Where Was Obama Born?

[Nodens]

Caveat: No one really knows what the clause about "natural-born" truly is supposed to mean in the Constitution, anyway.

I'd go with the interpretation that Congress is able to define ambiguous term via statute (i.e. Immigration and Naturalization laws).

[Lenny]

I'd go with the interpretation that Congress is able to define ambiguous term via statute (i.e. Immigration and Naturalization laws).

The Supreme Court would have the upper hand there, should it choose to use it, of course.

Last year I was discussing the Obama Birth Certificate issue with someone, and he pointed out that even if Obama were born abroad -- and incontrovertible proof emerged that he was, proof that was accepted by all -- the Supreme Court could just declare that the "natural-born" clause means "born to a U.S. citizen parent", thus qualifying Obama. He was right. The Supreme Court has the power to do that, and have done similar things very often, ever since 1954 and "Brown vs. Board".

(I have heard 'Brown' referred to as the "left-wing Philosopher's Stone". Suddenly, the far-left realized they had the power to do anything, just by 5 of a group of 9 people declaring it to be. White-Americans are law-abiding people and mostly simple people, so we just accepted outrage after outrage. [In retrospect, though, from a wider perspective, 'Brown' and everything else -- all the way up to the election of a B.H.Obama -- was inevitable in light of 1945.])

[Breedingvariety]

Ruling elite has the power to do anything it wants while the system is functioning. The system must be destroyed.

[Kevin]

I don't think* McClown fits the definition of "Natural-born" just because his parents were U.S. citizens.

The reason he'd fit the bill of "Natural-born" is that he was born on a military base in the Canal Zone, which was technically U.S. soil. (In the sense that embassy grounds are the soil of whichever country's embassy it is and not the host country's.)

This is a misconception, that being born on a United States military installation is the same as being born on American soil. If being born in the Canal Zone made McCain a natural born citizen and the same would appy to thousands of Panamanians born there, when it was under United States administration. Extraterritorial possessions do not count as being on in the Ubited States. Four examples; 1: The Phillippines was a extraterritorial possession of the Ubited States from 1898 to 1946. But Filipinos born during that era did not have American citizenship by virtue of juris solis because the Philippines were not part of the United States, just an overseas possession. 2: Puerto Rico also became possession of the Unoted States in 1898. But it took a special act of Congress in 1917 to give Puerto Ricans United Stats citizenship and to grant automatic United States citizenship to anyone born in Puerto Rico. Other acts of Congress have extended this privelege to the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam. 3: The Ryukyu Islands were a United States possession from the end of World War Two until 1972. But no Okinawan born during that period is a natural-born United States citizen. 4: Guantanamo Bay is a U.S. naval station in Cuba. It is under the sovereignty of the U.S.N. but is still Cuban. Current U.S. law concerning Cuban migrants is that if they touch dry U.S. land they can stay in America. Cubans are not swarming over the fence to get into Guantanamo because it is not U.S. soil. Nor do they head for Puerto Rico. They got to Florida. Also, the reason Gitmo is in Guantanamo is because it is not U.S. soil and so unlawful combantants are send there were they are not entitled to the protections of the Constitution.

One more thing, the District of Columbia is part of the United States, some people dispute this because it is not a state. All of the territory of the lower 48 states were part of the United States from the time that territory was ceded to the U.S. The issue was brought up when Goldwater ran for president in 1964, because at his birth in 1909 Arizona had not been granted statehood but it was already part of the United States before statehood weas granted. Alaska and Hawaii were not immediately incorporated into the United States upon the acquisition by the United States but were originally extraterritorial possessions.

Caveat: No one really knows what the clause about "natural-born" truly is supposed to mean in the Constitution, anyway.

Caveat #2: This is much more significant than squabbling about B.H.Obama or Juan McClown, because of the 14th Amendment (giving citizenship to freed slaves), that appropriates the same language: "Anyone born on U.S. soil to parents subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a U.S. citizen". There has been, lately, a very loose intepretation of that, allowing for the so-called "anchor-babies", ignoring the 'jurisdiction thereof' part.

Natural-born basically means anyone who is a citizen of the United States by birth, as opposed to someone who has to become naturalized. Either by being born in the United States by virtue of juris solis or by having at least one parent who is a United States citizen. The secod part is up to Congress to define the conditions parets may transmit citizenship to children born outside the United States and these conditions change overtime. At the time of Obama's birth, a person must have been a United States citizen for 19 years minimum to pass along their U.S. citzenship to a child born on foreign soil. Ann Dunham was only 18, so she had not been a citizen for the minimum 19 years.

[Wulfhere]

At the time of Obama's birth, a person must have been a United States citizen for 19 years minimum to pass along their U.S. citzenship to a child born on foreign soil. Ann Dunham was only 18, so she had not been a citizen for the minimum 19 years.

