Wednesday, August 19, 2009

A deeper look at the birthers

After we conducted polls over the last couple of weeks finding significant numbers of 'birthers' in North Carolina and Virginia, we decided to take the question national but also drum down more specifically on where exactly the people who think Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States do think he's from.

The answer is that 62% of Americans think Obama was born here, while 24% think he was not and 14% are unsure.

10% of the country thinks that he was born in Indonesia, 7% think he was born in Kenya, and 1% think he was born in the Philippines.

That leaves 20%, which includes at least some people who correctly believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, but who don't consider Hawaii to be part of the United States. You read that right- 6% of poll respondents think that Hawaii is not part of the country and 4% are unsure.

It's hard to say what the rest of that 20% thinks. We did ask them if they thought Obama was born in France and while less than half a percent of respondents did, two thirds of that remaining 20% said they 'weren't sure' whether Obama was a Frenchman.

So who are the birthers?

-62% are Republicans, 20% are Democrats, and 18% are independents
-57% are conservatives, 33% are moderates, and 9% are liberals
-56% are men, 44% are women
-86% are white, 7% are Hispanic, 4% are black, and 3% are other races

Fascinating stuff.

Follow us on Twitter

Full results here

67 comments:

Anonymous said...

LMAO! We have people who don't know or not sure if Hawaii is part of the USA. OMG! I think we need to ask did these people not graduate, home schooled, private school, christian school.

I would love to hear which sector of schooling is producing these people.

Anonymous said...

Every day someone in New Mexico has to explain that it is a state.

Anonymous said...

How about a follow up question...how many are fox viewers?

How do you NOT know that Hawaii is a state?

Anonymous said...

I've had to explain to phone operators that Mexico is *not* a state. I guarantee you lots of people would identify individual Canadian provinces as U.S. states, if asked. Those of us with a little education and/or travel and experience of the world assume everyone has our level of background knowledge. They don't.

Anonymous said...

I guarantee you lots of people would identify individual Canadian provinces as U.S. states, if asked.

Crap! The secrets out now. These are people who have most likely seen the map of Canada, post invasion. We're taking everything south of Edmonton.

Hoodlumman said...

You guys ever seen an old "Jaywalking" segment on the Tonight Show when Leno was on it?

These people (geographically ignorant) are out there in droves. And it's not just limited to geography.

Anonymous said...

This is a fantastic poll.

I'm concerned about question-ordering effects re Indonesia vs. Kenya vs. Philippines vs. France. Because the later locations on that list were only asked of those who said "No" or "Not Sure" to the earlier ones, I think France in particular may have gotten short shrift. Perhaps a random ordering would have been better. After all, these respondents do seem a bit... how to say this nicely... suggestible.

skippykawakami said...

I'm really concerned about the fact that 20% of the birthers are Democrats, and 9% are liberals. I mean... the thought of a liberal democrat birther makes the part of my brain where reason lives want to shoot itself.

LonewackoDotCom said...

1. BHO was probably born in Hawaii, but the strongest proof of that that's been offered so far is a general pronouncement from one (1) Hawaiian official. In the same statement, she proclaimed him to be an N.B.C. (apparently without having the legal background to make that determination) and then rhetorically stalked off in a huff. That's the strongest evidence so far. For the actual facts of this matter, see my my extensive coverage.

2. A very basic search will show that some people think Hawaii's admission was invalid. In fact, Clinton signed an "apology", and that played a role in a S.C. case from earlier this year.

If a polling company won't even consider things like the above, perhaps they should consider another line of work.

Anonymous said...

How do you know Hawaii IS a state??? Have you seen the ORIGINAL Congressional designation??? I'm not talking about some easy to forge copy of it!

Some Guy in Lebanon said...

actually the way that poll is set up, it asks the total population if hawaii is in the united states. which means that 6% of the entire population polled doesn't think that hawaii is a state, which means that like a hell of a lot more birthers than just 6% are that ignorant. of course they're all *that* ignorant to begin with...

Eric Dondero said...

So then, by your view, for an American to ask any questions at all about Obama's background is "off-limits," and possibly even "racist"?

Americans are not allowed to ask about Obama's college records?

We're not allowed to ask about his unexplained trip to Pakistan in 1982, on an Indonesian passport when such trip was largely prohibited by the US Government.

We're not allowed to ask about any family ties he has in Kenya.

We're not allowed to ask for an explanation as to why his Kenyan grandmother claims he was born in Kenya.

We're not allowed to ask about Obama's ties to Kenyan dictator Raila Odinga.

We're not allowed to ask anything about his 5 years he spent in Indonesia as a child.

Just for the record, come clean and admit that what you all really want to do is silence any and all questions about Obama's personal history.

Anonymous said...

Heh. Sounds like a Leno "Jawalking" segment.

That's pretty bad, but still not as bad as the number of Obama voters who actually thought Gov. Palin said she "could see Russia from [her] house."

Anonymous said...

There you have it folks. Jimmy Carter's Department of Education created public schools that teach 'self-esteem' and lifeboat ethics.

A.C. McCloud said...

I think we need to ask did these people not graduate, home schooled, private school, christian school.

I would love to hear which sector of schooling is producing these people.


You must not have kids.

Anonymous said...

Questions for your next poll:
1) Do you think BHO is a Natural-Born-Citizen as required by the Constitution?
2) What is your definition of Natural Born Citizen:
a) Born in the US
b) Born in the US to parents who are Citizens
c) Born to a Parent who is a US citizen
3) Do you believe BHO should release all college papers and reports?
4) Should BHO release any passports or papers issued by any foreign Government?

Tinley said...

He went to Pakistan in 1981. There is absolutely no evidence that he used an Indonesian passport. Travel to Pakistan was not prohibited by the United States, though the government did issue a travel advisory. There are records of several people traveling to Pakistan during that time period with American passports. See here.

