• 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!

Birther roll call

Are you a Birther?


  • Total voters
    62
Well in my terrible humble opinion the 9/11 "conspiracy theory" is still a viable theory. While this story regarding Obama's birth right, is complete trash from the gutter. I don't blame bush for 9/11 .. err not explicitly. I actually think he was just a dupe puppet of the vice president and the pentagon. I wouldn't draw moral equivalency between these arguments. No not ever.

This is still a very good argument. It's not been refuted in full, it certainly can’t be, given the overwhelming empirical data supporting it. Just because it is an old story these days it doesn't mean that it has gone away.


Omg, I quit. You win. Obama was born in Kenya, and Bush bombed the world trade center. Biden is actually a genius and Ted Kennedy was a conservative. I'm Santa and you're the tooth fairy. You happy? You win.
 
Omg, I quit. You win. Obama was born in Kenya, and Bush bombed the world trade center. Biden is actually a genius and Ted Kennedy was a conservative. I'm Santa and you're the tooth fairy. You happy? You win.

You forgot that Cheney is Darth Satan.
 
Omg, I quit. You win. Obama was born in Kenya, and Bush bombed the world trade center. Biden is actually a genius and Ted Kennedy was a conservative. I'm Santa and you're the tooth fairy. You happy? You win.

Well that was easy .. of course the defence was weak on your behalf. Clearly birthers are out there while any reasonable person who watched the documentary would certainly have reason to doubt. Clearly the evedence to the contray on the issue with 9/11 is pretty good while the evidence of birthers is .. nothing.
 
Well that was easy .. of course the defence was weak on your behalf. Clearly birthers are out there while any reasonable person who watched the documentary would certainly have reason to doubt. Clearly the evedence to the contray on the issue with 9/11 is pretty good while the evidence of birthers is .. nothing.

Nothing you say?

Page 126, Dreams of my father.

Capture-15.jpg


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1lGFYYNkw.../!!dreamsfrommyfather-pg126-returntokenya.jpg

Kenyan National Assembly, March 25th, 2010, page 31

Capture-16.jpg


Member of the Kenyan Assembly on March 25th, 2010, admits that Obama was born in Kenya.

Michelle Obama 2008 speech...



Kenyan Ambassador admits Obama born in Kenya.



:lamo
 
Nothing you say?

Page 126, Dreams of my father.

Capture-15.jpg


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1lGFYYNkw.../!!dreamsfrommyfather-pg126-returntokenya.jpg

Kenyan National Assembly, March 25th, 2010, page 31

Capture-16.jpg


Member of the Kenyan Assembly on March 25th, 2010, admits that Obama was born in Kenya.

Michelle Obama 2008 speech...



Kenyan Ambassador admits Obama born in Kenya.



:lamo


Uhh.. that is hardcore birther ****..

Claims regarding Kenyan birth certificate
On August 2, 2009, Orly Taitz released and attached to court documents what she alleged to be an authentic Kenyan birth certificate. Legal documents submitted describe the document as an "unauthenticated color photocopy of certified copy of registration of birth".[52][53] The document was almost immediately revealed to be a forgery. It purports to have been issued by the "Republic of Kenya", when in fact, such a state did not yet exist at the time of Obama's birth as indicated on the document (Kenya was a Dominion of the British Crown until 1963).[54][55] Subsequently, evidence was unearthed that the alleged Kenyan birth certificate is a modified version of a 1959 Australian birth certificate found on an online genealogy website.[56][57] The Washington Independent website cited an anonymous blogger[58] as having taken credit for the forgery and posting four photos substantiating the claim.[59] Examples of actual 1961 Kenyan birth certificates have also been revealed, which look substantially different from the document Taitz submitted to the court.[60]

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
One of the disagreements I see is as to what, precisely, a "natural born citizen" is.

As I currently understand it, anyone born to a US citizen, no matter the location of the birth, is a US citizen, and I thought also, a "natural born citizen".

Am I incorrect?
 
One of the disagreements I see is as to what, precisely, a "natural born citizen" is.

As I currently understand it, anyone born to a US citizen, no matter the location of the birth, is a US citizen, and I thought also, a "natural born citizen".

Am I incorrect?

Anybody born in the United States for any reason and any person born to an existing United States citizen is, by consequence, a United States Citizen.
 
Anybody born in the United States for any reason and any person born to an existing United States citizen is, by consequence, a United States Citizen.
Is it any one (1) US citizen?
Or are two required?
What parameters apply to the other participant?
However indirectly, like, say, a sperm bank?\

Edit: And BTW, it's "natural born citizen" that this question involves, not simply "citizen".

The two are different.
 
Is it any one (1) US citizen?
Or are two required?
What parameters apply to the other participant?
However indirectly, like, say, a sperm bank?\

Edit: And BTW, it's "natural born citizen" that this question involves, not simply "citizen".

The two are different.

Citizenship Through Parents

Whether someone born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent or parents is a U.S. citizen depends on the law in effect when the person was born.

These laws have changed over the years, but usually require a combination of at least one parent being a U.S. citizen when the child was born and having lived in the U.S. or its possessions for a period of time. Additionally, children born outside the United States may become citizens after birth based on their parent’s citizenship or naturalization. For further information on this topic, please see the links to the left under citizenship through parents.


USCIS - Citizenship Through Parents

Correct, I should have specified "Natural" born citizen. There are different rules for when there is one parent or two parents. If there is one, the parent must also have lived in the USA for five consequtive years as well. It is not a simple process, but not complicated either in most cases.
 
The Mark, if you want the correct definition of ‘natural born citizen’ then please see the following; Crunch, post #121.
A natural born citizen is a person born in the country, of parents (plural) who are citizens.
There is a difference between natural born citizen, native born citizen and US citizen.
 
Last edited:
Correct, I should have specified "Natural" born citizen. There are different rules for when there is one parent or two parents. If there is one, the parent must also have lived in the USA for five consequtive years as well. It is not a simple process, but not complicated either in most cases.

For the record: Actually quite simple. It should be no problem to show you lived in the US for five years. I had no problem registering the citizenship of either of my daughters (mother is not as US citizen).
 
The Mark, if you want the correct definition of ‘natural born citizen’ then please see the following; Crunch, post #121.
A natural born citizen is a person born in the country, of parents (plural) who are citizens.
There is a difference between natural born citizen, native born citizen and US citizen.

Source of said definition?
 
6.U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark said:
"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continues to prevail under the constitution as original established.

This shows pretty clearly that the Supreme Court considered anyone born in the United States, even to non-citizen parents to be natural-born citizens...
 
This shows pretty clearly that the Supreme Court considered anyone born in the United States, even to non-citizen parents to be natural-born citizens...

Your quote...

Originally Posted by 6.U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continues to prevail under the constitution as original established.

This ain't England, we aren't subjects, and we fought 2 wars to prove it.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.

Minor vs Happersett

That is US law as defined by 6 opinions of the Supreme court that have never been modified or overturned.

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens); 123
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, 'the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.' 12 US 253 The Venus Rae Master | OpenJurist

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel);

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);

Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel);

United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel);

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and Fuller, C.J, dissenting confirming Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” );

Feel free to find any Supreme Court case that supports your definition..... good luck with that.
 
This shows pretty clearly that the Supreme Court considered anyone born in the United States, even to non-citizen parents to be natural-born citizens...
1. If you continued to quote the final decision paragraph you would see that Wong was considered a US citizen which is different from a natural born citizen.
2. A natural born subject is different from a natural born citizen.
To quickly see the difference, England was under a king while America was not of course!
 
Last edited:
I clearly pointed to post #121.
From what I can see in post 121…

That definition would mean no child born of US citizens (one or both), if born outside the US, would be eligible for the position of POTUS.

That would, in turn, mean that no child born outside the US to a US military member (or other service, such as diplomatic, etc.), with another US citizen or with an alien, could become POTUS.

Is that acceptable to you?
 
Is that acceptable to you?
I already defined it in post #137!
To be eligible for the position of POTUS you have to be a natural born citizen.
A natural born citizen is a person born in the country, of parents (plural) who are citizens.
If we want to change the rules, then we need to amend the US Constitution.
 
I already defined it in post #137!
To be eligible for the position of POTUS you have to be a natural born citizen.
A natural born citizen is a person born in the country, of parents (plural) who are citizens.
If we want to change the rules, then we need to amend the US Constitution.
I'm going to research this myself.

If you are correct, I cannot see why it would not already have been changed, considering that multiple thousands of US citizens have been born outside the US, to US citizen parent(s), and denying them the possibility of a job as POTUS or VPOTUS just because of that fact seems completely unreasonable

So, a link I’m reading atm: Natural born citizen of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I'm going to research this myself.

If you are correct, I cannot see why it would not already have been changed, considering that multiple thousands of US citizens have been born outside the US, to US citizen parent(s), and denying them the possibility of a job as POTUS or VPOTUS just because of that fact seems completely unreasonable

So, a link I’m reading atm: Natural born citizen of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good choice!

Some of you already seen this post (#269) that I PM'd you with.

If you are going to research the issue. Please let me know what you think of the observations I made on it.

POLITICO Forums:2010: Whispers persist despite election - POLITICO.com

Thanks!
 
Chuz, your PMs are off.
I suppose Obama was born in Hawaii but, sadly this still does not qualify him for POTUS. The majority of the American people do not know the difference between natural born, native born, and US citizen. This is a big problem!
I say, let’s suppose Obama was born in Hawaii and focus on teaching people the definition of natural born citizen.
McCain by definition is also not a natural born citizen.
 
Back
Top Bottom