Though the fact that he was born in Hawaii makes it something of a moot point. Unless the suggestion is that citizenship cannot be inherited by anyone, even if born in the U.S., if their parents were under the age of 19.

[Kevin]

Go back to the first post. Some people do not believe Obama was born in Hawaii, because of the Hawaiian law that allows children of Hawaiian residents born overseas to have their births registered in Hawaii. If Obama would release the vault copy of his birth record and it showed he was born in Hawaii there would be no question of his being a natural-born citizen.

[Lenny]

Wulfhere:
Though the fact that he was born in Hawaii makes it something of a moot point.

...to a man listed as father who was a subject of the British Empire. B.H.Obama Junior inherited from Obama Sr. citizenship of the British Empire and then of Kenya, as well as U.S. citizenship by birth (apparently -- as yet unverified).

Obama's dual-citizenship birth status could also exclude him from "natural-born U.S. citizen" status in some interpretations of the Law.

Kevin:
the reason Gitmo is in Guantanamo is because it is not U.S. soil and so unlawful combantants are send there were they are not entitled to the protections of the Constitution.

Foreign "combatants" captured abroad are not entitled to protection under the U.S. Constitution in any way, shape, or form, regardless. They may be subject to the Geneva Conventions, but not the U.S.-Constitution.

A handful of the internees at Guantanamo were arrested in the USA (as in Padilla), it's true, but they were treated as foreign-combatants, which drove the ACLU crazy.

Kevin:
If being born in the Canal Zone made McCain a natural born citizen and the same would appy to thousands of Panamanians born there

Few, if any, regular Panamanians would have been born on the grounds of a military base in the Canal Zone. But even so, your point is valid towards the citizenship question. For people born abroad, a strict interpretation of the 14th Amendment prevailed, long since abandoned by P.C. forces in the USA proper. (I.e., "subject to the jurisdiction thereo" [parents being citizens]).

But let's avoid comparing apples and oranges: There is the issue of citizenship generally, and then there is the issue of what "natural-born" means regarding the Constitutional requirement for President. No one doubts that McCain is a citizen, but does he meet the "natural-born" requirement?

Anyone born in Canada can absolutely never become President.
Anyone born in Mexico can absolutely never become President.
Can a guy born on a U.S. military base abroad be considered "natural-born"? The answer to that is Yes, as it is considered U.S. soil. If McCain were born to U.S. citizen parents in a Panama City hopsital, off-base, he would have been ineligible. But because he was born on-base, he is eligible.

As for the Philippines and Okinawa, they were never U.S. states or defacto states (as in D.C., Puerto Rico, and certain Pacific possessions by act of Congress, as mentioned by you). The Philippines issue generally, then, is separate from the "military base" issue. Military bases, in my understanding, are considered sovereign soil in the sense that embassies are.

Kevin:
Natural-born basically means anyone who is a citizen of the United States by birth, as opposed to someone who has to become naturalized.

Someone can be a citizen of the USA "by birth" despite being born in Toronto or Timbuktu or Tora-Bora. The 'natural-born' clause in the Constitution has always been interpreted to mean "born on U.S. soil" (what is U.S. soil?). But that could change to "born to U.S. citizen parents" at the Supreme Court's whim.

What if one cannot prove for sure where one was born? (As in Chester A. Arthur, apparently born in northern Vermont, but who certain political opponents maintained was born across the border in Canada).

[Lenny]

[Off-topic:]

For your consideration:
Exhibit A : Look at the thread-number assigned by chance to this thread.
Exhibit B : Take a look at this.

Case closed.

[Lenny]

The Arizona House approved a bill Wednesday that would require any presidential candidate to show his or her birth certificate in order to be on the state’s ballot.

In other words, if Obama wants to appear on the Arizona ballot in 2012, he just might have to produce his birth certificate.

Link

The fact is that B.H. "Possible Illegal-Alien" Obama would never win Arizona anyway. He could just decide not to put his name on the ballot there, ala Lincoln not appearing on many of the to-become-CSA-states' ballots in 1860.

[Nodens]

The Supreme Court would have the upper hand there, should it choose to use it, of course.

Last year I was discussing the Obama Birth Certificate issue with someone, and he pointed out that even if Obama were born abroad -- and incontrovertible proof emerged that he was, proof that was accepted by all -- the Supreme Court could just declare that the "natural-born" clause means "born to a U.S. citizen parent", thus qualifying Obama. He was right. The Supreme Court has the power to do that, and have done similar things very often, ever since 1954 and "Brown vs. Board".

It recently struck me just how convenient this fact is given that Obama will likely be seating two new justices in as many years.