Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: null and void
Hmmm. You are correct. I misread paragraph (g). 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.

Don't say that. He has quoted you the new version of Sec. 1401(g). There isn't any argument about that, go back and look at the legal opinion post--the effective date of the 5 and 2 rule is persons born after November 1986; Obama was born in 1961. The amendment is not retroactive--the old rule was 10 years prior to birth, five which are after 14; Stanley Ann flunked by definition.

The statute about which there is uncertainty is Sec. 1409 which by its terms applies only to persons born out of wedlock. Obama misses because his parents were married--this is your case where even if their marriage was in the bush in a Grove of trees, they are still in wedlock for persons affected until a court says they are not.

2,461 posted on 07/08/2008 4:02:11 PM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2431 | View Replies ]


To: David
The key issue to understanding what Stanley Ann did is what Stanley Ann thought.

We need something akin to a psychological autopsy. What did she think the law said?

My money is on she thought that a polygamous marriage + an overseas birth = citizenship troubles for her baby.

If, as her relatives assert, she delivered in Kenya she's be apt to panic and try anything she could to make the problem go away.

Simplest solution? Show up in Hawai'i with a newborn, and claim you delivered him at home.

2,466 posted on 07/08/2008 4:12:10 PM PDT by null and void (every Muslim, the minute he can differentiate, carries hate of Americans, Jews & Christians - OBL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2461 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson