards they maintained were consistent with those that the continental 48 states maintained.

This seems to be your problem. You are taking too much of the argument at face value without gaining a preponderance of evidence.


247 posted on 12/16/2008 11:05:40 AM PST by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson