• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump to meet with sponsor of Arizona 'birther bill'

By what law? The British Act of 1948. He was born a dual citizen as his website explained.
Ummm, we're not governed by British law. Indeed, many brave people fought and many brave people died, for that cause.

That aside, it was known before he was elected that he was born with dual citizenship. Yet he was still allowed to run and to serve as president because there is no legal definition in U.S. law which precludes a person born with dual citizenship the birth right of being a natural born citizen.

Here's the bottom line. He ran a cleverly worded campaign that duped the voters. He took advantage of their limited knowledge of citizenship laws and Supreme Court cases on natural born citizenship. He took advantage of their lack of knowledge of the intent of the founders for adding natural born citizen to Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution.
That is complete and utter nonsense. Believe it or not, there are some very intelligent people in this country and there are some very savvy legal scholars who are familiar with citizenship laws and Supreme Court cases, including the 9 members of that bench. Yet no one in possession of such knowledge and in a position to act on it even suggested what you are claiming.
 
Ummm, there is no law anywhere in U.S. code stating that. Even worse for your argument is that in 2008 when Obama was running for president, everyone knew his father was a British subject and that Obama was born with dual citizenship. Despite that, he was still allowed to run and now allowed to serve as president. Therefore, you are wrong about the U.S. not considering people born with dual citizenships as natural born citizens.

Item (b) does not apply to Obama because late and delayed birth certificates are marked as such. Obama's is not. Item (c) does not apply to Obama because his birth records were filed 4 days after he was born.


I see ... you're citing a law even though you don't know exactly how it read in 1961?? What can be assumed is that it didn't read exactly like the 1982 revision. Which means citing it is dishonest since you don't actually know what was in it.

I know how to read the law. I just gave you the law from the 1955 Territorial Act pertaining to certificates in Hawaii including the revised statutes in 82 that still effected people born in 61. Obama's short form doesn't have that info but the long form will. That is why he needs to release it.

On the other hand, answer me honestly. Do you think the founders when adopting the constitutions natural born citizen clause actually wanted a dual citizen with British Nationality with split allegiances as their future president and commander of the armies? After all, they just finished a war with the British. Think about that.
 
Ummm, we're not governed by British law. Indeed, many brave people fought and many brave people died, for that cause.


So why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
 
I know how to read the law. I just gave you the law from the 1955 Territorial Act pertaining to certificates in Hawaii including the revised statutes in 82 that still effected people born in 61. Obama's short form doesn't have that info but the long form will. That is why he needs to release it.
§338-17.8 is not relevant to Obama since his records were filed in August of 1961 and §338-17.8 became law in 1982.

On the other hand, answer me honestly. Do you think the founders when adopting the constitutions natural born citizen clause actually wanted a dual citizen with British Nationality with split allegiances as their future president and commander of the armies? After all, they just finished a war with the British. Think about that.
George Washington was born a British subject. Think about that.
 
So why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
When did Obama make that declaration?
 
§338-17.8 is not relevant to Obama since his records were filed in August of 1961 and §338-17.8 became law in 1982.


George Washington was born a British subject. Think about that.
LOL....What do you think the purpose of the grandfather clause in Article 2 Section 1 was for?
 
When did Obama make that declaration?

In that paragraph I posted. Obama admits his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom. I think it’s very important to note that Obama himself gave preference to the United Kingdom in his statement at Fight The Smears. Notice that he didn’t say his birth status was governed by both United Kingdom and the US. Obama chose to give preference to his father’s nationality by stating that his birth status was directly tied to his father and not his mother. John Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment stated this on the House Floor in defining natural born citizenship:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

What country was Obama's allegiance too Sheik?
 
He wasn't able to find the birth certificate. I guess Obama was no help at all.

1. Barack Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetero.

2. In Hawaii name change in the adoption is mandatory.

3. The original birth certificate is replaced with a new birth certificate bearing the child's new name.

4. If there is a birth certificate for Barack Obama in Hawaii, that birth certificate bears the name Soetero.


That, to me, is confusing enough an issue to move someone who has perhaps chosen to adopt his old name but never actually gone through the legal process to change it, to cover up his original birth certificate. The one that gives his name as Soetero.

We have had adoptions in my family. I know what happens to the birth certificates. They are changed.

Going with the adoption theory, even if true it still wouldn't disqualify President Obama from being President because he'd still have been born in the U.S. by atleast one U.S. citizen parent, thereby making him a "natural-born citizen". Regardless, it would seem that Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, has come out once again publically reaffirming that she has, in fact, seen the official "long-form" birth certificate and that it safe and secure on the first floor of the health department. From the article (paraphrased):

[..]when asked about Trump's recent comments, Dr. Chiyome Fukino stated:

The first is that the original so-called "long form" birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a "record of live birth" — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya. Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document's validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.

So, there you have it, Donald Trump. If you're special investigators want to know where they can find the President's "long-form" birth certificate, you along with the rest of the country if not the world now know exactly where you can find it.

In that paragraph I posted. Obama admits his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom. I think it’s very important to note that Obama himself gave preference to the United Kingdom in his statement at Fight The Smears. Notice that he didn’t say his birth status was governed by both United Kingdom and the US. Obama chose to give preference to his father’s nationality by stating that his birth status was directly tied to his father and not his mother. John Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment stated this on the House Floor in defining natural born citizenship:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

What country was Obama's allegiance too Sheik?

Correct. President Obama did admit that at the time of his birth his father was subject to the British crown because Kenya was a British colony at the time his father was born and, as such, Obama Sr was a British subject. Theoretically, that made Obama Jr and dual citizen at birth. But since Kenya was granted their independence from Britan somewhere around 1984 and the President as a civilian never declared his British citizenship, such "duality" expired. Factcheck.org addressed this issue at length some time ago.
 
Last edited:
LOL....What do you think the purpose of the grandfather clause in Article 2 Section 1 was for?
Guess you didn't think about it. :(

... so I'll explain it to ya ... the grandfather clause was to accomodate potential presidents who were born British subjects at that time. According to your logic, the Founders shouldn't have allowed them to be president because they were born British subjects. Instead, the Founders decided to allow that. So why you think the Founders would be against an American born citizen who holds dual citizenship is beyond me, but suffice it to say, the founders weren't and there is no law in the books which state otherwise.
 
Guess you didn't think about it. :(

... so I'll explain it to ya ... the grandfather clause was to accomodate potential presidents who were born British subjects at that time. According to your logic, the Founders shouldn't have allowed them to be president because they were born British subjects. Instead, the Founders decided to allow that. So why you think the Founders would be against an American born citizen who holds dual citizenship is beyond me, but suffice it to say, the founders weren't and there is no law in the books which state otherwise.
The founders wanted a president with sole allegiance to the United States with no ties to foreign governments so a usurpation of the office wouldn't transpire. They were thinking ahead. Every president post grandfather clause starting with the first natural born president Martin Van Buren have been born to 'TWO' U.S. citizen parents. Wilsons and Hoovers mothers were foreign born but they achieved U.S. citizenship through derivative marriage to their US born husbands before Woodrow and Herbert were born. That made them natural born citizens born to TWO U.S. citizen parents. Chester Arthur had doubts but it was never proven.


Do you agree with the Father of the 14th Amendment John Bingham defining natural born citizen as this?

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))


Did you ever read John Jays letter to George Washington when framing the Presidential Clause? If not you need too. Google it.
 
Last edited:
When did Obama make that declaration?

In that paragraph I posted. Obama admits his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom.
Perhaps my question was not clear ... when did Obama make that declaration?

I believe what you posted came from factcheck.org, not from Obama. fightthesmears.com then copied it, along with a link to factcheck.org. That's not the same as "Obama stating..."


I think it’s very important to note that Obama himself gave preference to the United Kingdom in his statement at Fight The Smears. Notice that he didn’t say his birth status was governed by both United Kingdom and the US. Obama chose to give preference to his father’s nationality by stating that his birth status was directly tied to his father and not his mother. John Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment stated this on the House Floor in defining natural born citizenship:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
The words, "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty," do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

And again, it was known that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth and still -- Obama was eligible to run and is eligible to serve as president.


What country was Obama's allegiance too Sheik?
It certainly wasn't Kenya or Britain. From what I can tell, it was the U.S. He was raised by his mother, not his father, in the U.S. until he was 6 and then from 10 on.
 
Going with the adoption theory, even if true it still wouldn't disqualify President Obama from being President because he'd still have been born in the U.S. by atleast one U.S. citizen parent, thereby making him a "natural-born citizen". Regardless, it would seem that Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, has come out once again publically reaffirming that she has, in fact, seen the official "long-form" birth certificate and that it safe and secure on the first floor of the health department. From the article (paraphrased):



So, there you have it, Donald Trump. If you're special investigators want to know where they can find the President's "long-form" birth certificate, you along with the rest of the country if not the world now know exactly where you can find it.



Correct. President Obama did admit that at the time of his birth his father was subject to the British crown because Kenya was a British colony at the time his father was born and, as such, Obama Sr was a British subject. Theoretically, that made Obama Jr and dual citizen at birth. But since Kenya was granted their independence from Britan somewhere around 1984 and the President as a civilian never declared his British citizenship, such "duality" expired. Factcheck.org addressed this issue at length some time ago.
You can't be born a natural born U.S. citizen if your birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. He was not born with sole allegiance to the U.S. as the founders intended their president to be.
 
