Posted on 04/30/2010 4:27:34 PM PDT by curiosity
Now, eight years later, three Georgia legislators are indulging the fantasies of a new contingent of conspiracy theorists who believe in a different cover-up. These conspiracy theorists, or “birthers,” refuse to accept the constitutional eligibility of President Barack Obama, under the hypothesis that he might not have been born in Honolulu, and that he instead may have engaged in a five-decade-long ruse before his secret foreign birth was exposed via fabricated rumors spread by fringe bloggers with no evidence late in the campaign.
The conspiracists’ favored theory is that Obama’s mother left her Honolulu home and traveled halfway around the planet to give birth in the Third World nation of Kenya in 1961. To some people, it is apparently easier to believe that our first African-American president was actually born in Africa than to believe that he was born at the local Honolulu hospital.
When his birthplace was publicly questioned in June 2008, the Obama campaign promptly published his certification of live birth online, clearly identifying his place of birth as “Honolulu, Hawaii.”
When online conspiracists said that was a digital forgery, FactCheck.org visited campaign headquarters and took multiple photographs of the document.
When conspiracists demanded extrinsic evidence, two contemporary birth announcements were located in Hawaiian newspapers. And when they demanded even more, Hawaii’s vital records registrar issued a public statement saying that the president’s original vital records confirm his birth in Hawaii.
(By contrast, what evidence did you ever see that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark.? Can you even name the state George W. Bush was born in?)
Yet the conspiracists remain unsatisfied. And so do, apparently, at least three Georgia politicians. In late 2009, gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal announced that he was writing a letter to Obama asking where he could find evidence of Obama’s eligibility. It seems Deal is either inexplicably ignorant of all the evidence cited above, or considers it insufficient. Even more inexplicably, Deal refuses to release a copy of his letter for Georgia voters to see what nonsense he wrote.
More recently, when Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) was asked in an interview if he could simply say that the president is an American citizen, Broun responded “I don’t know.” Then, when given the opportunity to clear the air in a follow-up interview, Broun only dug himself deeper into denialist territory. Asked “Do you believe the president’s citizenship is in question?” Broun gave a long, rambling reply, eventually concluding with “I don’t know, nobody knows for sure, we’ve not seen any documentation one way or the other.”
As illustrated above, this is an outright lie. Broun has not only allied himself with denialists, but has chosen to further entrench himself with them even when given the opportunity to back away.
Finally, state Rep. Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross) recently introduced House Bill 1516. Had it passed, it would have required presidential candidates to provide evidence of their constitutional eligibility in order to appear on Georgia ballots. In the abstract, such a requirement is perfectly reasonable.
But Hatfield’s real intent shines through in the details. Hatfield does not propose that his fellow General Assembly members should prove their eligibility under the Georgia Constitution, nor that our statewide elected officials, such as the governor, should do so. Nor does he propose the same standard of proof for our federal representatives and senators.
Hatfield’s bill does not even demand documentation from vice presidential candidates, who have the same eligibility standards as the president. Most astonishingly, Hatfield proposes nothing to ensure the constitutional eligibility of any third-party presidential candidates; his bill covers only Republicans and Democrats.
In other words, if Hatfield’s bill passed, the only candidates in the November 2012 election whose eligibility it would scrutinize would be Barack Obama and his Republican challenger. Hatfield has written a bill so narrow that the only way it could be narrower would be for it to identify Obama by name.
Hatfield even admits his bill is targeted at Obama. He says, “I don’t think that the American people have been given any adequate documentation of the president’s citizenship.” This, even though he already has a birth certification, birth announcements and a state official’s confirmation. And to whom did he give his first public interview about his bill? Joseph Farah, the Internet’s leading birther propagandist.
Birtherism is denialist claptrap wrapped in a veil of patriotic constitutionalism. Just as Georgia voters did not ignore McKinney’s conspiracism in 2002, Georgia voters in 2010 should not turn a blind eye to the indulging of birthers by our elected officials of today. Their actions are a boon to conspiracy theorists but an embarrassment to our state.
Loren Collins, an Atlanta attorney, runs an anti-birther blog called Barackryphal.
The only paragraph mentioning "natural born citizen" in the SCOTUS opinion he cited is:
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, was as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
The context of this is not dependent upon surrounding material.
But notice, the clear dichotomoy being drawn between Wong Kim Ark, who was "native born" to the United States despite having Chinese (alien) parentage and having done nothing to lose or see his citizenship taken away, is nonetheless contrasted with a natural born citizen.
A native born citizen such as Wong Kim Ark is as much a citizen as a natural born citizen, with the only difference being that he would not have been eligible to become a US President.
HF
Oops
It's not so much that British law would make BHO Jr a British subject, as it is that his father was not a US citizen. Nothing to do with British law. He's not a natural-born US Citizen because his father was not a citizen. If the birth occurred in the US, then under the 14th amendment, and the Wong Kim Ark interpretation of it, he is a citizen. If not born in the US, under the law then existing, he's an illegal alien, unless later naturalized. But either way, he's not a natural born US citizen.
