Obama Birth Certificate Rears Its Head - Again, page 19

Originally posted by defcon5
I have seen other posters attempt to explain to you that Panama was an American Territory, the same as many foreign American Military bases, and being born there is the same as being born in the US proper:

You are wrong. Military bases abroad are extra-legal jurisdictions ruled by SOFAs (Status of Forces Agreements), and are not “American Territory” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual states that,

Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico 8 U.S.C. § 1402, Alaska 8 U.S.C. § 1404, Hawaii 8 U.S.C. § 1405, the U.S. Virgin Islands 8 U.S.C. § 1406, and Guam 8 U.S.C. § 1407. Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.

Panama is not listed in the above, because it is no longer a US territory as of December 31, 1999.

Well perhaps the Panama Canal Zone is “not listed in the above” because the Canal Zone was never a “territory that the United States has acquired over time”, it was leased land from the Panamanian Government, and because the Section that rules citizenship in the Canal Zone (8 USC § 1403) doesn’t confer “natural born” status.

In 1953, Congress passed legislation to specify the status of Americans born in the Canal Zone--and to exclude non-Americans born there from citizenship.

If you had read this careful you had understood that being born in the Canal Zone, at that time didn’t grant US citizenship, otherwise there would be no reason to add a provision granting US citizenship to people born there.

Title 8 § 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904.

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

See, this was the Section I was talking about. Would you care to point out where does it state that people born in the Canal Zone are conferred “natural born” status?

Moreover, the act of declaring someone’s citizenship, falls under the category of ‘naturalization’.

If you make a comparison with 8 USC § 1405, the section that rules citizenship in Hawaii, you would understand what this means:

8 U.S.C. 1405 A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

Why are the dates and the language important? Well, in August 12 1898 was when Hawaii became an annex of the United States, and April 30 1900 was when Hawaii became a territory.

So, to people born on or after April 12 1898 (when it became an annex) are declared US citizens, or in other words, they were naturalized US citizens. People born on or after April 30 1900, when it became a territory - or in other words, part of the United States - are US citizens at birth, just like in any other part of US soil.

Through simple deduction: the Section that rules citizenship in the Canal Zone declares, or naturalizes, people born there as US citizens (provided that at leas one parent is a US citizen).

Therefore, unless Kenya suddenly became a US Territory, and both of Obamas parents were US Citizens living on a US Military base while in service to this country; how can you even begin to compare the two situations as being the same?

I can’t compare the two situations, because if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born” citizen (US citizen by reason of birth, in US soil), and John McCain is a naturalized US citizen.

So, is that enough to end this incorrect information your constantly going from thread to thread with?

I don’t know, but I hope so.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by mel1962

---

You once again show ... proof yourself, ... You keep asking for documents that don't exist, ... I assert that the Supreme Court would ... be wasting its time on this ...

Anyway you have fun on here trying to debunk in favor of your chosen candidate all day....
I'm done for today.

Defcon I 've enjoyed the debate. But, I guess we can agree to disagree.

PS - I edited your quote to make it more readable and agreeable!

[edit on 12/6/08 by mel1962]

reply to post by danx

---

If you read what I stated, I said that many Military bases, not all. Panama, and Guam being two examples.
It was US territory:

From 1903 to 1979 the territory was controlled by the United States of America.

As to the “Natural Born” Status, that terminology seems to change from document to document, but as stated above, it is normally given to those born in a US Territory:

usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.

Therefore when the law was passed in 1953, McCain would have become a “Natural Born” Citizen as opposed to a Naturalized Citizen.
McCain would also fall under provision B) not Provision A):

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

Though there seems to be little difference in the wording between the two.

Besides this, until a Long Form “Birth Certificate” for Obama is turned over, every person in this country has a legal obligation to the Constitution of the Land, that we should be questioning his qualifications for the job. You have not provided one iota of proof that Obama is a “Natural Born” Citizen of Hawaii, and you cannot because he is for some reason suppressing said evidence. As far as McCain is concerned, it really does not matter as he is not the Future President of the US.

I am done for today though, as I have stuff to do.

reply to post by mel1962

---

First its considered bad form to be editing peoples quotes. I believe they call that Misquoting, and might be a T&C violation. Though at the very least its improper Netiquette. Either way though... Yes, it was a fun debate, we should do it again some other time.

Originally posted by defcon5
The problem with the Obama situation is that there is no proof that he was born in Hawaii, because of a odd loophole in old Hawaiian law. The “Certificate of Live Birth” is a short form document which is not the same thing as a “Birth Certificate”, and was available to citizens born outside the US and its territories in Hawaii until the law was changed:

"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."

More misinformation...

First of all, there is no Section 338-178. Section 338 only goes up to 51. Perhaps the author was thinking about Section 338-17.8.

From Hawaii’s State Legislature website: “[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.”. Sounds about right, so this must be it.

But... and here’s a big but, looking at the bottom we see this: “[L 1982, c 182, §1]”

It means this statute was only enacted in 1982. But, if Obama was born in 1961, how does this applies to him? Oh wait... it doesn’t.

Originally posted by defcon5
in Hawaii you could register for a Certificate of Live Birth (Short Form) after being born in another country, if your parents had been residents of Hawaii for a said period before the birth.

The statute you site is from 1982, twenty years after Obama was born. There is no indication that what you say above is true. See Explanation Here with sources.

This is why there is refusal to release the Long Form that contains the Hospital and Delivering Doctors signature.

This is speculation. The long form is vaulted in Hawaii's Health Records Department. What Obama "came across" in his book is his souvenir birth certificate (with the footprints). See below.

Originally posted by defcon5
the "Certificate of Live Birth", and is not official documentation of where that birth had really occurred, that does not constitute proof in any court of law.

This is also not true. The information on a Certificate of Live Birth is taken DIRECTLY from the long-form Birth Certificate. So while it doesn't have ALL the information on the Birth Certificate, what is there is the SAME as is on the Birth Certificate.

The fact that he was born in Hawaii was taken directly from the long-form Birth Certificate.

Birth Certificates

Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are cheaper than photocopies and much more easily accessible. Limited information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is usually titled a "Certification of Birth" or "Certificate of Birth Registration". The short form typically includes the child's name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, although some also include the names of the child's parents. When the certification does include the names of the parents, it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances [2]. Nearly all states in the U.S. issue short forms certifications, on both state and local levels [8]
...
Most hospitals in the U.S. issue a souvenir birth certificate which typically includes the footprints of the newborn. However, these birth certificates are not legally accepted as proof of age or citizenship, and are frequently rejected by the Bureau of Consular Affairs during passport applications. Many Americans believe these souvenir records to be their official birth certificate, when in reality it holds little legal value [10].

On page 19 of Dreams From My Father, Obama writes of finding an article written by his father:

I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school.

This is very likely his souvenir birth certificate complete with baby footprint, which is not legally accepted as proof of age or citizenship.

Just some stuff I found this morning.

[edit on 6-12-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Flighty
If Barack Obama Senior married Stanley Ann Durham in America, wouldn't he then become an American citizen through marriage?

That's a very good question. I think he would have had to be here for 3 years and actively pursue a US citizenship. I don't know if Obama senior did either...

Immigration Law

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

This could be the ace that Obama is holding up his sleeve.

Do any of the Obama supporters now the dates or years his father lived here?
When he came, when he left? To help figure this out?
Is any of this info in his books??

reply to post by danx

---

Obviously you don't understand how state statues work. They change frequently, and the old stuff is removed and new information is added. I see this all the time when I compare my hardcopy of Florida state statues from 1998 to current ones. That law was changed, Hence the fact that it states “Revised”. When State statues change, they do not retain the old statues in the book. The article I quoted explains this expressly, that he falls under the law as it existed in 1961. So unless you can find a Version of that State Statute that per-dates the modification, you are quoting the wrong Statute.

Additionally the US The Nationality Act was enacted in 1940, hence the fact that its called the “US The Nationality Act of 1940”, I believe that you are talking about the “The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952”. There are other acts added at varying dates that also seem to apply to this. The 1952/1953 stuff is splitting hairs, IMHO.

1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).
"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.
(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, who, prior to the effective date of this Act, has taken up a residence in the United States before attaining the age of sixteen years, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this Act, complies or shall comply with the residence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsections (g) and (h) of section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended."

