Hardly. You cite a case which doesn't apply because the laws that case was decided under had been changed long before the decision was handed down.
So if you want to sit here and argue the world is flat, you are welcome to do so.
And if I did I would not be surprised to find you believing it, if it supported your bizzare poisiton. If you really want to address the legal issues, you pick up the statute and say here is the one that applies; here is why. You say Sec. 301 (or 309) applies--here is the subsection; here is what it says; here are the facts that would put Obama under the statute and make him a citizen. Read the opinion. Get a grip.
Which I did. I provided the link to the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 which was in effect when Obama was born. The applicable section is Title III, Chapter 1, Act 301. Or didn't you bother reading the link I provided?
Your case citation reference is wrong. Which case cited where?
The opinion specifically addresses the actual language of 301. The language you cited is subject to a specific effective date clause which applies only to persons born after November, 1986--since Obama was born in 1961, the language of 301 on which you rely does not apply to him. And the language your view replaces specifically excludes Obama because his mother didn't meet the five years after age 16 test.
All of these statutes are set out in the opinion above with specific references--which word is the one you have a problem with? I assume you have figured out that Section 301 is a reference to the Immigration and Nationalization Act which has been codified as 8 USC 1401--the language and the legislative source is the same.
“So if you want to sit here and argue the world is flat, you are welcome to do so. “ - David.
Rich irony coming from a guy pushing the bogus fairy tale that Barack was born in Kenya.
The ‘evidence’ for this out-of-africa claim thus far?
1. Claims (refuted) that Obama’s birth cert. is forged (it’s not).
2. A 1971 photo that is claimed to be from 1961, because someone remembers the airport facilities to look like that in 1961. Never mind the other side evidence that recalls it looked that way in 1971. Or the fact that aged 10 Barack is in the photo set; that is waved away by various means, like “I know its not Barack”. “I know, its Malik” (Malik was only 2 years older than Barack, so that was judged ‘proof’ until that reality intruded, then dropped). bizarre attempts to contort facts to fit the theory.
3. Claims that Kenyan family members recall the birth. We are pointed to ‘sources’ that are just more claims-of-claims. No real evidence, quote, etc. Never mind that it would have been in “Dreams of My Father”, or the press would have picked up on it massively. Somehow this is a secret that only leaks out to the masters of the conspiracy theory.
Then we have to add on a whole bunch of bizarre scenarios, known acts of fraud, and a bio that has been a lie from day one. The simple reality that Barack was born in Hawaii where his Mom was living is rejected for more and more elaboration and artifice in this conspiracy theory.
Its a big fat bogus fairy tale. Bogosity built on wisps of BS. The world is flat, indeed!