Althouse: "Why won't the birther issue die?"

January 28, 2011

"Why won't the birther issue die?"

Hmmm?

318 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 318 of 318

G Joubert said...: Seven Machos:

Under your theory Winston Churchill could've legally ran for and been POTUS. Are you saying that? You'd need a tachometer to measure the founders in their graves.; 1/28/11, 3:40 PM
Anonymous said...: "What you have to understand is that these birther people are batshit crazy."

Huh?

Why exactly is asking to be shown a public record "bat shit crazy?"

Isn't this why we have FOIA laws?; 1/28/11, 3:40 PM
Mick said...: Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Mick,

Just out of curiosity, which was the first legitimate US President? -- i.e., the first one born in the US to parents who were citizens of the US at the time of his birth? Obviously we can nix the first half dozen or so. (And it depends whether you consider the United States to date from the Declaration of Independence, or the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution.)

Looks to me like it was either Martin Van Buren or John Tyler. What say you?

I believe it was Van Buren. The other 12 were grandfathered in by the grandfather clause of A2S1C5 "or a citizen at the time..."; 1/28/11, 3:40 PM
Original Mike said...: "If Obama figures out what to do about the Middle East, he'll be the greatest president in the history of the United States."

And pigs will fly.; 1/28/11, 3:40 PM
Hagar said...: @Michael K
If you think about it, Kerry's anti-war period is completely out of line with his behavior before and after, so an alternate explanation is that it was fake, and he actually was working undercover for Navy Intelligence, and it is the discharge date on his DD214 that would cause embarrassment.; 1/28/11, 3:41 PM
Mick said...: BJM said...

"@Mick

No matter if he was born in the Oval office, Obama cannot be a natural born Citizen

You sir, are full of shit.

The term "natural born" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means in this context. It means the child must be the biological progeny of a US parent, either father or mother. Where the actual delivery takes places is of no consequence.

Dept of State requires that to register a baby born in a foreign country as a US citizen the parents must take the baby to the US consulate, along with,
a)an original copy of the baby’s birth certificate, b)an original copy of the parent’s certificate of marriage, c) parent’s passports
and d)pay the fee in USD.

This happens every day around the world.

The only way his place of birth could be an issue is if his mother was a naturalized citizen, which we know she was not; or renounced her citizenship and took up another, then he would need to be born on US soil/territory.

I don't recall that there has ever been a report that his mother renounced her citizenship, so that's a moot point.

When I applied for my first passport in the 60's my mother couldn't find the original "long form" with my footprints, and I received a certified mimeograph copy from the county clerk's office.

However a few years later when my sister applied for a copy they had switched to microfiche records and her long form was converted to the short version with the clerk's seal.

btw- my "long form" was hand written, how easy would that be to alter?

My maternal grandfather's birth certificate was a page in the family Bible with the time, date, footprints and the midwife's signature. The vicar's signature was appended at his baptism.

As he was born on a remote farm the only official record was the church baptism records. His people didn't get into town much and probably never to the county seat. So those two documents were his birth records. He had to lug the Bible into this or that govt office from time to time, but it was recognized as a genuine birth certificate by every govt agency that requested same, including SS and Dept of State.

So what we're arguing over is a red herring designed to divert us from discussing the dire job situation or health care FUBAR."

And you are wrong for the reasons I have already discussed.; 1/28/11, 3:43 PM
Mick said...: CQuente said,

"The 14th Amendment clarifies who is a citizen by birth, i.e. a natural-born citizen."

Where in the 14A does it say "natural born".

Who says that a "citizen at birth" (including those born abroad and those born to aliens) are natural born Citizens, when the very well documented purpose of the requirement was to prevent foreign influence?

Why did Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Aek SCOTUS cases say that the definition was not in the 14A?; 1/28/11, 3:48 PM
Crimso said...: FWIW, when I took a position at Vanderbilt University in 1994, the HR person I dealt with on the very first day I set foot on campus informed me that I needed to produce an official birth certificate (in my case issued by the Commonwealth of Kentucky) or I should not expect a paycheck at the end of the month. They would not accept a photocopy nor ANY other proof of my right to work in the U.S. It HAD to be an official birth certificate, complete with raised seal. And they were very emphatic about this requirement. Having lost my original birth certificate, this caused some minor headaches involving the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but they eventually were satisified to the point of mailing me an official and duly authorized replacement (which I've since lost, though I guess I must have still had it when I got a passport several years later).; 1/28/11, 3:51 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...

" Birth to an alien father, married to an American Citizen mother on US soil requires NATURALIZATION by election of residence at the age of majority.

No. It does not."

Sure it does. Which country has jurisdiction is a function of residence. If the aien father takes the child to his home country, and the child stays there till age 30, he obviously would not be a US Citizen. But if the child is taken out of the US in minority and returns w/in reasonable time at the age of majority and sets up residence, then that grown up child is an American citizen. See Perkins v. Elg (you need to study); 1/28/11, 3:55 PM
CachorroQuente said...: Barack Obama could defuse this situation by releasing the records. His obstinance is dangerous and unnecessary and could lead the United States citizenry to question the legitimacy of their government.

It's irresponsible of him to refuse to release public records that belong to the people.

Look what they did with a few matches and some rags in Tunisia and now in Egypt.

Governments can fall.

Easily.
And yet despite this clear and present danger, Barack Obama obstinently and puckishly refuses a simple request; something you or I had to do to get our licenses and open our bank accounts or get our passports.

We had to PROVE we are Americans.

There is no controversy here, there is nothing to be defused, there is no crisis. Obama was born in Hawaii. The State of Hawaii has verified that its records show that he was born there and has published a document certifying that the State's records verify this fact. What is left to prove? What of any importance can the "long form" birth certificate show that has not already been established by the exact same authority that would issue a copy of the "long form" certificate. The only important fact that can be established is his country of birth and that has already been established beyond any doubt.

In order to prove your citizenship to get a passport (and other things) you had to provide evidence from your state or, perhaps, county of birth. That is exactly what Obama has done.

By the way, the only reason you need to provide a birth certificate to get a driver's license is to prove your age. Don't need to be a citizen to drive. Don't need to provide your birth certificate to get a bank account either. When I enlisted in the army at 18, I didn't need to provide a birth certificate; didn't provide any identification at all because -- I didn't have any. The only two times in my life I needed a birth certificate was when I got my first driver's license (at 16) and when I applied for a passport and for the passport all I had to provide was a letter with a seal from the registrar of the county of my birth. Perhaps we need to start an investigation to prove that I'm eligible for a passport.

Again, there is no crisis. The few people who, without any cause, question Obama's qualifications to be president will never get together to form the most impotent of mobs. I doubt that you could get enough of them off their couches to outnumber a typical Pittsburgh Pirates crowd. (or the Florida Tuna Fish); 1/28/11, 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...: " ... the HR person I dealt with on the very first day I set foot on campus informed me that I needed to produce an official birth certificate ..."

The law in the United States requires all employers to submit to the federal government an I-9 form.

Here is the I-9 form from the IRS website:

http://www.irs.gov/app/scripts/exit.jsp?dest=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uscis.gov%2Ffiles%2Fform%2Fi-9.pdf

Every person hired in the United States of America is required by law to prove their eligibility for employment by producing two forms of identification.

One form is not enough. Two forms are required.

Barack Obama should produce his papers. He requires us to. Why should we not demand the same of him?

It is not nutty to demand that the President of the United States be required to do that which he demands of his citizenry.; 1/28/11, 4:00 PM
Anonymous said...: "There is no controversy here, there is nothing to be defused, there is no crisis."

