re: "Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate"
Joe the Farmer at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") has a non-hysterical recapitulation of this issue (or non-issue, or controversy, or whatever-the-Hell it is).
He begins by reassuring you of your sanity:
"Does this Barack Obama birth certificate issue bug you because, although improbable, it's possible that he's not a natural born citizen, isn't eligible to be President under the Constitution, and this issue could be bigger than Watergate -- or any other "gate" in history?"
There were 230 comments in the thread when I first read it, there are more now.
If I didn't have a full-time job already I could spend my next week or two responding to each and every comment; there are a obviously an awful lot of people who should question their assumptions about what they think they know regarding citizenship law (but are actually getting it wrong about 95 percent of the time).
I truly hope there's nothing to this kerfuffle, but the plain fact is that I don't know, you don't know, and pretty much everyone who thinks they know is either mistaken or trying to sell you a bill of goods.
That's troubling.
He begins by reassuring you of your sanity:
"Does this Barack Obama birth certificate issue bug you because, although improbable, it's possible that he's not a natural born citizen, isn't eligible to be President under the Constitution, and this issue could be bigger than Watergate -- or any other "gate" in history?"
There were 230 comments in the thread when I first read it, there are more now.
If I didn't have a full-time job already I could spend my next week or two responding to each and every comment; there are a obviously an awful lot of people who should question their assumptions about what they think they know regarding citizenship law (but are actually getting it wrong about 95 percent of the time).
I truly hope there's nothing to this kerfuffle, but the plain fact is that I don't know, you don't know, and pretty much everyone who thinks they know is either mistaken or trying to sell you a bill of goods.
That's troubling.
posted by Consul-At-Arms at 6:36 AM
7 Comments:
Either way, it does not matter as the Constitution does not require you to be born in the United States. You merely have to be born to a parent who is a U.S. citizen. "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." (quoted from the Constitution). A "natural born Citizen" does not mention having to be born on U.S. soil, instead it just clarifies that you have to have had American citizenship from birth. I was not born in the U.S., but instead was born abroad, while my American mother was living abroad, and I am automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship (and have) through her. In fact, my birth was registered with the U.S. Embassy abroad. I think people become confused because of the whole Arnold Schwarzenegger issue. He can not be President of the U.S. because he was neither born here nor born to an American parent, so in no way a "natural born Citizen".
This is what I meant by "there are a obviously an awful lot of people who should question their assumptions about what they think they know regarding citizenship law (but are actually getting it wrong about 95 percent of the time)."
The 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to those born in the United States. There are some exceptions, such as children born to foreign diplomats, but the general rule is good for more than 99 percent of the time.
Citizenship for those of us (I'm one too) who were born abroad is subject to the laws for citizenship, passed by Congress, which were in force at the time of your birth.
I'm not going to do your homework for you, but if you do some reading on the following topics, you may come to some surprising conclusions.
First, the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.) or INS.
Please note that the current law, particularly with regards to the requirements necessary for a U.S. citizen parent to transmit that citizenship to their children born abroad, is not identical to that in force in 1961. You are looking for INA Sec. 301g. Hint: Public Law 99-653, changed these requirements in 1986.
Second, Pres.-designate Obama's date of birth.
Third, the marital status and age at the time of Pres.-designate Obama's mother (who was a U.S. citizen) at the time of his birth.
Lastly, just as a thought experiment, consider in a purely hypothetical fashion what is the result if you change his place of birth to somewhere outside of the United States and its outlying territories.
I used the open source information available to me (i.e., Google).
The answer is not what you currently believe to be true.
CCA, very respectfully take your point about needing to "question their assumptions about what they think they know regarding citizenship law", and I don't want this to turn into one of these long chains of posts and counter posts, so I respect if you wish to remove this post, but felt I had to have a follow up. The 14th Amendment is positive in that it guarantees a right, but does not mention and deny to anyone "natural born citizenship".
As you state, Congress is granted the right legislate the laws of citizenship. In addition, as you point out INA Sec. 301g is key. To that point, two things stand out: 1) "This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date." Meaning the act is retroactive. (Unless I am reading this wrong.) 2) "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years". This covers the argument that his mother was too young.
@anonymous:
You're very close to the answer.
Since 1986 the law is as you say; in order to transmit citizenship, a U.S. parent (if the other parent is not a U.S. citizen) must have five years of U.S. presence prior to the birth of the child, two of which must be after reaching the age of 14 years, for children born abroad.
The problem, hypothetically, is that in 1961, the requirement was for TEN years of U.S. presence, FIVE of which after reaching the age of 14 years, for children born abroad to only one U.S. parent.
Mathematically this would be an impossibility for someone giving birth in 1961, not yet having reached 19 years of age.
As a Immigration officer, I will tell you this, the law was retroactive, so her age and residency requirements are covered along with Obama's status IF he had been born outside the U.S.
@truthblogger,
Are you quite certain?
My lawbook says that the shorter period only applies to those persons born on or after Nov. 14, 1986.
There was an issue of retroactivity, which was addressed legislatively in 1988 (excerpts from 7 FAM 1130 follow):
7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
(snip)
"e. November 14, 1986, Liberalization of Retention Requirements: Section 12 of the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986 (INAA) (Public Law 99-653 of November 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657) changed the parental citizenship transmission requirements from ten years of U.S. physical presence, five of which were after the age of 14, to five years of U.S. physical presence, two of which were after age 14. These provisions apply only to persons born on or after November 14, 1986.
f. October 24, 1988, Retroactivity of Amendment
(1) The Immigration Technical Corrections Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-525 of October 24, 1988) added a new section 23 to the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986 which states: SEC. 23. .(d) The amendment made by section 12 shall apply to persons born on or after November 14, 1986.
(2) The effect of this amendment is to apply the reduced physical presence transmission requirements of the amended section 301(g) INA to persons born anywhere outside the United States at any time on November 14, 1986, rather than just to those born after 2:07 p.m. EST when the INAA originally was effective."
So retroactivity only applied to persons who were born earlier than 2:07 pm EST on that date.
As soon as i saw the headline i couldn't wait to get to start reading the comments.Thank you all so much for your comments and support...
Public Records
Post a Comment
<< Home