# What are the "Birther's" arguments when confronted with the principle of "jus sanguinis"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 27, 2011, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962 "2011-04-27T23:40:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/21 "2011-04-28T15:09:25Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > I have a question on this subject. > Let’s consider, for the sake of argument, that the Birthers are right in that, in a very specific time window, Obama could not have gotten American citizenship from his mother. Since then, I guess there must have been corrections to those citizenship rules (remember that one of the reasons why this natural born citizenship is so complicated is because the courts had to bend over backwards to deny citizenship for blacks. Civil rights have been there for some time now, I would tend to assume that the citizenship rules have relaxed a bit since Obama’s birth). > Do actual interpretations or laws would consider that if Obama had been born in the very same circumstances, he would be a natural born citizen, no problem? And, if so, doesnt that mean that Obama himself benefits from that? You know, new law trumps the old one? That’s the McCain case, right? When he was born, he was within a loophole that meant he was not a citizen. Later, Congress closed that loophole and declared all persons in it retroactively to be citizens from birth. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/22 "2011-04-28T15:09:32Z")
The issues isn’t about whether Obama’s a citizen; it’s whether he’s a _natural-born_ citizen. The problem is that the Constitution does not define the term. The intent of the founders seems to be to exclude European royalty from becoming president (there were proposals that various princes take the job), not to exclude all immigrants. But, in any case, it’s still a vague term. At it’s simplest, it means that you have to be a non-naturalized citizen, and, indeed, the term “naturalization” would imply that those who are citizens but who didn’t go through a citizenship process are natural-born. But the Birthers aren’t interested in simplicity. Their starting point is that Obama isn’t a citizen and they look for ways to call that into question. There is plenty of evidence in addition to the birth certificate that prove Obama was born in Hawaii – the birth announcements and the official ledger of births confirm it. But then the conspiracy kicks in . . . ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/23 "2011-04-28T15:25:05Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > That’s the McCain case, right? When he was born, he was within a loophole that meant he was not a citizen. Later, Congress closed that loophole and declared all persons in it retroactively to be citizens from birth. Not specifically thinking of McCain, just that the principle that if the new law favors you over the old law, its effects can apply unto you retroactively. That’s a feature of the French law system. I dont know if it exists in US law. What I had in mind, if that effect does exist, is that focusing on the specifics of the law at the time Obama was born might be pointless anyway if, since then, new laws regarding the question of natural born citizen have passed, and that Obama can claim their benefit. In that case, if you want to throw a tantrum about the subject, you shoud focus on what the law is today, not was it was in 61. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/24 "2011-04-28T15:25:31Z")
I think that their repsonse would be more along the lines of “you can shove that latin bullshit right up your ass, commie.” eta: I don’t mean this as a joke or a political jab, it is my honest answer to the OP, based on my observations. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/25 "2011-04-28T15:38:09Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > I have a question on this subject. > Let’s consider, for the sake of argument, that the Birthers are right in that, in a very specific time window, Obama could not have gotten American citizenship from his mother. Since then, I guess there must have been corrections to those citizenship rules (remember that one of the reasons why this natural born citizenship is so complicated is because the courts had to bend over backwards to deny citizenship for blacks. Civil rights have been there for some time now, I would tend to assume that the citizenship rules have relaxed a bit since Obama’s birth). I’m not sure what you mean by this. Blacks never were citizens. The 1857 Dred Scott decision affirmed it. The 14th Amendment rectified that. > [@](#): > > Do actual interpretations or laws would consider that if Obama had been born in the very same circumstances, he would be a natural born citizen, no problem? And, if so, doesnt that mean that Obama himself benefits from that? You know, new law trumps the old one? There isn’t any good case law that settles this one way or the other. The new law is not retroactive, in any case. The meaning of natural born citizen for many things is vague. For a president it is completely undefined by the courts for an Obama-like case if he were indeed born outside the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/26 "2011-04-28T15:42:48Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > I have a question on this subject. > Let’s consider, for the sake of argument, that the Birthers are right in that, in a very specific time window, Obama could not have gotten American citizenship from his mother. Since then, I guess there must have been corrections to those citizenship rules (remember that one of the reasons why this natural born citizenship is so complicated is because the courts had to bend over backwards to deny citizenship for blacks. Civil rights have been there for some time now, I would tend to assume that the citizenship rules have relaxed a bit since Obama’s birth). > Do actual interpretations or laws would consider that if Obama had been born in the very same circumstances, he would be a natural born citizen, no problem? And, if so, doesnt that mean that Obama himself benefits from that? You know, new law trumps the old one? No. If Obama was born in Kenya today, he’d be a natural-born citizen. But if he was born in Kenya then, he would not. The courts may have “bent over backwards” in the Dred Scott decision, by the way, but the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment foreclosed that issue. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/27 "2011-04-28T16:23:12Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > There was, at the time, a quirk in the US law that would have made Obama not a citizen if he had been born in Kenya. Basically, the law required that the mother have lived in the US for some period of time (20 years?) and Obama’s mom wasn’t old enough to have lived anywhere that long. > > The intent of the law, as I understand it, was to prevent the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of ex-pats from being citizens, which makes a kind of sense. Citizenship shouldn’t be transmitted through generations of people who have never been to a country. There are still laws in place that prevent this, but they have been amended so that kids in the sort of situation Obama would have been in had be been born overseas would have citizenship. Right. If citizenship passed down by blood ad infinitum, I would at least be a US, British, Irish, and German citizen, and possibly hold more citizenships. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/28 "2011-04-28T16:29:31Z")
Quoth **Exapno** : > [@](#): > > They also claim that because Obama’s father was Kenyan, our Barack has dual citizenship, which disqualifies him. This is also absolute according to their law. That’d be extremely amusing, if it were true. If Kim Jong Il, or Qadaffi, or someone, decided that they didn’t like how the US presidential election was going, all they’d have to do would be to declare all but one of the candidates to be citizens of their country, and presto, now Kim Jong Il can decide our president for us. Hmm, come to think of it… Do we have any proof that Orly Taitz isn’t actually a North Korean or Libyan? ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/29 "2011-04-28T16:48:17Z")
\ Who was the 1st President born to parents who were born citizens (i.e. post-1776) My WAG is Pierce. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/30 "2011-04-28T16:51:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. If Obama was born in Kenya today, he’d be a natural-born citizen. But if he was born in Kenya then, he would not. > > The courts may have “bent over backwards” in the Dred Scott decision, by the way, but the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment foreclosed that issue. Thanks **Bricker** , that answers it. BTW, outside of citizenship status and on, is there a principle of “new law trumps the old one if it benefits you” in US law ? ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/31 "2011-04-28T17:04:58Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > \ Who was the 1st President born to parents who were born citizens (i.e. post-1776) My WAG is Pierce. Did some wiki research, the answer’s Lincoln. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/32 "2011-04-28T17:06:54Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > Thanks **Bricker** , that answers it. > BTW, outside of citizenship status and on, is there a principle of “new law trumps the old one if it benefits you” in US law ? New law always trumps old law, as long as the Supremacy Clause or similar doesn’t prevent it. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/33 "2011-04-28T20:02:04Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > New law always trumps old law, as long as the Supremacy Clause or similar doesn’t prevent it. Yes, but I believe **Capitaine Zombie** was referring to the “principle of favorability”, the notion that the more favorable set of legal effects from either version of the law is to be applied to events that happened before the law was changed. AFAIK in US law a new law has to explicitly decree retroactive effect and set specific terms of application (and only when dealing within certain constitutional constraints), in order for that to happen. (Within the US subunits, I know the principle of favorability is part of the Puerto Rico state laws; it may also happen in Louisiana, since both use _Code Civil_ systems.) ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/34 "2011-04-28T21:00:56Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Actually, under the laws in effect at the time McCain was born, he fell through a loophole and did not have citizenship at the time of his birth. At the time, you could be a natural-born citizen by being born within the US, or by being born to American parents outside of US jurisdiction, but the law didn’t actually address someone born within American jurisdiction but outside the borders. Congress closed the loophole a few years later, though, and retroactively granted citizenship to all the children affected by it, so he’s still a citizen by virtue of his birth. Whoa (or woah)… that would mean McCain really _isn’t_ a natural born citizen, in that citizenship was not inherent at the moment of his birth. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/35 "2011-04-28T21:07:50Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Whoa (or woah)… that would mean McCain really _isn’t_ a natural born citizen, in that citizenship was not inherent at the moment of his birth. Congress passed a law saying that he (and all other folks born in the canal zone during that time) were citizens at birth retroactively. If we accept that Congress has the right to define natural born citizen in that manner, than he is a natural born citizen by definition. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/36 "2011-04-28T21:16:10Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > They also claim that because Obama’s father was Kenyan, our Barack has dual citizenship, which disqualifies him. This is also absolute according to their law. Whoa, according to whose law? Dual citizenship bars you from being president? It will bar you from working at NSA (so they told my son), but there is no way it can bar you from being president. ---
**Author:** ![RedSwinglineOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a9adbd/32.png) [@RedSwinglineOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedSwinglineOne)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/37 "2011-04-28T21:38:10Z")
\*\* > [@](#): > > What are the “Birther’s” arguments when confronted with the principle of “jus sanguinis”? \*\* I doubt any of them have given it that much thought. I don’t think most Birthers are really interested in the legality of Obama being President. Birthers don’t like the idea of having someone that doesn’t look like them president. It’s a lot easier to make racist comments about that “socialist, America hatin’ furriner” when you convince yourself he is not really American. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/38 "2011-04-28T22:19:19Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Whoa, according to whose law? Dual citizenship bars you from being president? It will bar you from working at NSA (so they told my son), but there is no way it can bar you from being president. It’s not true or rational. It is what some birthers are loudly proclaiming. When I went over to [Freerepublic.com](http://Freerepublic.com) I literally saw heads exploding on screen. And I don’t use “literally” lightly. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/39 "2011-04-28T22:34:59Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > They also claim that because Obama’s father was Kenyan, our Barack has dual citizenship, which disqualifies him. This is also absolute according to their law. > [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Whoa, according to whose law? Dual citizenship bars you from being president? It will bar you from working at NSA (so they told my son), but there is no way it can bar you from being president. Actually, McCain _does_ have dual citizenship, or at least he is qualified for it. The Republic of Panama recognizes anyone born in the Canal Zone as a Panamanian citizen, since by treaty it was Panamanian territory. I am not certain whether he has to apply for it in order for it to be recognized. However, during the last US election a member of the Panamanian government was asked if McCain would be eligible to be President of Panama because of his birth, and the official said that was correct. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962/40 "2011-04-28T22:48:55Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Actually, McCain _does_ have dual citizenship, or at least he is qualified for it. The Republic of Panama recognizes anyone born in the Canal Zone as a Panamanian citizen, since by treaty it was Panamanian territory. I am not certain whether he has to apply for it in order for it to be recognized. However, during the last US election a member of the Panamanian government was asked if McCain would be eligible to be President of Panama because of his birth, and the official said that was correct. He should have ran for Prisedent of both countries at the same time, to hedge his bets. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-birthers-arguments-when-confronted-with-the-principle-of-jus-sanguinis/579962.md?page=3)