Posted on 01/24/2011 7:07:13 PM PST by bronkburnett
Many people on FR have been reading, researching and studying up on this very topic since the summer of 2008.
If he was born outside the US, his mother could only confer US citizenship on him (at that time) if she was unmarried to the father if the father was a foreign national.
If she was married to a foreign national who was the father, and if he was born outside US soil, she was not old enough to confer US citizenship upon the child so born, according to laws in place at that time.
But he cannot be a Natural Born citizen unless born on US soil to two parents who were citizens at the time of his birth.
The barn door is open and Hades has already broken out.
A few “riots” means nothing compared to the Hades that will increase in hellaciousness if 0bama is not brought to justice, and everyone who materially assisted him.
Here is the U.S. Immigration Law that covers the issue of children born abroad to 1 citizen and 1 alien.
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf
the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Public law 82-414 Chapter 1 Section 301 (7)
It is as I previously stated.
Since Stanley Ann Dunham was only 18 when Obozo was born (assuming he was born when stated) she could not convey U.S. Citizenship to him under the existing law if he were born abroad.....(assuming the [alien non-US Citizen]Barrack H. Obama, Sr. was the father)
Last I checked no conservatives are fomenting war over this. If any attempt at removing Obama is made before the end of his term, I believe, and, I’m sure the elites believe, we would have literal war on our hands.
It will be interesting if/when he runs in ‘12 though...as Arizona and probably a couple other states seem poised to make his BC required for him to be on the ballot....
Thank you so much! This is exactly what I wanted. You are the first person in this discussion who has actually cited the pertinent law.
That said, Pres. Obama, under worst case assumption of being born in Kenya, seems he still is a natural US citizen under section 4.
However, section 4 and section 7 seem to apply to the same case—a person born outside the US, child of one US national. So 4 and 7 confuse me, because they seem to apply different tests to the same condition.
Obviously, I’m not a lawyer—but as people have said, this is issue has been studied carefully here on FR and there are lawyers on FR.
Thanks again for your help. Once I have this nailed down, I’ll write to James Taranto about his column.
The problem is that the law has changed slightly since his birth. The law that was in effect when he was purported to have been born is The Immigration Act of 1952. The current law is based on that, but not exactly the same. That is why I gave you the link to the greencardlawyers.com site. It lists the options by applicable date. The left is continually trying to confuse the issue, and finding the exact wording of the The Immigration Act of 1952 is not simple. But this is an important matter to understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.