Posted on 07/12/2011 9:39:04 PM PDT by opentalk
How do YOU explain the difference in bit depth and pixel size?
That is a good point. The fault in it, if it has one, is that it requires the Grandmother to know that piece of information.
People often act on what they BELIEVE to be true, not necessarily on what is actually true. I wouldn't expect average citizens to be aware of naturalization law till they actually have need to deal with it. For all she knew, the Canadians might Claim him, or Perhaps that "British Nationality Act of 1948" might make him the property of England or something. I see people even NOW presuming that, and THEY have access to far more information than she likely did.
Americans nowadays are pretty loud about that "Born on the soil" thing. The 14th Amendment has skewed a lot of people's understanding towards the "You have to be born in America" mindset. It would not surprise me to discover that she had that mindset in 1961.
Actually, now that I have thought about it further, a lot of people have pointed out that Stanley Ann was too young to convey citizenship because she hadn't spent sufficient time in the USA after her 14th birthday. So maybe in fact he Wouldn't be covered by then existing naturalization law.
What about this aspect of it? Is there a minimum age/residency requirement?
You've just touched the surface of it with your links. When *I* looked at Hawaiian Adoption law, it was more than 26 pages of stuff. There was a HUGE section on Privacy regarding Adoption. From what *I* recall reading about it, it gives a great deal of discretion to the Judge to decide what to do. You are saying the Law doesn't allow such changes, yet the law can be a fickle and contradictory thing. Loopholes are characteristics of it. You assure us it does not allow such a thing, and I believe you cannot know this just by looking at such a small part of it. Certainty, on your part is not reassuring.
This does not even address the issue of whether the law was followed or not. The Hawaiian state Bureaucracy has not struck me as particularly dilligent or competent. That a laid back Island state would be lax on legal rigour does not strike me as much of a stretch.
If Grandma Toot was familiar enough with the intricacies of immigration law to know that Stanely didn't meet the technical requirements to pass on her citizenship to Barack Jr. if he were born outside the USA, then odds are she'd be familiar enough to know he was eligible for naturalization.
People often act on what they BELIEVE to be true, not necessarily on what is actually true.
Okay, let's suppose, for sake of argument, the highly unlikely scenario you posit is true: Toot knew the intricate details of immigration law regarding who could and could not pass on citizenship to their children born abroad, but she didn't know the details regarding who was and was not eligible for naturalization.
Does that make your story of her committing document fraud believeable? In a word, no.
If she really were ignorant about the law on naturalization, all she had to do was pick up the phone and call an immigration lawyer.
Toot wasn't some ignorant country bumpkin or some blue collar shmo. She was a bank manager. Are you seriously going to argue that someone with her education and her intelligence wouldn't have the sense to pick up the phone and call an immigration lawyer before taking the drastic step of committing a felony and risking her career and freedom?
The 14th Amendment has skewed a lot of people's understanding towards the "You have to be born in America" mindset. It would not surprise me to discover that she had that mindset in 1961.
Nonsense. In 1961 Honolulu, a significant fraction of the citizen population were immigrants. Toot must have had friends or acquantances who were naturalized citizens, and hence she obviously would have been aware that there are other paths to citizenship besides birth in the USA.
Perhaps, but the two links I posted cover just about all there is regarding the issuance of a new birth certificate upon adoption.
From what *I* recall reading about it, it gives a great deal of discretion to the Judge to decide what to do.
Okay, then please post the section of the law, or the loophole, that allows a judge to order that the state department of health to knowingly falsify the place of birth on the new post-adoption birth certificate.
One would think, but who said Madelyn Dunham knew anything at all about immigration law? I argued the exact opposite of that. I argued that she DIDN'T know what the law was, just like most people wouldn't know what the law was. Did that not convey?
Okay, let's suppose, for sake of argument, the highly unlikely scenario you posit is true: Toot knew the intricate details of immigration law regarding who could and could not pass on citizenship to their children born abroad, but she didn't know the details regarding who was and was not eligible for naturalization.
I did not posit that. I suggested that Grandma didn't KNOW barry would still be an American Citizen. So she acted because she thought he wouldn't be.
Subsequently, I said that people have pointed out Ann Hadn't met residency requirements to pass on Citizenship. (If he were born in a foreign country.) I never suggested that Grandma knew anything of any of this. I wouldn't think that she would.
