Pat Boone: Obama’s Birth Certificate Will Be Proven As Fake By September
Legendary crooner Pat Boone appeared on my radio show Monday night and told me he had a “bombshell” to report. That “bombshell” was his belief that the birth certificate President Obama presented to the country after years of birther requests will be shown to be a fake. Boone said, “I’m not a birther…I’m a questioner.”
Boone: What I’m going to predict here is by September of this year, the major smoking gun, which is a high crime, not just a misdemeanor, but a high crime, that supposed copy of the birth certificate that is displayed on the White House website as we talk, by many experts has already proven not to be not a copy of anything, of something that perhaps doesn’t exist, which is an actual birth certificate, but it is a Photoshopped fraud created to look like what they wanted it to look like. And I say “they” because I don’t think it was the President himself but those around him. But experts who understand the techniques of these things, including a guy in my own office who knows how things are Photoshopped, and knows the telltale signs of things that have been pasted on to other documents or other things. It is obviously to anyone who knows that process is a fraud. It is not a copy of anything and that is a high crime.”
COLMES: Tell me how you know this.
BOONE: Well I’m talking to some people that they are trained detectives and investigators and I’ve been trying to get people in Congress to pay attention to these things and create. We should have to be us citizens saying, “Wait a minute, this thing doesn’t look real.”
COLMES: The State of Hawaii said this is a legitimate birth certificate
BOONE: There are trained investigators who are finding out, and I can’t divulge any more than I will make a prediction that by September of this year, it will be proven that that is not the case. And look, if there was a hospital in Hawaii, in which the President had been born, and they had a birth certificate to prove it, do you think there would be a plaque, something to indicate they’re proud.
COLMES: What I don’t understand is though Pat is two different Hawaiian publications within weeks of the birth of Barack Obama in 1961 there were notices, which are now on microfiche, you can find them, how can have appeared in Hawaiian newspapers within weeks of his birth, how did that happen?
BOONE: Well, the things that appeared in the paper were juts blanket announcements of his birth but they didn’t name a hospital or a birth certificate.
BOONE: For instance, just as an example, what if he was born in Mombasa? To a woman who could not get on the plane because she was too close to birth and after she delivered the baby she came to Honolulu because she wanted him to be known as an American citizen. What if her mother was working in the documents department?
COLMES: You believe he was not born in the United States?
BOONE: All I can tell you is I was in Mombasa just after he was elected and everybody there said, “You know you’re President was born here.” I brought home a T-shirt that said “Birthplace of the President of the United States.” Either the whole nation was fooled or there was something else going on.
COLMES: You also used the phrase “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” So are you suggesting that with this revelation were it to occur as your predicting that it would be an impeachable offense?
BOONE: Look, I’m not a constitutional law expert so all I’m saying is I’m not going to try to draw, you know, either a judgment or a verdict. But I’m saying there are facts, smoking guns on the table that a Congressional committee ought to at least if nothing else settle all the doubt and the allegations that have been made and show substantive proof. But if this thing is a fraud if is a Photoshopped fraud, then there has to be some kind of reason for that.
BOONE: I’m not a birther
COLMES: But it sounds like it Pat, you know that based on what you’re saying?
BOONE: I’m a questioner
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
Susan Wood June 24th, 2014 at 15:45
Oh yeah, we should really sit up and take notice of a great authority like a singer with a history of alcoholism who was famous 50 years ago and who’s trying to get a little more publicity before he shuffles off to his grave. What do Pat Boone, Donald Trump and Camille Paglia all have in common? Their 15 minutes of celebrity is long gone and they’ll say anything, ANYTHING, to get it back.
Susan Wood June 24th, 2014 at 15:45
Oh yeah, we should really sit up and take notice of a great authority like a singer with a history of alcoholism who was famous 50 years ago and who’s trying to get a little more publicity before he shuffles off to his grave. What do Pat Boone, Donald Trump and Camille Paglia all have in common? Their 15 minutes of celebrity is long gone and they’ll say anything, ANYTHING, to get it back.
fratdawgg23 June 24th, 2014 at 17:47
Instead of retiring with some dignity, the old minger is going on chat shows talking a nutter.
janetmamajo4 June 24th, 2014 at 20:25
It’s sad, really…Poor old fox-deluded Pat…. sigh
deb June 25th, 2014 at 01:54
Pat Boone has always been a right wing religious nut. He needs to keep his mouth shut. I’m embarrassed for him. He sounds delusional.
JayGoldenBeach June 24th, 2014 at 17:47
The federal security/intelligence agencies may not be so good at catching terrorists, but they darn sure would have caught a black man trying to become president with fake Photoshopped documents.
Instead of retiring with some dignity, this old minger is going on chat shows talking like a nutter.
janetmamajo4 June 24th, 2014 at 20:25
It’s sad, really…Poor old fox-deluded Pat…. sigh
deb June 25th, 2014 at 01:54
Pat Boone has always been a right wing religious nut. He needs to keep his mouth shut. I’m embarrassed for him. He sounds delusional.
William June 24th, 2014 at 18:44
including a guy in my own office who knows how things are Photoshopped….
Well, it’s pretty hard to argue with the boilerplate and long respected “a guy I know” evidence.
William June 24th, 2014 at 18:44
including a guy in my own office who knows how things are Photoshopped….
Well, it’s pretty hard to argue with the boilerplate and long respected “a guy I know” evidence.
Obewon June 24th, 2014 at 19:00
If Birther Pat Boon could pay attention, would he claim the looniest RWNJ’s at SCOTUS were covering-up by ruling ‘No valid evidence exists with any merit’ re Birther Queen Orly Taitz Smacked Down By Supreme Court! Upholds $20,000 ‘Frivolous’ Litigation Fine. -Alito June 16, 2010 rejected Taitz’s second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/birther-queen-orly-taitz_n_683188.html
Obewon June 24th, 2014 at 19:00
If birther Pat Boon paid attention, would he claim the looniest RWNJ’s at SCOTUS were covering-up by ruling ‘No valid evidence exists with any merit’ re Birther Queen Orly Taitz Smacked Down By Supreme Court! Upholds $20,000 ‘Frivolous’ Litigation Fine. Alito June 16, 2010 rejected Taitz’s second request to block the sanctions. After another Koch bros Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/birther-queen-orly-taitz_n_683188.html
John K Roberts June 24th, 2014 at 21:07
Pat Boone, once a popular “crooner” in the 1960s, is now crooning “Faux Fox TV Networks Bith-ers Conspiracy Theories”.
Pat Boone believes that the conspiracy stretches back 60 years and includes “someone” who inserted a “fake birth announcement” in a Hawaiian newspaper shortly after the president’s birth, so, that the baby might run for POTUS and turn ‘Murica into a Muslim country.
Once a Hill Billy – Always a Hill Billy! You can wash that SHIT out of their pinheads.
Shades June 25th, 2014 at 00:08
Any day now … they’re going to release the bombshell … any daaaaay noooooow.
Dwendt44 June 25th, 2014 at 00:31
Just don’t hold your breath waiting.
Linda June 25th, 2014 at 12:31
Actually, I wish Pat Boone and all of the birthers would hold their breath waiting.
William Carr June 25th, 2014 at 15:33
We’ll have a working Fusion Reactor long before they come up with anything.
I wonder if they’re going to forge a forgery and claim that was an early draft of Obama’s BC ?
It worked for Bush’s AWOL charges.
Shades June 25th, 2014 at 00:08
Any day now … they’re going to release the bombshell … any daaaaay noooooow.
Dwendt44 June 25th, 2014 at 00:31
Just don’t hold your breath waiting.
Linda June 25th, 2014 at 12:31
Actually, I wish Pat Boone and all of the birthers would hold their breath waiting.
William Carr June 25th, 2014 at 15:33
We’ll have a working Fusion Reactor long before they come up with anything.
I wonder if they’re going to forge a forgery and claim that was an early draft of Obama’s BC ?
It worked for Bush’s AWOL charges.
Mary Elizabeth Doman June 25th, 2014 at 00:14
Obama’s mother was an American. That makes Obama an American, no matter where he was born.
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 25th, 2014 at 00:54
And that is the most infuriating part. They knew the birth certificate meant NOTHING all along but we had to hear this birther crap for SIX YEARS…and they STILL haven’t shut up about it. I would LOVE to be the one to rub it in his smug, wrinkled old face. Maybe it will give him a heart attack and he can finally leave this world, thus doing us ALL a favor…:P
Dave B. June 25th, 2014 at 20:28
It might be infuriating if it were true. President Obama is a citizen of the United States because, and only because, he was born in the United States. If he’d been born outside the US, its outlying possessions, or the Panama Canal Zone, he wouldn’t have been born a US citizen in spite of having a US citizen mother.
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 25th, 2014 at 23:56
I do not believe that is true. You’ll have to show me where that is in the Constitution, which covers this subject in detail. And don’t forget where John McCain was born and how it NEVER came up. No problem for the GOP thugs, at ALL, because HE isn’t black. And regardless, it IS infuriating because all along they knew this birther bullshit wasn’t true, yet Donald Trump and the rest of the racist assholes have been making a fucking fortune spreading this UTTER bullshit. And WE had to hear about it CONSTANTLY. And we STILL ARE. Yes, INFURIATING.
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 02:12
Oh geez. What possesses people to say such things?
You show me where the Constitution covers the subject of citizenship through parents “in detail,” and I’ll eat the internet. The Constitution doesn’t say ONE WORD about citizenship by descent. Not…one…word. You know, you could just try reading it BEFORE making claims about what’s in it. It’s readily available online.
Nobody born outside the US can be or become a US citizen unless Congress has provided a statute for it, and then only if the requirements of that statute are perfectly met. This is the law that would’ve applied to your fictional foreign-born Obama, former Sec. 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act:
“(The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:)
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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirements of this paragraph.”
As of August 4, 1961, Ann Dunham Obama, who was born on November 29, 1961, had not yet satisfied that statute’s requirement of physical presence in the United States or its outlying possessions, and could not have transmitted US citizenship to a child born outside the US or its outlying possessions (or the Panama Canal Zone, for which there was no requirement of prior physical presence). So returning to where we started, the claim that
“Obama’s mother was an American. That makes Obama an American, no matter where he was born”
is erroneous, as is your accompanying assertion that
“the birth certificate meant NOTHING all along.”
The birth certificate that the President’s campaign made public before he was even nominated should’ve settled the matter for any rational, objective person. Mere facts aren’t enough to sway committed birthers, but if you go outside the facts, you’re on their home court. Why would you want to go there just to construct a failing argument?
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 18:56
“As of August 4, 1961, Ann Dunham Obama, who was born on November 29, 1961, had not yet satisfied that statute’s requirement of physical presence in the United States”
That law was amended:
“3. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and Foreign National Parent[8]
A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:
One parent is a foreign national and the other parent is a U.S. citizen; and
The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.”
That means Ann Dunham could have a child at 16 and still give birth to an American Citizen if she emigrated to the MOON.
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 20:10
No, sport, the amendment only applies to persons born on or after its effective date, November 14, 1986.
smrstrauss June 27th, 2014 at 11:46
Since Obama WAS born in the USA is there any useful purpose served in discussing a hypothetical that he wasn’t?
Dave B. June 27th, 2014 at 12:51
There certainly isn’t when one has to construct a fallacious argument in doing so.
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 19:02
Lincoln had the silly expectation that people would know “Natural Born” meant “not adopted”.
Imagine his dismay to find his own Party inventing rationales about “native born”.
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 20:03
Huh?
William Carr June 27th, 2014 at 09:41
“Natural born”. As in, a child of natural birth, not an adopted child from a foreign country.
America’s laws for adopted children inheriting are based on the laws of ancient Rome, IIRC.
The Founders were being specific; born in THIS country, OR born to American parents in a foreign country, but NOT a child adopted from a foreign country.
For example, John McCain’s “black” adopter daughter can be Naturalized, but she can’t, regrettably, be President.
She can run for Congress though.
Dave B. June 27th, 2014 at 12:50
“Adopted” may not be the most well-chosen word, because adopted, native born US citizens are, beyond doubt, eligible for the presidency.
There’s nothing novel, or singularly partisan, about “inventing rationales about “native born”.” I don’t have a problem with the eligibility of persons who acquire US citizenship by being “born to American parents in a foreign country,” but it does require inventing some rationale to allow for it.
William Carr July 2nd, 2014 at 20:54
Adopted, AMERICAN born children are eligible for the Presidency by default.
I didn’t think I needed to address that.
Adopted, foreign born children of foreign born parents will be naturalized, but they are not “natural born” American citizens and can never run for President.
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 26th, 2014 at 20:43
http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm
http://ivn.us/2013/08/13/defining-natural-born-citizen/
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582
Now, would you like to continue arguing, although we are on the same side? I hate people who think they know everything. They really annoy those of us who do. ;)
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 21:28
Good grief. If we’re “on the same side,” why are you using BIRTHER sites as references?
Your first reference refers to the President’s birth certificate as “an obvious forgery.”
Your second reference is an uninformed mishmash by an author with no authoritative credentials.
Your third reference not only DOESN’T support your point, it argues against President Obama’s eligibility, even if taking for granted that he was born in the United States.
And none of your references indicate where citizenship through parents is covered “in detail” (or AT ALL) in the US Constitution.
The comment that got us started here:
“Obama’s mother was an American. That makes Obama an American, no matter where he was born,”
is ERRONEOUS in its conclusion. That kind of misinformation does not go without serious consequences. I know of numerous cases in which persons lost their best chance at easily becoming US citizens because, believing as the commenter above does, they thought they already WERE US citizens. These cases can result in great hardship– family separations, economic losses, deprivation of rights, deportation and permanent inadmissibility to the United States. So yeah, I will agree that people who think they know MORE than they actually do can be pretty annoying.
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 27th, 2014 at 16:34
FFS, you really love hearing yourself talk, doncha? Are you claiming that Obama was born out of this country? Then STFU, dude, no one cares what you think. Argue with yourself, it’s more entertaining to the rest of us.
Dave B. June 27th, 2014 at 17:46
Of course I’m not “claiming that Obama was born out of this country.” You’re the one going along with that birther fantasy, not me.
Look, if this is how you react to the FACTS, how are you that much different from the birthers?
