Comments on: Is Obama a Natural Born Citizen?

By: Lynn

Lynn — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:06:36 +0000

I can think of only one reason why the real birth certificate is not being released. Let’s even assume for the moment that the bc proves Obama really is a natural born citizen, why not release it? There must be something else on it the campaign really doesn’t want to get out, so much so they are willing to endure this death by a thousand cuts to keep it covered up. I wonder what that could be?

By: James

James — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:17:23 +0000

There is an error in the original discussion item. Senator Obama’s mother was not born and raised in Hawaii before it became a state. She was born in Fort Levenworth, Kansas and raised there while her father was in the military. She graduated from high school in Seattle and moved to Hawaii to go to college.
It doesn’t matter when or where Senator Obama was born because his mother is a natural born citizen who resided in the US for her entire life prior to his birth wherever he might have been born.

By: MrMax

MrMax — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:54:55 +0000

Sorry, Sarge, but I’ve researched this statute, and the 16 year wording was an error made in the original Internet posting which everyone has been copying. The statute in effect at the time Obama was born plainly stated as follows:

“§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.”

The amendment that was made in 1986, Subsec. (g), Pub. L. 99–653 substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”. It did not change the “age of fourteen years” wording.

The amendment is described at the following link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-notes.html

The language of section (g) itself, with the provision of a 14 year age for the citizen parent, is found at the following link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

With regard to getting facts straight, the law certainly distinguishes between persons born outside of the U.S. and persons born in the U.S. Someone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth regardless of the citizenship of the parents. That is why we have this issue of “anchor babies” with respect to illegal aliens. Anyone born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction is deemed a citizen of the U.S. under the 14th Amendment, and by statute anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction is deemed a natural born citizen even if the parents are not citizens.

“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.”

8 USC section 1401.

As another poster correctly said, the law doesn’t care if the parents were legally married, and the law doesn’t care if the parents were not citizens so long as the child was born in the United States, as Obama certainly was. There is a separate provision dealing with persons born outside the U.S. where one parent is a citizen, and that provision always had a requirement that the citizen parent had to have been present in the U.S. for a certain number of years after age 14 before the birth of the child. I’ve given the links to the actual wording of the law so you can see for yourself, because what’s being repeated on the Internet is misleading and inaccurate.

By: mike giacco

mike giacco — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:37:10 +0000

I’m struggling with this….
Here’s something which I don’t believe anyone has mentioned anywhere.
I really believe we’re looking at a candidate and campaign who and which never initially hoped or planned would get this far (perhaps we’ll someday learn this in an interview, perhaps never). In my opinion a candidate who would have better served himself and his party by remaining in the Senate another term, chaired a committee, then at the next best opportunity run for and serve as Governor of Illinios for at part of a term. Then seek national office. I don’t believe he ever really hoped or planned to see his candidacy get past Feb 5th/Super-Tuesday. While he and they have been able to talk his and their way around and past the issues like ‘Rev. Wright,’ now they’re faced with an issue which cannot be talked around, a ‘black-or-white’ legality issue which the candidate never faced previously in other runs, and as we can observe, doesn’t have an answer for….The question of why Obama or someone in his campaign would release a copy of a document as critical as a birth certificate to the Daily Kos, and NOT the NY Times or Wash Post–the papers of record in the U.S., to put the issue to bed for all time, is troubling…that this WASN’T done allows for all the speculation.
Just two more cents to add to this….
fla mike

By: kerwin

kerwin — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:42:01 +0000

So according to your interpretation a bastard child who was born in the U.S. to a citizen under 21 in 1952 was not an American citizen. You must really think those who hear you are extremely gullible to believe such nonsense. I am sure the far left is ecstatic over you making such absurd claims as it will aid their case in painting conservatives as out of touch with the general public. People like you are part of Obama’s best chance of becomming President so if you want him in the White House keep it up.

By: MrMax

MrMax — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:42:32 +0000

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

“(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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.”

The amendment that was made in 1986, Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653 substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”. It did not change the “age of 14 years” wording.

The amendment is described at the following link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-notes.html

The language of section (g) itself, with the provision of a 14 year age for the citizen parent, is found at the following link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

With regard to getting facts straight, you’re wrong when you claim that “It makes no distinction about being born in or outside of the US or its territories.” 8 USC 1405(g) most certainly covers only persons born outside of the U.S. What do the words “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions” mean to you? Do you seriously believe that someone born in the United States is not a U.S. citizen at birth regardless of the citizenship of the parents? Why do you think we have this issue of “anchor babies” with respect to illegal aliens? Because anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction is deemed a citizen of the US. You have to look at the entire statute, including subsection (a):

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

In closing, I suggest you look at the links I have posted which will show how the law is actually worded as opposed to the misleading and downright false BS being repeated at length on Internet.

By: Sarge

Sarge — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:48:24 +0000

MrMax,

You may want to go back and re-read the linked post. The age 14 requirement applies to those born AFTER November 14, 1986. I am not taking sides in this debate, but if you are going to call one out, you need to have your facts straight as well. In Senator Obama’s case, the time period in question is December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986 which plainly states that if only one parent is a US Citizen, that parent MUST have lived in the US for 10 years, 5 of which MUST have been after the age of 16. It makes no distinction about being born in or outside of the US or its territories.

By: MrMax

MrMax — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 18:09:32 +0000

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this question. The Amendment gives rights and privileges of citizenship to anyone born OE NATURALIZED in the United States. Since it doesn’t distinguish between birthright citizenship and citizenship by naturalization, it doesn’t deal with the question of whether Obama is a natural born citizen, and it doesn’t provide anything to tell you why Obama is a natural born citizen. That comes from statute, 8 USC 1405, which states that anyone born in Hawaii after 1900 is deemed a natural born citizen.

“he is a natural born CITIZEN only if BOTH of her parents were citizens at the time of his birth. His father was NOT a citizen and therefore his mother must have spent 10 years in the US prior to his birth, 5 of which had to occur AFTER she turned 16.”

First of all, it’s age 14 in that statute, not 16. Second, that provision applies only to persons born outside the geographic limits of the US. If you’re going to quote laws, don’t quote them out of context.

Why should Obama have to release his birth certificate simply because someone–without any information whatsoever–thinks his mother wasn’t in the country when he was born? His mother went to Indonesia in 1967 after he was born. If you think he should release his birth certificate, then at the very least you should have some information that his mother left the country at some earlier time, and nobody has been able to show that.

By: Quilly Mammoth

Quilly Mammoth — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:53:10 +0000

Hawaii became a State in Aug. 1959 before Barry was born. Therefore he was born _in_ the United States. The reference you quote does not affect children born _in_ the United States. Anchor babies???

Now if you can show Barry was born elsewhere……

By: Macker's World

Macker's World — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:20:34 +0000

Time to Settle The Question…

OK Senator Obama, I'm going to cut through all the bulls**t here. I call upon you to release your actual Birth Certificate, not your "Certificate of Live Birth" you released to your good friends (HA!) at Kos. There are too many discrepan…