Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[CptColumbo]

If Barack Obama's name was Grahm Wellington and his father was originally from the United Kingdom (and he was white) this wouldn't be an issue to these people.

Out of curiosity:
If President Obama was born in Kenya in 1961, would he be a UK citizen?

 

[CptColumbo]

When I was applying for a US passport in the mid-80s I had to go to the county seat where I was born, the clerk would go in back and come out with a photocopy of my "certificate of live birth" (IIRC I was not allowed to see the original) then a notary would stamp it to certify that it was an actual copy. This certificate the usual information (birthdate/sex/weight/etc). It also had my parents names and places of birth and age, the hospital where I was born (which doesn't exist anymore), and the doctor's signature.

When I re-applied for one two years ago (my old one had expired and I couldn't find it) I received a printout that certified one was there and it was stamped. None of the additional information was present and I got a US passport.


If the "birther" movement wants to convince me that President Obama was not born in the US they have to porduce more evidence then they have. Provide documentation that contradicts that his mother was in Hawaii at the time (flight records, boat tickets, ETC). The same holds for those that doubt he went to the schools that have records of him being there. He had to be someplace if he wasn't at Occidental. Produce a lease on an appartment or employment records. The opposition has already produced all that is needed to prove he was born in Hawaii. Rather just sitting around saying that the COLB isn't good enough and if this issue is as important as you believe it is and you love your country, doing some work would seem a reasonable request.

 

[drkitten]

does this include citizens of another country on vacation in the USA, who happen to go into labor?

Yes. The only exception are for foreign diplomats and such who are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States by virtue of diplomatic immunity. Ordinary tourists are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the US (as a lot of foreign nationals in prison have found out) and their children are therefore citizens.

My understanding is there's something of a cottage industry of women with late-term pregnancies coming to the States for exactly this reason.

 

[drkitten]

Sorry, you misread the question. I wasn't asking "are you a natural born citizen" I was asking "are you granted citizenship." The law at the time of Obama's birth would have ruled him ineligible for citizenship had he been born outside of the US (his mother would not have met the "residence in the United States" requirements). It appears that under current law, however, a child born to a US woman and a non-US man outside the US when the woman was the same age as Obama's mother at the time of his birth would be regarded as a US citizen. So my question (leaving the whole "what does natural born mean" question entirely to one side) is what citizenship law is applied to someone born in the same year as Obama: the law that prevailed at the time of birth or the current law?

Time of birth, unless the change in law is explicitly made retroactive.

ETA I believe, in fact, that the new law (the changed law) was even explicitly made NON-retroactive to make this point perfectly clear to even the dumbest of immigration judges.

 

[Yoink]

Time of birth, unless the change in law is explicitly made retroactive.

ETA I believe, in fact, that the new law (the changed law) was even explicitly made NON-retroactive to make this point perfectly clear to even the dumbest of immigration judges.

Thanks.

Of course, Congress has the power to change that law, so they could retroactively declare that anybody ever born to one American-citizen parent had citizenship rights. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would make of the "natural born citizen" clause in such a case. If you weren't considered a citizen at the time of your birth, but later became a citizen "by birth" are you a "natural born citizen"? Very "angels on the head of a pin" of course.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes. The only exception are for foreign diplomats and such who are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States by virtue of diplomatic immunity. Ordinary tourists are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the US (as a lot of foreign nationals in prison have found out) and their children are therefore citizens.

This happened (accidentally) to a girl I was at school with. She was born in the USA prematurely while her parents were only visiting.

I recall her saying she was technically American (despite never having returned in all her 15 years) but her parents hadn't done anything about it because she was a girl. If she'd been a boy (she said) they'd have had to do something to get rid of the citizenship or she'd have been called up to fight in Vietnam.

I have no idea how accurate this is, but it was what she told us. I imagine she had British citizenship as of right also.

Rolfe.

 

[drkitten]

This happened (accidentally) to a girl I was at school with. She was born in the USA prematurely while her parents were only visiting.

I recall her saying she was technically American (despite never having returned in all her 15 years) but her parents hadn't done anything about it because she was a girl. If she'd been a boy (she said) they'd have had to do something to get rid of the citizenship or she'd have been called up to fight in Vietnam.

I have no idea how accurate this is, but it was what she told us. I imagine she had British citizenship as of right also.

Sounds good/right/correct to me, with the exception that I'm not sure she would have been called up to fight in Vietnam. The draft rules at the time were rather complex (still are). But dual nationals not in residence are/were more or less automatically classified as category 4-C, which in turn would make them ineligible for the draft.

But that certainly sounds like the sort of thing that someone would believe. Especially if they had not bothered to check (which they would not have done for a point of merely academic interest).

 

[GlennB]

This happened (accidentally) to a girl I was at school with. She was born in the USA prematurely while her parents were only visiting.

I recall her saying she was technically American ....

If true, this is a totally daft law. You can become a citizen of a country by accident of premature labour as your mother is passing through?
Potty.

 

[Rolfe]

Sounds good/right/correct to me, with the exception that I'm not sure she would have been called up to fight in Vietnam. The draft rules at the time were rather complex (still are). But dual nationals not in residence are/were more or less automatically classified as category 4-C, which in turn would make them ineligible for the draft.

