Liberals Now Calling For Obama Birth Cert

[bighorn]

Quote from cgroupman:

I realize that I do research for a living, and for fun, I enjoy it. But, do you guys even bother to even check to see if there are facts that support the other side of an discussion?

This took about 30 seconds.

"Analysis: Contrary to the arguments set forth above, Barack Obama is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States, for the simple reason that he was born on American soil (in Hawaii, two years after it acquired statehood). The age and citizenship status of his parents at the time of his birth have no bearing on Obama's own citizenship.

Any confusion on this point is the result of misunderstanding the legal concepts of jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of birthplace) as they apply to citizenship in the United States. Here's how the website of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service explained the matter in 2008:

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.
Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents).

It is a fact that under the provisions of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of president, but this disqualification does not apply to Barack Obama, who has been a citizen since birth. "

Long verison and citation:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm




c

No cites from snopes and factcheck? I bet if you look hard enough, you can find evidence the earth is flat too. Let's break it down;

1. Obama was born with dual citizenship,

2. He had a choice; a choice to be an American citizen, a British citizen, or both.

3. It’s this choice that precludes him from meeting the eligibility requirements as set forth by the founding fathers, as it does not pass the sole allegiance test.

4. The framers did not imply that any person who chooses to forfeit any foreign citizenship when becoming of age would be exempt from Article II, Section One, Clause Five of the Constitution.

5. Nor has there been any Amendment stating as such or excusing those people because they can’t be responsible for their birth rights.

6. Law Of Nations authored by Emmerich de Vattel, who wrote "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parentS who are citizenS”. Note the plural use of parents and citizens. There are many references by the framers themselves and many justices to Vattel’s writings as precedent.

The smoking gun is dual citizenship, not place of birth.

 

[jem]

Quote from cgroupman:

I realize that I do research for a living, and for fun, I enjoy it. But, do you guys even bother to even check to see if there are facts that support the other side of an discussion?

This took about 30 seconds.

"Analysis: Contrary to the arguments set forth above, Barack Obama is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States, for the simple reason that he was born on American soil (in Hawaii, two years after it acquired statehood). The age and citizenship status of his parents at the time of his birth have no bearing on Obama's own citizenship.

Any confusion on this point is the result of misunderstanding the legal concepts of jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of birthplace) as they apply to citizenship in the United States. Here's how the website of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service explained the matter in 2008:

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.
Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents).

It is a fact that under the provisions of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of president, but this disqualification does not apply to Barack Obama, who has been a citizen since birth. "

Long verison and citation:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm




c

Your quote does not address the fact that there is very likely a difference between natural born citizen and citizen.

The 14th amendment goes to citizen... not natural born citizen.

You are confused so I will make it clear...



there are two hurdles...

1. are you a citizen...
2. are you a natural born citizen. (yet to be fully defined by U.S. Supreme Court)


1. The definition of citizen is pretty clear.
If you are born on U.S. soil you are a citizen.


2. But does that mean every mexican women who runs across the border to Sharp Mary Birch hospital in San Diego, gives birth and then takes her child back to Mexico is --- birthing Natural Born Citizens.... I certain hope not.

do you want your U.S. Presidents to grow up in Mexico to Mexican parents?

 

[bighorn]

Quote from Scataphagos:

I don't get your logical argument... "not the smoking gun"... as in irrelevant? How so??

We seem to be upsetting the Obama supporters, so I'll sign off with this rather than have this turn into a peeing contest. I am thinking in terms of how the framers interpreted "Natural Born" from Old English Common law, and their intended use of the wording. I think the confusion stems from the misunderstanding of the word "natural". Natural is not location, but rather lineage of ancestry.

The smoking gun is the fact Obama's father was not a US citizen or born in the US. The citizenship comes from the father, and as such, Obama is/was a dual citizen which went against the intent of sole allegience. Furthermore, Indonesian citizenship is a likely scenario as well.





"Only the people can decide…"

"If the US Constitution no longer stands, then the United States of America no longer stands."

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22262

 

[tomdavis]

The reason the "birther thing" doesn't interest me is because it appears to be an argument of unresolvable technicalities. My prediction is that the issue will never be settled definitively and everyone will go on believing whatever they want to believe.

Obama's undergraduate college records are another story. They exist. We know exactly where they exist. Either he's willing to release them or not. If not, why not? In the next election, I think it's going to be a bigger issue than where he was born.

Quote from Scataphagos:

His "birther thing" had EVERYTHING to do with his eligibility to be prez... and that was of little interest to you?