There is controversy. This post and its comments prove it. This subject is very controversial.

There is also a crisis - of confidence. People believe their President is a crook and that's a crisis that brought down one President already, almost brought down another and now threatens our Democracy again.

Barack Obama could defuse the situation by doing something very simple, but that he refuses to do ... release the records.

But he won't. Why?

Thus, that is why there is a controversy and a crisis.; 1/28/11, 4:04 PM
Anonymous said...: "Lawyers would say that the burden of proof is upon the birthers since Obama has shown a short form certificate."

Only Obama's lawyers would say such a stupid thing.

A copy of a document cannot be admitted into evidence in the presence of the original.

Obama controls the original and proffers the (possibly altered) copy.

Thus, he has the burden.

Nice try, though.; 1/28/11, 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama went to Occidental, to Columbia, to the University of Chicago. He held jobs. Do you think that he never had to provide identification, or somehow provided fraudulent identification then?

Was Obama groomed for his destiny by a foreign spy agency -- perhaps out of Kenya?; 1/28/11, 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: "Was Obama groomed for his destiny by a foreign spy agency -- perhaps out of Kenya?"

I have no idea and don't really care (it would explain the incompetency ... however ... hmmm.)

But if he is going to claim Hawaiian citizenship, then the state of Hawaii should produce these public records. Since the people own them and we have a right to them.

But neither he, nor they, will.

Why?

And why do you maintain that it is "bat shit crazy" for Americans to want access to their public records?; 1/28/11, 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Florida -- Is your birth certificate a public record to which anyone has access?; 1/28/11, 4:24 PM
CachorroQuente said...: Those born of 1 alien and one US Citizen on US soil (or foreign soil) are naturalized by USC 8 S1401 PASSIVELY by election of residence (no oath required) at the age of majority, or if the alien parent is naturalized during the child's minority. Until then the country of jurisdiction is determined by place of residence. That split possibility of Jurisdiction over that child is what makes him not eligible as a natural born Citizen, where the child is born SOLELY WITHIN the jurisdiction of the US (born in the US to 2 US Citizen parents).

No, No, No. This is so stupid it's not even wrong. USC 8 S1401 says none of that. Naturalization starts at S1421 and it doesn't say anything about people being born in the United States being naturalized citizens, as far as I can tell. Indeed, best I can tell, the only people that can be "naturalized" are those who are first aliens and I don't believe even you claim that people born in the US with at least one alien parent are born aliens.; 1/28/11, 4:28 PM
Mick said...: CQuente said,

"No, No, No. This is so stupid it's not even wrong. USC 8 S1401 says none of that. Naturalization starts at S1421 and it doesn't say anything about people being born in the United States being naturalized citizens, as far as I can tell. Indeed, best I can tell, the only people that can be "naturalized" are those who are first aliens and I don't believe even you claim that people born in the US with at least one alien parent are born aliens."

They are naturalized by Congressional statute (USC 8 S1401). If it were not for that statute they would not be US Citizens at all. See Perkins v. Elg.; 1/28/11, 4:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick -- The United States is a corporation that exists by statute.; 1/28/11, 4:38 PM
Gene said...: My position, as always, is that the guy's mom was an American and so is. That fact is disputed nowhere (and is born out by the fact that Obama looks almost exactly like his grandfather, except for the skin color).

You are right. There is no doubt Obama is an American citizen, no matter where he was born. I just wonder what is on his birth certificate though that is so embarrassing that he feels he has to keep it hid.; 1/28/11, 4:41 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...

"Florida -- Is your birth certificate a public record to which anyone has access?"

Obama is a Federal Official and CIC of the US Armed forces. He has a duty to prove his eligibility if asked. In this case if only to verify that Obama Sr. IS his father. His life story, and a divorce decree listing him as the child of the Dunham/Obama union already strongly suggest that he is not eligible due to his father's Kenyan Citizenship and Obama 2's resulting Dual British (at best) citizenship at birth. Nobody seemed to have a problem asking for McCain's BC.; 1/28/11, 4:42 PM
David said...: It won't die for one of two reasons.

1. Obama's birth records are not there.

2. The birth records are there and Obama wants to keep it alive.

If the original records are there, Obama could end this with a phone call.; 1/28/11, 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...: "Is your birth certificate a public record to which anyone has access?"

It is a public record that anyone should have access to. But that is neither here, nor there. I am not running for President.

Barack Obama has access to it and could order its release and Hawaiian officials would do it - regardless of what the law says.

But he's hiding it.

Why?; 1/28/11, 4:44 PM
Mick said...: Gene said,

"You are right. There is no doubt Obama is an American citizen, no matter where he was born. I just wonder what is on his birth certificate though that is so embarrassing that he feels he has to keep it hid."

The requirement is natural born Citizen, not American Citizen.; 1/28/11, 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick -- Obama's mother is a woman who nobody disputes is American and -- I'm going to put it graphically for you -- Obama came directly out of her American pussy. Therefore, he is an American.

There is nothing to be proven. Gene has it right: there's obviously something embarrassing. We're all curious what it is. But there is no constitutional or national security issue here.

And, at any rate, there is no amount of proof that could satisfy your bat-shit craziness. You have too much invested to admit you are wrong.; 1/28/11, 4:46 PM
David said...: Seven Machos said...
Mick -- The United States is a corporation that exists by statute.

WTF?; 1/28/11, 4:49 PM
Original Mike said...: "There is no doubt Obama is an American citizen, no matter where he was born. I just wonder what is on his birth certificate though that is so embarrassing that he feels he has to keep it hid."

This.; 1/28/11, 4:50 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...

"Mick -- Obama's mother is a woman who nobody disputes is American and -- I'm going to put it graphically for you -- Obama came directly out of her American pussy. Therefore, he is an American.

There is nothing to be proven. Gene has it right: there's obviously something embarrassing. We're all curious what it is. But there is no constitutional or national security issue here.

And, at any rate, there is no amount of proof that could satisfy your bat-shit craziness. You have too much invested to admit you are wrong."

For the reasons already discussed, and that you can't refute, you are obviously wrong, and a shill for the Usurper.; 1/28/11, 4:52 PM
CachorroQuente said...: NO Legal authority has said that "Citizen at birth" is the same as natural born Citizen,

Wait a minute. You said before that the reason that those born of one citizen and one alien but on US soil were not citizens at birth and therefore not natural-born citizens. You said that they had to elect to be naturalized upon majority. Anyway, the meaning of "citizen at birth" and "natural-born citizen" are the same and there is no authority whatsoever that says otherwise. Dicta is not authority.

and also logically it just doesn't work.
The WELL KNOWN DOCUMENTED reason for the clause would be to prevent FOREIGN INFLUENCE. So how could it possibly be that children born to aliens or in a foreign country would be natural born Citizens?

Ok, if we're using logic, how is a citizen at birth who has one parent an alien under any more foreign influence than one born of two citizen parents? Explain the logic of that. You don't inherit foreign influence, you know.

Also by changing USC 8 S1401 Congress would be illegally amending A2S1C5. Get it?

No, because Article 2 does not define natural-born. Of course, it didn't need to as everybody at the time knew what it meant. That's why nobody made Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor . . . Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush prove that their parents were all citizens at the times of their births. Nobody ever thought to bring up the question until Obama. Explain the logic of that.

The purposeful blurring of Jurisdictional Clause is certainly causing a lot of confusion. In Elk v. Wilkins (1884) it was defined as being wholly part of the American Political family, owing NO ALLEGIANCE to any other foreign power. Why o you think the Naturalization Oath makes one swear Allegiance to the US and NO OTHER FOREIGN POWER?