But that certainly sounds like the sort of thing that someone would believe. Especially if they had not bothered to check (which they would not have done for a point of merely academic interest).

Mmmm, she might have said "might have been called up to fight in Vietnam". I suppose at the time nobody could be sure the rules wouldn't be changed to make non-resident dual nationals eligible.

I don't imagine there would have been any danger of them applying to extradite a Scottish teenager to be drafted, but on the other hand it could have been a nuisance being unable to travel to the USA for fear of finding yourself in uniform!

Rolfe.

 

[dudalb]

If true, this is a totally daft law. You can become a citizen of a country by accident of premature labour as your mother is passing through?
Potty.

I agree. But it is a fact.
Nicole Kidman is a US Citizen despite both her parents being Austrailian Citizens and never having taken up legal residence in the US because she was born prematurely while her parents were on vacation in Hawaii...a lot like the case mentioned above.

 

[drkitten]

If true, this is a totally daft law. You can become a citizen of a country by accident of premature labour as your mother is passing through?
Potty.

Why? What's potty about it? Being a citizen of a country conveys no obligations on you (esp. as the US allows you to renounce your citizenship more or less at will). On the other hand, having a very clear and simple bright line defining citizenship prevents the establishment of second-class long-term residents.

Japan has had a lot of problem with this sort of thing. For example, the "zainichi" problem : Korean citizens, many of whom were forcibly brought to Japan during the Manchurian War as slave laborers, and many more of whom are the descendants of such slaves.

 

[tsig]

Thanks.

Of course, Congress has the power to change that law, so they could retroactively declare that anybody ever born to one American-citizen parent had citizenship rights. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would make of the "natural born citizen" clause in such a case. If you weren't considered a citizen at the time of your birth, but later became a citizen "by birth" are you a "natural born citizen"? Very "angels on the head of a pin" of course.

I think that would fall foul of the US Constitution:

"In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of section 10."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

 

[Arus808]

Guess boyntonstu got so owned in this thread, he had to leave....when subjected to facts the scum scurry away

 

[Travis]

Are we really surprised when Woo's abandon their own threads after having their ideas slammed?

 

[Upchurch]

If the situation was reversed and McCain was President, I would support releasing McCain's documents. (Had he refused)

uh-huh.

Here it is. The circles are from when we were trying to see what the faded text said. Note it says "certificate of live birth" as well.

Looking at the two certificates, it turns out that McCain provided less information than Obama did.

FAIL

 

[ktesibios]

I think that would fall foul of the US Constitution:

"In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of section 10."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

I doubt this. The exact language of Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution is

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Source

Note the association of ex post facto law with bills of attainder.

What is a bill of attainder? According to wiki:

A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial...

Bills of attainder were sometimes criticized as a convenient way for the King to convict subjects of crimes and confiscate their property without the bother of a trial—and without the need for a conviction or indeed any evidence at all.

Source

As I understand it, the prohibition of ex post facto laws is to prevent the gummint from making an end run around the prohibition of attainder by declaring some act to be illegal and then prosecuting their target for committing that act before the law was passed. Sometimes it's helpful to remember that the Constitution was written by people who were seeking to avoid some of the nastier features of the European monarchies which were the norm at the time- notably the tendency to define "crime" as "pissing off the king".

in Yoink's hypothetical scenario nobody would be deprived of life, liberty or property nor of any benefit deriving from US citizenship; in fact, the set of people entitled to the benefits of citizenship would be enlarged. In this scenario I can't understand how a Constitutional provision designed to protect the people from being abused by authority would apply.

 

[Meadmaker]

If true, this is a totally daft law. You can become a citizen of a country by accident of premature labour as your mother is passing through?
Potty.

I believe the issue is that the Consitution says that all persons born in the United States are citizens. Of course, in 1789, it didn't occur to anyone that you could just visit the country for a day, and have a baby while you were there, but it's right there in the Constitution. It would be difficult to change it, and there's no strong incentive to do so.

The biggest issue it causes has to do with children of illegal immigrants. If born here, they are citizens whether or not their parents are citizens.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think that would fall foul of the US Constitution:

"In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of section 10."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

You can have laws whose effects are retroactive, as long as those laws don't criminalize behavior that has already happened. I was marginally surprised when, in 1993 Congress passed a tax increase that was retroactive to income earned before the tax increase was passed. I thought that might run afoul of the ex post facto clause, but it didn't. Apparently, that issue had been settled long ago, and quite decisively. Challenges on those grounds weren't taken seriously.

 

[timhau]

Looking at the two certificates, it turns out that McCain provided less information than Obama did.

However, he looks more American and his middle name is Sidney.

 

[GlennB]

Why? What's potty about it?

The parents are not US citizens and are not in the process of applying.
They have no right of residence. In fact their visas almost certainly create an obligation to get the hell out sooner or later.

In fact the exsitence of such a law creates a huge loophole whereby a mother in late pregnancy could be encouraged to travel around the US, possibly illegally, in the hope she'll drop her sprog on US soil and earn these rights for the sprog.

Nah. Look after the mum and child until they are fit to travel, then help them on the way to their intended destination when it all happened. Easy.