Does that make your story of her committing document fraud believeable? In a word, no.
Well, since that is not what I was suggesting, any conclusions regarding it is of no interest to me.
If she really were ignorant about the law on naturalization, all she had to do was pick up the phone and call an immigration lawyer.
Or she could just get bad advice from her Former Army Husband.
Toot wasn't some ignorant country bumpkin or some blue collar shmo. She was a bank manager. Are you seriously going to argue that someone with her education and her intelligence wouldn't have the sense to pick up the phone and call an immigration lawyer before taking the drastic step of committing a felony and risking her career and freedom?
Felony? What Felony? Hawaii had pretty lax birth certificate rules in 1961. I don't think people gave much of a ding dong whether people fudged or not. I've actually read articles accusing Hawaii of assisting in the patriation of foreigners. Two years a state and you think they wouldn't have some peculiar circumstances left over from a Trans-Ship Island territory?
Nonsense. In 1961 Honolulu, a significant fraction of the citizen population were immigrants. Toot must have had friends or acquantances who were naturalized citizens, and hence she obviously would have been aware that there are other paths to citizenship besides birth in the USA.
You presume friends giving her good advice, I presume a Husband giving her bad advice, (They ended up in Hawaii somehow or other) or perhaps she sought no advice, relying instead on her own faulty understanding, as would many people in that circumstance.
Madelyn may very well have thought Stanley Ann would have her baby in Bellingham or Blaine Washington, not suspecting that the nearest Hospital would be in White Rock Canada. Once her daughter calls and informes her, she decides to claim he was born at home. She calls the local Health Department and asks them how to report a "born at home" birth, and they tell her to come on down and fill out a form. (Half written, Half typed? As Fukino described it?)
You're going to have to come up with a more compelling argument as to why this theory doesn't work.
Actually, one of the links you gave me was wrong. I had to click on "Next" to get the one you probably meant to send. Having read it, I don't see how it applies if the state has the child on record as having been born in the state.
Okay, then please post the section of the law, or the loophole, that allows a judge to order that the state department of health to knowingly falsify the place of birth on the new post-adoption birth certificate.
I'll point out the loophole in your own words. "Knowingly." Who said the state knew differently? Born at home Affidavit, remember?
Anyways, beyond that, here is a provision in Hawaii law regarding children who are born out of the state getting a Hawaiian birth certificate *IF* their parents can prove Hawaiian Residency for a year or more.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
That seems to imply that it doesn't even MATTER where the child was born, they still get a birth certificate.
You must have cut and pasted it incorrectly. I tried it and it's fine. It applies exactly to just this situation, an adopted child born in state. Here's the relevant text:
§338-20 Adoption. (a) In case of the adoption of any person born in the State, the department of health, upon receipt of a properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department, shall prepare a supplementary certificate in the name of the adopted person, as fixed or changed by the decree, and seal and file the original certificate of birth with the certified copy attached thereto.
(b) The registrar of births shall show on the supplemental birth certificate the names of parents as stated in the adoption decree pursuant to section 578-14.
Here's the link, and yes, it works. I checked it:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020.htm
I'll point out the loophole in your own words. "Knowingly." Who said the state knew differently? Born at home Affidavit, remember?
Huh? I don't get your point.
You are arguing that an original birth certificate indicating an unattended home birth can, as a reusult of an adoption, by modified to state the child is born in the hospital. I'm pointing out to you that there's absolutely nothing in Hawaiian vital records or adoption law that allows for that.
Anyways, beyond that, here is a provision in Hawaii law regarding children who are born out of the state getting a Hawaiian birth certificate *IF* their parents can prove Hawaiian Residency for a year or more.
Yes, but that provision wasn't passed until 1983, long after Obama was an adult. Furthermore, a birth certificate issued pursuant to that section of the law won't list Hawaii as the place of birth.
Okay, if she didn't know immigration law, how would she know that her daughter didn't meet the conditions necessary to pass along her citizenship to her son should he have been born in Canada?
Or she could just get bad advice from her Former Army Husband.
I'm sorry, but that's just dumb. What in the world makes you suspect she'd go to her husband, with no legal training or experience, for legal advice? Anyone with half a brain knows that you get legal advice from a lawyer, and most lawyers are willing to give you the first consultation free of charge.
Felony? What Felony?
Document fraud, which when used to fraudulantly obtain US citizenship, is a Federal crime as well as a state crime.
It is simply absurd to suggest that a woman of Toot's social standing would risk her freedom and career to commit a crime without asking a lawyer whether there was a legal means to get what she wanted.
You presume friends giving her good advice, I presume a Husband giving her bad advice,
No, I presume that she, like any person of above-average intelligence and social standing, would go to a lawyer for legal advice. I susepct that the vast majority of reasonable people will agree that this is a reasonable presumption.
Heh. I was re-reading those articles and I started thinking that maybe I am making too much of this nativity story. But when considering the players and laying out their movements step-by-step, it all seems very odd. I can’t imagine that SAD was happy about attending college in Hawaii. The school was not in anyway prominent at the time and couldn’t have held any appeal for her. Maybe that’s why she rebelled and ended up in the arms of a cad, if he’s the dad. I’m leaning toward no and Canada, at the moment. I wish someone would interview more classmates from 1960 before they are all gone.
§338-20 Adoption. (a) In case of the adoption of any person born in the State, the department of health, upon receipt of a properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department, shall prepare a supplementary certificate in the name of the adopted person, as fixed or changed by the decree, and seal and file the original certificate of birth with the certified copy attached thereto.
(b) The registrar of births shall show on the supplemental birth certificate the names of parents as stated in the adoption decree pursuant to section 578-14.
If that is the link you wanted, how does it support your argument? If anything, it appears to support mine. It details the creation of a new document with the new parent's names on it. Section (d) even says you don't actually have to have an Original birth certificate to get an Hawaiian Adopted birth certificate.
(d) If no original certificate of birth shall be on file with the department, the department may require such evidence AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY to establish the facts of birth before preparing a supplementary certificate in the new name of the adopted person; provided that no such certificate shall be filed unless it shall be satisfactorily established that the adopted person was born in the State.
That "as it deems necessary" line implies that the affidavit of a Vice President from the Bank of Hawaii, might very well be good enough. Again, How is any of this helping your argument?
Huh? I don't get your point.
I know how you feel. :)
You are arguing that an original birth certificate indicating an unattended home birth can, as a result of an adoption, by modified to state the child is born in the hospital. I'm pointing out to you that there's absolutely nothing in Hawaiian vital records or adoption law that allows for that.
I am arguing that the law is full of "deeming this" and "deeming that". It is rife with false equivalencies. (Such as a COLB = an Original.) I have read that in the event of an unattended birth, a parent has up to a year to get a medical examination for a child. That examination can then list the place of birth as the Hospital in which the examination is performed. Alternatively, they could have simply used the Hospital as a place of birth to protect the privacy of the adopted child. Since (In the event of an adoption) they are lying about the parent's names, addresses, etc. , why would they balk at lying about place of birth?
Yes, but that provision wasn't passed until 1983, long after Obama was an adult. Furthermore, a birth certificate issued pursuant to that section of the law won't list Hawaii as the place of birth.
I am given to understand that the Hawaiian laws in force in 1961 were even more lenient. It has been awhile since i've looked into this aspect of it, but that is my recollection. This direction of argument has been looked into ad-nauseum by butterzillion et al.
Who said she did? Are you even reading what I write? If he was born in Canada, Grandma knows THAT. She need know nothing else to be concerned about his citizenship status, or the laws thereof.
I'm sorry, but that's just dumb.
So is getting Pregnant by a Black Man in 1961. (A felony in many states at that time.) So was Running off to Seattle 2 weeks after you've given birth to a child, thereby abandoning your best support system in exchange for a much harsher situation. Nevertheless, that is what some would have us believe. "Dumb" is no refutation.
What in the world makes you suspect she'd go to her husband, with no legal training or experience, for legal advice?
What makes you believe she thought she needed legal advice? It was a common belief in 1961 (Thanks to the misapplied 14th amendment) that you had to be born in America to be an American citizen. The fact that this was not true is irrelevant. People BELIEVED it was true, and would act on their false beliefs. Why seek out legal advice for something you think you already know? As an alternate theory, suppose she DID seek out legal advice from a Lawyer, and suppose she was told that Stanley Ann was too young to transfer citizenship? Madelyn Dunham is in the same boat regardless of which direction she goes. The ONLY answer is to declare an "at home birth" or leave your grandson a Citizen of Kenya.
