Originally posted by aero56
Yes he is, no matter. Mother was a US citizen. John McCain, born in Colon, Panama, not on a US Military base. But, his parents were US citizens.

When McCain was born the existing statutes granting citizenship to children born abroad to US citizens didn’t cover the children in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama.

That’s why Congress in 1937, after McCain’s birth, enacted a statute that is now codified as 8 USC 1403.

so is texas, california, new mexico, all stolen from the mexicans as is the rest of the midwest and all of america for that matter, since it was originally the land of the iroquois nation and all the rest of native americans.

but that doesn't matter since americans follow the british policy of achievement.

UluaHuntah808 is the nicest poster I have read yet, as for every 'slam' he had a pleasant answer.

I agree with his title of his topic, Hawai'i , or the intent would never have been followed through and been so educational.

Now most everyone is trailing off on different tangents and a good thread spoiled by childish recriminations.

People are always saying we stole this land from the Native Americans.

How? What did they do with the land we built cities on? They did nothing with it. They lived in the forests. We were building churches and cities and actually did something with the land. We did not steal this land from anybody. Two different cultures collided because of mistrust and everybody thinks white people just killed them for the land. Truth is if it wasnt British pilgrims it would have been somebody else. We even gave them their own territory AKA sharing. Indians were greedy and wanted the entire country, but they didnt seem to mind when they got rich off all the "white mans" hard work.

And all of those Native Americans in todays day and age, you dont see them moaning about how we raped and pillaged their land now that they live basically FOR FREE in this country. We need to stop giving them special treatment for # that happened forever ago, of which everybody alive today had nothing to do with. Its just like the slavery issue. Why would we pay African Americans for # that we had nothing to do with? And for # they had nothing to do with either? Show me a living black person that was actually a slave to this government in this day and age and I might change my mind, otherwise lets get with the times.

I dont demand special treatment for being gay because I cant get on my partners health insurance and cant get the benefits allowed by law to every citizen that is able to get married simply because the laws say that I cant, which is unconstitutional. Im just demanding equal representation, not getting greedy about money unlike a lot of people I know.

Slavery was very wrong, but sorry to say, nobody alive deserves anything because of it. They didnt even live through it. Its history. How many people are going to ask the Italian gov and the Danish gov for money because the Romans and Vikings conquered their land forever ago? Its the same thing. Unless you lived through it you have no right to demand anything for it.

I'm not Hawaiian, but I lived there for 27 years and had the priviledge of befreinding many true Hawaiians. I can assure you that 99% of them are loyal American patriots and mostly Christians. There are some native Hawaiins that take issue with statehood, but mostly they are upset with The Office Of Hawaiian Affairs.

The Kingdom of Hawaii is a soveriegn nation that is managed by OHA, and funded by Bishop Estates. In order to qualify for land and benifits from OHA, one must prove 50% Hawaiian lineage. Obviously that is hard to do, and it causes hostility between the people and the governing body.

Hawaii, pre statehood, was populated by Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Tongan and Portuguese nationals besides the weathy American investors and the Missionaries. I worked beside individuals who were rounded up and put in Japanese camps during the war and they are still avid American patriots, who would agrue with you about the vote for statehood not being legit.

After Pearl Harbor, and with the end of WWII, and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasake, Hawaii's people were anxious to become American Citizens. They thought America was the Big Brother of the world and wanted to be protected, as they are vulnerable to future attack. They played a big role in WWII and wanted statehood, and were proud as hell when they got it!

As for Obama's birth there? Well how dare he be born in an Island community that was annexed wrongly, but ultimately proudly displays the American flag!!!

Originally posted by Habit4ming
Obama cannot be President because he is NOT a "natural born" citizen, due to his father being Kenyan. (...) It does not really matter where he was born.

You have no idea what you’re talking about, because it’s actually the opposite of what you just claimed. The place of birth, in common law, matters more than parentage. Anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, regardless of their parents’ nationality or citizenship.

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Supreme Court reaffirmed the long-established principle in common law of birthright citizenship and recognized only two exceptions to the principle: children of foreign diplomats, and children of enemies born during hostile occupation—

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King. (...)

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England (...)

We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

There is a difference between naturalized/native/natural born.

Yes there is and you clearly don’t know it.

Let me preface this by saying that Hawaii is now a state no matter it happened. Nothing is going to change this. Also, Obama's eligibility for president really has no bearing now. He was elected, and no matter what surfaces he will not be removed from office nor be tried for treason. At the moment I could care less. What kills me is that the governor Hawaii wants to release the birth certificate, BUT Hawaiian law prohibits this because he does not have tangible interest. Really?? REALLY??? How about the entire freaking country has tangible interest!! The entire birther argument could be squashed with a simple posting on the internet--so much for transparency.

What's the point. Does anyone really believe that Obama will be impeached because he was born in Hawaii? Why did this thread get off the ground?