Perhaps my question was not clear ... when did Obama make that declaration?

I believe what you posted came from factcheck.org, not from Obama. fightthesmears.com then copied it, along with a link to factcheck.org. That's not the same as "Obama stating..."



The words, "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty," do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

And again, it was known that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth and still -- Obama was eligible to run and is eligible to serve as president.



It certainly wasn't Kenya or Britain. From what I can tell, it was the U.S. He was raised by his mother, not his father, in the U.S. until he was 6 and then from 10 on.
No, Obama's birth status was governed by the British Crown due to his father. That is why his campaign stated it on his own website not contested by Obama or otherwise it would have been removed. Nowhere does Obama ever mention he is a natural born citizen for Article 2 Section 1 purposes.

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth."

So Obama has British Citizenship at the time of birth, that is a given. Did he gain citizenship to Kenya? Yes - via Chapter VI, Section 87(2):

"(2) Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on
11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or
a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for
his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1),
become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963."

But did becoming a Kenyan Citizen terminate British Citizenship? We look into the Kenyan Constitution and find - NO, it did not. See Chapter VI, Section 95(1):

"95. (1) Every person who, under this Constitution or an Act of
Parliament, is a citizen of Kenya or who, under any law for the time
being in force in a country to which this section applies, is a citizen
of that country shall, by virtue of that citizenship, have the status of a
Commonwealth citizen."

So, like the Thai president that recently has disclosed he was a dual British Citizen, Obama has never renounced his British Citizenship gained at birth. He never 'automatically' lost it, even when Kenya became independent.
 
The founders wanted a president with sole allegiance to the United States with no ties to foreign governments so a usurpation of the office wouldn't transpire. They were thinking ahead.
Meanwhile, they elected men who were born British subjects. Men like George Washington didn't even hold dual citizenship at birth. Yet the Founders felt it was acceptable for such men, whose allegiance at birth was to Britain, to be eligible to be president.

Every president post grandfather clause starting with the first natural born president Martin Van Buren have been born to 'TWO' U.S. citizen parents.
That would be so special if only that were true. But it's not. Nowhere in U.S. law does it define natural born citizen to mean a person born of both U.S. citizen parents.

Nowhere. You may not like that. You may not agree with it. But U.S. law never defined the meaning. That being the case ... and that is the case ... I hope you'll understand why I dismiss your definition.

Wilsons and Hoovers mothers were foreign born but they achieved U.S. citizenship through derivative marriage to their US born husbands before Woodrow and Herbert were born. That made them natural born citizens born to TWO U.S. citizen parents. Chester Arthur had doubts but it was never proven.
Of course it was known that Chester Arthur's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of the his son's birth -- there was a public record of him becoming a U.S. citizen after Chester was born.


20091220_document.JPG

Do you agree with the Father of the 14th Amendment John Bingham defining natural born citizen as this?

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
What's not to agree with? Of course a person born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen. That doesn't translate into a person born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen is not a natural born citizen. This very concept was addressed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
 
You can't be born a natural born U.S. citizen if your birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. He was not born with sole allegiance to the U.S. as the founders intended their president to be.
Still waiting ... cite the U.S. law which declares people born in the U.S. with dual citizenship with another country are not natural born citizens ...
 
No, Obama's birth status was governed by the British Crown due to his father. That is why his campaign stated it on his own website not contested by Obama or otherwise it would have been removed. Nowhere does Obama ever mention he is a natural born citizen for Article 2 Section 1 purposes.
Yes, his campaigned copied it from factcheck.org -- that's not what you said though. You said, "Obama stated" it. He did not. Putting words in his mouth because they appeared on a website he was associated with is dishonest.

As far as a person required to have two U.S. citizen parents in order to meet the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution, we have so far had 2 which haven't. Arthur and now Obama. It seems to me that the precedent has been determined that you are simply wrong.
 
You can't be born a natural born U.S. citizen if your birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Why not? We have no control over -- and do not recognize -- British Law. If they were to pass a Nationality Act of 2011 granting citizenship to anyone born in the US, would that mean that none of us could be natural born citizens?

He was not born with sole allegiance to the U.S. as the founders intended their president to be.
At the time the Constitution was written, over half of the population did not have "sole allegiance to the U.S.," being either allied with England against the US, or completely neutral. To my knowledge, no attempt was made to brand these people or their descendents as ineligible for the Presidency.

The founders recognized that we can no more determine your allegiance than we can determine your favorite color.

The Constitution only requires that the President be a "natural (i.e. not foreign) born citizen."
 
No, but the ratings on his TV show will skyrocket. I believe that this is what Trump was aiming for. He doesn't really want to be president. He is an attention whore.


family_feud.jpg




I say that Obama is an attention whore for not wanting to show his birth certificate.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, they elected men who were born British subjects. Men like George Washington didn't even hold dual citizenship at birth. Yet the Founders felt it was acceptable for such men, whose allegiance at birth was to Britain, to be eligible to be president.


That would be so special if only that were true. But it's not. Nowhere in U.S. law does it define natural born citizen to mean a person born of both U.S. citizen parents.

Nowhere. You may not like that. You may not agree with it. But U.S. law never defined the meaning. That being the case ... and that is the case ... I hope you'll understand why I dismiss your definition.


Of course it was known that Chester Arthur's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of the his son's birth -- there was a public record of him becoming a U.S. citizen after Chester was born.


View attachment 67113907


What's not to agree with? Of course a person born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen. That doesn't translate into a person born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen is not a natural born citizen. This very concept was addressed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Wong Kim Ark was found to be a citizen, not a natural born citizen in it's ruling.
 
Why not? We have no control over -- and do not recognize -- British Law. If they were to pass a Nationality Act of 2011 granting citizenship to anyone born in the US, would that mean that none of us could be natural born citizens?


At the time the Constitution was written, over half of the population did not have "sole allegiance to the U.S.," being either allied with England against the US, or completely neutral. To my knowledge, no attempt was made to brand these people or their descendents as ineligible for the Presidency.

The founders recognized that we can no more determine your allegiance than we can determine your favorite color.

The Constitution only requires that the President be a "natural (i.e. not foreign) born citizen."

The reason natural born citizen was added to the presidential clause is because the founders wanted their future presidents to have sole allegiance for the US and no allegiances to other countries. The only exceptions were the first few presidents who were grandfathered in. Natural Born Citizen was a higher level of citizenship, born to two U.S. parents was the founders intent.

The father of the 14th John Bingham was well versed in the meaning of what a natural born citizen was.

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

According to a July 18, 1859 official proclamation by former Attorney General Black (as reported in the New York Times on July 20, 1859), only those who never owed fealty to another nation may be President:

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. “



Here again we see a person in high office stating that to be President one must never have owed fealty to another nation. We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign. This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth. Since the naturalized citizen can’t be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation.

Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth. Therefore, upon the authority of Representative Bingham, Justice Black and Attorney General Black, Obama is not eligible to the office of President.

SENATORS HOWARD AND TRUMBULL AND REPRESENTATIVE THAYER

But there’s even more authority to be heard from regarding Obama’s unconstitutional occupation of the White House. Justice Black also told us that we must consult with Senator Howard since he was Bingham’s counterpart in the Senate relating to the 14th Amendment. Bingham and Howard are the two that ushered the 14th Amendment into the Constitution.

As to the meaning of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard stated:

“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2890 (1866))

Notice that Howard lists several classes of persons who are not citizens under the 14th Amendment:

- foreigners

- aliens

- families of ambassadors or ministers

The statement was clarified a few days earlier when Howard stated:

“That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2893 (1866))

Those who owed allegiance to “anybody else” are not natural born citizens of the United States. The same sentiments were also uttered by Senator Trumbull who stated that it meant “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
 
Last edited:
It must be nice to be so rich that you can waste your money on ridiculous assertions such as this. I wonder what he will do when they throw his case out?

It is obvious Trump is just trying to trump up some votes when he casts his name into the Presidential run! I'm sure that there will be many that will be willing to waste their vote on this shallow hair-needing person just because he satisfies their need to believe that Obama is not a US citizen. Pity.
 
You do know that in 1961 Hawaii accepted foreign born births and gave them birth certificates? Also the Hawaii official lied. He said you couldn't get photocopies of your records. The law says otherwise as noted in the statutes. They flat out lied. Obama, if born in Hawaii is still not a natural born citizen.

My daughter was born in cuba, to american parents.....is she a citizen?
 
My daughter was born in cuba, to american parents.....is she a citizen?

Yes she is a citizen but she wouldn't qualify for Article 2 Section 1. You have to be a natural born citizen for that.
 
Yes she is a citizen but she wouldn't qualify for Article 2 Section 1. You have to be a natural born citizen for that.

funny that her birth certificate doesn't make such a distinction....not to mention that her official birth certificate states she was born in Washington, D.C.
I was there, as was her mother. The girl was born in Cuba....
Try telling her she can't run for POTUS. She'll slap you silly.....:2razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom