“His mother was a US citizen and therefore so is he.”
Dangit, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is “Does he qualify as a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS THAT TERM WAS DEFINED WHEN HE WAS BORN.” Different standard, at least then. The reasoning behind the law was because one parent wasn’t a US citizen and the other hadn’t been for 5 years, he was just as much a citizen of both countries and could choose at majority. (They didn’t allow dual citizenship as much then.) Therefore, he qualifies as a NATURALIZED citizen, not a NATURAL BORN citizen. The ONLY real difference between the two is one is eligible for President, the other is NOT.
I’d cite the statute, but it’s been cited time and again already, and apparently people aren’t bothering to read it. They prefer what they “know” vs. what the specific applicable statute said at the time.
Why is this so d@mn hard for people to grasp?!?!!! Unfreakingbelievable.
The statute does not apply if he was born in the United States, only if he was born in Kenya or another country. This document, if legit, shows that Obama was born in Hawaii, which was then and is today part of the U.S., thus he is a natural born citizen.
Why is this so d@mn hard for people to grasp?!?!!! Unfreakingbelievable.
Ummmmm, before you rant too much (more), you might want to re-read the statute. It will show the law you're fond of citing & interpreting in no way applies to Obama.
This is a D-E-A-D issue.
Can't we move on to something with more legs, like how Obama looks when riding a bike? (/sarc)
Check out this information and you will see the "five year" requirement on page 2, with all of the other stuff about being born outside of the country under various versions of the law. The stuff about being born in the country is on page 1, and is very simple--being born in the U.S. is enough to make you a citizen, and has been since time immemorial. The birth certificate shows BHO was born in this country, so that's that.