Why have a Constitution at all?

 

[cgroupman]

Quote from jem:

Your quote does not address the fact that there is very likely a difference between natural born citizen and citizen.

The 14th amendment goes to citizen... not natural born citizen.

You are confused so I will make it clear...



there are two hurdles...

1. are you a citizen...
2. are you a natural born citizen. (yet to be fully defined by U.S. Supreme Court)


1. The definition of citizen is pretty clear.
If you are born on U.S. soil you are a citizen.


2. But does that mean every mexican women who runs across the border to Sharp Mary Birch hospital in San Diego, gives birth and then takes her child back to Mexico is --- birthing Natural Born Citizens.... I certain hope not.

do you want your U.S. Presidents to grow up in Mexico to Mexican parents?

I respect your discussion points here. I'll do some more checking with my legal department, just to get a lawyers reference.

I am not a fan of anyone coming to the U.S. to simply give birth and then run back to their country, or stay on a technicality.

The 1. above is the item for interpretation that intrigues me the most. I don't like the words "almost all indivuduals" and "Certain individuals" - gives too much wiggle room for scholarly or not so scholarly, debate.

As an independent, and as mentioned, not a big fan of Obama at this point in time, I'm still not convinced that this birth document issue is a point worth pursuing. However, that being said, this is still the U.S. and if citizens want to spend their time on it, I guess what the heck.



c

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Born in the USA, he was born in the USA.

Mother US citizen, in America.

Should we allow future "anchor babies" full citizenship?

Maybe not, but the current laws are clear...but there is no evidence that Obama was an anchor baby, as his mother was US citizen.

There is not a single piece of credible evidence that Obama was not born in the USA.

No single piece of credible evidence that there was some grand conspiracy back when Obama was born to falsify his being born in the USA.

Does that stop conspiracy theorists from argumentums ad ignorantiam?

Nope.

 

[jem]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Born in the USA, he was born in the USA.

Mother US citizen, in America.

Should we allow future "anchor babies" full citizenship?

Maybe not, but the current laws are clear...but there is no evidence that Obama was an anchor baby, as his mother was US citizen.

There is not a single piece of credible evidence that Obama was not born in the USA.

No single piece of credible evidence that there was some grand conspiracy back when Obama was born to falsify his being born in the USA.

Does that stop conspiracy theorists from argumentums ad ignorantiam?

Nope.

translation.... from troll to english...

optional zzz has no clue where obama was born and neither does anyone else. But zzz is willing to pretend he knows Obama was born here because its what lefties do.

 

[pspr]

Quote from jem:

translation.... from troll to english...

optional zzz has no clue where obama was born and neither does anyone else. But zzz is willing to pretend he knows Obama was born here because its what lefties do.

I'm considering putting Optionalzzz on ignore. His drivel is just that and he rarely has a valid point. He never offers new, truthful information on a subject. He just offers argument only to be argumentative. What do you guys think?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Correct, I don't know.

Do the facts at hand indicate he was born in the USA?

Yes, the facts do indicate that.

Who knows?

The doctor, the mother, the attending nurses know someone was born.

Could Obama be a brother from another planet?

I don't know, possible.

Could Obama be an impostor?

I don't know, possible.

If someone presents a birth certificate is that absolute proof and knowledge that they were born somewhere specific place and time?

Nope, the document could be forged.

Actually knowing something is terribly limited to senses and logic.

Most of what people claim to know is second hand information, and simply a strong belief or trust in the person or institution professing knowledge.

Of the facts available, I see no evidence that leads me to doubt Obama is not a US citizen.

Of course, I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, because statistically, they are so often wrong....and examination of the screwballs who do believe them lends greater support to the conspiracy theory being absurd.

Try to answer one question:

If an appropriate (in your opinion) birth certificate surfaces, how will you know that it is not a fake?

Quote from jem:

translation.... from troll to english...

optional zzz has no clue where obama was born and neither does anyone else. But zzz is willing to pretend he knows Obama was born here because its what lefties do.

 

[jem]

Quote from pspr:

I'm considering putting Optionalzzz on ignore. His drivel is just that and he rarely has a valid point. He never offers new, truthful information on a subject. He just offers argument only to be argumentative. What do you guys think?

the old zzz deployed top notch rhetorical skills and compelling logic... this post "vacation" optional zzz is either not putting the time in or not the same person.... this one is not a nearly as good a troll. He will soon not be worth responding to if he does not pick up his game.