~~~~~~~~
~~~~
Is this a gamechanger ?? Such a sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach ...
~~~~~~~~
~~~~
Is this a gamechanger ?? Such a sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach ...
No, it’s not. This is to determine just plain citizenship, and it only applies to births after that code went into effect.
The Department of State has a page where they describe what rules were in place for what time period, and their requirements for citizenship are based on the rules that were in effect at the time of birth. For the time period in which Obama was born one of the parents had to be a citizen and at least 19 years old.
So they’re calling “natural born citizenship” the same thing as just plain citizenship, AND they’re applying today’s standards as if it applied back then. Using the standards that the Passport Office uses, Obama could not even prove US citizenship by claiming he was born to SAD outside the US. That’s not even NBC, that’s just plain citizenship. So if he wasn’t born in the US then he’s not even a US citizen unless he naturalized at some point.
Kind of in and out today and rushed, or else I would find the link to the page that shows this.
Edge, do you happen to have that handy? I thought I saw you post that somewhere (then again, my mind is going ten million miles a minute so I could be wrong. lol)
As has been mentioned up thread already, this ad is trying to equate "natural born Citizen(s)" with statue 1401.
Statue 1401 can be found within the U.S. code under TITLE 8—ALIENS AND NATIONALITY, and mentions nothing about "natural born" Citizens. It can not, anyway, as Congressional statues can not define who a "natural born" Citizen is. If it were possible, the Naturalization Act of 1790 would have been preserved (instead of being repealed by the Act of 1795).
The newest wrinkle I’ve seen is that Zero *isn’t* the child of either one of his purported parents, but rather a child born in Africa and adopted in the US as an infant.