Replies

Very few claim he isn’t a citizen. They claim he isn’t a “natural-born citizen.”

The claim that his mother wasn’t old enough to bestow citizenship is, I believe, a misapplication of the relevant law. It makes no sense to claim that age of the mother would be the determining factor in whether a person is a citizen.

The relevant law —as I have seen it put-—when this person was born—wherever he was born— seems to have made the age of the parent-be it father or mother—male or female quite relevant.If that age stipulation has been removed it seems logical to me that the law —as written —at the time of birth ought still be the governing factor....and again the question is not is this person a citizen —but natural born,i.e. born of two parents who were themselves citizens.If the mother,by law had to be a certain age to confer citizenship —and the father never was a citizen then the child by law ought not be considered a citizen.There are other credible questions yet unanswered as to citizenship status that as a whole lead me to conclude under our written Constitution that person residing in the White House is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

The "law" is only applicable for births outside the territory. So if Zippo was actually born in Kenya to a single mommy then mommy needs to meet certain criteria.

Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

The relevant section readsA child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

She was 18 when it is reported that Zippo was born. There is no age requirement for domestically born children born in the US territory for the child to be born a Citizen. However if Sr and SAD were in fact married then the Citizenship of the child follows that of the father during that time period.

So if we are to believe Zippo's narrative then he isn't a US Citizen.

The law is relevant, IF and only IF, Obama was NOT born in the U.S.A., which he wasn't. He was born in Kenya. His Kenyan birth certificate was entered into evidence along with an affidavit in a court case. His Hawaiian BC has been proved to be a fake, this one has not been so proved. Many people/relatives have publicly claimed his Kenyan birth.

I understand, quite well, that just showing that he is not an Article II “Natural Born Citizen” is sufficient to disqualify him as president, I insist that ALL the details become known and if he is not even a legal citizen, that he be deported. The constitution and the law must be vindicated.

That was the law in effect at the time of his birth, though:

http://www.greencardlawyers.com/citizenship/citizenbybirth.html#Children%20Born%20Outside%20of%20the%20United%20States

IF he was born in Kenya, then his mother was not old enough to confer U.S. citizenship on him. It’s statutory.

-- The claim that his mother wasn't old enough to bestow citizenship is, I believe, a misapplication of the relevant law. --

It's a correct statement of law if his birth was not on US soil, and the mother is married to a person who was not a US citizen. In that circumstance, the age and duration of US residency of the mother are the determining factors in whether the child is a US citizen.

See Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

-- The claim that his mother wasn't old enough to bestow citizenship is, I believe, a misapplication of the relevant law. --

Oh, another point. If I understand the argument of the "anti-birthers," the geographic location of birth doesn't control the outcome either. The logic, as I understand it, is a person is either born a citizen, or not. If born a citizen, then the person is a natural born citizen.

The geographic location of birth matters in Obama's case, because Stanley Ann Dunham could not possibly have spent five years after the age of fourteen, resident in the US. She wasn't nineteen years old when she gave birth to Obama. But in a different hypothetical case, say, make Stanley Ann Dunham twenty years old and five years in the US before giving birth to Obama in Kenya, he would be a citizen, and according to the "only two categories" proponents, he would necessarily be a natural born citizen because he was born a citizen.