Donald Trump made Obama release his birth certificate

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I suggest you read the law involving citizenship requirements before you tell people what's what. One parent is sufficient if that parent lived in the United States for the required period of time.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizens...ship_5199.html

Wrong link ?
"Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad"


Fail Steve.

[Armistead]

I think Obama was just waiting so Trump would look like a bigger idiot than he is. I doubt Trump or Palin would run, but wouldn't that be a ticket for the ages, Obama wouldn't even have to campaign.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Wrong link ?
"Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad"


Fail Steve.

You said flatly that to be "natural born" requires two citizen parents. That link clearly shows that only one of them has to be a citizen. How exactly does you being wrong equal me failing?

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You said flatly that to be "natural born" requires two citizen parents. That link clearly shows that only one of them has to be a citizen. How exactly does you being wrong equal me failing?

Are you saying Barry was born abroad ?

[razark]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Are you saying Barry was born abroad ?

So if one is born abroad, one must only have one US citizen parent, but if one is born in the US, both parents must be citizens?

Huh?

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by razark

So if one is born abroad, one must only have one US citizen parent, but if one is born in the US, both parents must be citizens?

Huh?

The Constitution requires that a candidate for President of the United States be a "natural-born citizen". According to the US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual: "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen (citizen at birth) pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."[29]

The majority opinion by Justice Horace Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark observed that:

The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen" and "natural born citizen"], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'[4]



The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were "free white persons" of "good moral character". It thus left out indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians. While women were included in the act, the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...." Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. This was the only statute that ever purported to grant the status of natural born citizen.

John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:

Who are natural-born citizens but those born in the Republic? […] [P]ersons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.[13]
notice the plural statement 'parents' ?
He reiterated his statement in 1866:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.[14]


This is the question the courts haven't answered. They've refused to hear the case 8 times so far. But as to SS post- I still havent seen the revelance of the rules regarding children born abroad to this discussion. please explain.

[August]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

This is the question the courts haven't answered. They've refused to hear the case 8 times so far. But as to SS post- I still havent seen the revelance of the rules regarding children born abroad to this discussion. please explain.

He's not claiming that Obama was born abroad.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by August

He's not claiming that Obama was born abroad.

So why'd he post the laws granting citizenship to children born abroad ?
And where in those posted laws does it say anything about 'natural born' citizenship ?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Are you saying Barry was born abroad ?

I said nothing of the kind. You said to be a natural born citizen takes two parents who are citizens. I showed you the law that proves you wrong. Now you're trying to change the subject.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I said nothing of the kind. You said to be a natural born citizen takes two parents who are citizens. I showed you the law that proves you wrong. Now you're trying to change the subject.

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."

[razark]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

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.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by razark

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.

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.

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.

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?

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by razark

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.

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

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 ?

Okay. First I have to clear up what may be a misunderstanding on my part. When you said "By some of your definitions of 'citizen' they'll be eligible because they were born on our side of some line on a map. Natural born by definition means born of 2 citizen parents.", to what exactly were you referring? Obama? Are you of the opinion that he shouldn't have US citizenship because only one of his parents was born here? I agree that granting citizenship to a baby whose parents just happen to be visiting here might be going to far. But if two people are granted citizenship and their baby is born here, is he not "natural born"?

Perhaps I misunderstood you, so I'll ask for a clarification: Exactly what point were you trying to make in the first place.

[edit] Okay, now I'm more confused. I just read your reply to Razark:

You and I agree that the term is still undefined by the courts.

But you say that immediately after quoting yourself as giving a definition. So, is your definition not an actual definition?

[nikimcbee]

I'm willing to risk it all on Trump, just for the part on the swearing in day, to have him sit in the chair, point at BHO and say:"You're fired!"