Anyone with half a brain knows that you get legal advice from a lawyer, and most lawyers are willing to give you the first consultation free of charge.
Perhaps she did, and as I pointed out above, it leaves her in the same situation; With the belief that her Grandson is NOT an American Citizen.
Document fraud, which when used to fraudulantly obtain US citizenship, is a Federal crime as well as a state crime.
People aren't afraid of committing crimes, just of being caught for them. Under the rules in place, it is virtually impossible to be caught, and that is if anybody gave a crap about irregularities in a two year old state. What would you do for your grandchild? Tell me you would sell him down the river. Remember, the Alternative is her daughter AND her grandson having to go to Kenya when Barack Sr. Returned. Not a pretty thought for Madelyn who feared Stanley would be killed there. (From some articles i've read.) They were butchering people right and left about this time.
It is simply absurd to suggest that a woman of Toot's social standing would risk her freedom and career to commit a crime without asking a lawyer whether there was a legal means to get what she wanted.
What risk? Who could prove her affidavit was untrue? What LEGAL means could she have used to get what she wanted? (Father Kenyan, Grandson Born in Canada, Daughter too young.) Do you know of a workaround for the law? If you do, we are right back to someone getting around the law.
If the timeline and events seem erratic, that's because they are. Stanley Ann was pretty erratic herself. That's why I mentioned to "curiosity" (who is curiously uncurious :) ) that saying something is "dumb" is no refutation of it. People do dumb things all the time. Especially liberal minded people.
As for interviewing classmates, they don't seem very cooperative when you CAN get an interview with them. Did you read the account of that Interview with Susan Blake? When she found out that the interviewer wasn't a fawning O-bot, she stopped talking. Washington State is pretty Liberal.
Madelyn Dunham didn't do any of those things.
What makes you believe she thought she needed legal advice?
The fact that she mostly likely did not know all the ins and outs of immigration law. When educated people like Madelyn Dunham aren't sure about the law, they usually talk to a lawyer before doing anything drastic. If you are are unwilling to accept even this most basic reality, then I'm not sure there's any point in continuing this conversation with you.
It was a common belief in 1961 (Thanks to the misapplied 14th amendment) that you had to be born in America to be an American citizen.
Bull. You just made that up.
People aren't afraid of committing crimes, just of being caught for them.
That's why they don't commit crimes to get something they can very easily obtain legally.
Under the rules in place, it is virtually impossible to be caught, and that is if anybody gave a crap about irregularities in a two year old state.
There you go making crap up again.
Irrelevant to the point. The fact that something is "dumb" is not proof that someone won't do it. Madelyn DID let her Husband name their daughter "Stanley." Would you characterize that as "dumb"?
The fact that she mostly likely did not know all the ins and outs of immigration law. When educated people like Madelyn Dunham aren't sure about the law, they usually talk to a lawyer before doing anything drastic.
Your argument misses the point. Assuming a Canadian birth, If she doesn't talk to a lawyer, she thinks her Grandson is not an American citizen. If she DOES talk to a lawyer, he tells her that her Grandson is DEFINITELY NOT an American Citizen. Either course of action yields the same result, so for the purpose of this argument it makes no difference which course she picks.
If you are unwilling to accept even this most basic reality, then I'm not sure there's any point in continuing this conversation with you.
The reality is that either interpretation yields the same result. Do you see this differently somehow?
Bull. You just made that up.
Not at all, that's what I remember.
That's why they don't commit crimes to get something they can very easily obtain legally.
Assuming Barry was actually born in Canada to an underage mother, what is the legal means to make him a citizen?
There you go making crap up again.
Speculating is only wrong when *I* do it? That's hardly fair.
Never said it was. However, the fact that the accused stood to gain absolutely nothing from a crime, and could easily have obtained information necessary to determine that, is usually grounds for dismissal, especially when there is no evidence to even suggest it was committed and when the accused is a person of above average IQ, with no criminal record, and has successfully held down a job of significat responsibility.
