It is highly reassuring that nobody here, at least, sees any reason to doubt Obama actually was born in Honolulu. There are many boards, not all of them conservative, where this meme just won’t die.
That’s my view, yes.
No, it means anyone who was a citizen at the moment of their birth under the laws then extant, which might not be the same as they are now. The 14th Amendment mandates that essentially all kids born in the U.S. are citizens at birth, but Congress can (and periodically does) change the rules for children born abroad (as they did in the '37 Act I mention above). Conceiveably Congress could say that “The child currently gestating in the womb of Astrid Schmidt of Berlin, Germany, shall be a citizen of the United States at the moment of his birth” even if neither Astrid Schmidt nor her babydaddy were or ever had been U.S. citizens. Obviously this would be a really weird thing for Congress to do, but I believe they have this power. (And I disagree with Richard Parker on this point.)
I don’t think this makes any sense. It’s not consistent with the text. In what way does “natural born” mean “born in a specific geographic area”? My reading – born a citizen instead of made a citizen (through later legal process) – seems to me to make a lot more textual sense. Even Richard’s view, which I take to mean there are certain intrinsic qualities as to what can count as a citizen, is more consistent with the text than your co-worker’s reading.
–Cliffy
I heard a new claim about this today.
There is a case in federal court: BERG v. OBAMA et al that claims not that Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen, but that he lost his citizenship as a child and never regained it.
I’m aware of Philip J. Berg’s 9/11 Truther crackpot status, but can anyone educate me on the citizenship claim? I wasn’t aware that a US born person could lose his citizenship if a parent naturalized elsewhere. Did Barack Obama’s mother indeed naturalize in Indonesia after Barack’s birth?
IANAL, but the claim is bullshit. AFAIK you can’t lose your dual citizenship as a child…the only way you lose it is that if, at 21, you decide to renounce your citizenship in the US for whatever country you have dual citizenship in. The US is funny that way…other countries actually allow you to maintain the dual status (though not all countries do this).
Basically think about it this way…if there was traction here then someone who knows what they are talking about WOULD be doing something about this. That this is coming, seemingly, from the loony fringe kind of says something about the validity of the claim.
-XT
I’ve seen no evidence that she did. The argument seems to be that by marrying a foreigner and moving to a foreign country she gave up her citizenship. Arrant nonsense.
It wouldn’t affect her child’s citizenship even if she did. Arranter nonsense.
But it is the way the courts have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment. (That’s why illegal immigrants try to have “anchor babies” on U.S. soil if they can.)
It appears that way to me too, but IANAL either. The judge didn’t dismiss the case though, and there was a motion to dismiss. If the law didn’t support the claim that he would have lost his citizenship (whether or not he actually did is a separate issue) wouldn’t this have been quickly dismissed?
He hasn’t ruled on it yet; I can’t say why. Perhaps he’s having trouble writing his scathing decision in limericks or something.
The motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard on tuesday. The motion will be granted.
Ah, that’s why.
Yep.
Huh?
Certainly children born in the U.S. are natural born citizens. But the categories are not co-extensive. I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
–Cliffy
Ah, thank you, Dio.
I do not understand which non-co-extensive “categories” you mean.
The categories of “natural born citizens” and “those born on American soil”.
I have to retract that statement about the date of the scheduled hearing. It was the date given on this blog post, but now that post appears to have been edited. You can still see the original statement in this google cache (top of the page).
So I have no idea when any hearing is scheduled, but it hasn’t been rule on yet. It will be dismissed regardless.
The former is a larger category entirely inclusive of the latter.
Making them non-co-extensive. Tracing back the discussion, the objection was to “My co-worker is saying that, constitutionally, natural born means born on American soil , period.”, since there are more ways to be a natural born citizen than just to be born on American soil.
Not really. And for the purposes of this discussion, certainly not. What are you saying the 14th Amendment says? That children born on U.S. soil are citizens. Yes, that’s correct. But it has little to do with what we were discussing, which is when someone can be a natural born citizen even when not born on U.S. soil. You seemed to suggest that the courts have determined the 14th Amendment has something to say about that. I don’t think that’s correct, but you haven’t provided enough of your position to evaluate it.
–Cliffy
Update: Philip Berg claims that Obama just admitted he’s not a citizen. (The link here is a little vague; follow the link within the link for more on Berg through an “he’s not a citizen!” blogger.)
Not that I believe in this whole thing, but I do wonder why the Obama campaign isn’t just slapping this down as hard as possible just to get it over with. I also don’t think the “wouldn’t Hillary and McCain have pounced on this by now” argument holds water; the entire claim is so ridiculous on its face that they may not have seriously pursued it.
ETA: Just remembered: both Obama and McCain missed the Texas filing deadline, so maybe them just missing the deadline isn’t as far fetched as Berg and the blogger think…
No deadline was missed in this case. The crackpot, Berg, filed a crackpot lawsuit. Obama’s lawyers filed to dismiss it because it’s garbage. Berg s now claiming that because Obama did not provide him with all the documentation he demanded (in a “timely manner” as decided by Berg, not by any court or any law) that it’s an “admission” of all allegations. It is the most arrant, wingnut nonsense imaginable.
Basically he "if you don’t give me your birth certificate and a whole bunch of other bullshit documetation to disprove my bullshit accusations, that proves all my accusations are true.
Obama lawyers say, “fuck off, nutjob.”
Berg says, “Aha, that proves all my accusations are true!”
If you click on the “obamacrimes” link on your cited page, you can see what kind of brain addled twaddle we’re dealing with here.