1956 The Act of March 16, 1956, (70 Stat. 50), provided as follows:

"That section 301 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall be considered to have been and to be applicable to a child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions after January 12, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has served in the Armed Forces of the United States after December 31, 1946, and before December 24, 1952, and whose case does not come within the provisions of section 201 (g) or (i) of the Nationality Act of 1940".

Seems to me like Obama might have some problems meeting this criteria too:

(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.

Didn't he go to live with his roommates family in Pakistan during his time in college?

This is the only one I can find that mentions “Natural Born” Citizenship, and it would only apply to McCain, not Obama:

1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".

Again obviously there is more to this then we are going to find without access to a fully stocked law library, and the Supreme Court is looking into it. All your cries that there is nothing here, are false, as the Highest Court of this Land obviously disagrees with your professional legal position on the matter ATM.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

From what I understood, the court had already decided to hear this case, and had subpoenaed the documents from the Obama camp as of the 1st of December. To which of course there has been no reply back to the court. This case however is not the one that involves Keys or McCain (that is in the California Supreme Court filed against the Secretary of State to not release the 55 electoral votes), but is whether or not Obama held duel citizenship as both a Brit and an American. As the founding fathers disqualified themselves for holding a similar citizenship, its pretty clear that if Obama held it as well then he is ineligible under the original intent.

Originally posted by defcon5
Obviously you don't understand how state statues work. They change frequently, and the old stuff is removed and new information is added. (...)

Oh, I do understand how they work. And it may very well be that I’m wrong, but you haven’t provided a single source showing that I am.

The article I quoted explains this expressly, that he falls under the law as it existed in 1961. So unless you can find a Version of that State Statute that per-dates the modification, you are quoting the wrong Statute.

How about you providing the links to your sources so we can evaluate them? You have posted 0 links so far. Again, you could be completely right, but you didn’t give a link for the article, nor the link to the source the article uses.

Am I supposed to believe your word, or even worse, someone else’s that I don’t even know who they are, or what authority or credibility they have?

Seems to me like Obama might have some problems meeting this criteria too:

You’re assuming Obama wasn’t born in the United States, since all tangible evidence points to the contrary, that’s something you have to disprove and I have yet to see that.

(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.

Didn't he go to live with his roommates family in Pakistan during his time in college?

Obama returned to Hawaii when he was 10 years old. He went to Pakistan when was 20 years old, so he spent 10 years in the US and lived at least 5 years in the US after he was 14.

Also, that’s pertaining to (7)(a) that applies to people born outside the US. Since Obama was born in Hawaii, and you haven’t proved that he didn’t, that doesn’t apply to him until further notice.

This is the only one I can find that mentions “Natural Born” Citizenship, and it would only apply to McCain, not Obama:

1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".

(emphasis mine)

Too bad that was repealed only 5 years later, by the Act of 1795 and it changed the language to:

And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. (...)

Following your logic that legislation shows intent, it would mean that they reconsidered and reached the conclusion that people born outside the US can’t be considered “natural born” citizens, just citizens.

Oh yes, I do agree that this applies to McCain and not Obama, since McCain was born outside the US.

Also, neither of those Acts apply to Obama, however, I’m not sure the Act of 1795 and subsequent amendments don’t apply to McCain.

Since McCain was born before the Act of 1940, he might have received his citizenship from the Act of 1795 (and subsequent amendments), which means he is just a citizen, not a “natural born”.

If the Act of 1952, and respective 8 USC § 1403, applies to McCain then he is a naturalized US citizen, whose citizenship was declared by federal law, not by right of birth.




[edit on 6-12-2008 by danx]

First of all, I thought you were talking about the Donofrio case, so that was my mistake.

Here's yours.

Originally posted by defcon5
From what I understood, the court had already decided to hear this case, and had subpoenaed the documents from the Obama camp as of the 1st of December.

That is not true. Here's where the Berg case stands right now.

Judge Surrick dismissed it on Oct. 24th.

Shortly afterward, Mr. Berg petitioned the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari (A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court). He wanted the Supreme Court to review Surrick's decision.

December 1 was just the end of the 30 days a petitioner (Berg)has to wait for a response from the defendant (Obama) - (which is not required) or to make a further move.