In this case, Madelyn had absolutely no need to commit fraud to obtain citizenship for her grandson, as the immigration laws at the time allowed for him to be naturalized even if born in Canada, as you allege. She could have easily gotten that information with a single phone call to an immigration lawyer. As a successful bank manager, she obviously had a history of intellgent, rational decision-making, so it would be totally out of character for her to risk a felony conviction in order to obtain something should could easily get legally. Finally, you have absolutely no evidence to even suggest she committed the crime you are alleging. You don't even have any evidence she had the means.
Does all of the above prove it didn't happen? Of course not. It is seldom possible to prove a negative. However, the above renders your scenario so implausibile no intelligent person would ever take it seriously.
Madelyn DID let her Husband name their daughter "Stanley." Would you characterize that as "dumb"?
Are you seriously comparing the act of giving one's daughter an unusual name to the unnecessary comission of a felony?
Assuming a Canadian birth, If she doesn't talk to a lawyer, she thinks her Grandson is not an American citizen.
Doubtful. Assuming a Candian birth, she doesn't know, since like most people she doesn't know all the ins and outs of immigration law. Hence the need to call an immigration lawyer.
If she DOES talk to a lawyer, he tells her that her Grandson is DEFINITELY NOT an American Citizen.
Now you're missing the point. Yes, he tells her he's not a citizen, but then, unless he's a complete idiot, he tells her that she can petition to have her grandson naturalized. He would obviously have an incentive to do that.
Not at all, that's what I remember.
Bull. Either your memory is faulty, or you're lying.
Assuming Barry was actually born in Canada to an underage mother, what is the legal means to make him a citizen?
Naturalization.
Speculating is only wrong when *I* do it?
You weren't just speculating. You were making up a factual claim out of thin air, namely, that BC certifiate fraud in the early 1960's was somehow easy and common in Hawaii. Neither you nor any other birther has produced a shred of evidence to support this claim.
An no, unsupported assertions posted on some blog aren't evidence.
Not having her Daughter and Grandson forced back to Kenya might constitute "motive" in some people's minds. As you pointed out, she was intelligent enough to realize that would be the consequence of Barry not having American Citizenship.
In this case, Madelyn had absolutely no need to commit fraud to obtain citizenship for her grandson, as the immigration laws at the time allowed for him to be naturalized even if born in Canada, as you allege.
That is not what I recall. I recall the laws in effect in 1961 required the girl to have lived 5 years after the age of 14 in the United States. She just barely missed the deadline.
You don't even have any evidence she had the means.
I have evidence that she was a 1 year Resident of Hawaii, and a close blood relative of the child. She can also be presumed smart enough to fill out a form. Is something else necessary?
Does all of the above prove it didn't happen? Of course not. It is seldom possible to prove a negative. However, the above renders your scenario so implausibile no intelligent person would ever take it seriously.
Except that it doesn't. Your argument is based on the false premise that there was a legal means to citizenship for the foreign born offspring of a foreigner and an underage girl. Since that does not appear to be true, your argument is invalid. You don't get to make up your own facts. Naturalization law would have worked against little Barry in 1961 if he were actually born in Canada.
Now you're missing the point. Yes, he tells her he's not a citizen, but then, unless he's a complete idiot, he tells her that she can petition to have her grandson naturalized. He would obviously have an incentive to do that.
This makes your argument more plausible. Would it require the cooperation of the Daughter who might not be amenable to the idea? Maybe she would want to go to Kenya. She certainly wanted to go to Indonesia! :) In any case, you are right, they COULD petition for naturalization. If only people could be depended upon to reliably do the sensible thing instead of the dumb thing. I will keep it in mind, but there is no guarantee that people will do something sensible when a stupid option lies on the table. And this theory presumes she DID talk to a lawyer. It does not address what she would do if she did NOT talk to a lawyer. Perhaps she outsmarted herself?
Bull. Either your memory is faulty, or you're lying.
What was that you said earlier about proving a negative? :)
You weren't just speculating. You were making up a factual claim out of thin air, namely, that BC certifiate fraud in the early 1960's was somehow easy and common in Hawaii. Neither you nor any other birther has produced a shred of evidence to support this claim.
The trouble with evidence of criminality (or in this case extreme laxity) is that people don't want it made freely available. One piece of evidence regarding Hawaii's laid back attitude on birth certificates is what it says in Hawaii's birth certificate laws from that era. What other state allows Ship born Children to get a birth certificate? Or for that matter, what other state allows children born somewhere else to get a birth certificate?
