Not in 1961 she did not. The statute change was not retroactive.
El Gato ~ Not in 1961 she did not. The statute change was not retroactive.
What counts is what Stanley Ann "knew" and believed in 1961, she can hardly have been expected to act based on what she though congress was going to do in 25 years.
At that point her only option, her only option, the one she could know about in 1961 was to claim birth on US soil.
We already know she was traveling with a newborn from the inarguable visit with Susan Blake in Seattle. We know from Susan Blake's statement (see post #1881 for the link) that Stanley didn't yet know how to change a diaper.
We know that the reason given for that trip, to join Barak Sr. at Harvard, is wrong. He wasn't there yet to be joined.
It strikes me as very odd that some on this thread have asserted that Stanley Ann and Barak Jr.s presence in Seattle means that he was born in Hawai'i. It clearly means that Stanley Ann had a compelling reason to travel with a newborn before she had even learned to change his diaper!
All we know is that the first reported eye witness to the existence of baby Barak was over 2500 miles from Honolulu.
We know that he wasn't on his way FROM Honolulu to join his dad at Harvard, because his dad wasn't yet AT Harvard!
The other direction, he was there on his way TO Honolulu, remains an open question.
Why would Stanley Ann schlep itty-bitty baby Barak half way across the Pacific if the reason for the trip wouldn't be there for another year? He'd be better able to travel after daddy actually got to Harvard anyway.
Travel has risks for a newborn. No mother exposes their baby to unnecessary risks. An emergency trip to meet someone who won't be there for another year isn't a very compelling reason for undertaking that risk.
Insuring US citizenship for your baby might be.