And Obama at birth owed no allegiance to any foreign power.

He was "wholly part of the American Political family, owing NO ALLEGIANCE to any other[sic] foreign power." Which is why he has never been required to make an oath declaring his allegiance only to the US and not to any foreign power -- because. like the rest of us who are natural-born American citizens, Obama has never had an allegiance to any foreign power.; 1/28/11, 4:53 PM
David said...: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."; 1/28/11, 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...: David -- Do you disagree? A corporation is simply an organizational shell that implies certain protections and liabilities.

The United States was obviously founded by statute -- first the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution.

Any government is a corporation. The City of Chicago is a corporation. Your town is a corporation that became incorporated on a certain date. Counties, states, and the federal government are also corporations.

Just so we are clear, I believe corporations are good. I approve of corporations.; 1/28/11, 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...: David -- A natural born citizen means someone born a citizen. Obama was born a citizen. He is over 35. Therefore, he is eligible to be president.

Q.E.D.

Now go.; 1/28/11, 4:55 PM
mtrobertsattorney said...: Lets stipulate to the following:

1. Obama's Birth Certificate (not "Certification of Birth") cannot be found in the records of any hospital in Hawaii.

2. Obama's Birth Certificate cannot be found in the State of Hawaii's archives.

3. A State of Hawaii official said she once saw Obama's Birth Certificate.

Can anybody but a fool deny that the above facts conclusively prove that Obama was born in Hawaii?; 1/28/11, 4:57 PM
Quaestor said...: G Joubert wrote: Whenever the conspiracy theory (whatever it is) is refudiated by whatever means, the proponents of the theory turn that refudiation around to buttress their case. It becomes self-perpetuating.

Refudiated? Refudiate? Refudiation? How about refute and refutation, these are the real words, OK? I like Palin about as much as the next guy, but the propagation of these useless neologisms has to stop, IMAO.

That being said the reason the issue won't die is that Obama will not (or cannot) refute the charge with sufficiently powerful evidence. It's like being asked for one's driving license by a cop. Saying "fuck you, I'm licensed and everyone with brains knows it" is only going to land you in jail, nor is producing a photocopy or a ginned-up Photoshop facsimile going to cut the mustard. In essence these are the tactics Obama's myrmidons have relied on up to now. But Abercombie's epic fail has breathed new life into the issue, and it just going to get worse as time goes on. By next winter its going to reach critical mass -- either Obama proves his illegibility with authentic documents or he's not going to be on the ballot in November '12; 1/28/11, 4:57 PM
CachorroQuente said...: The state of Hi. has said no such thing. And a pic on a website is proof OF NOTHING. Try pulling out a laptop and showing a pic of your BC when you need to. Not that it matters, since he has famously admitted British Citizenship at birth due to his Foreign father.

Yes, the State of Hawaii has. What do you think, that he has to provide the certificate to you personally? Does anybody actually claim that the State of Hawaii has not released a certification of live birth with respect to BHO? What are you saying, if I may be so bold to ask?

And, once again, we went to war to prevent the British from unilaterally declaring our citizens to be subjects of the Crown.; 1/28/11, 4:59 PM
David said...: Section 1401 U.S. Code

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.; 1/28/11, 5:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Quaestor -- No. There is a specific law stating that a licensed driver must carry his or her license.

Moreover, you do not get carted to jail if you lose your license and are stopped by the police. And you know this.

You may get hauled to jail if you say "fuck you" to a cop, but that could happen in any circumstance. It is clever but wrong to tie it to a licensing issue.

Try again.; 1/28/11, 5:02 PM
Anonymous said...: So David, under the law you cite Obama was an American at birth in multiple ways.

Or can't you read?; 1/28/11, 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Or are you on my side, David?; 1/28/11, 5:04 PM
CachorroQuente said...: Not fucking likely, bub.

That convinces me.

You know how the selection of electors works, don't you? How many electors committed to Obama are going to vote for Palin or Bachmann because the State of Hawaii doesn't issue long form certificates?

While we're on the subject, wonder if Our Boy Mick can prove that Palin's parents were both citizens at the time of her birth. Or both of Bachmann's parents. Or Romney's. I heard that one of Romney's parents was born in Mexico. Wonder if he was ever naturalized or if he still owed allegiance to Mexico when Romney was born. Mick needs to get on this. Particularly the whole Mormon thing.; 1/28/11, 5:05 PM
Quaestor said...: Seven Machos wrote: Obama was born a citizen.

Making an assertion, be it once, twice or ten thousand times, whispered or shouted, does not an argument make.

Your case is far, far from QED'ed, If you were in my forensics class you'd get an F and a swift kick in the ass.; 1/28/11, 5:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Quaestor --

Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen.

All babies born of U.S. citizen mothers are themselves citizens, beginning at birth.

Obama was born in Hawaii.

All babies born in a U.S. state are citizens, beginning at birth.

Which of those statements do you dispute? You must dispute at least two or I win. Q.E.D.; 1/28/11, 5:09 PM
Quaestor said...: SM wrote: Moreover, you do not get carted to jail if you lose your license and are stopped by the police. And you know this

You misrepresent my argument, and you know it. Try again.; 1/28/11, 5:09 PM
David said...: Seven Machos said...
David -- A natural born citizen means someone born a citizen. Obama was born a citizen.

If Obama was not born in the United States or a territory specified in section 1401, he is not a citizen.

Where he was born is a question of fact.

To the extent there is any evidence, the facts seem to show that he was born in Hawaii, but since the only available evidence is (1) newspaper birth announcements, (2) a government record that is not the original certificate of birth and (3) hearsay statements of unsworn individuals, the facts are not entirely conclusive.

The original certificate of live birth would be conclusive evidence. It could be easily tested for forgery, if someone so wished.

Obama appears to be the only person who could authorize release of that record. He has not done so. He is not required to do so, and therefore (1) he's not asked that it be released, or (2) he asked and it's not there.

By the way, the absence of the record would not be conclusive proof that he was not born in Hawaii. It could have been lost. But it is curious that Obama has apparently not tried to put the matter to rest.; 1/28/11, 5:11 PM
David said...: "All babies born of U.S. citizen mothers are themselves citizens, beginning at birth."

It's not a question of dispute. That statement is just wrong. Period.; 1/28/11, 5:12 PM
Anonymous said...: David -- The pussy from which Obama emanated is not a question of fact.; 1/28/11, 5:12 PM
Unknown said...: garage mahal said...

I remember some fuzzy thing on Kos about a year or so ago, but that was indecipherable, IIRC.

Haha. You're so full of shit edutcher. But keep the birther thing going, I'm sure that will be a real issues winner in 2012.

Try again. Kos had some facsimile of the short form that he said ended the thing, but the resolution was so bad nobody could tell what it said.

It was all over the blogosphere a year (maybe 2) ago.; 1/28/11, 5:13 PM
Anonymous said...: David -- Did you serve as a consul in an American embassy while working as a United States Foreign Service Officer?

Because I did.

Were you subjected to an interminable two-month course on immigration law?

Because I was.

You don't know what you are talking about, dude. Get over yourself.; 1/28/11, 5:15 PM
Mick said...: CQuente said,

"And Obama at birth owed no allegiance to any foreign power."

The rest of you post is just nonsence, and not even worth responding to, I have already brought in facts that you cannot refute. SCOTUS has defined nbc in DICTA many times, exactly as Vattel. They have NEVER said that USC 8 S1401 are nbcs, But yes Obama2 has admitted allegiance to Britain, who controlled his "citizenship status" at FTS:

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Notice how it says nothing about LOSING his British Citizenship. robably because he is STILL a British Subject to this day.; 1/28/11, 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick -- Your citations are to moon bat sites. It's like a 9-11 Truther citing to BushblewupWTC.com.

Or do you also do that when you are fighting those battles?; 1/28/11, 5:20 PM
Shanna said...: "... is that the guy's mom was an American and so is. That fact is disputed nowhere."

I dispute that fact.

Here.

Now that there is a dispute ... prove your statement.

Are you trying to dispute that Obama's mother was an American citizen? Because that's the fact I'm referring to. As for evidence, did you SEE the picture of the guys grandfather?; 1/28/11, 5:23 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...

" Quaestor --

Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen.

All babies born of U.S. citizen mothers are themselves citizens, beginning at birth.

Obama was born in Hawaii.

All babies born in a U.S. state are citizens, beginning at birth.

Which of those statements do you dispute? You must dispute at least two or I win. Q.E.D."

And of course, like all Obama internet operatives you use strawman arguments and false leaps of logic. You have never proven, and it is patently false, that "citizen at birth" equals nbc.; 1/28/11, 5:25 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...

"Mick -- Your citations are to moon bat sites. It's like a 9-11 Truther citing to BushblewupWTC.com.

Or do you also do that when you are fighting those battles?"

You still cannot refute ANYTHING I have said, because your assertions have no basis, and all of mine ARE FACTS. You can't even stay on subject. The truth sets me free.; 1/28/11, 5:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick -- Yeah, dude, that's me. The leftist always defending Obama here at Althouse.; 1/28/11, 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick -- There are two kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized. Obama is not naturalized because he was begat by an American woman. Therefore, Obama is natural born.

You have this very strange blood and soil belief system which is utterly antithetical to everything expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Which is the height of irony. Not to mention hilarious.

The Balkans would be a great place for you, by the way. They love that blood and soil shit.; 1/28/11, 5:31 PM
Shanna said...: Every person hired in the United States of America is required by law to prove their eligibility for employment by producing two forms of identification.

One form is not enough. Two forms are required.

WTF is this supposed to prove. I use my passport for all this stuff, because it's a hell of a lot more durable than Birth certificate. You might also be able to use your ssn card, but I don't remember.; 1/28/11, 5:33 PM
woof said...: I use my Social Security card and driver's license. To get a security clearance, I used a short form birth certificate.; 1/28/11, 5:38 PM
CachorroQuente said...: fen wrote:

"I think the reason its not being released is because, since the father is Muslim, Obama's will be the same on the cert. Not a big deal, common practice around the US, but Obama is still afraid of it being made public in these times."

Do we have any reason to believe that Hawaii recorded the religion of parents on a birth "long form" certificate? The supposed "long form" that appears on the weird nut daily website includes race of father and mother but not of the child. It contains no entry for religion of anybody. Another sample Hawaii 1963 "long form" that appears on youtube doesn't include child's race or anybody's religion, either.; 1/28/11, 5:38 PM
CachorroQuente said...: It has been defined as such in the dicta of several SCOTUS Citizenship cases, including:

Bullshit. Dicta doesn't define anything.

Can you cite one of these authorities which says that a child born of one alien parent and one citizen parent on US soil is not a natural-born citizen? That's the assertion you are making, you know.; 1/28/11, 5:43 PM
Big Mike said...: 260 comments?!?!? Madam Professor, you've found an even better topic for generating traffic than Sarah Palin.; 1/28/11, 5:52 PM
Quaestor said...: All babies born of U.S. citizen mothers are themselves citizens, beginning at birth.

Gross oversimplification. Not the law when Obama was born, unless he's much younger than he claims.

Obama was born in Hawaii

Could be easily settled. Obama being born in Hawaii (or any other state, territory or overseas possession) settle the issue no matter what the status of his parents. This is why McCain's eligibility was (briefly) questioned -- the Canal Zone, being leased and not sovereign US territory. However, both of McCain's parents were citizens and the military hospital where he was born was, for purposes of citizenship, like a US Navy warship at sea, ie sovereign territory. If McCain had been born in a civilian hospital his status would have been questionable.

Agreed, that current law makes your assertion true. But, if Obama was not born in the the USA it means he's a naturalized citizen, which if different from the citizenship requirement for POTUS; 1/28/11, 5:58 PM
David said...: Well, it's settled then, Machos. How could so many people have been so wrong.; 1/28/11, 6:23 PM
G Joubert said...: Were you subjected to an interminable two-month course on immigration law?

I'd lighten up on citing those bona fides if I were you, because it tends to fix your wealth of knowledge on the subject at the vagaries of whatever some fellow public sector employees told you what they thought it all meant. Thin gruel.; 1/28/11, 6:23 PM
Cedarford said...: There is nothing to be proven. Gene has it right: there's obviously something embarrassing. We're all curious what it is. But there is no constitutional or national security issue here.
================
My guess is that bioDaddy got to call him Muslim, but Hawaii, a state that allowed half-bloods to be recorded as white or Asian had Barry's Mom claim him as WHITE on the certificate.

By the late 60s though, Barry was getting his ass kissed and posh schools lined up for him because he was characterized officially by Affirmative Action perks - as black, clean and articulate.

That theory makes sense, and there is no place for religion on birth certs.

******************
David - "If Obama was not born in the United States or a territory specified in section 1401, he is not a citizen.?"

Now you are getting stupid with this.
You have no idea of citizenship law.
You don't even bother to read clauses a & g of the Code.; 1/28/11, 6:34 PM
Anonymous said...: No dude. I worked with federal law. The thing written. If it makes you feel any better, ass clown, I am also an attorney. So I work with law a lot more than, you know, you.

Also there has never been a time in human history when the son of an American woman has not been born American.; 1/28/11, 6:38 PM
CachorroQuente said...: Crazy, crazy, crazy

This is what the dicta of Minor v. Happersett has to say about natural-born citizenship"

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

This offers exactly nothing on the question. What it says is that the case at hand had nothing whatsoever to do with the question of who was and who was not a natural-born citizen. Case law which does not address a particular question cannot be used as authority to decide that question. Crazy, crazy, crazy.

As for Kim Wong Ark, the decision goes on at great length in its discussion of British law as it relates to the idea of "natural-born" citizenship and correctly equate it to citizenship at birth. How the Kim Wong Ark case can be used as justification for the idea that a "natural-born" citizen is distinct from a citizen by birth escapes me.

I suspect that Mick has read none of these cases and is relying on the interpretation of a semi-literate interpreter.; 1/28/11, 6:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Quente -- I appreciate your excellent work here today.

As for me, I feel compelled to point out that expertise in an area does generally equate with knowing the right answer. Whereas ignorance generally leads to not knowing what the fuck you are talking about.

Finally, I remind the birthers and their fellow travelers here that probably 90 percent of the American public believes Obama is a natural born citizen, and that there is no way that any judicial or legislative body, or any other entity, will attempt to evict Obama from the presidency based on this rather trifling issue.; 1/28/11, 6:52 PM
CachorroQuente said...: more crazy, crazy, crazy.

Perkins v. Elg says nothing about a person losing their citizenship as a result of staying out of the US. It says something about retaining US citizenship. The court decided the question before it and nothing else. The question of someone staying out of the US until the age of 30 was not before the court and the court did not decide it.

Have you, Mick, read any of these cases> As you are into dicta, perhaps you can explain why the dicta of Perkins v Elg suggests that "native" and "natural-born" citizenship are the same. Or, at least it quotes that notion with approval.; 1/28/11, 7:03 PM
CachorroQuente said...: Obama controls the original and proffers the (possibly altered) copy.

No, the State of Hawaii has the original. There is only one original and I suspect that the number of Americans in possession of their original birth certificates can be counted on one hand .

I've never seen my original birth certificate nor have I ever seen anybody's original birth certificate.; 1/28/11, 7:07 PM
CachorroQuente said...: They are naturalized by Congressional statute (USC 8 S1401). If it were not for that statute they would not be US Citizens at all. See Perkins v. Elg.

Please read USC title 8 S 1401. It says nothing at all about naturalization. There are two types of citizens: natural-born and naturalized. The 14th Amendment clarifies what it means to be natural-born and s1401 defines those classes of people who are citizens by birth. Almost everyone (Mick and other people who either cannot or will not read the sources excepted) recognizes that citizens by birth is what is meant by the term "natural-born" and it has been that way since before the United States was. That is why every one of the recent frivolous suits on these issues has been tossed and why every one of these frivolous suits still extant, or to be brought in the future, will be tossed. There i sno dispute to decide, there is no question to be answered.

And when you are done with the US Code, go and read Perkins vs Elg and quote the part that says someone loses their citizenship if they remain out of the country till they are 30.; 1/28/11, 7:16 PM
CachorroQuente said...: divorce decree listing him as the child of the Dunham/Obama union already strongly suggest that he is not eligible due to his father's Kenyan Citizenship and Obama 2's resulting Dual British (at best) citizenship at birth.

You keep saying these things as if you have something to back up your assertions with. You don't. None of your references say what you claim they say and most(if not all) directly contradict you.

1. A child born on US soil is a citizen at birth which is what "natural born" citizen means. Go read Perkins v Elg, Wong Kim Ark, Minor v. Happersett, and US Code Title 8 S1401 and S1421. All those references contradict your claims.

2. Dual citizens have all the rights of non-dual citizens and are eligible to be president if citizens by birth. Go read the dicta of Perkins v Elg for someone else's opinion in accordance wiuth mine.; 1/28/11, 7:22 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Seven is proving himself to be an honest opponent of all nuttyness.

I know I tend to sit back and ignore the left's nutty theories. That is, I don't spend (waste?) my time countering the nuttyness. It's impressive (but still a little weird) to see Seven's support of BHO.

Although, in my defense, I do mock Sully. But, that's more fun than it is a chore.; 1/28/11, 7:23 PM
CachorroQuente said...: Seven Machos said...

Moreover, you do not get carted to jail if you lose your license and are stopped by the police. And you know this.
issue.

Not intending to start an argument, but in Texas, you can be carted off to jail for driving without a license. In Texas, you can be carted off to jail for violating the lowest level of the lowest level of misdemeanors. A very famous case in a small town near Austin involved a woman being arrested and taken into custody and thrown in the slammer for not wearing a seat belt. There were no aggravating factors such as "contempt of cop". That case went all the way to the Supreme Court (jeez Louise, talk about super traffic court) and the woman lost (!).

So, it almost never happens that someone gets jailed for a minor traffic infraction, but in some bizarre circumstances it does.; 1/28/11, 7:34 PM
CachorroQuente said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/28/11, 7:36 PM
Anonymous said...: you can be carted off to jail for driving without a license

Yes. You can. That is most certainly the case everywhere, and the Supreme Court has ruled that traffic violations in themselves can legally escalate into a person ending up in jail. But you generally also need to be an asshole before imprisonment happens. Not always. But generally. If you aren't an asshole, you will be given a ticket, or a warning, or a friendly reminder about the law.; 1/28/11, 7:46 PM
Anonymous said...: 1jpb -- Believe me, dude: this is a chore. I'd rather be calling Obama an unqualified twit who couldn't manage or lead his way out of a wet paper bag, and who is really slow on the uptake when it comes to having policies that comport with the real world.

But somebody's got to fight these loons from the right, or it makes the right look bad.; 1/28/11, 7:49 PM
CachorroQuente said...: Seven Machos said...

Mick -- Yeah, dude, that's me. The leftist always defending Obama here at Althouse.

Trying to argue with this guy is weird. I suspect I'm beginning to understand how that Arizona woman felt when Loghner asked her, "What is government if words have no meaning? " It's like trying to discuss the theory of the big bang with my retarded Labrador Retriever named Onslow.

It's also a lot like dealing with 911 twoofers. There is something wrong with everything they say. Some of it is outright lies, some of it is quote mining, some of it is incoherent fantasy and gross ignorance, and some of it is just fucking weird. When you actually look at it, almost all the evidence they cite goes to disprove their point. Wonder if Mick has questions about the moon landing. Almost every bizarre fruitcake is a bizarre fruitcake about a number of things. For example, a whole lot of troofers, when you scratch them, a holocaust denier pops out.; 1/28/11, 7:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Almost every bizarre fruitcake is a bizarre fruitcake about a number of things.

So true! Exactly as you say.

I always say you get one nutty conspiracy. That's it. My personal favorite is New Coke. Nobody could be that stupid.; 1/28/11, 7:55 PM
CachorroQuente said...: Seven Machos said...

But somebody's got to fight these loons from the right, or it makes the right look bad.

I lurk here almost daily but rarely comment. Today, for some reason, this idiocy just sent me right over the moon. Probably because I'm pretty far to the right and it just torques my ass that these nitwits tend to inhabit my political space.

Either that or my dog died today and I have an insatiable desire to shoot some fish in a barrel. Nothing cheers one up like shooting fish in a barrel.

Got to go now, rush hour at the convenience store and I have to sell some homeless guys a bunch of tall boys.; 1/28/11, 8:07 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...

" 1jpb -- Believe me, dude: this is a chore. I'd rather be calling Obama an unqualified twit who couldn't manage or lead his way out of a wet paper bag, and who is really slow on the uptake when it comes to having policies that comport with the real world.

But somebody's got to fight these loons from the right, or it makes the right look bad."

Yeah it's a chore to lie that much in support of your employer, the Usurper. Obama is a fan of Reagan now too!!
You have failed to refute anything I have said w/ any facts at all, only baseless assertions and strawmen. Thinking people that read this will know. your boss will not be happy.; 1/28/11, 8:13 PM
Mick said...: .
CachorroQuente said...

"Seven Machos said...

But somebody's got to fight these loons from the right, or it makes the right look bad.

I lurk here almost daily but rarely comment. Today, for some reason, this idiocy just sent me right over the moon. Probably because I'm pretty far to the right and it just torques my ass that these nitwits tend to inhabit my political space. "

Right, you Obama Internet Operatives are so desperate that now you say that You are "Right Wingers", that Obama is the same as Reagan, and Obama LOVES Reagan! You're so obvious. You have been able to refute nothing, and your boss (the Usurper) won't be happy.
I could care less about Left or Right. Both were involved and committed treason. McCain (born in Panama) wasn't eligible either.
Natural Born Citizens, eligible to be POTUS, are born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents, and the truth sets me free.; 1/28/11, 8:21 PM
CachorroQuente said...: Free? Free?? FREE?? FREE Yeah, you're free alright.

