”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet requisite status according to blog discovery.
By the express terms of the law linked in that same article, that only applies to children born overseas. It has nothing to do with children born in the U.S..
One commenter said, “She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. as a Natural Born Citizen as she did not meet the residency requirements! Backing this statement up, another commenter reiterates:” The law specifically outlines the requirements for a CITIZEN mother to confer citizenship to her baby. Ann Dunham was NOT old enough-case closed!”
I'm not sure who these unnamed "commentators" are as well, but they're morons too. No U.S. law says anything about being old enough to register a birth, nor does the 14th Amendment say anying about the age of the mother, nor did English common law. These idiots are conflating a provision applicable only to overseas births, and pretending it applies to domestic births as well.
It would be interesting to ask people promoting this theory about the citizenship of children born to unwed teen mothers with unidentified fathers in that period. Were they utterly stateless?
In 30 years these guys will be telling their grandkids that Obama was never actually president... I wish FR would take Mark Levin’s stance on these birthers and just hang up. Of course, Mark Levin is a RINO sellout who doesn’t understand the constition according to birthers.