I just found this out.
If you remember my posts while the election was going on, you’ll remember that my issue was that there was no mechanism in place to insure that a Presidential nominee met the Constitutional requirements. Secretaries of State passed the buck to the nominating parties. Courts didn’t deal with it on standing issues. Congress’ role was to certify the electors not candidates. Arizona later tried to get a law passed that a candidate had to prove they met the qualifications to be on the ballot. It failed because it was seen a racist. Georgia (or was it Alabama) tried to do something similar but it was so narrowly written that it failed because it was stupid.
Just to clarify my position so this doesn’t devolve into is he/isn’t he an NBC
He was born in Hawaii.
2a) Even if we have movie film of him being born in a mud hut in Kenya, a signed Kenyan long-form birth certificate and an admission from him that he was born in Kenya, given the nature of his parents (illegal) marriage and the law on the books at the time, he received his mom’s citizenship upon birth which is American.
2b) But she wasn’t old enough to be in the country long enough …
Doesn’t matter. That law applies if the parents are married. Obama’s parent’s marriage was invalid under US law since it was bigamous (for him) and different laws applied for unmarried parents at that time.
Because fuck you that’s why. His mom was an American citizen and she could have popped him out on vacation in fuckin’ Uganda, Argentina or the fuckin’ North Pole and he’d still be an NBC. And so is Goldwater and McCain and Romney.
Ya know, I thought my mom was losing it for a while and now I’m convinced. I tried to explain why she was wrong and her response was to look at me like I was speaking moon-man language. Of course this is also the same person that I asked last year what she thought about me being published in a professional journal for the first time and her response was, “I didn’t understand the article.” That’s not the point!!!
OK, I’d better stop before this turns into a vent about your mom thread appropriate for the Pit.
We’ve all got at least one weird one in the family. I remember when a family member mentioned how they don’t like using the microwave because they don’t want it to “mess with” them. I recall thinking “Oh, I didn’t realize you were . . . like that . . .”
Last month, around when Pres. Obama met with the Irish PM, my father-in-law was rolling his eyes about it and Obama’s “supposed” Irish ancestry. We told him no, it’s true, he’s got Irish heritage on his mom’s side. He was still rolling his eyes and hand-waving us off. I’m not sure, but he might be in denial about him being half-white…?
Or maybe he’s just assuming that appealing to the Irish(-American) vote is huge outside of Chicago and certain other large cities? Hell if I know. I’m pretty damned sure that he assumes that Obama is a Muslim and probably some other things.
Tell your mom you were born in Kenya. When she says you weren’t, ask for your birth certificate, and if she gives you one, tell her it’s a forgery demand a different one - either the long-form one or one that’s on file with the government. Then start asking why she won’t just produce the birth certificate since it’s a simple request. I don’t think she’ll stop being a birther, but it’ll be a nice lesson in how annoying this crap is.
My condolences on the nutjobbery that you’ve discovered.
On the flipside, my daughter, spawned here in the US by me, was told by her tumbling coach she was not American because she does not like bacon. So maybe if the President and my daughter eat bacon every thing will be …uhhh…kosher.
It didn’t just do that, though. It would have added all kinds of other qualifications. The constitution doesn’t say that the president must own a “long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.” Defining natural born citizenship as ownership of a certain document seems like a stretch.
I’m probably going to regret this. But can somebody explain the birther argument behind “But she wasn’t old enough to be in the country long enough …”.
In the real world, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was born in Kansas, was an American citizen from birth, and was eighteen when she gave birth to her son Barack in the United States.
Now I understand the arguments about Barack being secretly born in Kenya. It’s delusional but I understand it. And I understand the part about his father not being a citizen and not being able to legally get married. It’s irrelevant but again I understand it.
But what’s the deal about his mother not having lived in the United States “long enough”? Are the birthers arguing that a mother has to be a certain age when she gives birth for her children to be considered “legal”? What age do they claim Ann Dunham was and what age do they claim she should have been?
Little Nemo: You should know by now that you don’t ask delusional idiots those types of questions. No amount of factual information will ever be enough to show them how stupid they are. If there was a set age and Ann had met that limit, the “long enough” thing would get ignored quickly and they’d move onto something else that shows how correct they are.
In short, don’t ask questions, just nod your head and think about what next thread you want to start on the Straight Dope.
My memory is that when my son was born in Switzerland in 1967, my wife and I filled out a form affirming that we (or one of us anyway) had resided in the US for at least 7 years after the age of 14. Since Stanley Ann Dunham was only 19 when he was born, she could not possibly have resided in the US for 7 years after the age of 14. That is a serious argument if he was born in Kenya. I believe that provision has been modified since.
I also believe that the whole question is moot once he is sworn. I further believe that the birthers are racists.
Maybe I’m missing something. Nobody under the age of 21 could possibly have resided in the United States for at least seven years after the age of 14. Are they saying that anyone whose parents were younger than 21 is not a natural born citizen?
No, it’s that this rule only applied if they have a child outside the US; doesn’t apply to births within the US. The purpose of the rule is to prevent US citizenship from being handed down indefinitely to people who live in foreign countries, have never lived in the US, and who have no real connexion to the US.
who knows what they think. one variant floating around is that you’re not a natural born citizen unless both your parents were natural born citizens, so by that approach, even if they accept Obama was born in Hawaii, they argue that he wasn’t a natural born citizen because his father wasn’t.