How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.
Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.
That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.
Arthur may or may not have been a Natural born citizen ,it depends on what source of information you use. here is some of the “facts” I encountered on my personal research.
1. Arthur was born in Ireland
2. Arthur was born in Canada
3. Arthur used the birth date of a younger brother
4. Arthur’s father became naturalized when he(Arthur) was
year old.
5. Arthur was 14 years old when his father was naturalized.
It amuses me that liberals continue to use Arthur as a example, his opponent tried to have him removed from the election on the grounds that his father was not a Natural Born citizen. It’s clear that in the 1800’s both parents had to be U.S. a citizens to be considered Natural Born. NO law has been passed to change the meaning.
THERE WAS A QUESTION ON WHETHER ;OR NOT ARTHUR WAS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN , THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. obama IS NOT ,NOR EVER CAN BE THE LEGAL PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.