As I thought, nothing here which explicitly connects these documents to Obama. Therefore the ringing assertions on this thread are perhaps premature.
Seems to me that there is enough here to justify further research in an attempt to connect this document somehow to Obama. As of now we have virtually nothing.
To slightly change the subject, I am confused about the assertions in the article which seemed to be internally inconsistent:
"Certificates of Citizenship are issued upon arrival in the U.S. to those who have acquired statutory citizenship (not natural-born citizenship) by birth to at least one U.S. citizen parent within the previous year while that parent(s) was temporarily in another country. COC are notifications provided by the American Consulate Service, via the INS, to individuals born to at least one U.S. citizen abroad in order to provide interim citizen alien status while immigration status is processed and secured. COC are not issued to natural-born citizens or children born to non-U.S. citizen parents arriving in the U.S., nor are COC received through the same process as required for naturalized citizenship, according to the INS. " (emphasis supplied)
It is my understanding that citizenship for Barack Obama was not and could not have been automatic because under the statute obtaining at the time, he could not be an automatic citizen by virtue of birth to only one American parent when that parent could not have resided the requisite amount of time prior to the birth in the United States. Since Ann Dunham was only 18 she could not have resided in the United States a sufficient time in order to qualify her child if born abroad on August 4, 1961.
The quoted portion above says this about the document in question:
COC are notifications provided by the American Consulate Service, via the INS, to individuals born to at least one U.S. citizen abroad in order to provide interim citizen alien status while immigration status is processed and secured
It seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth. What is a "citizen alien?"
This document seems to suggest that it reflects the beginning of a bureaucratic process under which an infant is awarded United States citizenship (not natural born citizenship, of course) at the conclusion of the process. I do not know what the process entails but I assume that it requires submission of documentation etc. That would seem to indicate that a certificate of citizenship for Barack Obama would not have necessarily come from Hawaii in the form of a birth certificate but from the federal government in the form of a citizenship certificate.
Is this true?
I recall posting some time ago that under the Hawaiian statute certificates concerning birth might well have been issued on the affirmation, virtually unsupported by any documentation, of a parent or grandparent of live birth at home. This would have been a way around a tedious and time-consuming process with the State Department by which Obama's mother or grandmother could have caused United States citizenship to be conferred on her child or grandchild born abroad.
If she did not go that route but obtained a Hawaiian birth certificate based on this document, the Hawaiian records, if they remained intact, would show a foreign birth. But a foreign birth is contrary to the express representations made by the Hawaiian officials in two separate press releases about the provenance of Obama's birth. We would then have to believe they are lying which is certainly possible but improbable.
If there is an inconsistency between the Hawaiian birth certificate and the data on this document such as place of birth, it would suggest that this document was not used in Hawaii but simply went into limbo. if that is actually what happened, Obama is not a citizen at all, much less a natural born citizen.
I'm not sure how this advances the cause except to note, as I have, that it warrants further investigation.
But a foreign birth is contrary to the express representations made by the Hawaiian officials in two separate press releases about the provenance of Obama's birth. We would then have to believe they are lying which is certainly possible but improbable.These press releases contained parsed statements. There's nothing conclusive within them about Obama being born in Hawaii. The July 27, 2009 statement said:
I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
Fukino's October 2008 statement said she had personally verified Obama's original birth certificate was on file. The July statement changes the verbiage to "vital records" (note that this is a plural form), so she's not necessarily talking about the provenance of the birth certificate. The "vital records" could be the Hawaii 50th anniversary of statehood declaration, or a letter from Obama requesting his birth records ... anything. If Obama's COLB was genuine, there should be no other vital records on file. So whatever documents these are, they call into question the authenticity of the COLB, and Fukino only says that these records "verify" (which can mean nothing more than "claim") Obama was born in Hawaii. Again, she switched the verbiage from her 2008 statement, and she went from saying she personally verified something to saying she saw some unspecified records that verify something.
Now, let's look at Loretta Fuddy's statement from April 2011.
"I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai‘i."
Notice how she says "original records" and then the "certified copies" of something that were provided to the President, that "further" prove he was born in Hawaii. Well, nothing legal was ever shown by the state of Hawaii to prove he was born there in the first place, so how could an unspecified record prove anything further?? It's a meaningless statement. She doesn't say his original birth certificate proves he was born in Hawaii. Technically, there's no lie in either of these statements because there may be some "original records" that "verify" (claim) that Obama was born in Hawaii, but as written, these "original records" are not certified copies of an original birth certificate that lists a Hawaiian birth.
Also, let's consider that Obama did have a foreign birth, but under the Hawaiian territorial law, his parent could apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. There may be records that indicate the birth abroad, but other records that have the birth listed as occurring locally as fits within the law. Then it becomes clear as to why these statements from the directors of health use different terminology and purposely vague language.
Edge919 already addressed part of your question and I can address part of the other.
I have a younger brother born in the Azores islands while my USAF dad was stationed there in the late ‘50’s. On our return to the USA, and enroute to his next duty station in NM, my parents (although my father was natural born, my mother was an immigrant citizen (making me not a natural born citizen since she became one three years after I was born)) had to stop at a US Consulate in Texas to have his (my brother’s) citizenship naturalized. Until the process was complete he was an alien citizen with the papers that went along with it. After the process completed he became a NATURALIZED US citizen, and only a NUSC.
The key question is, did the mother in this record actually complete the process? If the mother was like some anti-US types, she could have flaunted the process and, on arrival home, just said her child was born on the way home. After all, if her child was a new-born (even recently born can fool some folk) she could say it was born on the way HOME when she arrived at her destination.