What questions do you have about the five years Obama spent in Indonesia? He was 6 when he got there and 10 when he left. Do we generally judge people based on what they were doing in the first-through-fifth grades?

You can ask whatever questions you'd like. But that doesn't mean they're good questions.

Anonymous said...

Eric Dondero:

While you are free to ask what you want, some of your questions have incorrect premises.

In 1982, it was not prohibited for Americans to travel to Pakistan.

And the reason Obama's grandmother said Obama was born in Kenya was that she was speaking through a translator, with a bad phone connection, and she reversed herself immediately when the caller asked her again. The recording is available online, and you can listen to it yourself.

Anonymous said...

I loved the Leno segment where he asked a bunch of Obama voters if them if they were voting for him becauseof his policies, then got them to agree to McCains positions.

Biggest irony to the birther thing is it was started and pushed by a Hillary supporter, a lawyer Berg trying to get Obama disqualified prior to the dems convention.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, so what??

99% of "liberals" and "progressives" don't know the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" as it relates to the US Constitution as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Closer to 100% deem the Constitution as a "Living Document", which in reality, translates to no Constitution at all.

Karen said...

so.. to the person who mocked those who believed Palin had said she could see Russia from her house (when she actually said from Alaska) -- it's far worse than that, she actually predicated her knowledge of foreign policy on her state's mere proximity to both Russia and Canada. Wow. Never traveled there, can hardly remember the names of the main politicians -- but somehow by osmosis, due to the PROXIMITY of her state, THAT makes her an expert. Whoa. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vh6WDmb-Rc&feature=channel

Anonymous said...

Public sector of schooling is producing these kids. And everyone knows that Obama was born in the 57th state.

Papa Ray said...

Stupid birthers. Don't they know Obama was born in Canada?

Isn't Canada the 54th state?

Pandasta said...

The claim is made at this BHO website* that Barack's status at birth was controlled by the British Nationality Act of 1948. How is it that a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. can be governed . . . at birth . . . by British law?

*http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

Don't be mislead or fooled . . . Natural Born Citizen issue is a legal U.S. Constitutional question (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5). Do your homework. BHO's birth certificate matter is a conspiracy ruse.

Anonymous said...

And Obama thinks there are 57 states, doesn't know what Memorial Day is, thinks his father fought in WWII, and "Selma got him born"...4 years after his actual (alleged) birth.
What everyone, including dumbass Barry, knows is that the crooked little asshole won't produce an original birth record, any medical records, or any school records.
Barry's kind of the biggest "birther" of all isn't he? He clearly thinks there's something to hide.

Ryan J. said...

Hawaii became a state only two years before Obama was born, if an older presidential candidate had been born in Hawaii outside a military base, they'd be ineligible.

BigRC said...

We need your HELP, and hope you encourage your colleagues to report on this as well. We are starting to see people bring loaded weapons to meeting where the President is attending. This has never been allowed to happen with any previous Presidents, and should not be allowed to start now. The right to bear arms is one thing, but when it threatens the security of our President, there is no right greater than his right to be protected. No matter how you look at this, it is a threat directly and indirectly to the President safety and should be outlawed. If someone show-up carrying either a loaded or unloaded weapon at a Presidential event, it should be made to be a felony, with the hopes of protecting the President, and discouraging this senseless and irresponsible behavior? If the President was on a foreign trip and one of their citizens brought a loaded fire weapon to where the President was attending, claiming that it was their right, we would be outraged. Obama is this Nation first Black President, and if for some unfortunate reason he gets shot it will most certainly start a race riot, and this is something that we don’t need and will scar this Country forever. There might be many that will love for this to happen, but as you well know it will destroy the Country. So please report on this and encourage your colleagues to express their disgust with this crazy behavior, Please, Please help stop this madness. Our Secret service is already under enormous strain protecting the President against countless other threats, from bombs to just about everything else that can be imagined. So imagine for a second having fifty people or more showing up at a Presidential event packing loaded weapons, this is a disaster waiting to happen! We have White Supremacist and other questionable groups and individuals lurking out there, this is something that should be taken quite serious. The People of this Country have always relied on the media to be the voice of average citizens, when their voice has other wise gone unheard. If there were ever a time for the News Media to intervene, I think that this should most definitely be that time? No matter how you try to dice this up or color it, there can never be any rationale to justify putting our President safety at risk, PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

Anonymous said...

Because I'm too lazy to do the research...

When was Hawaii admitted to the union? 1958?

When was President Obama born? After 1958 or before?

?

Anonymous said...

How did the topic switch from birth records to gun control here? BigRC is worried about White Supremacist groups with guns causing race riots, when the photos show a young black man exercising his US constitutional right to carry the AR15 at a BHO protest. Perfectly within the laws of the state of Arizona. But he might have missed that because MSNBC never showed footage of the man from the neck up just so they could play the race card also.

Anonymous said...

Interesting, those racial breakdown number very closely resemble the demographics of the US. So its nothing outside the normal statistical sampling here.

Absolutely fascinating that 20% are Democrats!

Conservatives and Republicans I can understand because in politics mudslinging political opponents will say anything however false about an opponent just to criticize. But, Democrats! This just serves to show how mistrusted Obama is.

Anonymous said...

I'd be curious to see what percentage of the general population doesn't know Hawaii is a state.

Anonymous said...

In the interests of being completely fair, Hawaii did not become a state until 1959, and it is understandable that people may feel unsure about whether or not Barack Obama was born in Hawaii when it was actually part of the U.S.

As for the rest of it, people not knowing if Mexico or parts of Canada are parts of the United States, and a general unawareness of basic, elementary facts, I feel like there is no viable excuse. Knowing where the borders of your own country are is less than the very least we can expect of people who have the good fortune to live and vote in a free democracy.