You are mistaken. Go take a look at Title III, section 322 of the immigration and nationality act of 1952, which was in effect at the time. If you do, you will find that any minor child of a US citizen residing in the US could obtain naturalized citizenship. There was no restriction on the age of the mother, or any other barrier that would have prevented Obama's mom from getting him naturalized. You can find the full text of the law here:
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf
The relevant section is on p. 246, as numbered in the original document that is the source of the pdf file.
Bottom line: there was no reason for Obama's grandma to commit fraud to get him citizenship. He could have been naturalized legally. All it would require would be for his mother to fill out some paperwork and send it in to the INS, and he would have gotten his citizenship as soon as the papers were processed.
Just to let you know, you are arguing with a very odd duck here. For instance, curious has ‘explained’ to me, more times that I can count, that Obama never lies. In fact, curious went haywire more than once, when I declined to provide him with specific instances of Obama lying. [(1) I had seen him dismiss any such specifics offered to him as ‘those lies don’t count’, and (2) I had already given curious specific instructions as to where to find thousands of Obama lies laid out and documented.] He was screaming, ‘See! See! You can’t do it! You can’t point to a single Obama lie!’ It was weird.
Also, he was very rude and patronizing about Obama’s self-professed Marxist. I provided curious with two links documenting Obama’s fervently, radically and militaristically held revolutionary Marxist beliefs, and curious told me (1) I [FW] didn’t know what Marxism is (i.e.: he called me ignorant—despite the links which proved otherwise) and (2) Obama isn’t a Marxist.
I just thought a little history might help.
Best, FW
First of all, we were talking about the actions of the Grandmother, not the mother. The Grandmother might not have been able to take this action. The pertinent text is as follows.
CHILD BORN OUTSIDE OF UNITED STATES; NATURALIZATION ON PETITION OF CITIZEN PARENT; REQUIREMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS
Sec. 322. (a)A child born outside of the United States, one or both of who's parents is at the time of petitioning for the naturalization of the child, a citizen of the United States by birth or naturalization, may be naturalized if under the age of 18 years and not otherwise disqualified from becoming a citizen by reason of section 313,314,315 or 318 of this Act, and if residing permanently in the United States, with the citizen parent, pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence, on the petition of such citizen parent, upon compliance with all the provisions of this title, except that no particular period of residence or physical presence in the United States shall be required. If the child is of tender years he may be presumed to be of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.
A few quibbles.
Firstly it says on application of petition by "Citizen Parent." I read that to mean that Stanley Ann would have to do the petitioning, not the Grandmother. (This is outside the scope of the immediate discussion of what the GRANDMOTHER could do.) Seeing as how much of an idiot Stanley Ann was, would her mother have thought her sensible enough to do it?
Secondly, Section 313 requires that the person being naturalized have absolutely no affiliation whatsoever with Communists. Obviously his mother violates this requirement of the law. :)
Thirdly, Section 318 requires the person being naturalized to have entered the country legally.
Joking aside, you have a big "maybe." It neither proves that it was possible, nor that Madelyn Dunham knew of this. I have been given bad advice by multiple attorneys plenty of times. There is no overt indication of how long the petition period is supposed to take. Stanley Ann and Baby Barry might be in Kenya before citizenship is granted, and if gone long enough, the child might lose any chance of citizenship for failure to meet residency requirements. (Rogers v. Bellei)
How much easier to just fill out a form and count on Hawaii's easy going bureaucracy to make things simple?
Bottom line: there was no reason for Obama's grandma to commit fraud to get him citizenship. He could have been naturalized legally. All it would require would be for his mother to fill out some paperwork and send it in to the INS, and he would have gotten his citizenship as soon as the papers were processed.
Yes, we only need rely on the responsibility of a girl who takes a Russian Class in 1960, quickly gets pregnant out of wedlock to a visiting African student, (allegedly) thereafter immediately flees to Seattle when the baby is born (thereby abandoning her most promising source of support) and who possesses no visible means of support, to exert herself sufficiently to deal with this pressing legal matter regarding a son which she will abandon in less than ten years anyway.
I read her as a bit of a flake who cannot be trusted to do the responsible or sensible thing. I suspect her mother knew her better than anyone else, thought so as well.
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.