As long as they were born in the US of US citizen parents, then yes. What Israel considers them, doesn't matter, any more than what Britian might or might not, consider BHO to be.
Actually I'm sure at this point, there is no way the Brits would claim him. If he is eventually proved to be an illegal alien, Kenya will probably claim him, and Indonesia might as well.
There are only two classes of citizenship , Natural born and Naturalized. Since Ark was not born to American citizens , his citizenship fell under naturalization because his parents were immigrants who were not yet citizens. The court choose not to consider the Chinese exception law.
There are only two classes of citizenship , Natural born and Naturalized. Since Ark was not born to American citizens , his citizenship fell under naturalization because his parents were immigrants who were not yet citizens. The court choose not to consider the Chinese exception law.
Most would not dismiss one that did not pass through Obama or his people's hands. IOW, one obtained directly from the state of Hawaii, with a statement from the state's registar certifying it as authentic, under penatly of perjury.
That is however why we need a court case. The court could allow adversaril examination of the BC, should it be necessary.
But an image on a few friendly websites? No. Not acceptable where there exists so much doubt.
The long form provides enough information to allow cross checking, although the court, or Obama, would have to allow for that as well. The records of the hospital named on the BC could be checked for example. But right now, we have an easily forged image, and conflicting information. We have the man's own wife saying Kenya is his home country. We have promineint public figures (Members of Parliment and the Lands Minister) saying quite explicitly that he was born there. We have a somewhat questionable, but not yet proved fake, Kenyan birth cerficate.
At minimum there is "reasonable cause to believe" he's wasn't even born in the US.
And of course, even he was, he is not Natural born under the dicta of many Supreme Court cases, as well as the work of a person well known to the Founders who wrote the Constitution, all which indicate it requires being born of citizen parents, in the country (with some well known exceptions to the latter requirement such as those born to a parent or parents serving in the diplomatic corps)
Oh yea? Try emailing an image file to the state department as part of your passport application. Or better yet, send them a link to it's location on the net.
Yea that will do the job. NOT.
They don’t care if he’s an illegal alien. Or a cannibal.
I did reread Wong Kim Ark I was correct!
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m interested in reactions to this - several founding fathers (George Washington, Thomas Paine, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton) were given honorary French citizenship. How do you view that as affecting “natural born” status?
Such a statement would be illegal and subject the maker of the statement to a huge fine. HIPAA laws are rather excessive - it is illegal (except in a few specified circumstances) to give out any such information, including the fact one provided medical care to a specific individual. Further, the duty to keep protected health information confidential does not stop with the patient's death.
Lil Rogers was asleep next to his Obama wookie dolls.
Your home page is interesting but lacking in many areas and behind in information in others.
Your home page is interesting but lacking in many areas and behind in information in others.
There are sub-groups within each group. There are the Naturalized at birth for those born abroad of one or more US Citizen parents (with different rules applying in each case, both as to eligibility for such naturalization and as to involuntary loss of citizenship) Similarly there are 14th amendment "born in the United States" citizens, and Born in the United States of citizen parents, natural born citizens.
They all have the same rights and responsibilities. Save eligibility to office. The naturalized citizens have length of citizenship requirements for Representative and Senator, which the naturalized at birth meet by default via meeting the age requirements. All, even natural born citizens must be a resdident of the state from which they are chosen. The natural born citizens have residency requirements for President, while all other classes of citizen are not eligible at all for that office. All of those requirements, are basically attempts to assure loyalty. They aren't perfect, but they can't be overidden just because loyalty is not suspect. (Although in BHO's case....) They are process requirements.
Since Ark was not born to American citizens , his citizenship fell under naturalization because his parents were immigrants who were not yet citizens. The court choose not to consider the Chinese exception law.
Not, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen by birth in the US under the 14th amendment. The court did not "choose to not consider the Chinese Exclusion Act", they did consider it, and ruled that it did not apply to those born citizens of the United States. It's in the second paragraph of the decision.
It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him.
The Court set up the issue as follows:
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
They then concluded and ruled:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Pretty straightforward, but with a lot of dicta in between.
And if you had read the decision, you'd know that his parents not only were not citizens at the time, they could not be naturalize under the same Chinese exclusion act you mention, and they did not even remain in the US, but returned to China. Ark visited them there on two occasions, (before the case), but was denied entry back in the US on the second occasion.
And even if true...so what if there is such a law? There should be no worries at all IF Obama is legit. Why even fret about such a stupid law? Unless.....
WKA clearly states that NBC and natural born subject were interchangeable terms at the time the Constitution was written, and that common law made a natural born subject out of a person born in the country with TWO alien parents, unless those parents were ambassadors.
Since Obama Sr wasn’t an ambassador, that would leave Barry as a natural born citizen, IAW the original intent of the Founders as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
In the only case I know of to reach a written decision on Barry’s eligibility, the court found this convincing. The Indiana Supreme Court agreed.
So..,.where are the Court cases showing without a doubt that NBC requires two citizen parents?
The dissent does not PROVE beyond any doubt my point, but it does show the point was raise and the majority was underwhelmed by it. It is instructive, but not binding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.