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 29th, 2014 at 18:21
Where the hell did you get the stupid idea I was claiming that he was born in another country? Or that I believe the birthers? Reading comprehension much? You have really got a problem that might need professional help. Or the services of someone to help you understand what the hell you are reading. Know any 1st grade teachers?
Dave B. June 29th, 2014 at 18:43
Let me get this straight: you have this kind of angry, over-the-top reaction to somebody pointing out that you’re mistaken about something, and I’M the one who “might need professional help”?
JP June 29th, 2014 at 10:52
Ann Dunham Obama was born in 1942 in Wichita, Kansas. She graduated from high school in1960 from a school near Seattle, Washington
Dave B. June 25th, 2014 at 20:30
It’s NEVER been true that every child born to an American mother will be born an American citizen; and on August 4, 1961, Ann Dunham Obama couldn’t have given birth to an American citizen anywhere in the world outside the US, its outlying possessions, or the Panama Canal Zone. Since she WASN’T outside the US, why worry about it?
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 18:48
Nope.
If an American Citizen that has spent at least 14 years living IN the USA has a child, that child is an American Citizen by birth.
That’s how it works.
Now… if THAT child grows up and has a child, but NEVER returns to live in America, the grandchild will not be an American citizen by default.
For example, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
The fact he had two American parents is immaterial. There’s literally nothing in the Law that says two parents is a lock-in for Citizenship.
One is sufficient. And no, being born on an Army Base isn’t a qualifier.
There’s nothing magic about the Panama Canal Zone. It’s not American Soil.
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 20:01
No, that’s NOT “how it works.” That “at least 14 years living IN the USA” isn’t reflected in ANY US nationality law, past or present. Knowing that an American citizen parent “has spent at least 14 years living IN the USA” is not sufficient by itself IN ANY CASE for establishing that citizenship can be transmitted, and there’s case after case that demonstrates the point.
By way of illustration, under current law a person who has been continuously present in the United States for the first 14 years of his or her life, then leaves the United States and has a child in wedlock with an alien before returning to the United States will NOT transmit US citizenship to that child.
Under current law, a US citizen mother who has RESIDED in the United States (or its outlying possessions) for at least 14 years, but who has traveled abroad on an annual basis, thus never being physically present in the US or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one full year, will NOT transmit US citizenship to a child born out of wedlock, outside the US.
Under current law, a US citizen father who has continuously resided in the United States for ANY length of time, no matter how long, will not transmit US citizenship to a child born out of wedlock outside the US unless certain additional requirements are satisfied.
Concerning the Panama Canal Zone– you’re right, it wasn’t American soil. It was, however, the ONLY place in the world outside the United States where there was EVER no requirement in addition to citizenship in order for a US citizen parent to transmit citizenship. To this day, a US citizen employed by the US government need not have ever been a resident of or physically present in the US or its outlying possessions to transmit US citizenship to a child born anywhere in Panama– an artifact of the law providing for citizenship at birth in the Canal Zone.
William Carr June 27th, 2014 at 09:47
“By way of illustration, under current law a person who has been continuously present in the United States for the first 14 years of his or her life, then leaves the United States and has a child in wedlock with an alien before returning to the United States will NOT transmit US citizenship to that child. “
I don’t know how you got so confused on this issue.
3. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and Foreign National Parent[8]
A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:
One parent is a foreign national and the other parent is a U.S. citizen; and
The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.”
Dave B. June 27th, 2014 at 12:35
I don’t know how you confuse someone “who has been continuously present in the United States for the first 14
years of his or her life, then leaves the United States and has a child in wedlock with an alien before returning to the United States” with someone who was “physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.” Speaking of confusion, may I remind you that I was replying to your original, UNEDITED comment, which read,
“Nope.
If an American Citizen that has spent at least 14 years living IN the USA has a child, that child is an American Citizen by birth.
That’s how it works.
Now… if THAT child grows up and has a child, but NEVER
returns to live in America, the grandchild will not be an American citizen by default.
For example, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
The fact he had two American parents is immaterial. There’s literally nothing in the Law that says two parents is a lock-in for Citizenship.
One is sufficient. And no, being born on an Army Base isn’t a qualifier.
There’s nothing magic about the Panama Canal Zone. It’s not American Soil.”
You want to rethink that “confusion” thing?
William Carr July 1st, 2014 at 13:41
Let’s try again.
“I don’t know how you confuse someone “who has been continuously present in the United States for the first 14 years of his or her life, then leaves the United States and has a child in wedlock with an alien before returning to the United States” with someone who was “physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.””
The Residency Requirement is so people whose parents were American Citizens, and were raised in the United States, will be American Citizens themselves.
BUT… if the offspring doesn’t emigrate to the United States themselves, and live there for at least five years, the GRANDCHILDREN will not be American citizens.
It’s not that complicated, darn it !
You could go on this way forever.
A person raised in America goes to live in Japan; he has a child there.
He returns to America, and the child, an American citizen, resides in America for five years, at least two years of which are over the age of 14.