The irony of all of this, of course, is that John McCain actually was not born in the United States; he was born in Panama. My point is not that this should have disqualified McCain from the presidency, (it shouldn't have, as he was born on a U.S. military base to a family deployed overseas). Rather, my point is that the lack of equal uproar over McCain's birth demonstrates that this is not truly about presidential eligibility; it is about the fact that millions of Americans simply cannot accept as their president the black son of an African immigrant, somebody whom they see as unrightfully commanding "their" America.

ndanielson said...

i wonder how many libs don't know you CAN see Russia from Sarah Palins back yard. more that 6%, i'm sure!

Tom said...

The irony is that McCain, while a candidate, provided all documentation available to him to respond to the very real uproar that did arise about his birth status very quickly. That is why it quickly became a non-issue. He had nothing to hide.

Obama, on the other hand, is not a candidate. He's actually the president, and although I don't think there is any merit to the arguments against his legal eligibility to be president, I do believe he has plenty of things in his past that he's embarassed by and doesn't want exposed to public scrutiny. It is therefore his own cross to bear with all this speculation about his origins and motives. They may all be fantasy, but fantasy thrives in an environment where facts are scarce.

ndanielson said...

oh, and i might add: this is the education system that the left is so proud of. yes the left. the hard union lovers. the same union that has a stranglehold on public education in this country. you reap what you sow.

Nathaniel said...

The hidden gem in that poll is that 39% of respondents answered yes when asked "Should the Government stay out of Medicare?"

LonewackoDotCom said...

Regarding Pandasta's claim that the cert issue is a "conspiracy ruse", I don't usually spend a lot of my time on "conspiracy ruses".

The cert issue is a perfect example of the MSM lying and misleading, and can be used to discredit the MSM and force them to offer better coverage. That better coverage might include looking into the claims made by Pandasta.

In fact, the only way those in a position of authority are going to ever look into the claims made by those like Pandasta is if the MSM is forced to do it. He/she can post versions of that comment til doomsday and it's never going to take hold because the establishment is always going to downplay it.

Pandasta is either a BHO supporter, an MSM supporter, or an idiot who can't figure out how the MSM lying about cert issue can be used to get what Pandasta claims it wants.

Anonymous said...

I find it so sad that so many Republicans these days seem to have lost the ability to have intelligent discussions anymore. Now they spend all their time spreading lies and misrepresentations, planting scare tactics to break down the opposition, and creating silly and ridiculous rumors of no merit to create FUD!

Seriously, have you nothing better to do than make up stories about Obama's health plan or not being a citizen? And now you guys are even questioning IF Hawaii is a state to further invalidate Obama as a citizen? Really, this is what you spend you time on?

Maybe you could start rumors that he is from space! Or maybe that he is a pod creature. Maybe an android? After all, what proof do we have that he is not from space? How about invalidating that the US is really the US? Do we really have proof that we won independence? How do we know that the documents are not fake?

LMAO! Seriously, get a life people. Try to do something constructive for a change, instead of all this muck raking. No wonder we are so screwed up as a country. With efforts like this, we will never improve anything!

What a sad group of people.

Brian Leslie Engler said...

Hello all;

On this basis I would question if some of these people even know where they were born . . . and where are their kindergarten records?

Everyone said...

Shut the fuck up Lonewacko!

Roger Owen Green said...

It's not at all clear that if BHO werte born in Hawai'i in 1958, he would be ineligible. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before it was a state, yet he was ddeemed eligible in 1964, and rightly so.

Deborah said...

According to the State Department, a citizen of the US who was born abroad falls under this definition:

Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:

1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;

2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant's birth;

3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and

4) while the person is under the age of 18 years --

A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,

B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or

C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

1997

The term Natural Born Citizen is not used anywhere in the Constitution. Hawaii was admitted to the Unites States on The state was admitted to the Union on August 21, 1959. I was two and a half years old at the time.

St Ambrose said...

It ain't that complicated, folks.

A child born of one American citizen is an American Citizen. Period.

For the nutcakes, this is the basis of the "anchor baby" argument. If a non-citizen parent's child is born of a union with a US citizen, the child is legitimately a US citizen.

Additionally, the US law suggests that ANY child born on US soil (including embassy properties in foreign countries) is considered to be a US citizen by birth.

When my son was born, we considered a hospital in British territory. Thus, as a child of two American citizens he would be an American Citizen. Being born in Commonwealth Territory, he would have had the option at age 18 of "declaring citizenship."

As it stands, he is a born citizen of the Republic of Texas.

The baggers have no idea at all about what the Constitutional citizenship clausess actually say.

As far as they are concerned, if you ain't a Brit Anglo (not Saxon, Irish or Scots) WASP, you ain't a citizen of the US. (See also "Tory")

As the prophets didn't say (but should have) -- Effem. Their trash.

Pandasta said...

Deborah (August 25, 2009 @ 3:55pm) . . . Sadly, there is an apparent willful ignorance concerning the definitions of U.S. Citizen and U.S. Natural Born Citizen. BHO may well be a U.S. citizen, yet he is not a U.S. natural born citizen by his own admission (BHO's birth status was controlled by the British Nationality Act of 1948).*

* http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, states that the President of the United States must be a "natural born Citizen."

The heart of the matter is the LEGAL U.S. Constitutional question of what is a "natural born Citizen?? This is a serious LEGAL dilemma. Whereas the birth certificate issue has been labeled by the Main Stream Media as a conspiracy theory.

LEGAL U.S. Constitutional question versus conspiracy theory . . . do not be swayed or sucked into the birther conspiracy. Conspiracy = nutjob/loser.

