I’m not trying to start a debate here (I know there is a seperate section for that). I’m just trying to understand why so much fuss is being made about his birth certificate.
As I understand it (IANA lawyer), there are two ways to be a “natural born citizen.” One is to be born in the United States. The other is to have at least one parent who is a US citizen. Obama’s mother was born in the USA, so she was a citizen. Therefore, Obama is too. So what is the big deal about where he was born?
Under the law at the time, a citizen had to be a resident for the US a certain amount of time before his/her foreign born children would get automatic citizenships. The purpose of the law was to prevent people from getting citizenship simply from having a citizen ancestor despite the fact that they or their parents had never been in the US. The way the dates work out, Obama would’ve fallen under that prohibition if he’d been born in Kenya.
The law when he was born was that for an American parent to count, they had to have lived a certain number of years in the US (five, I think), and some of those years must have been after a certain age (after 14, if memory serves, which it probably doesn’t). The law has since been changed.
Children born in the US are automatically US citizens, with some very few exceptions.
(He was born in Hawaii, I am not a birther, I am answering the question as asked).
Well, tl be technical and pedantic, that’s not exactly correct. There is a dearth of authority at this point on what makes on a “natural born citizen” for purposes of qualifying to be President. So, we really don’t know what it takes.
But everyone who actually matters agrees that “natural born citizen” means “citizen by virtue of the circumstances of one’s birth”. And under current law, the circumstances that are relevant are the status of one’s parents, and the location of one’s birth.
To become President or Vice-President under the Constitution you have to be a “natural born citizen”. The legal consensus is that to be a natural born citizen you have to have been born on US soil. That’s why it’s crucial where President Obama was born; if he was born in Hawaii, he can be president. If he was born in Kenya like the Birthers allege, he can’t. In the latter case he could still be a citizen but he couldn’t be president.
I have never heard of any such consensus. But if that were the case, John McCain who was born on Panamanian soil would not have been eligible. (No, the Canal Zone, was not US soil.)
Just to expand on my last post: it is certainly not a settled point that one can be a “natural born citizen” by virtue of having parents who are US citizens. It has never been directly tested in a US court but the traditional consensus is that a natural-born citizen must have been born on US soil, and in the case of Rogers v. Bellei the Supreme Court ruled that “children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment”. It is possible that if Obama was born in Kenya to an American mother he would still be eligible to be president, but there is a strong chance (I would say a likelihood) that he wouldn’t.
No, let me rephrase that. it goes beyond merely “wrong” to become [checks forum] “quite wrong.”
I see now that you post again and “expand” that “legal consensus” means “it is certainly not a settled point.” Can you give us a cite on which dictionary translates “legal consensus” to be “certainly not a settled point” ?
As I’ve pointed out in other threads, this point is probably moot. Given that Obama’s parents’ marriage was probably invalid due to it being bigamous, Barack was born out of wedlock and under that same law, a child born out of wedlock is the same nationality of the mother automatically.
As I understand it, what you state is incorrect, and why there is so much discussion of the topic in various venues.
There is no legal definition of “natural born citizen” in the US constitution or in any federal law.
To expand on my previous post, consider these various scenarios.
First list: I’m pretty sure everyone agrees that these people are “natural born citizens”
[list=A]
[li]born inside a USA state / parents: both USA citizens[/li][li]born inside a USA state / parents: one is a USA citizen[/li][li]born inside a USA unincorporated territory[sup]1[/sup] / parents: both USA citizens[/li][li]born inside a USA unincorporated territory / parents: one is a USA citizen[/li][/list]
Second list: what would people agree are “natural born citizens”? Any of these? All? None? I have no idea, and to figure it out would probably take a team of lawyers. (Some of the people below might not even be US citizens).
[ol]
[li]born inside a USA state / parents: not USA citizens[/li][li]born inside a USA unincorporated territory / parents: not USA citizens[/li][li]born on USA military base in a foreign country / parents: both USA citizens[/li][li]born on USA military base in a foreign country / parents: one is a USA citizen[/li][li]born on USA military base in a foreign country / parents: not USA citizens, but one of the parents serves in the USA military[/li][li]born on USA military base in a foreign country / parents: not USA citizens, and neither parent serves in the USA military[/li][li]born inside a USA embassy in a foreign country / parents: both USA citizens[/li][li]born inside a USA embassy in a foreign country / parents: one is a USA citizen[/li][li]born inside a USA embassy in a foreign country / parents: not USA citizens, but one of the parent works for the embassy[/li][li]born on USA military base in a foreign country / parents: not USA citizens, and neither parent works for the embassy[/li][li]born abroad (not in the USA / USA territory / USA military base / USA embassy) / parents: both USA citizens[/li][li]born abroad (not in the USA / USA territory / USA military base / USA embassy) / parents: one is a USA citizen[/li][/ol]
There are probably other scenarios I haven’t thought of. And I’m not even going to bring up the subject that, to qualify as a presidential candidate, there are more requirements than just being a “natural born citizen”.
[sup]1[/sup] USA unincorporated territories: American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
You can have a consensus among legal experts that has never been tested, and thus never settled, in court. I can’t give you a dictionary cite for that because I’m not sure how a dictionary is relevant, but you can trust me on it given that it’s my career. I’ve already cited Rogers v Bellei in which the Supreme Court held that it’s reasonable for citizen conditions to be imposed on people who were born outside the US to an American parent, whereas such conditions cannot be imposed on citizens either born or naturalized in the US. I don’t know if you’re familiar with case citations but you might want to read that one. Perhaps “consensus” in the legal world was too strong but it’s certainly the traditional interpretation and I believe the Supreme Court would rule the same way.
I guessed I missed that before. Does a US embassy or a US military base count as “US soil”?
In my examples of people born abroad, not in a military or an embassy, it seems likely that they would not be “natural born citizens” regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, according to this Rogers v. Bellei decision.