Then the adult, AMERICAN child returns to Japan, marries, has a child there, and THAT child is an American Citizen.
Which in turn, comes to America, puts in the Residency Requirement, and goes back to Japan to get married and continue the cycle.
Residency Requirements are a safety check.
We wouldn’t want a third or fourth generation Japanese American raised only in Japan to come to America and run for President without having ever lived here.
It’s like Massachusetts, and their seven-consecutive-year Residency requirement to run for Governor.
Which Mitt Romney simply bought his way out of, when he returned from Utah after living there for years and ran for Governor.
It’s an “anti-carpet-bagger” rule.
Yes, I edited my post. I’d gone with something similar to your original quote, but then I looked it up and discovered the Law had been amended.
As written, the original policy would mean that an American woman couldn’t marry before the age of 19 and still have an American child on foreign soil.
It’s moot; being born in Hawaii clears the deck entirely.
Dave B. July 1st, 2014 at 14:26
To begin with, that particular requirement is not a “residency requirement”; it’s a requirement of physical presence in the US or its outlying possessions. It’s possible for a person to satisfy the ENTIRE physical presence requirement without ever being a resident of the US or its outlying possessions. If the statute’s proviso applies, a person can satisfy the requirement without ever so much as setting foot in the US or its outlying possessions. Conversely, a person who has had a residence throughout the specified period may not necessarily satisfy the physical presence requirement. And I understand its purpose perfectly well.
You misstated the requirement in your original unedited comment, which is why I disputed what you said; and the law has NEVER been what you originally stated it to be. It certainly didn’t “mean that an American woman couldn’t marry before the age of 19 and still have an American child on foreign soil.” You might want to edit that one, too.
The hypothetical cases to which I referred are all valid and accurate illustrations of the effect of the law– and it IS complicated, far more than you think. A person who would be a US citizen if his or her parents were married may be an alien if they were not married. Another person who would be a US citizen if his parents were NOT married may be an alien if they were. Whether or not a person is born a US citizen can depend on whether the sole US citizen parent is the father or the mother. Whether or not a person is born a US citizen can even depend upon where that person is living when they apply for proof of citizenship.
But going back to where we started, what error do you see in my original comment on this thread, to which you made your first reply? I assure you, what I said is entirely in accord with US law.
William Carr July 2nd, 2014 at 20:59
If it was a requirement of physical presence, it would SAY so.
“Jane Smith cannot give birth to a Native Born child unless her butt is sitting inside US Borders or the Panama Canal Zone”.
It’s not “physical presence” because it is a required waiting period.
You seem to think this is all so complicated, but I read the website concerning the law.
There are only a few variants on the theme.
This is a residency period, just as people applying to be naturalized have a residency period.
AFTER the period is over, they can go where they like.
Dave B. July 2nd, 2014 at 22:26
Uh, read the statute–it DOES say so. That’s a pretty big DUH.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
I suggest you start bringing yourself up to speed– because you seem like a nice enough guy, and I’d hate to see you go on embarrassing yourself by saying things like “I read the website concerning the law– by reading pages 17-25 of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1130, “Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parent.” You also might want to read the section on “Guidance for Determining Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Children Born Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents Under INA 301(c),” beginning on page 35, for some further explanation of the difference between residence and physical presence.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
And if you still think it’s not complicated, I suggest you read this:
http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/47-2/47arizlrev313.pdf
And maybe these:
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2013/MAY132013_01E2309.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2013/MAY202013_02E2309.pdf
Read all that, and get back to me about how “uncomplicated” it is.
Mary Elizabeth Doman June 25th, 2014 at 00:14
Obama’s mother was an American. That makes Obama an American, no matter where he was born.
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 25th, 2014 at 00:54
And that is the most infuriating part. They knew the birth certificate meant NOTHING all along but we had to hear this birther crap for SIX YEARS…and they STILL haven’t shut up about it. I would LOVE to be the one to rub it in his smug, wrinkled old face. Maybe it will give him a heart attack and he can finally leave this world, thus doing us ALL a favor…:P
Dave B. June 25th, 2014 at 20:28
It might be infuriating if it were true. President Obama is a citizen of the United States because, and only because, he was born in the United States. If he’d been born outside the US, its outlying possessions, or the Panama Canal Zone, he wouldn’t have been born a US citizen in spite of having a US citizen mother.
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 25th, 2014 at 23:56
I do not believe that is true. You’ll have to show me where that is in the Constitution, which covers this subject in detail. And don’t forget where John McCain was born and how it NEVER came up. No problem for the GOP thugs, at ALL, because HE isn’t black. And regardless, it IS infuriating because all along they knew this birther bullshit wasn’t true AND DIDN’T MATTER, yet Donald Trump and the rest of these racist politicians have been making a fucking fortune spreading this UTTER bullshit. And WE had to hear about it CONSTANTLY. And we STILL ARE.
Yes, INFURIATING.
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 02:12
Oh geez. What possesses people to say such things?
You show me where the Constitution covers the subject of citizenship through parents “in detail,” and I’ll eat the internet. The Constitution doesn’t say ONE WORD about citizenship by descent. Not…one…word. You know, you could just try reading it BEFORE making claims about what’s in it. It’s readily available online.
Nobody born outside the US can be or become a US citizen unless Congress has provided a statute for it, and then only if the requirements of that statute are perfectly met. This is the law that would’ve applied to your fictional foreign-born Obama, former Sec. 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act:
“(The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:)
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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirements of this paragraph.”
As of August 4, 1961, Ann Dunham Obama, who was born on November 29, 1961, had not yet satisfied that statute’s requirement of physical presence in the United States or its outlying possessions, and could not have transmitted US citizenship to a child born outside the US or its outlying possessions (or the Panama Canal Zone, for which there was no requirement of prior physical presence). So returning to where we started, the claim that
“Obama’s mother was an American. That makes Obama an American, no matter where he was born”
is erroneous, as is your accompanying assertion that
“the birth certificate meant NOTHING all along.”
The birth certificate that the President’s campaign made public before he was even nominated should’ve settled the matter for any rational, objective person. Mere facts aren’t enough to sway committed birthers, but if you go outside the facts, you’re on their home court. Why would you want to go there just to construct a failing argument?
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 18:56
“As of August 4, 1961, Ann Dunham Obama, who was born on November 29, 1961, had not yet satisfied that statute’s requirement of physical presence in the United States”
That law was amended:
“3. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and Foreign National Parent[8]
A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:
One parent is a foreign national and the other parent is a U.S. citizen; and
The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.”
That means Ann Dunham could have a child at 16 and still give birth to an American Citizen if she emigrated to the MOON.
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 20:10
No, sport, the amendment only applies to persons born on or after its effective date, November 14, 1986.
smrstrauss June 27th, 2014 at 11:46
Since Obama WAS born in the USA is there any useful purpose served in discussing a hypothetical that he wasn’t?
Dave B. June 27th, 2014 at 12:51
There certainly isn’t when one has to construct a fallacious argument in doing so.
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 19:02
Lincoln had the silly expectation that people would know “Natural Born” meant “not adopted”.
Imagine his dismay to find his own Party inventing rationales about “native born”.
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 20:03
Huh?
William Carr June 27th, 2014 at 09:41
“Natural born”. As in, a child of natural birth, not an adopted child from a foreign country.
America’s laws for adopted children inheriting are based on the laws of ancient Rome, IIRC.
The Founders were being specific; born in THIS country, OR born to American parents in a foreign country, but NOT a child adopted from a foreign country.
For example, John McCain’s “black” adopter daughter can be Naturalized, but she can’t, regrettably, be President.
She can run for Congress though.
Dave B. June 27th, 2014 at 12:50
“Adopted” may not be the most well-chosen word, because adopted, native born US citizens are, beyond doubt, eligible for the presidency.
There’s nothing novel, or singularly partisan, about “inventing rationales about “native born”.” I don’t have a problem with the eligibility of persons who acquire US citizenship by being “born to American parents in a foreign country,” but it does require inventing some rationale to allow for it.
William Carr July 2nd, 2014 at 20:54
Adopted, AMERICAN born children are eligible for the Presidency by default.
I didn’t think I needed to address that.
Adopted, foreign born children of foreign born parents will be naturalized, but they are not “natural born” American citizens and can never run for President.
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 26th, 2014 at 20:43
http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm
http://ivn.us/2013/08/13/defining-natural-born-citizen/
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582
Now, would you like to continue arguing, although we are on the same side? I hate people who think they know everything. They really annoy those of us who do. ;)
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 21:28
Good grief. If we’re “on the same side,” why are you using BIRTHER sites as references?
Your first reference refers to the President’s birth certificate as “an obvious forgery.”
Your second reference is an uninformed mishmash by an author with no authoritative credentials.
Your third reference not only DOESN’T support your point, it argues against President Obama’s eligibility, even if taking for granted that he was born in the United States.
And none of your references indicate where citizenship through parents is covered “in detail” (or AT ALL) in the US Constitution.
The comment that got us started here:
“Obama’s mother was an American. That makes Obama an American, no matter where he was born,”
is ERRONEOUS in its conclusion. That kind of misinformation does not go without serious consequences. I know of numerous cases in which persons lost their best chance at easily becoming US citizens because, believing as the commenter above does, they thought they already WERE US citizens. These cases can result in great hardship– family separations, economic losses, deprivation of rights, deportation and permanent inadmissibility to the United States. So yeah, I will agree that people who think they know MORE than they actually do can be pretty annoying.
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 27th, 2014 at 16:34
FFS, you really love hearing yourself talk, doncha? Are you claiming that Obama was born out of this country? Then STFU, dude, no one cares what you think. Argue with yourself, it’s more entertaining to the rest of us.