To learn more about the LEGAL U.S. Constitutional question:

http://tinyurl.com/dnfhak - Leo C. Donofrio, Esq. Constitutional Law.

http://tinyurl.com/bl98hg - Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Constitutional Law.

"Define Natural Born Citizen!"

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing." --Anonymous.

Enzo03 said...

I prefer Lou Dobbs's approach to the situation, which is basically "I believe he IS a US citizen, and if he could just show everyone his birth certificate we could get rid of all this nonsense with the birthers and be be done with it".
He then often goes on to say that many on the Left and the MSM would probably prefer that the nation go communist before simply showing his birth certificate.

@Pandasta: Stfu. Now. Skepticism =/= conspiracy. You're simply another Obama lover who thinks he's gonna be a superhero and personally save all of America through... I don't know...
the predicted (yes, read: predicted, not definite, not current) 9 trillion dollar deficit, telling us what to buy, where we can live, what kind of car we can drive, what kind of health care we "deserve" to have, the like.
There probably are quite a few conspirators out there, and they may or may not be using the issues above as part of the basis for their motives, but saying that all birthers are conspirators is outrageous and ridiculous and stupid and ignorant.

Pandasta said...

Enzo03 (August 28, 2009 @ 4:47pm) . . . Stfu??? What is it you do not understand?

Without the Rule of Law we have no U.S. Constitution. Without the U.S. Constitution we have no United States of America.

Like Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President Of The United States, BHO is ineligible to serve as POTUS. BHO is a deceiver and a usurper, who has deliberately and knowingly created a U.S. Constitutional crisis.*

* http://tinyurl.com/nf8r4u

While you are correct that Skepticism does not equal Conspiracy, when the Main Stream Media purposefully and willfully misleads the public into the Birth Certificate matter by hyping the story, and then calls such people part of the "Birther Conspiracy" movement, this is being done to steer/lead people away from the LEGAL U.S. Constitutional question, and to make the "Birthers" look like nutjobs/wackos/losers. The Birth Certificate matter is a cunning and evil ruse.

You are wise to be concerned about unsustainable Trillion dollar deficits. For what prior generations accomplished in 233 years through Free Markets, Free Enterprise, Free Trade, and Free People (in just ten score and 33 years, and with our Judeo-Christian heritage, we became the most powerful country economically, politically, and militarily in the world; we've witnessed the Lord's blessings), is about to be undone and destroyed by Statism/Socialism, the "Entitlement mindset," and the "Entitlement Generation."

Stfu??? . . . You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Educate yourself. --RWL 08/29/09 @ 20:55 PDT

Rachel Kiernan said...

I first learned of this poll while reading the Guardian and I'm glad I came here. Otherwise I would have thought that someone was making up these responses.

First, Obama has been very forthcoming with proof that he was born in the USA. When anyone asks the state of Hawaii for a birth certificate, the state of Hawaii offers up a Certificate of Live Birth. This is the Official Document from the state of Hawaii. They have even checked it, repeatedly and have insisted that it is legitmate. As it has been available since before the election, it is positively ludicrous that this is somehow an Obama conspiracy to distract and make the right look moronic. The right is perfectly capable of doing that on its own. (See "Death Panals" as another example)

Second, two Hawaiin papers covered Obama's birth in August 1961. These announcements were not placed by Obama's family but rather by the State of Hawaii, as it does for all births.

Third, for those who insist that Obama still wouldn't be a Natural Born Citizen due to his father being born in Kenya, I would like to point out a few things: 1. Obama is not the first president to have a non-citizen parent. That trophy goes to President Arthur. 2. In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that "Natural Born" within the common law applied to those who were born here of non-citizen parents.

If anyone is still confused, please see me.

Pandasta said...

Rachel Kiernan (August 30, 2009 @ 8:46 pm) . . . Your third point on the topic of Natural Born Citizen misleads.

While Chester A. Arthur is indeed the first known U.S. President to have a non-citizen parent, resulting in violation of the U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 (his father was a British citizen at the time of CAA's birth, just like BHO's father), it is misleading to suggest this is a legal precedent.

"Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency. He wouldn't have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth." --Donofrio ©2008*

* http://tinyurl.com/635dl7

Concerning the 1898 Supreme Court ruling on Natural Born, what SCOTUS case are you citing?

Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray, in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision, clearly indicated Wong Kim Ark was not a Natural Born Citizen.**

** http://tinyurl.com/kkrkwu

Like CAA, a lawyer and a politician who used blatant deception and lies to keep the public focused on his place of birth while the more subtle and true eligibility Natural Born Citizen issue remained hidden in plain site, BHO is executing the same plan for the same reason. Both knowingly ran for office when they knew they were not eligible.

BHO does not want the public to know or understand the true eligibility LEGAL U.S. Constitutional issue: "Define Natural Born Citizen!"

Rachel Kiernan said...

That you're hanging your hat from another's blog - which was started during the height of the "Birther" movement and which doesn't site any sources or useful information (except for the "Wong" decision, more on that in a moment) doesn't exactly smell too objective.

First, it is true that Arthur's father was born in Ireland and maintained British/Irish citizenship until Arthur was 14. A gentleman by the name of Hinman had set about trying to prove Arthur's ineligibility by stating that Arthur was born in Ireland - anti-Irish sentiment was rabid at that time. When that failed, Hinman then tried to state that Arthur was born in Canada.

While Arthur would have appreciated British citizenship due to his father, what had not been decided at that time was if that disqualified Arthur from also being a natural born American citizen. "Neither the law nor any federal court ruling in the United States has ever determined whether a natural-born British subject like Chester Arthur can at the same time also be a natural born citizen of the United States, which is one of the constitutional requirements for the offices of President and Vice-President."
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Chester_Arthur

Therefore, when your site claims this: "He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he was born, he could never be President or Vice President."
-- It's a bold-faced lie. The author is projecting what he feels the SCOTUS would decide, not anything of which they have already ruled.

What I find amusing is that both Arthur and Obama had American mothers yet those who wish to denounce Obama seem to think that having any parent born elsewhere trumps all other factors - in spite of the SCOTUS not ruling about this. Therefore, I find this attitude a bit of a stretch. Most U.S. laws give citizenship status to a child born oversees if even one parent is an American citizen. As Obama's mother was an American citizen at the time of Obama's birth and as he was born in what was an American state the time, laws tend to consider him a natural born citizen.

It should be noted, lawsuits have been filed against other potential presidential nominees on the same grounds, none of which were successful: Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state yet he was considered eligible to become president. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone yet there doesn't seem to be a problem there. Yes, lawsuits have also been filed against Obama which have also failed.

Most of the laws the "Birthers" love to cite (Obama's mother was too young, was 18 when he was born and therefore not having lived as a "citizen" of this country for at least 5 years after age 16), only apply to those born outside of the United States. As Obama was born in Hawaii after it had become a state, this is, again, pointless.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Regarding Wong: The case of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the SCOTUS based its decision on the 14th Amendment. This was, in turn, based upon English Common Law tradition which excluded two types of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory: "The SCOTUS decided that since none of these conditions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Again, this defines Wong's citizenship status as a "naturalized" citizen, not as a "natural born citizen" (splitting hairs if you ask me)- but only because the SCOTUS has yet to determine exactly what makes a "natural born citizen".

In terms of those failed lawsuits I mentioned earlier, it does seem doubtful that the SCOTUS would therefore overturn every other "naturalized" citizen who has served in the senate or been a presidential candidate.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "The irony is that McCain, while a candidate, provided all documentation available to him to respond to the very real uproar that did arise about his birth status very quickly. That is why it quickly became a non-issue. He had nothing to hide."

Actually, he did NOT. McCain did not post a birth certificate. There is a McCain birth certificate on line, but that is a forgery. McCain never put a birth certificate on his campaign's web site. The birth certificate of McCain that is on the Web now claims that he was born in Colon Hospital, Panama. But that is now where McCain said he was born. He said in his biography that he was born at the Coco Solo base family hospital. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html)

So, Obama was the only one to post his birth certificate, and the only one to show a copy of the physical birth certificate to both FactCheck and Polifact. And the facts on the document have been confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii who looked into the file and found an original birth certificate (and in 1961 Hawaii could not file foreign birth certificates, so the original must be from Hawaii), and there is a witness who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html)

The USA has never prohibited travel to Pakistan, and it certainly did not do so in 1981 when Pakistan was relatively peaceful and encouraged tourists to visit. There were even travel articles published in the newspapers about the joys of visiting scenic Lahore; Pakistan International Airlines had an office on Fifth Avenue in New York and flew from New York's JFK airport via London to Karachi. So, Obama could have traveled on a US passport, and he did, since he was never an Indonesian citizen. Both Indonesia and the US State Department have said that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Again, this defines Wong's citizenship status as a "naturalized" citizen, not as a "natural born citizen" (splitting hairs if you ask me)- but only because the SCOTUS has yet to determine exactly what makes a "natural born citizen"."

This is not true. The Wong case never said that Wong was naturalized. He was born in California and never went through a naturalization process. The word "naturalization" is never used with regard to Wong, and if it had been, Wong could have been deported, since Naturalized citizens can be deported. Native born citizens cannot be deported, which is what Wong was.

The key question is whether the Wong case decided that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen. If it did, this would help to prove the usual definition of Natural Born as a synonym for Native Born.

Well, the Wong case did rule that Wong and all who are born in the USA are Natural Born and hence Natural Born and Native Born are synonyms.

Here is what the ruling said: "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

To simplify, under the common law and the law in the colonies and continued to prevail under the constitution EVERY child born in the colony or country was a Natural Born Subject and in the USA a Natural Born Citizen.

Wong was born in California in the USA. Therefore, Wong was a Natural Born Citizen.

As the Wall Street Journal put it: "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

Pandasta said...

Rachel Kiernan (August 31, 2009 @ 10:00 pm) . . . Concerning your lead paragraph about hanging your hat from another's blog, the timing of its creation, and its lack of sources and useful information, did you not bother to check the more than a dozen sources highlighted in orange font? Either click on, or just pass your cursor over the orange font for a snap-shot preview of associated source material. This is the 3rd blog created by Leo C Donofrio regarding the Natural Born Citizen matter. Donofrio's 1st and 2nd blogs on this matter were hacked and sabotaged. Apparently there are those who desire to keep the truth hidden. While Donofrio does provide his learned legal opinion (SCOTUS Bar member), his legal research, legal writing, and legal analysis is meticulous, scholarly, and worthy of thoughtful consideration.

It is encouraging to read your enlightened and enlightening comments. And your conclusion that the SCOTUS has yet to determine exactly what makes a "Natural Born Citizen," truly ought to be a matter of utmost concern for all Americans regardless of political party affiliation.

The U.S. Constitution is the foundation for our country's sovereignty. The U.S. Constitution is irrevocable and represents a commitment that can not be renegotiated. It is the supreme Law of the Land.* The founding fathers and framers of the U.S. Constitution knew this, and they new what constituted a "Natural Born Citizen."**

* http://tinyurl.com/kjjbsq

** http://tinyurl.com/my5s6t

As to your statement, "--It's a bold-faced lie. The author is projecting what he feels the SCOTUS would decide, not anything of which they have already ruled." Once the concepts of allegiance and citizen are understood, and why the U.S. Constitution contains "Natural Born Citizen" in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5,** you may wish to reconsider your statement. Donofrio's conclusion is based on logical legal analysis*** of what is now a LEGAL U.S. Constitutional question that will dramatically impact the future for us all.