Just like a twoofer -- anybody who disagrees with you must be in the employ of the other side. Project much?; 1/28/11, 8:26 PM
Mick said...: You hae all witnessed the Obama Internet Brigade laying a cover of disinformation for their master, the Usurper. Witness how I have given facts w/ backup, while they only obfuscate, and repeat the same tired baseless defense. This is how they operate. All while spewing their hateful Alinskyan ridicule, and projection of their own faults. They have no honor. They are by the book Alinsky ites, even going as far as to try to adopt the opponent's identity (yeah, right they're conservatives, and Obama loves Reagan).

wv: ovedu--- My book is ovedu.; 1/28/11, 8:30 PM
Mick said...: Seven Machos said...

"1jpb -- Believe me, dude: this is a chore. I'd rather be calling Obama an unqualified twit who couldn't manage or lead his way out of a wet paper bag, and who is really slow on the uptake when it comes to having policies that comport with the real world."

Right, this is your job, licking the boots of the Usurper.; 1/28/11, 8:35 PM
Mick said...: No matter how many times that you cannot refute anything I say, and I bury EVERY argument that you have, you continue to the next nonsense.

You cannot refute that the Declaration of Independence said that our laws are based on Natural Law.

or that "law of nations" in A1S8C10 is the body of law known as Natural Law.

or that the dicta of Minor v. Happersett, Wong Kim Ark, The Venus, Dred Scott, and Perkins v. Elg described natural born Citizens exactly the same as Vattel, and The Venus cited LON by name

That Vattel's Law of Nations was the most cited source by SCOTUS in the 19th century, and Scalia sourced it in the Dicta of Heller as the natural law right of self defense.

That the writers of the 14th Amendment described natural born Citizens as those born subject to the US and NO OTHER FOREIGN POWER (that was Bingham, Howard and Trumbull). And their is NO MENTION in the hearings for the 14th A that said thay were amending the requirements for POTUS.

That the REASON for the requirement was to prevent foreign influence.

That Resolution 511 described McCain as being Natural Born because he was born "IN US CONTROLLED TERRITORY OF US CITIZEN PARENTS".

That Leahy and Chertoff both agreed at Res. 511 that "if your parents are US Citizens, then naturally you are a natural born citizen"

Laurence Tribe, and Ted Olsen, at Res. 511 defined natural born Citizens as those born "WITHIN the TERRITORY and ALLEGIANCE of a nation".

That Federalist #68 says the reason for the requirement was to prevent foreign influence, and assure that the chief magistrate was a "creature of our own".

That the founders studied Natural Law and particularly Vattel's Law of Nations extensively.

That there have been NO CONTROLLING authority that has said
that simple birth in the US constitutes a natural born Citizen, or that USC 8 S1401 describes natural born Citizens, and you cannot refute that any changes to USC 8 s1401, (if that was the definition) would be illegally amending the constitution.

That Obama never took the correct oath in public, and it could have been recorded by the media in private, but wasn't.

That Obama has NEVER explicitly said that he is a natural born Citizen.

That a pic on a website is proof of nothing (it's hearsay).

Just to name a few. But you continually resort to name calling, and ridicule in the Typical Alinskyan method, and project your failings onto others. You obviously have lost your ability to reason, due to your adoration of your master, the Usurper, and are probably a paid internet operative of said Usurper.; 1/28/11, 8:37 PM
Kirby Olson said...: What if he was never actually born, and isn't actually human?; 1/28/11, 9:23 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "What if he was never actually born, and isn't actually human?"

Maybe he's a robot.

He could be a different model of the robot that really gets going twenty seconds into this video that Martin linked to in the Amazon thread.; 1/28/11, 10:08 PM
JAL said...: Here's a change from the discussion.

As a case in point, anyone care to tell me what the difference between "citizen" and "national" is?

The reason I ask is all the possibilities of what makes a US citizen when they are born overseas.

A couple of our kids were, in fact born overseas. While I never anticipated that they would run for POTUS the fact was they could have chosen the nationality of the other country. They chose by default (though daughter had a US passport by age 16).

And for someone who is a British citizen (Obama's putative father) there is this: Those born abroad to a British father before or after 1983 ... need not pay any nationality registration fees, undergo a good character check, or attend a civil ceremony as they are considered automatically British

Then there is the problem of Obama's possible adoption by the Indonesian dad.

And his foreign students' scholarship at Occidental?

And what country issued the passport he traveled to Pakistan in the early 80s.

So it would indeedy be nice to start with the full birth certificate.

A lot of this is about a lack of simple courtesy to the people this man made a show of pledging to serve and a country he swore to lead, upholding the Constitution -- not as he thinks it should be, but as it is.

Integrity and honesty. That would be nice. And better for us as a country.

If he wasn't qualified, he could have served this country in another way.

Like the movie Sneaker -- "too many secrets."; 1/28/11, 10:20 PM
Anonymous said...: anyone care to tell me what the difference between "citizen" and "national" is?

I'm glad you brought this up, as I wanted to go into it earlier but I did not.

A national is someone who is not a citizen of the United States but who is in the country legally. It's a person with a visa, essentially. That's it. Nothing complex at all.; 1/28/11, 10:46 PM
CachorroQuente said...: Blogger Sofa King said...

Perhaps this goes to the heart of the nature of the disagreement: It is clearly sufficient *legal* proof, but it is not clearly sufficient *circumstantial* proof. Simply because the law declares something sufficient by fiat for its own purposes, does not mean it is automatically sufficient to prove anything beyond that.

I don't understand the difference between "legal" proof and "circumstantial" proof, or I don't understand the point you're making.

In this case, Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii. If that's true, then, almost everyone (except a few whom I will refrain from characterizing) agrees that he's eligible to be president. It is the responsibility of the State of Hawaii to either verify or refute the claim that he was born there by either providing, or failing to provide certification. Hawaii, it is my understanding, has done that by providing a Certification of Live Birth -- the so-called short form. I don't understand why people are demanding that Hawaii provide a copy of the so-called long form birth certificate which will provide no additional information beyond what has already been provided. The only question that the State of Hawaii needs to answer is whether or not Obama was born in the state and the state has provided the answer that their records indicate that he was.

So, as they say, where's the beef?

All the other stuff: perhaps there is some notation about Muslim religion or perhaps the long form declares him to be white (which, as far as I can tell, is impossible because the samples of Hawaii long form birth certificates do not appear to note the race of the child) or perhaps he was not born in the hospital that he claims to have been born at (how would he know that, anyway) -- all interesting questions if they were to appear on a jeopardy program -- don't have any importance whatsoever as far as his eligibility to be president.

The only qualifications to be president are the constitutional requirements and to get his ass elected by the requisite number of electors in the states as required by the constitution and other laws.

As to the evidence of his place of birth, once again, the State of Hawaii has certified that according to their records he was born in the state. I don't think that there is any question about that. There appears to be no credible allegation of any fraud on the part of any state official. There appears to be no credible evidence that he was born anywhere else (Kenya, for example). Some claim that at the time it was possible for a foreign born child to be registered as Hawaiian born, but I've seen nothing beyond mere assertion of this. Even if it were true, the fact that Hawaii today certifies Obama's birth with a short form is no evidence for his foreign birth because that is the certification that Hawaii now provides for all birth records. Hawaii is not the only state that does it that way, either.

So, on one side we have Obama claiming to have been born in the State of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii certifying that state records support this claim. On the other side we have speculation substantiated with nothing except some very bad lies (Kenyan birth certificate, for example). Doesn't look to me to be a real contest.

