The Upcoming Arizona "Birther" Law...

[CitizenKain]

Oh no, the race card! Your blinding acumen and razor sharp wit have left us all speechless.

Do you somehow think this whole birther nonsense isn't because he's black? Birthers aren't much different then white supremacists, except they aren't as honest with themselves.

 

[HomerJS]

McCain WAS challenged when he went against Bush and Obama....

When McCain ran in 08 Democrats publically agreed they accepted McCains status as a citizen and would not challenge. Exactly opposite of the GOP

 

[her209]

Just to nit pick you don't have to be born IN the United States. You have to be a "natural born citizen" under the constitution. Most often referred to now in law as citizen of the United States at birth.

Sorry see that same comment perpetuated repeatedly but it has no basis in fact/law. Not picking on you specifically.

Just to nitpick more, you can be a natural born citizen and be disqualified from running for President.

 

[Wreckem]

When McCain ran in 08 Democrats publically agreed they accepted McCains status as a citizen and would not challenge. Exactly opposite of the GOP

WHat does that have to do with anything, he was still in fact challenged in both 2000 and 2008. The fact of the matter is Obama isnt the first to have it questioned. Nor is McCain.

Other people, candidates and presidents have had their "natural citizenship" challenged.

 

[Pens1566]

IIRC, in 2008, a resolution was co-sponsored by John Kerry specifically stating that McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president. No one that I can think of, on the magnitude that is current birther mania, on the left of the isle challenged it.

 

[HAL9000]

It baffles me that these things are still going on, Arizona, shut up and get on with your life.

 

[trenchfoot]

It baffles me that these things are still going on, Arizona, shut up and get on with your life.

As much as the birthers make themselves look like idiots carrying on the way they do, it does unite them, it inspires them and it lets them release some of the deep hatred they have for Obama. Along with that, it gives them and the repub base a sense of value and accomplishment in that they're doing their part to bring Obama down. Among themselves, they are their own heroes and saviors.

They certainly don't see themselves as the idiots that everyone else knows them to be, just as they know for certain that he is a Muslim communist socialist hitler-ish usurper bent on taking their Nation and their very way of life away from them and whatever else FOX and Limbaugh frightens them with.

Can't do much but admire/pity their tenacity in fowarding a hopelessly futile yet somehow fulfilling cause.

 

[Fern]

You might want to read Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution then.

Among other things it gives Congress the power to, and I quote:

To establish a uniform rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Sounds like they can pass those laws to me...

Yes, of course, the Constitution gives Congress certain powers. However, the Constitution also specifies how it can be changed, and a law passed by Congress isn't one of those ways.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Sorry, what I said still stands though. If he wasn't actually qualified, he never would have been allowed to run. There is regulation and oversight on these types of things. If he isn't a legal citizen, he would NOT be our President right now. The fact that he is the President seals the deal. Why people think otherwise is truly ridiculous...

Oh? There is, is there?

There is nothing other than an F.E.C. form candidates must file. Basically they 'promise' that they meet the requirements. That's it.

I have searched long and hard to find some type of verification process. Found nothing.

Others have made the same claim as you. Yet when asked, not one has been able to verify what you claim.

You do realize that a bill was introduced in Congress last year to set up a verification process? Now why would they do that if we already one? (IIRC, it was a Repub congressman from CA, of course with Pelosi in charge it did get anywhere.)

I don't claim Obama was born in kenya, but I do claim that we don't have a system to verify candidates qualifications. I think that's absurd, and stupid.

If you've got a link to this verification process you claim exists, I'd love to see it. I really would because I don't much like the idea that we are this slack with something so important.

TIA

Fern

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Yes, of course, the Constitution gives Congress certain powers. However, the Constitution also specifies how it can be changed, and a law passed by Congress isn't one of those ways.

Fern

Unmmm. Wow. I've provided ample evidence in law to support my position, every part accurate and verifiable. Ive demonstrate the Constitution gives Congress TOTAL authority for all laws as they relate to naturalization and I've given you what the United States Code and Immigration and Nationality Act as passes by Congress with such Constitutional authority states all of which has wholly and completely spelled out why my position is upheld in law.

At this point I yield to the representative from the great state of denial.

 

[Fern]

Unmmm. Wow. I've provided ample evidence in law to support my position, every part accurate and verifiable. Ive demonstrate the Constitution gives Congress TOTAL authority for all laws as they relate to naturalization and I've given you what the United States Code and Immigration and Nationality Act as passes by Congress with such Constitutional authority states all of which has wholly and completely spelled out why my position is upheld in law.

At this point I yield to the representative from the great state of denial.

The isseu at hand is the qualification to be a US President.

You have been claiming that INA 301(g), which extends citizenship, is sufficient to meet the "natural born citizenship" requirement in the Constitution.

I disagreed.

In rebuttal you quote me Constitutional language empowering Congress to make laws regarding naturalization. Why?

Naturalization has nothing to do with the requirement to be a "natural born citizen". In fact, naturalized citizens are excluded from being President.

You seem to be confusing citizenship in general with the Constitutional qualification to be President.

As far as I can tell, SCOTUS has not ruled on the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" as found in the Constitution. And until they do, no one can claim they know what it means. Now, it's safe to conclude that a person born here of US citizen parents qualifies, but to claim someone born abroad meets that requirement, as you have, is unsupported. Otherwise, we would not have been having this discussion over the years.

See article quoted in post #72

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Kinda odd we never questioned the citizenship of a presidential candidate until we got a black one, not even one born outside the United States.