In the afternoon, December 1, 2008, Lisa, Mr. Berg's Assistant contacted the U.S. Supreme Court and spoke with the Clerk. The Clerk informed Lisa Mr. Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari would be distributed to all nine (9) Justices and a conference should be set within ten (10) days. As I'm sure you are aware, during the conference the Justices will discuss Mr. Berg's Petition for the Writ of Certiorari and decide whether or not to grant or deny the Petition.

ObamaCrimes (Mr. Berg's site)

So, the court clerk has said that Berg's request (writ) will be distributed to the judges (when?) and a conference, which is a simple discussion to decide whether or not to review Surrick's decision, SHOULD be set within 10 days. That's the latest news on the Berg case. We're waiting to hear when the conference will be. And remember, the conference is to decide whether or not to review Surrick's decision, NOT whether or not to hear the actual case.



[edit on 6-12-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Flighty

---

Obama Sr. would have become a resident alien,not a citizen.He would still have to apply for citizenship.As a resident alien he would have to file status papers yearly with the state dept.
The age of Obama's mother at the time of his birth is a major sticking point in his legality.The way the law reads,she lacked a year being old enough to pass on citizenship.5 years after the age of 14 would be 19 years old.She was only 18 when Barack was born!

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by danx

---

Obviously you don't understand how state statues work. They change frequently,

Well...I do in fact understand how statutes work. If there was a preceeding staute to the specific statute 338.17.8 it would have indicated the change and date of the original at the bottom of the statute that was shown.

The revision applies to 338.17 ...notice no ".8"

The “original” statute is 338.17 the statute you quoted is the revision of that statute made law in 1982…long after Obama was born and not applicable.

The .8 at the end indicates the revision…there is no earlier revision that is applicable or it would say .7, .6 in the index etc.

If they changed or clarified the language of 338.17.8 it would be indicated at the bottom with a date as it does with other statutes...take a look, scroll through them...click "next" and "previous"

If you want to say “it was a revision” of a Statute that might have been on the books at the time of Obama’s birth”…yes it was and here is the original statute and it doesn’t say anything pertinent to your argument.

Enacted in 1949
www.capitol.hawaii.gov...

The 338 statutes and revisions indicated with .8 etc are indexed here..

* I welcome you to find an earlier one that would have affected Obama’s circumstances at birth.

www.capitol.hawaii.gov...


[edit on 6-12-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 6-12-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 6-12-2008 by maybereal11]

reply to post by DJMessiah

---

I think the constitution's framers were a little afraid of having the new and unique nation being wrongly influenced by a "foreigner" as its head and felt the single head of the executive body could have some extraordinary restrictions on their citizenship. I think the fear is that anyone who's citizenship is the slightest bit shared would have divided loyalties. You can argue against a person who left a country before their first birthday having any real allegiance to that nation, but I think that's the theory.

Of course, they would not have imagined our world-wide military presence and might have found a presidential bid by McCain (born in Panama, granted to a US military family on assignment) equally as questionable.

In addition to Arnie I believe there is woman who is a governor of a northern state that might have more talk of a possible future run for President if she wasn't born in Canada, so the issue may be revisited and maybe in another century, maybe serious talk would be given to overturning it. But probably not, there's enough good people to run for it already.

But while I hope that access to the original cert is granted to smack down this ridiculous charge, I know some people will continue to grouse about it until 2016 (yes, I'm counting on term 2 already). There's just some people who won't believe what they don't like regardless of the overwhelming evidence.

Breaking News: Judge Doesn\'t Rule, Secretary of State Doesn\'t Agree - Obama NOT off
  Posted 15 days ago with 39 member flags

On why America is in denial and Ron Paul will not be elected
  Posted 18 days ago with 21 member flags

Study says racists and conservatives are dumb
  Posted 8 days ago with 16 member flags

As of feb 9th, Canada\'s own version of SOPA: Bill C-11 will kill more of your freedom
  Posted 13 days ago with 11 member flags

Is ‘anti-Canadianism’ the new ‘anti-Americanism?’
  Posted 17 days ago with 8 member flags

Councilman wants sheriff to stop urging people to get pistol permits
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags

Clarification on the definition of "natural born citizen"
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags

ATS is not as awake as it should be. You might still be sleeping...
  Posted 6 days ago with 7 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: