LOL... Hawaii Governor Tried to Shut Up Birthers... Major Backfire...

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
On Alex Jones' show, they were talking about how it was possible back then for grand parents to file for birth records, and that Obama's grand parents on his mothers side could have filed when he was born, despite his not being born inside of the USA.

Just like the lack of WMD though... give it a few years and nobody will care.

You could tell people 9-11 was an inside job and at this point most people wouldn't care.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,690
8,892
146
Yeah because just like this birther crap it's ridiculous BS

Ironic that Philip Berg, most often quoted by the birther movement due to his relentless pressing of the matter was also the one filing suits calling for Bush and Cheney to be tried for 9/11 being an inside job...
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,283
134
106
Honestly, the whole "You must be born in the US." requirement for president is a silly one from an earlier date. We no longer live in a world where a spy could somehow magically sneak into office and destroy the US.

If congress and the supreme courts don't have to be born in the US, why does the president?


BTW, I really don't doubt that Obama was born in the US. And even if he wasn't, I really wouldn't care.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Ironic that Philip Berg, most often quoted by the birther movement due to his relentless pressing of the matter was also the one filing suits calling for Bush and Cheney to be tried for 9/11 being an inside job...
'Cause sometimes folks have too much crazy to just hate one side. :D
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Its not 100% clear if you're being serious here, but it should be noted that its absolutely certain that the US Supreme Court would not rule dual citizenship eligibility would prevent someone from becoming President, especially given how common that situation is today with the various ways it can happen. At absolute most, the Supreme Court would rule that the person in question needs to at least make a reasonable effort to renounce his other citizenship status to resolve this issue. (A ruling otherwise would truly be bizarre and lead to even more arbitrary discrimination on eligibility to be President given how these things work.)

There have been some exceptionally stupid claims for some associated with the birthers involving Obama, but to be clear its basically impossible to renounce US citizenship prior to turning 18 (you are viewed as not legally capable of making such a momentous permanent decision), and one of your parents can't somehow cause you to lose your US citizenship eligibility status. (In fact under new US policies its incredibly difficult for a US citizen by birth to lose their citizenship status period.)

you have no idea how the SCOTUS would rule none what so ever.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
I know... and I get it. But if my parents made an emergency trip to Canada the day before I was born and my mom gave birth to me on Canadian soil and then brought me back to the US the next day... are you saying that would DQ me from ever being president?

I don't think so. I would still be a natural born citizen born to parents who are citizens. I wouldn't have to petition for citizenship. I wouldn't be an illegal immigrant.

no you can not be president. the law is crystal clear, you have to be born in the country. we can not have a president that is a citizen of another country period.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Honestly, the whole "You must be born in the US." requirement for president is a silly one from an earlier date. We no longer live in a world where a spy could somehow magically sneak into office and destroy the US.

If congress and the supreme courts don't have to be born in the US, why does the president?


BTW, I really don't doubt that Obama was born in the US. And even if he wasn't, I really wouldn't care.

good grief. i weep for you.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
You do not have to be born "in the country" to be a "naturally born citizen".

correct, sorry i was stuck on one parent being a US Citizen and the other being a citizen of another country.and born in that country. that is a whole other ball of wax.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,690
8,892
146
correct, sorry i was stuck on one parent being a US Citizen and the other being a citizen of another country.and born in that country. that is a whole other ball of wax.

It's not really a whole other anything. Like I put previously INA 301(g) spells out it. One parent a citizen, the other an alien no matter where you are born will still make that child eligible to be deemed a citizen of the United States at birth as long as the citizen parent was in the US for periods of more than 5 years. Two of which after reaching 14. More importantly the SCOTUS has also ruled that a child will not give up citizenship rights due to any actions of the parent.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,458
526
126
It's not really a whole other anything. Like I put previously INA 301(g) spells out it. One parent a citizen, the other an alien no matter where you are born will still make that child eligible to be deemed a citizen of the United States at birth as long as the citizen parent was in the US for periods of more than 5 years. Two of which after reaching 14. More importantly the SCOTUS has also ruled that a child will not give up citizenship rights due to any actions of the parent.

Except his father was a subject of the British Empire at the time of his birth, making him a British subject as well.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,690
8,892
146
Except his father was a subject of the British Empire at the time of his birth, making him a British subject as well.

Not quite. Kenyan Constitution states:


1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
As such his father's, and based on article 2, his own citizenship would have shifted to Kenyan. There's a catch here. The Kenyan Constitution prohibits the holding of dual citizenship. When Obama turned 23 he would have lost all rights to claiming that citizenship as he never renounced his American citizenship.

None of that cancels his rights to be deemed a citizen of the United States at Birth. Still a natural born citizen as per the INA 301(g). He never renounced his citizenship.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Well the former governor, a Republican, said the same thing. So did they both lie?

We have two different sides claiming the opposite, discounting an honest mistake - hard for me to believe given the subject etc, yes somebody is likely lying.

I more inclined to believe we have the usual case of people parsing their words carefully; i.e. both sides can claim to be truthful. Until I see their actual quotes (specifically the new governor's) it's hard to know. I did note at the time that Fukino appear to be very careful with her wording in her remarks.