McCain WAS challenged when he went against Bush and Obama....

This. If one wishes to play the race card and not look like a complete ass hat, one had best look for a situation the notationally discriminated black man's white opponent has not previously endured.

 

[Aegeon]

As far as I can tell, SCOTUS has not ruled on the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" as found in the Constitution. And until they do, no one can claim they know what it means. Now, it's safe to conclude that a person born here of US citizen parents qualifies, but to claim someone born abroad meets that requirement, as you have, is unsupported. Otherwise, we would not have been having this discussion over the years.

On the other hand as I noted, there really is no question on how the courts would actually rule on this matter on that particular point even if its true they have not actually ruled on this matter yet. A ruling simply baring anyone born outside the US would clearly be a terrible ruling, creating an extremely capricious and arbitrary standard for Presidential edibility devoid on any possible genuine logical sound reason, and there is no reason given how the provision is written that would tie a court's hands into having to interpret things that way. Even if the courts decided to create on their own some sort of US length residency test, a situation where someone spent as much time in the US as Obama would certainly pass this hypothetical test even if the person in question was born overseas.

 

[Aegeon]

I also might add, many countries require you to produce a long form to obtain a long term student or work visa.

I would certainly like a link for proof and strongly suspect you are outright misstating things again.

Since Hawaii for instance ONLY gives out copies certificates of birth (or the short form birth certificate) today upon request by the individual in question, that would bar many people from the state from being eligible for either of those visas. (The Obama case was potentially an exceptional situation and the average citizen would clearly have allot of trouble possibly getting ahold of any additional birth records given state policies.)

Given I haven't heard anything about the major diplomatic incident created by assorted Americans being effectively barred from these visas by foreign countries, I very strongly suspect people under that circumstance merely need some sort of supporting documentation of affidavit to obtain those visas if the short form or certificate of birth is insufficient according to that country's laws.

 

[guyver01]

I guess we need to go back and strip:

• George Washington
• John Adams
• Thomas Jefferson
• James Madison
• James Monroe
• John Quincy Adams
• Andrew Jackson
• William Henry Harrison

of their presidency.

They were British Subjects born BEFORE the USA existed.

 

[HomerJS]

WHat does that have to do with anything, he was still in fact challenged in both 2000 and 2008. The fact of the matter is Obama isnt the first to have it questioned. Nor is McCain.

Other people, candidates and presidents have had their "natural citizenship" challenged.

The point is you are dead wrong McCain was not challenged in 2008 by Obama. As far as 2000 check your own house

 

[Bateluer]

Whether or not you believe Obama is a natural US citizen or not, you do have to admit this is a good law. Had it been on the books a few years ago, there'd be no Birthers or controversy on Obama's birth at all. He'd either have produced the birth certificate or wouldn't be in office.

 

[Aegeon]

Whether or not you believe Obama is a natural US citizen or not, you do have to admit this is a good law. Had it been on the books a few years ago, there'd be no Birthers or controversy on Obama's birth at all. He'd either have produced the birth certificate or wouldn't be in office.

Its a clearly ATROCIOUS proposed law as described and you need to bother reading the thread to at least a limited degree or do some research before shooting off comments.

As written it says what the State of Hawaii uses as its designated state birth certificate and what is ordinarily used in a number other states doesn't count. (In other words, Obama has ALREADY presented what is the legal document for the State of Hawaii publicly.) The law as described outright says these documents are not considered valid, thereby effectively baring many naturally born US citizens from appearing on the ballot of the state in question. There is certainly no way the law wouldn't be struck down by the courts.

(This is without even going into the dual citizenship nonsense and other problems with the measure as described I talked about in previous posts in this thread.)

These observations are without even touching the obvious point that the proper solution if this is viewed as a genuine issue would be a Federal law, not something passed by individual states. Even such a measure would have significant limitations on the standards they could impose for the moment though. At most if you don't like the current birth certification standards for individual states you could set a deadline with new standards by a certain date and make those certificates the only valid ones for people born in those states after the deadline and later. (Although there would still be a potential legal challenge on state's rights grounds regarding whether the federal government could force states to meet those new standards.)

 

[sactoking]

I guess we need to go back and strip:

• George Washington
• John Adams
• Thomas Jefferson
• James Madison
• James Monroe
• John Quincy Adams
• Andrew Jackson
• William Henry Harrison

of their presidency.

They were British Subjects born BEFORE the USA existed.

When the Constitution was adopted in 1789 Article II dictated that to be eligible for the presidency a person must be a "natural born citizen", at least 35 years old, and a US resident for at least 14 years
-OR-
A citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The second possibility was adopted b/c without it noone would have been eligible for the presidency until 1834.

That portion was later removed when it was no longer needed.

 

[Raghu]

You assume that illegals pay their share in taxes, which they do not. You also ignore the higher costs associated with educating a population that has no motivation to speak the primary language, which is English.

In Mecklenburg County, NC it is estimated that children of illegals cost the tax payers an extra $90 million to educate per year.

Their children, when born here become citizens, but because their parents are not officially here, those children by default get medicaid coverage and a welfare check. They cost us dearly for very little return on that investment.

You assume that all citizens pay their share of taxes. It seems that the issue is between tax payers and tax evaders, irrespective of their citizenship.

Also, you assume that all non-citizens are illegals. People working on a valid visa are non-citizens but pay taxes. Whats wrong in legal residents using public schools for their kids?