Even if Obama was born in some other country, it is still possible that he would be a natural-born citizen as a result of his mother's citizenship status at the time. I don't know the answer to this one as the citizenship by birth statute was different in 1961 as it relates to the age of the mother. My understanding is that a strict reading of the statute in effect at the time would have prevented Obama from being granted natural-born status at the time. Whether subsequent changes to the statute would apply retroactively, I don't know the answer to that one. But, it's an unimportant question unless and until someone actually presents some evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii.; 1/28/11, 11:07 PM
CachorroQuente said...: I have removed a rude comment I made about somebody's forensics class. It was unnecessary and uncalled for and I apologize.; 1/28/11, 11:10 PM
Anonymous said...: probably 90 percent of the American public believes Obama is a natural born citizen

Yeah, of Kenya.; 1/28/11, 11:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Ali -- If 90 percent of the people of the United States believe that Obama is not able to be president, how did he become president and how is he still there?

Birthers are a very fringe element of society. Very fringe.; 1/28/11, 11:44 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't understand why people are demanding that Hawaii provide a copy of the so-called long form birth certificate...

Because the whole question is in dispute.; 1/28/11, 11:49 PM
CachorroQuente said...: Blogger JAL said...[...]
Then there is the problem of Obama's possible adoption by the Indonesian dad.

One thing that you can take away from Mick's court case citations is that it's almost impossible for a natural-born (or naturalized, for that matter) citizen to lose US citizenship and it's pretty much impossible to go from natural-born citizen to naturalized citizen. In fact, about the only way to lose citizenship is by renunciation and even then you might not lose it. There is a court case about this, too. (But, I can't cite it and won't bother to look it up.) Oh, if someone becomes naturalized through fraud, citizenship can be revoked as in the cases of various Nazis. I doubt if there has ever been a case where a minor child lost natural-born citizenship as a result of adoption by an alien. Probably, it can't happen.

And his foreign students' scholarship at Occidental?

Isn't that a clear hoax/April fools joke?

And what country issued the passport he traveled to Pakistan in the early 80s.

Perhaps an interesting question, but dual citizenship doesn't preclude someone from eligibility to be president.

So it would indeedy be nice to start with the full birth certificate.

I still don't see what a "long form" certificate would add that is relevant to the question of eligibility.

A lot of this is about a lack of simple courtesy to the people this man made a show of pledging to serve and a country he swore to lead, upholding the Constitution -- not as he thinks it should be, but as it is.

Ok, I will agree that Obama's perception of what the Constitution means is different from mine and, of course, I believe mine to be correct and his wrong. But, that's politics and philosophy and whatever. Has nothing to do with either his birth certificate or any other aspect of his eligibility.

Oh, and I think he's a condescending prick, too. But he's still the president and we only get one at a time so we must endure.

If he wasn't qualified, he could have served this country in another way.

Sure, but is there really any good reason to doubt his literal constitutional qualifications? Not that I have seen.; 1/28/11, 11:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Because the whole question is in dispute.

No, dude. It's not. There is no question that Obama is a natural born American. His mother was American. Therefore, he is American. To the extent that you disagree with this, you simply do not understand the law and the Constitution.

More importantly, why do you chase a losing issue? It makes no sense. There's no way this issue is going to cause Obama to stop being president.; 1/28/11, 11:52 PM
Anonymous said...: the only way to lose citizenship is by renunciation and even then you might not lose it

This is true. People try to renounce citizenship most often for tax purposes. It's difficult. And, basically, the law is that you can usually come crawling back and be accepted.

Now, would a citizen who was born American, renounced citizenship, and was then reinstated be eligible for the presidency? That is fairly interesting.

Obama is a natural born citizen and it's not an interesting question.; 1/28/11, 11:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Seven; Because the "90%" took it (Obama's assumed birthplace) as an article of faith, not fact.

To complicate matters, Obama has since acted in a way that better represents Kenya or Zimbabwe, rather than the United States. Which may or may not be the result of intention, and quite possibly sheer administrative incompetence.

Meanwhile, the number of faithful has dwindled to a precious few - while the remaining majority view Obama as a dangerous, malevolent impostor.; 1/29/11, 12:01 AM
CachorroQuente said...: Almost Ali said...
Because the whole question is in dispute.

But really, it's not. Birthers get very little recognition by the actual reporting press -- a bit from the "goofy talking heads" on MSNBC (Blockhead Mathews, et al). Mostly when birthers are acknowledged at all it is to make fun of them and God knows, they deserve it. The only reason that the number of birthers in poll results is claimed to be so high is because the pollsters and commentators misrepresent the results. Somebody answers the phone and a pollster asks, what do you think about the controversy about whether Obama was born in the United States. The person answering says, hey, I didn't know there was a controversy, I guess if there is one, I just don't know. I've never considered the question so I don't know whether he was born in the US or not. tell me more. And they count that guy as a birther.

I live in deepest, darkest, Republican Texas and the only people I've ever encountered who didn't laugh when the subject of the birhers came up were people who had never heard about it before and one stoned psychotic meth-head--the only birther I know.

And, of course, there are a couple actual elected Republicans who give this crap a bit of credibility. They have no idea what a dangerous game they are playing.; 1/29/11, 12:06 AM
Anonymous said...: the number of faithful has dwindled to a precious few

Ali -- Why so dense? Obama is a bad president in my opinion but he is not universally reviled by any means. At least 30 percent of the populace completely loves the guy and will definitely vote for him again. Probably more like 40 percent.

Kenya and Zimbabwe don't have much to do with each other other than being in Africa. Certainly, Obama has not treated either specially,; 1/29/11, 12:18 AM
Anonymous said...: CachorroQuente:

Aside from [mis]characterizing the so-called birthers, do you believe the issue has any merit?

Meanwhile, the problem is not one of people's ignorance, but confusion - in that they're now actively wondering why Obama won't simply produce the record and put the issue to rest.

And since the issue has now generated state bills addressing the question, Obama will have no choice in the matter should the bills become law.; 1/29/11, 12:24 AM
Anonymous said...: And since the issue has now generated state bills addressing the question, Obama will have no choice in the matter should the bills become law.

I think this bills are an interesting and good thing. I have no problems with them. I wonder if they will pass or matter, though. Because if, for example, Texas and Mississippi pass these laws, Obama is not affected in terms of electoral votes. He's going to say: so what?; 1/29/11, 12:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Seven:

Yes, Obama has his followers - virtually everyone who's on the dole - however, the number is currently less than the self-reliant and/or the gainfully employed.; 1/29/11, 12:30 AM
CachorroQuente said...: Almost Ali said...

CachorroQuente:

Aside from [mis]characterizing the so-called birthers, do you believe the issue has any merit?

Depends on what you mean. Do I believe that the president must be a "natural born" citizen? Sure, you betcha. Is there any merit to the questioning of BHO's status as a "natural-born" US citizen? No, because I have seen no reason to doubt Obama's assertion and the State of Hawaii's certification.

Meanwhile, the problem is not one of people's ignorance, but confusion - in that they're now actively wondering why Obama won't simply produce the record and put the issue to rest.

Why? what earthly difference can it make, unless there is some reason to doubt Obama's assertion and the State of Hawaii's certification? Seeing a copy of his original "long form" birth certificate has no more importance to me than knowing what size rubbers he wears (when he shovels snow, of course).

And since the issue has now generated state bills addressing the question, Obama will have no choice in the matter should the bills become law.

That should be singular "bill" should it not? And the likelihood of that bill being enacted by Arizona is what, -10%? And even if it is, so what? Arizona's a red state anyway. Who cares whether Arizona puts Obama on the ballot or not. In any case, no state will be permitted to add extra requirements to be met in order to be president and the proposed bill in Arizona, in fact, adds extra requirements. Can't stand, no way, no how. Arizona couldn't even get that one past Thomas, bless his heart.; 1/29/11, 12:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Quente -- I don't think the bill in Arizona adds additional requirements. State election laws for getting on ballots vary greatly. And there's no additional requirements, just a demonstration that you meet existing requirements.

I would bet $10,000 that Obama's birth certificate calls him either white or some mulatto term of art that was used in Hawaii when he was born. Obama's career has been uniquely and cleverly built on the color of his skin -- what else does he have to offer? -- and he understood that what his birth certificate says about race could have sunk his candidacy in the Democratic caucuses and primaries.; 1/29/11, 1:10 AM
Anonymous said...: CachorroQuente:

There are other states, including Texas.

Meanwhile, the issue has been reduced to a matter of perception - perception being 9/10ths of the law. And the perception is that Obama can't produce what doesn't exist (the official record, ie 'long form'). That when the matter became an issue, Hawaii played fast and loose on behalf of their adopted favorite son.

And is why several states have joined the "birther" procession.; 1/29/11, 1:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Obama qualifies as a "red-bone" - i.e., white mother/black father. As opposed to "mulatto" - black mother/white father.; 1/29/11, 1:21 AM
CachorroQuente said...: I think the Arizona bill does add extra requirements.

The constitution requires the president to be natural-born. The Arizona law seems to require proof of that in a specific form: the "long form" original birth certificate (a copy thereof, I presume). I think it might be permissible to demand proof of natural-born citizenship but I think that denying the proof that Hawaii offers would add an extra requirement. It would seem to deny some home-birthed people delivered of midwives, for example access to the ballot. There is no constitutional requirement, as far as I can tell, that a presidential candidate even have a birth certificate.

The Arizona law would require a presidential candidate to swear that he has resided for the last fourteen years within the US (best as I can tell from news accounts). The constitution requires that a candidate have resided fourteen years total without regard to intervening residencies abroad. Age 0 - 13, ok with constitution, not with Arizona law.

Arizona law would deny dual citizens access to the ballot-- clearly not a constitutional requirement.

Arizona law would require a declaration by the candidate that allegiance is solely to the United States. Might be a good idea, but not IAW the constitution.

I think it might be a good idea to have a federal statute that clarifies the natural-born citizenship issue, and I suspect it is within the powers of congress to enact such a statute (even if Mick disagrees, ha, ha, ha), but I don't think the states can do it independently nor should they. It seems to me to be a federal and not a state issue. I don't think that it can happen in this political climate, though, unless it's the Democrats that initiate the legislation and they have no incentive to do so as the whole birther nonsense is a great tool to beat Republicans with.; 1/29/11, 1:37 AM
Anonymous said...: You have convinced me. There's no way such a law would get past federal judicial review.; 1/29/11, 1:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Food For Thought:

Some here are having difficulty understanding the significance of the "long form" birth certification. In the simplest terms, the so-called "long form" represents the ONLY official record of birth, from which all other 'records, affidavits, and so on are generated.

It's analogous to the current controversy regarding what constitutes a "valid" mortgage, an after-the-fact affidavit - or - the original mortgage, many of which were lost or misplaced when marketed and transferred numerous times as bundles.

Unfortunately for the banks, possession of the original mortgage is required in order to legally collect the debt - or legally foreclose on the property. Not to suggest that certain courts/judges will go to great lengths in an attempt to skirt the law. Not unlike Hawaii.; 1/29/11, 1:45 AM
CachorroQuente said...: I would bet $10,000 that Obama's birth certificate calls him either white or some mulatto term of art that was used in Hawaii when he was born. Obama's career has been uniquely and cleverly built on the color of his skin -- what else does he have to offer? -- and he understood that what his birth certificate says about race could have sunk his candidacy in the Democratic caucuses and primaries.

I've seen a couple samples of Hawaii long forms from the 60s and none of them had a space for listing the race of the child. The race of each parent is entered, but no entry space for the race of the child. Some other states (if not all) are the same.

Thomas Jefferson demonstrated a method for determining whether a mixed race child should be considered white or black. As I recall (but don't quote me on this) a child with seven white and one black grand parents would be white. Coincidentally the racial makeup of Eston Hemmings whose descendants are descendants of a Jefferson male, Thomas or otherwise. The point being that the race of a mixed race child is not a real easy characteristic to assign and without rules and without keeping track, I don't see how it could be assigned on a birth certificate. Much easier to just not address the question, which seems to be what Hawaii and other states did, and do.

In any event, everyone knows, or should know, that Obama's mother was white.; 1/29/11, 1:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Unfortunately for the banks, possession of the original mortgage is required in order to legally collect the debt - or legally foreclose on the property. Not to suggest that certain courts/judges will go to great lengths in an attempt to skirt the law.

Truly hilarious, Ali. You have posited that people cannot run for president unless a government entity properly maintains their "long-form" birth certificate for at least 35 years.

This is the height of absurdity. It is nearly Soviet, really. You have added a huge bureaucracy, substantial hassle, and the factor of luck to the simple constitutional requirements for the presidency. I can assure you that, yes, judges will find a way around such cosmically un-American goofiness.

Anyway, Quente, it's been a pleasure to have your reasonable, measured tenor in this debate. And goodnight to Ali and the birther loons as well.; 1/29/11, 2:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Seven says...
You have posited that people cannot run for president unless a government entity properly maintains their "long-form" birth certificate for at least 35 years.

Well, enforcing a simple copyright requires a lifetime plus 75 years. Why should official birth records be less well maintained? I mean, why maintain records at all?; 1/29/11, 2:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Well, enforcing a simple copyright requires a lifetime plus 75 years. Why should official birth records be less well maintained? I mean, why maintain records at all?

Do you really believe that the government enforces copyrights without the express demand by a copyright owner? Are you really that dumb?

Have you kept track of your "long-form" birth certificate since you've been born? I bet that was hard, when you were two. But, anyway, where is it right now? How do you know? What color is it? How thick is the paper?

Get serious, dude. Please. Individuals cannot be asked and are not asked to control things that the government possesses.

Anyway, you will never win this political battle. Good night. Thins time I mean it.; 1/29/11, 2:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Seven asks...
Are you really that dumb?

Yes.

Good night.; 1/29/11, 2:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Earth to Mick --

There's very strong precedent that says that your claimed definition is wrong:

President Chester A. Arthur

"Chester Alan Arthur was the son of Irish-born preacher William Arthur (born in Cullybackey, Ballymena, County Antrim) and Vermont-born Malvina Stone Arthur. Malvina's grandfather, Uriah Stone, fought for the Continental Army during the American Revolution and named his son, Malvina's father, George Washington Stone. Malvina's mother was part Native American. At the time of the birth of the future president, Arthur's father was an Irish subject of the United Kingdom of Scottish descent, who naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843."

"... In any case, Arthur's father was not naturalized until some years after his birth, resulting in Arthur having dual citizenship."; 1/29/11, 4:34 AM
james said...: the birther issue survives because a majority of GOP elected officials who privately know this to be a false talking point refuse to publicly acknowledge the lunacity. file this under "catering to the base." it helps to explain why we are stuck as a nation, why nothing meaningful gets done. truth has no place in a war of propaganda. we are no longer a serious nation and please don't confuse us with facts. we believe what reinforces our belief system instead of considering new information that may be foreign to our point of view. the widespread opinion is that our nation's problems lie in the ineffectual inner workings of the Washington Beltway; i would lay the problem at the doorstep of the voting public who is responsible for those who are elected.; 1/30/11, 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Very good and interesting site with very good look and perfect information ... I like it.
http://bedavafilmler.net; 10/21/12, 8:52 AM