We can stipulate that Obama has a HI birth certifictate, but which type?

Nothing in Fukino's remark's indicate whether it is a normal BC (hospital or physican/midwife generated) or a 'delayed BC' (no hosital, physician/midwife in attendence).

OTOH:

And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

I.e., both sides may be telling the truth. Fukino saw the BC and it was a delayed type. And Abercrombie is truthful when he says there is no "hospital-generated" BC. Either that, or somebody is lying. Take your pick.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Nice info/posts, except a couple of things.

1.
Not quite. Kenyan Constitution states:

That's irrelevent. kenyan law cannot be expected to determine who is UK citizen. We'd have to look to UK law for that. I.e., one country cannot define who qualifies to be a citizen of another country; each country does that for themselves.

You acknowledge this your self below:

As such his father's, and based on article 2, his own citizenship would have shifted to Kenyan. There's a catch here. The Kenyan Constitution prohibits the holding of dual citizenship. When Obama turned 23 he would have lost all rights to claiming that citizenship as he never renounced his American citizenship.

None of that cancels his rights to be deemed a citizen of the United States at Birth. Still a natural born citizen as per the INA 301(g). He never renounced his citizenship.

2. As per law in effect at the time Obama's birth he was not qualified to be US if born abroad. That law was retroactively changed.

Now, we all (or most us) know that the Constitution cannot be changed unilaterally by Congress. However, that's exactly what you're suggesting here. I.e., a person born under these circumstances could not qualify as President if elected before 1986, but because of this new Congressional law can after 1986.

To put an even diner point on it for those that claim a BC from a state means a person automatically qualifies - The Constitution says a "natural born citizen", not a person "having a BC from one of the states". Until the SCOTUS rules on it, no one knows if merely having a BC from a state automatically qualifies as a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. HI does in fact issue BC's for people who were not born there. (It's their 5th type IIRC. But note that the document from HI for Obama lists his birth place as "HI", so it's not one of those types BCs)

Fern
 
Last edited:
Jan 25, 2011
16,690
8,892
146
Nice info/posts, except a couple of things.

1.


That's irrelevent. kenyan law cannot be expected to determine who is UK citizen. We'd have to look to UK law for that. I.e., one country cannot define who qualifies to be a citizen of another country; each country does that for themselves.

You acknowledge this your self below:

And the Kenya Constitution was also honored by the UK. As such, yes, they can make that determination.



2. As per law in effect at the time Obama's birth he was not qualified to be US if born abroad. That law was retroactively changed.

Now, we all (or most us) know that the Constitution cannot be changed unilaterally by Congress. However, that's exactly what you're suggesting here. I.e., a person born under these circumstances could not qualify as President if elected before 1986, but because of this new Congressional law can after 1986.

To put an even diner point on it for those that claim a BC from a state means a person automatically qualifies - The Constitution says a "natural born citizen", not a person "having a BC from one of the states". Until the SCOTUS rules on it, no one knows if merely having a BC from a state automatically qualifies as a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. HI does in fact issue BC's for people who were not born there. (It's their 5th type IIRC. But note that the document from HI for Obama lists his birth place as "HI", so it's not one of those types BCs)

Fern

Yes the law was retroactively changed to deem that anyone born after December 24, 1952 was covered by the law as though it was in place then. I posted the language earlier. The same happened for McCain given his birth in the Canal Zone. Either way that legally deems him a citizen of the United States at birth, even if it's after the fact.

Not sure what your argument here is other than to validate my point.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
oh and as far as "natural born" goes, future presidents sure as shit better hope they weren't delivered C-section.

b/c that right there is a big fat DQ in the originalists' mind.

:D
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Yes the law was retroactively changed to deem that anyone born after December 24, 1952 was covered by the law as though it was in place then. I posted the language earlier. The same happened for McCain given his birth in the Canal Zone. Either way that legally deems him a citizen of the United States at birth, even if it's after the fact.

Not sure what your argument here is other than to validate my point.

From one of your posts:

Still a natural born citizen as per the INA 301(g)

You used the Constitutional term for a qualification to be President.

Assuming you mean what you wrote, I disagree with you for the reasons I stated above. (Namely, Congress cannot unilaterally change the Constitution, including it's requirements for the presidency)

Fern
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,690
8,892
146
From one of your posts:



You used the Constitutional term for a qualification to be President.

Assuming you mean what you wrote, I disagree with you for the reasons I stated above. (Namely, Congress cannot unilaterally change the Constitution, including it's requirements for the presidency)

Fern

It wasn't a change. Find me the definition of natural born citizen in the Constitution. It's not there. You cited U.S vs. Wong Kim Ark. The absence of a definition was central in that ruling which you yourself cited.

Congress can certainly fill gaps left by the Constitution which is what they did here. That's what the United States Code Title 8,1401 and INA 301(g) do.

That being said you find me that natural born citizen is defined in the Constitution and I will happily agree with you.

Edit: I may be incorrectly recalling who cited Wong Kim Ark. My apologies if that wasn't this conversation.
 
Last edited: