“You are misreading the 1952 law imho, there is a residency requirement for the parent, which is more than fully met by the fact that Stanley Ann Dunham lived her whole life in the United States up until the birth of Barack Obama Jr.
Assuming, of course, that she didn’t spend the last few months of her pregnancy on a honeymoon in Kenya.”
No, that wouldn’t change it. The 1952 law snippet is here:
“Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] 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 five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:”
14 years plus 2 years in the U.S. were sufficiently met by Stanley Ann Dunham even before she met Barack Obama Sr. since she lived in Washington state and Hawaii her whole life. If she was in Kenya a week, a month or even a year, she still would meet the citizenship and residency requirements for Barack Obama to be a natural-born US citizen.
So, no, I am not *assuming* the conclusion, I am concluding based on the *evidence* and the *law*:
- His mother is/was a US citizen who lived in the US her whole life prior to 1961.
- The 1952 law gave children born to such mothers US citizenship at birth.
- Barack Obama would be a natural-born US citizen no matter where he was born. Again, that speculation that she even went overseas is a zero-evidence one, and Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if he was born in Kenya, he would still be a natural-born US citizen.
Thus, there is 100% certainty that Barack Obama meets the eligibility requirements to be President.
QED.
I would further point out that this also precludes the ‘motivation to lie’ factor touted earlier. His passport says Honolulu Hawaii, and if he was really born elsewhere, his mother would have stated as such, as it wouldn’t change anything. Hence, no lies either, and passport saying Honolulu means we can further logically conclude that he was born in Honolulu.
I agree that regardless of the location of his birth, he is a US citizen by virtue of the 1952 law and being born to an American parent.
A few things are still in play.
Is this sufficient to meet the "natural born" requirement? Not according to what I had always been taught. (But so what? I was also taught the Moon was up there "to protect us from meteors")!
More to the point, there is still a lively debate in legal circles as to what constitutes "natural born" I don't expect they will be done splitting finer and finer hairs until some time after the sun burns out.
The two other things still in play are what actually happened? Given eye witness accounts of his birth in Kenya, what if he really was born there? Why would Stanley Ann bother to rush back to Hawai'i to claim he was born there?
I think that it is simply because she feared he wouldn't be granted US citizenship, since he was born off shore, and Barak Sr. had one too many wives for US laws. Her simplest solution was to board a plane as soon as they'd let her, and get their little butts back to Hawai'i before his cord fell off and she could plausibly assert he was born there at home.
She acted based on what she knew and feared, even if it wasn't accurate.
The other alternative is also quite simple. She didn't go on a honeymoon, she didn't meet his parents, and Barak really was born in Honolulu.
If that is the case, it would have been a trivial exercise to get an unquestionably authentic birth certificate. Soooooo...
WHY DID HIS CAMPAIGN POST A CLUMSY COPY???
You quote 8 USCA 1401(g) to say: 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 year
Fact is that 1401(g) was amended to say that only for persons born after November of 1986; prior to that date, the statute said persons totaling not less than 10 years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen [or sixteen] years.
No way could Stanley Ann have met the Sec. 1401(g) test even if the age was only 14 because she was only 18 at the time of birth.
Just wrong on the black letters.