understand it. I just don’t agree with it, nor believe some bureaucrat with an MD, (who reportedly took mulitple trys to get her license) is qualified to state it authoritatively. She didn’t say what the requirement that could be verified by the “birth record”, other than birth in Hawaii, alone that would prove someone was an NBC. At minimum it would take records or knowledge of the parents’ citizenship at the time of the birth and that is not even on the long form from 1961 in Hawaii. Birthplace is though, that would give a clue, but would require further documentation, such as naturalization papers from before the birth. If the COLB is correct in every respect, which I highly doubt, his father was still not a US citizen, ever, but that would need to be checked via Visa records, or just be stipulated by all parties that BHO Sr, the presumed father, was not a citizen or even permanent legal resident, at the time of BHO II’s birth, or ever.
There is NO legal precedent for the birthplace of one’s father being determinative of US natural born status if the other parent is an American citizen.
There, fixed it.
There's a reason, too. First, there has never been a Presidential election in dispute due to questions of eligibility under the natural-born citizen requirement. Second, no law can define the term, since only immigration and naturalization is enumerated to the Legislative branch.
You think the "official birth records" say that he is natural born citizen?
Don't know about you, but I've never seen that on a birth certificate.
In fact, the issue of natural born American status with regard to eligibility to be president has never been adjudicated in any court of law and the Constitution itself is mute on the issue.
So why do you think you and Dr. Kukino know what it means, or will mean if a court rules on it? Hmmm?
Documents contemporary to the founding era indicate that BHO II is a natural born British Subject, because his father was a British subject. Vattel indicates that "naturales" are those born of citizen parents in the country, with an exception to the latter for those whose parents were serving the country but outside of it, at the time of their birth.
Blackstone: (1758) WHEN I fay, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this alfo muft be underftood with fome reftrictions. The common law indeed ftood abfolutely fo; with only a very few exceptions:...But by feveral more modern ftatutesb thefe reftrictions are ftill farther taken off: fo that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whofe fathers were natural-born fubjects, are now natural-born fubjects themfelves, to all intents and purpofes, without any exception; unlefs their faid fathers were attainted, or banifhed beyond fea, for high treafon; or were then in the fervice of a prince at enmity with Great Britain. (Original spelling and when he says "more modern statutes, he still means prior to the mid 1760s at the latest!) :))
Vattel:(also 1758, although the translation is newer, around 1852), the founders could mostly read French and didn't need the translation): The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. Section 217 has the exemption to "in the country" for those "born in the armies of the state."
And this from Joesph Story(1833):
§ 1471...It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country.... But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.
(Story was at the time a Justice of the Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Madison in 1812).