Dave B. June 27th, 2014 at 17:46
Of course I’m not “claiming that Obama was born out of this country.” You’re the one going along with that birther fantasy, not me.
Look, if this is how you react to the FACTS, how are you that much different from the birthers?
MyKarmaRanOverYourDogma June 29th, 2014 at 18:21
Where the hell did you get the stupid idea I was claiming that he was born in another country? Or that I believe the birthers? Reading comprehension much? You have really got a problem that might need professional help. Or the services of someone to help you understand what the hell you are reading. Know any 1st grade teachers?
Dave B. June 29th, 2014 at 18:43
Let me get this straight: you have this kind of angry, over-the-top reaction to somebody pointing out that you’re mistaken about something, and I’M the one who “might need professional help”?
JP June 29th, 2014 at 10:52
Ann Dunham Obama was born in 1942 in Wichita, Kansas. She graduated from high school in1960 from a school near Seattle, Washington
Dave B. June 25th, 2014 at 20:30
It’s NEVER been true that every child born to an American mother will be born an American citizen; and on August 4, 1961, Ann Dunham Obama couldn’t have given birth to an American citizen anywhere in the world outside the US, its outlying possessions, or the Panama Canal Zone. Since she WASN’T outside the US, why worry about it?
William Carr June 26th, 2014 at 18:48
Nope.
If an American Citizen that has spent at least 5 years living IN the USA with two years of that being over the age of 14 has a child, that child is an American Citizen by birth.
That’s how it works.
Now… if THAT child grows up and has a child, but NEVER returns to live in America for at least 5 years, the grandchild will not be an American citizen by default.
Dave B. June 26th, 2014 at 20:01
No, that’s NOT “how it works.” That “at least 14 years living IN the USA” isn’t reflected in ANY US nationality law, past or present. Knowing that an American citizen parent “has spent at least 14 years living IN the USA” is not sufficient by itself IN ANY CASE for establishing that citizenship can be transmitted, and there’s case after case that demonstrates the point.
By way of illustration, under current law a person who has been continuously present in the United States for the first 14 years of his or her life, then leaves the United States and has a child in wedlock with an alien before returning to the United States will NOT transmit US citizenship to that child.
Under current law, a US citizen mother who has RESIDED in the United States (or its outlying possessions) for at least 14 years, but who has traveled abroad on an annual basis, thus never being physically present in the US or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one full year, will NOT transmit US citizenship to a child born out of wedlock, outside the US.
Under current law, a US citizen father who has continuously resided in the United States for ANY length of time, no matter how long, will not transmit US citizenship to a child born out of wedlock outside the US unless certain additional requirements are satisfied.
Concerning the Panama Canal Zone– you’re right, it wasn’t American soil. It was, however, the ONLY place in the world outside the United States where there was EVER no requirement in addition to citizenship in order for a US citizen parent to transmit citizenship. To this day, a US citizen employed by the US government need not have ever been a resident of or physically present in the US or its outlying possessions to transmit US citizenship to a child born anywhere in Panama– an artifact of the law providing for citizenship at birth in the Canal Zone.
William Carr June 27th, 2014 at 09:47
“By way of illustration, under current law a person who has been continuously present in the United States for the first 14 years of his or her life, then leaves the United States and has a child in wedlock with an alien before returning to the United States will NOT transmit US citizenship to that child. “
I don’t know how you got so confused on this issue.
3. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and Foreign National Parent[8]
A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:
One parent is a foreign national and the other parent is a U.S. citizen; and
The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.”
Dave B. June 27th, 2014 at 12:35
I don’t know how you confuse someone “who has been continuously present in the United States for the first 14
years of his or her life, then leaves the United States and has a child in wedlock with an alien before returning to the United States” with someone who was “physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.” Speaking of confusion, may I remind you that I was replying to your original, UNEDITED comment, which read,
“Nope.
If an American Citizen that has spent at least 14 years living IN the USA has a child, that child is an American Citizen by birth.
That’s how it works.
Now… if THAT child grows up and has a child, but NEVER
returns to live in America, the grandchild will not be an American citizen by default.
For example, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
The fact he had two American parents is immaterial. There’s literally nothing in the Law that says two parents is a lock-in for Citizenship.
One is sufficient. And no, being born on an Army Base isn’t a qualifier.
There’s nothing magic about the Panama Canal Zone. It’s not American Soil.”
You want to rethink that “confusion” thing?
William Carr July 1st, 2014 at 13:41
Let’s try again.
“I don’t know how you confuse someone “who has been continuously present in the United States for the first 14 years of his or her life, then leaves the United States and has a child in wedlock with an alien before returning to the United States” with someone who was “physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.””
The Residency Requirement is so people whose parents were American Citizens, and were raised in the United States, will be American Citizens themselves.
