Really, history shows otherwise, anyone that was half black and white were always considered black and until recent years most were treated worse. In most cultures, including America, a half breed of any race was considered worse.

Yep, and like I pointed out, that was old style racism.

You are correct, as men continue to erode the spirit of the law and hide behind the letter of the law we will increasingly rely on the Supreme court to interpret the letter of the law that applies to us.

I do however believe that when the question is finally addressed by SCOTUS they will reaffirm the belief of the framer of the 14th amendment (congressman John Bingham) that a natural born citizen is that which is born of 2 citizen parents, as shown from the minutes of House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, page 1291, col. 2, paragraph 2.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=332

So there's a new style racism? Honestly, you'll have to explain that one to me. Racism is racism as far as i know, there's only so many definitions of it in the English dictionary. So what's the difference between the new and the old?

Ok SS, since you really want to claim your post of the rules regarding "Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by a child born abroad" proves me wrong, I'll go thru it paragraph by paragraph and you can tell me where the document applies to our conversation, ok ?

paragraph 1: Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock

Barry has 1 NON U.S. citizen parent- paragraph does NOT apply.

Paragraph 2:Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

This one is interesting as it states "A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth."
...So here it further states: "For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.)" According to the released birth certificate (box #15) the age of the mother is 18. Basic math- 14 + 5 = 19. Seems Barry's mother is a year short of the requirement in your posted document to pass on citizenship to her child.

Paragraph 3:Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father – “New” Section 309(a)

This entire section pertains to a child born abroad to a citizen FATHER. Does NOT apply to our discussion as Barry's father is a kenyan citizen.

Paragraph 4:Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:

Doesn't apply as Barry's mother was married at the time of his birth.

So, again I ask you how does this document indicate that "I showed you the law that proves you wrong."

The part that states only one parent must be a US citizen.

"A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth... [provided certain conditions apply that aren't relevant to the discussion]."

That clearly states that two parents are not required to confer citizenship.

Well, you are correct, but missed the second part of the sentence where a caveat resides.

The outlying possesions is the catch all. That can be anything from a territory, to an Military base. So in the end, it's pretty open ended. Makes me glad i didn't contribute to the local orphanage population when stationed overseas. lol. err.... at least i think i didn't. :shifty:

Anywho, from the sounds of that, if obama's mother is an Alien, all that is required is for his birth to occur in any "outlying possession", with the US father present. But even then that's probably more strict then what is really required, otherwise we wouldn't have anchor babies would we?

Not really. The caveat doesn't apply, and the law was only posted as an example to show a point.

The point under contention is that MaddogK claimed that TWO citizen parents were needed for citizenship. The law posted shows that only one would be needed IF the child was born overseas. If only one citizen parent is needed overseas, than only one citizen parent would be needed in the US (or, according to the 14th amendment, zero citizens are needed).

Yeah, thats true. Only one parent is needed. I thought this was common knowledge?

LOL, you can't cherry pick like that ! If you claim the paragraph revelant than the conditions are also relevant. Obama mama clearly didn't comply with the requirement.

The paragraph/conditional would only apply IF Obama was born outside the US.

The point is: Here is a case that shows only ONE parent needs to be a US citizen, as opposed to the TWO you stated.

It's a counter example of US law that points out the fact that...

You know what? If you haven't gotten it by now, it's pointless.
:damn:

If it were that simple and clear cut, do you think there would be a controversy at all?

As everyone else has said, it only takes one parent to be a citzen.

Ok, soooo apparently, common knowledge..... isn't. :O:

If the "controversy" is politically motivated, then yes, despite it being clear, there would still be a "controversy"

NO ! Go back and re-read post #36. I argue
You and I agree that the term is still undefined by the courts.
:timeout:
You now change MY wording to indicate a different meaning and claim I said it.

WRONG !

<expletive deleted>