*** http://tinyurl.com/nf8r4u

While you correctly and accurately note that there are numerous failed lawsuits related to the "Natural Born Citizen" matter, none of the recent cases (2008-2009) failed on their merits. The merits of the recent cases have been avoided and simply not addressed.

The difference between a "naturalized" citizen and a "Natural Born" citizen is significant. The framers of the U.S. Constitution knew that, and so does BHO; a Harvard law graduate, Constitutional Law professor, and co-sponsor of U.S. Senate Resolution 511 (unanimously passed 30 April 2008), expressing the opinion of the U.S. Senate that John S McCain was a Natural Born Citizen within the meaning of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

BHO's deceit, lies, and lack of transparency on this matter of his own presidential eligibility is unconscionable, criminal, and evil. BHO is not above the law. For preservation of the U.S. Constitution, the Rule of Law, and for the future of the United States of America, the rallying cry to share and proclaim remains: "Define Natural Born Citizen!"

Pandasta said...

smrstrauss (September 2, 2009 @ 12:33 pm) . . .

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. --U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

Why did the Framers of the U.S. Constitution specify Natural Born Citizen? And what did the Framers intend by including this specific language? The answers to these two questions have everything to do with the safety and security of the United States of America at the time of its founding, as it does to this present day.

With background from four sources,* it is evident that the concept of citizen is tied to allegiance; that the concept of Natural Born Citizen, as understood by the U.S. Constitution's Framers, had a very specific meaning intended as a safe-guard to protect the U.S. from foreign influence; and that being born on U.S. soil does not automatically make you a Natural Born Citizen.

* 1) http://tinyurl.com/my5s6t

* 2) http://tinyurl.com/ns9us5

* 3) http://tinyurl.com/mtjs3m

* 4) http://tinyurl.com/nf8r4u

Based on the above sources, Wong Kim Ark was not a Natural Born Citizen. Chester A. Arthur was not a Natural Born Citizen. John S. McCain is not a Natural Born Citizen. And Barack H. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. That McCain and Obama knowingly and falsely swore that they were eligible to run for the position of POTUS is pathetic in light of the U.S. Constitutional crisis now upon us all.

Even worse is the failure of the Main Stream Media to do its duty to investigate and properly inform the public of this presidential eligibility legal U.S. Constitutional Natural Born Citizen question. Instead, even the Wall Street Journal, through the writing of James Taranto, has been caught spewing false legal propaganda** on the subject of Natural Born Citizen.

** 1) http://tinyurl.com/mm7vpa

** 2) http://tinyurl.com/mvgtg3

The urgency to Define Natural Born Citizen! increases daily!!

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." --Sir Walter Scott

smrstrauss said...

Re: Natural Born Citizen.

IF Natural Born Citizen had meant something different than the law at the time, the Constitution would have said. The law at the time used the term "natural born" as a synonym for native born. A Natural Born Citizen was one who was born in a colony, a naturalized citizen was one who was NOT born in the colony but who was made like the Natural Born one (That is why the term is Naturalized, not "nativized" or "citizenized").

The Wong Kim Ark case sets up a syllogism. It follows the format: 1, All who are born in the USA are Natural Born; 2, Wong was born in the USA. The obvious conclusion is that Wong was Natural Born.

Here is what it said: "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

Notice that it says EVERY CHILD.

Notice that it says that the same rule was in force in the colonies and in the USA after the Declaration, and that the rule continued to prevail under the Constitution.

Thus every child born in the USA is Natural Born. It does not say that only children born to two US parents are Natural Born.

smrstrauss said...

As a result, such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

And that is why the Wall Street Journal wrote: "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

Pandasta said...

smrstrauss (September 3, 2009 @ 9:58 am and 10:03 am) . . .

"The Framers of the U.S. Constitution did not define an Article 2 "natural born Citizen" because they did not see a reason to. It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-known by civilized nations. Given that citizenship affects "the behavior of nation states with each other" (Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was. The Founders believed that the common law was discoverable by reason and was forever present, a "discoverable reflection of universal reason." Sosa. So since the Constitution did not define "citizen" or "natural born Citizen," "resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations" found in the law of nations, as defined by scholars, jurists, and commentators of the time who devoted "years of labor, research and experience" to the subject. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700(1900)."*

Quite obviously you put much stock in the words of Justice Horace Gray, as you cite them in an earlier comment. Yet how do you square your citation with Justice Gray in Section 1, paragraph 4:

"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens, Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision."

In combination with this piece which reveals how the United States came by its common law:

* 1) http://tinyurl.com/ntkprf

I challenge you also on the term "natural born" as a synonym for "native born" as well as your definition of "Natural Born Citizen" as being one who was born in a colony. And my challenge is based on this source material:

2) http://tinyurl.com/my5s6t

In that you have logically presented your case which appears to stands on English Common Law, whereas my basis for defining "Natural Born Citizen" resides in The Law of Nations & Principles of Natural Law as U.S. Federal Common Law, it is clearly evident that until such time as there is a U.S. Constitutional amendment, or federal judicial review of the Natural Born Citizen issue with the Courts examining all relevant evidence, we have on our hands a U.S. Constitutional crisis of catastrophic proportion, and increasing damage by the hour.

As for our prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers . . . Horse Manure!! Through their dereliction of duty, failure to uphold their oath of office, and spineless cowardice to address this legal U.S. Constitutional question of Natural Born Citizen, a massive train-wreck is imminent.

The rallying cry to share and proclaim to all patriotic Americans remains: Define Natural Born Citizen!

smrstrauss said...

Re: "It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-known by civilized nations."

The idea that Natural Born Citizen had to have two parents from the country was well known in the law of nations? Well know? Well, show someone at the time who knew about it.

Only Vattel said that a natural citizen (he did not use the term Natural Born, which did not appear in a translation until years after the Constitution was passed) had to have two citizen parents. No one else at the time.

When things are well known you can find lots of articles and letters about. There would be letters or articles saying "Natural Born," as defined in the law of nations, or Natural Born, as defined in the Law of Nations (the book), or something like "as we all know, a Natural Born Citizen has to have t two citizen parents."

There is NOTHING like that. Vattel has it as one of his ideas, another one being that nations should establish a state religion for themselves and force people to join it. There is no proof that the writers of the Constitution were following Vattel's two-parent theory, any more than they followed his state religion theory.

smrstrauss said...

Even more commonly known than the law of nations (which had other people writing about it besides Vattel, such as Grotius), was the common law and the laws in the colonies at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and those laws and the common law held that Natural Born meant "born in the colony." That is what it meant. It did not mean "two parents who were citizens."

I have a quotation from John Adams, John Jay and Benjamin Franklin showing that they used Natural Born Citizen as a synonym for a Natural Born Subject, and a Natural Born Subject, as defined by Blackstone, was simply someone who was born in the country or in his case the British realm.

Sure, citizens are different from subjects. The thing that is the same is the Natural Born part, which meant the same to Franklin, Jay and Adams as it did to the British. It meant born in the country.

(The spelling and capitalization are what they were at the time.)

Quote begins:

Draft Articles to Supplement the Preliminary Anglo-American Peace Treaty [ca 27 April 1787 [in Paris]

Articles agreed on by David Hartley Esq., Minister Plenipotentiary of His Brittanic Majesty for &c in behalf of said Majesty on the one part, and J.A. [John Adams], B.F. [Benjamin Franklin], J.J. [John Jay] and H.L [Henry Livingston, who was also at the US Embassy in France, but is not as famous as the other three], ministers plenipotentiary of the Unites States of America for treating of peace….in addition to the articles agreed on the 30th day of November 1782…The subjects of the Crown of Great Britain shall enjoy in all and every of Said United States, all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Citizens of the Said States---and, on the other hand, all the citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the legislature of the other shall judge fit to exempt."

http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=%22draft+articles+to+supplement%22&source=bl&ots=Aojo7Iux2Z&sig=r8tN3gtsaDaRYWKBox5fOWNPo4M&hl=en&ei=K4pBSvW6ComJtge3iN2dCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

End quotation

Another way of wording the same thing, in another draft, was that “the subjects of his Brittanic Majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as Natural born Subjects & enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the Respective Dominions and Territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA214&dq=franklin+subject:%22History+/+United+States+/+Revolutionary+Period+(1775-1800)%22&lr=

What does this mean? It means that as far as the writers of this document were concerned (Adams, Franklin, Jay and Livingston on the US side), the term natural born citizen is equivalent to natural born subject.

smrstrauss said...

The Natural Born part of “natural born citizen” meant to these US writers just what the Natural Born in “natural born subject” meant to the British. It could not be that in the arrangement for equal treatment between the USA and Britain, that someone had to have two US parents to be treated just the same as a natural born subject in Britain who simply had to be born in the British realm.

Subjects and Citizens are different, sure, but the question is are they different where their parents are concerned? Why, unless there is a framer saying so, does "natural born citizen" require two parents while "natural born subject" merely requires birth in the country?

In fact, they are equivalent as far as the "natural born" is concerned. Citizens have more rights than subjects. We are the rulers, not the subjects, of the government. But still, what says that where natural born is concerned citizens must have two US parents where subjects do not require any? (Just Vattel.)

Re your dislike of the conservative senators who disagree with you. Well, you can dislike the majority of the US Supreme Court too because they are very likely to disagree with you also. It is unlikely there will be even four votes to consider the case.

The strict constructionists would say "Where does it say two parents?" The originalists would say: "The laws in the colonies used the term Natural Born to mean born in the colony." The four liberals are, of course, no hope at all.

A few irritating facts about the two parent theory. For most of US history a foreign woman became a US citizen simply by marrying a US citizen. Several US presidents have had mothers who became citizens simply because of the marriage. So, the mothers were legally citizens at the time, but what made them really citizens?

Did their foreign background change with the marriage?

The same problem with naturalization. If a person becomes a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were naturalized before his birth, is he really different if he were born a month or a day or an hour before the Naturalization than if he were born after it?

When you refer to the two parents of the Natural Born Citizen, are you referring to the two legal parents, or to the mother and whomever REALLY was the father. If the former, isn't this just legalistic? If the latter, then don't you force future presidents to investigate who really was their fathers and then show that the real father (DNA tests, I suppose) was a US citizen?

Regardless of the absurdities of the situation shown above, I would agree with you that the president had to have two US citizen parents, if the Constitution said so, or if a writer of the Constitution could be shown to have written this. But there is nothing.

Franklin (who fathered two illegitimate children) probably would have said something witty about the two-parent theory along the lines of the real father or the legal father.

Jay was one of the writers of the first Constitution of New York (1777), and it includes a section that incorporates the British Common Law. It says that until a law of New York specifically legislates on a subject, the British Common Law continues to be the law of New York.

And one of the things that came from the Common Law was the concept of Natural Born. A person was Natural Born by being born in the colony. What do you think Jay, the lawyer, was thinking about when he wrote Washington advising that the president must be a Natural Born Citizen? Jay, a lawyer, was very familiar with the common law, the laws in the colonies and Blackstone.

Pandasta said...

smrstrauss (September 4, 2009 @ 7:26 pm and 7:27 pm) . . .

It is pleasing to read in your comments that you indeed grasp the LEGAL U.S. Constitutional question and the importance of "Define Natural Born Citizen!"

That you cite Vattell is also telling, however you are mistaken and misleading others, to conclude that only Vattell said that a natural [born] citizen had to have two citizen parents. While Vattell is the author of the treatise "Law of Nations," that treatise simply discussed the established body of law known as the "the law of nations." The definition of natural born citizen discussed in Vattel's treatise was actually the definition established by the body of law known as "law of nations."* --Donofrio, 08/25/2009; George Collins, 1884.

* 1) http://tinyurl.com/nf8r4u

In the above reference, see Myth #4: Vattell's definition of a natural born citizen was not considered by the framers.

What also appears to be missing from your conceptual analysis of "Natural Born Citizen" is the context and underlying cause for why the U.S. Constitutional Framers used these specific words in only Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and no where else. Two glaring concerns prevail: 1) avoidance of foreign influence. 2) safety and security for the United States of America. And the best way at the time to protect against those two glaring concerns was to ensure sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States of America. Hence the combination of citizen through jus soli (by the soil) and jus sanguninis (by descent), resulting in Natural Born Citizen.**

** 2) http://tinyurl.com/l4w76y

** 3) http://tinyurl.com/nl7n2r

In scholarly and historical research just now coming to light from the University of Connecticut, providing even clearer and convincing context as to why Natural Born Citizen, how Natural Born Citizen came about in the U.S. Constitution, and what the intent of the Framers was in using Natural Born Citizen, is presented by Undead Revolution: The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen.***

*** 4) http://tinyurl.com/modo7d

Note: the above URL Link is Part I of a series yet to be fully revealed.

Barack Hussein Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution. His blatant, willful, despicable, and evil attack and violation of the rule of law must be exposed and remedied. What BHO has done can not be allowed to stand. It matters not who he is, or what he says, but what evil deception he has perpetrated on all Americans!

Which has more impact on your life, the winner of American Idol or the ruination of the U.S. Constitution?

The evidence is stacking up, it's time to act, and the rallying cry to share and proclaim to patriotic Americans remains, "Define Natural Born Citizen!

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Barack Hussein Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution."

Actually, he is a Natural Born Citizen because he was (1) born in the USA, and (2) Natural Born simply means born in the USA.

The term Natural Born was widely used in the American colonies before the Revolution, and it simply meant someone who was born in the colony regardless of the number of parents who were citizens or subjects.

Natural Born is a synonym for native born. It does not require two US parents, or one US parent. It simply means born in the USA.

The term "Naturalize" comes from Natural Born. When someone is naturalized, it means that she or he is made like someone who is Natural Born. It also means making someone like a person who was a citizen at birth. It does NOT mean making someone like a person who has two citizen parents.

That is why the Wall Street Journal wrote: "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

smrstrauss said...

Re: "it is evident that the concept of citizen is tied to allegiance."

Yes. But we consider anyone who is born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) to have absolute allegiance to the USA.

That is why James Madison wrote: "It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

As you see, Madison says that allegiance in the United States stems from the place of birth.

Moreover, in cases of treason, if a person born in the USA fights against the USA, she or he can be tried for treason regardless of the fact that she or he may also be a dual national of the country that fought us. Why is this? Because we hold that allegiance to the USA comes from being born in the USA.

Dual nationality does not take away legal allegiance to the USA.

The writers of the Constitution barred foreigners from becoming president. And they barred naturalized citizens from being president, but they did not bar the children of foreigners who were born in the USA from being president. In fact, since Natural Born meant born in the country regardless of the number of parents, they allowed the children of foreigners to become president. And, since legal allegiance to the USA stems from the place of birth, they did not worry about the Natural Born children of foreigners not having allegiance to the USA.

Anonymous said...

Some ask if those who support the President just want to silence any and all questions.

No doubt that's true -- in *some* cases. But not all.

Like in my case. If someone has a question, fine. But it's clear that just as some Obama supporters want everyone else to shut up and go away, some of his opponents wouldn't believe anything positive about him if God Himself were to appear and say it.

And that's plain stupid.

BTW, I read a Department of State statement that his trip to Pakistan was legal.

What I really don't get is this: the day after the election, I got two e-mails from fellow Americans working abroad (and whom I barely know -- I don't even know their last names). They don't know each other, but their e-mails were4 almost the same. Noth said they planned to seek citizenship in another country, and that if they succeeded, they would go to the nearest American embassy or consulate and formally renounce their U.S. citizenship. Why? They ended their e-mails with exactoly the same sentence, word for word: "I can't stand the idea of a n****r in the White House!" Of course, they spelled out the "N" word.

How logical is that?

BTW, I'm white and grew up on a ranch in Texas. And I'm 58, and have voted for more Republicans than Democrats over the years, so I'm not exactly the kind of person one thinks of when thinking about Obama supporters -- and I am a supporter of his.

If some don't think Hawaii is a state, they'd be *really* confused by places such as Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.

Anonymous said...

George Washington wasn't born in the United States.

chrisold97 said...

does anyone really know if the declaration of independence REALLY was signed by the founding fathers?it could be a forgery (nevermind its printed on HEMP paper) are tehre any notary seals for the signatures...BIRTHERS JUMP TO IT!

Jimmy Havok said...

Eric Dondero:

You're allowed to ask all those questions. We're allowed to fall down laughing at you for asking them.

Because laughing at stupid people is still allowed.

Jimmy Havok said...

"McCain, while a candidate, provided all documentation available to him to respond to the very real uproar that did arise about his birth status very quickly."

Didn't he claim that the clay tablet proving his birth on a US base in Ninevah was dissolved in the Flood?

 
Web Statistics