BUT… if the offspring doesn’t emigrate to the United States themselves, and live there for at least five years, the GRANDCHILDREN will not be American citizens.
It’s not that complicated, darn it !
You could go on this way forever.
A person raised in America goes to live in Japan; he has a child there.
He returns to America, and the child, an American citizen, resides in America for five years, at least two years of which are over the age of 14.
Then the adult, AMERICAN child returns to Japan, marries, has a child there, and THAT child is an American Citizen.
Which in turn, comes to America, puts in the Residency Requirement, and goes back to Japan to get married and continue the cycle.
Residency Requirements are a safety check.
We wouldn’t want a third or fourth generation Japanese American raised only in Japan to come to America and run for President without having ever lived here.
It’s like Massachusetts, and their seven-consecutive-year Residency requirement to run for Governor.
Which Mitt Romney simply bought his way out of, when he returned from Utah after living there for years and ran for Governor.
It’s an “anti-carpet-bagger” rule.
Yes, I edited my post. I’d gone with something similar to your original quote, but then I looked it up and discovered the Law had been amended.
As written, the original policy would mean that an American woman couldn’t marry before the age of 19 and still have an American child on foreign soil.
It’s moot; being born in Hawaii clears the deck entirely.
Dave B. July 1st, 2014 at 14:26
To begin with, that particular requirement is not a “residency requirement”; it’s a requirement of physical presence in the US or its outlying possessions. It’s possible for a person to satisfy the ENTIRE physical presence requirement without ever being a resident of the US or its outlying possessions. If the statute’s proviso applies, a person can satisfy the requirement without ever so much as setting foot in the US or its outlying possessions. Conversely, a person who has had a residence throughout the specified period may not necessarily satisfy the physical presence requirement. And I understand its purpose perfectly well.
You misstated the requirement in your original unedited comment, which is why I disputed what you said; and the law has NEVER been what you originally stated it to be. It certainly didn’t “mean that an American woman couldn’t marry before the age of 19 and still have an American child on foreign soil.” You might want to edit that one, too.
The hypothetical cases to which I referred are all valid and accurate illustrations of the effect of the law– and it IS complicated, far more than you think. A person who would be a US citizen if his or her parents were married may be an alien if they were not married. Another person who would be a US citizen if his parents were NOT married may be an alien if they were. Whether or not a person is born a US citizen can depend on whether the sole US citizen parent is the father or the mother. Whether or not a person is born a US citizen can even depend upon where that person is living when they apply for proof of citizenship.
But going back to where we started, what error do you see in my original comment on this thread, to which you made your first reply? I assure you, what I said is entirely in accord with US law.
William Carr July 2nd, 2014 at 20:59
If it was a requirement of physical presence, it would SAY so.
“Jane Smith cannot give birth to a Native Born child unless her butt is sitting inside US Borders or the Panama Canal Zone”.
It’s not “physical presence” because it is a required waiting period.
You seem to think this is all so complicated, but I read the website concerning the law.
There are only a few variants on the theme.
This is a residency period, just as people applying to be naturalized have a residency period.
AFTER the period is over, they can go where they like.
Dave B. July 2nd, 2014 at 22:26
Uh, read the statute–it DOES say so. That’s a pretty big DUH.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
I suggest you start bringing yourself up to speed– because you seem like a nice enough guy, and I’d hate to see you go on embarrassing yourself by saying things like “I read the website concerning the law”– by reading pages 17-25 of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1130, “Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parent.” You also might want to read the section on “Guidance for Determining Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Children Born Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents Under INA 301(c),” beginning on page 35, for some further explanation of the difference between residence and physical presence.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
And if you still think it’s not complicated, I suggest you read this:
http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/47-2/47arizlrev313.pdf
And maybe these:
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2013/MAY132013_01E2309.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2013/MAY202013_02E2309.pdf
Read all that, and get back to me about how “uncomplicated” it is.
eracer_x June 25th, 2014 at 01:22
Well that was amusing. Expert = a guy in my office who knows how things are Photoshopped.
eracer_x June 25th, 2014 at 01:22
Well that was amusing. Expert = a guy in my office who knows how things are Photoshopped.
BeeCone June 25th, 2014 at 01:36
Why September, why not right now?
BeeCone June 25th, 2014 at 01:36
Why September, why not right now?
Jeffrey Samuels June 25th, 2014 at 11:22
When I first saw this headline, I thought it read that Pat Boone’s birth certificate would be proven a fraud by September. ” a difference that makes no difference is no difference” I guess
junesxing June 25th, 2014 at 11:22
When I first saw this headline, I thought it read that Pat Boone’s birth certificate would be proven a fraud by September. ” a difference that makes no difference is no difference” I guess
Linda June 25th, 2014 at 12:30
If he’s a questioner maybe he should ask himself how on earth he can believe such bs. There are people who would pay $$$$$$ to have verifiable proof that the president’s birth certificate is fake. It’s been six years. Wise up, bigot.