Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[D'rok]

I'm all aglow with schadenfreude right now. Awesome smackdown.

 

[D'rok]

And she says she'll refuse to pay. This is gonna get really ugly in the best possible way.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...aitz_responds_to_judges_20k_fine_sho.php#more

 

[MervinFerd]

The reason is basically that the powers-that-be don't want to be granting US citizenship to people with essentially no connection to the US (as, for instance, Israel does).


Obama's mother hadn't lived in the US for long enough.

I'm bumping this thread just to raise this question, in the hope someone knowledgeable will address it:

Mom Obama was, when he was born, a life-long resident and citizen of the US. Under the law in force in 1962, as described elsewhere in this thread, it was logically impossible for her to have satisfied the requirement. If you are 19 yo, you cannot have lived 5 years in the US after your 16th birthday, no matter how hard you try.

It's hard to believe this was Congress's intent, or that this was a workable policy. It could result in a child having no citizenship at all: If Mom is a 20 yo resident and citizen of the US but gives birth while traveling in a country that does not grant citizenship on the basis of birth in the country, then the child would not be an American OR a (say) Japanese citizen.

SO. I think there was more to the law in 1962 than the section quoted on the internet. There must have been procedures or policies that would allow a baby that everyone would agree should be a citizen to gain citizenship.

Is anyone able to comment?

Separate crazy question: What if Mom Obama had listed the Father as John Fitzgerald Kennedy, US citizen, profession POTUS? There was no DNA testing in 1962.

 

[drkitten]

And she says she'll refuse to pay. This is gonna get really ugly in the best possible way.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...aitz_responds_to_judges_20k_fine_sho.php#more

Yeah.

From your article:

"Are you kidding? Of course not," she said, asked whether she planned to send a check. "This is a form of intimidation."

Instead, she plans to file yet another written response (though it's unclear whether the court will even accept one).

The irony -- or something -- is that the purpose of sanctions is to deter future sanctionable conduct. The judge raised the sanction from the proposed $10,000 to $20,000, because a mere $10,000 fine demonstrably deter her from filing frivolous paperwork.

If her response to this is to file another frivolous piece of paper, then that will prove that even $20k isn't enough to deter her, and justify the judge in raising the sanctions again.

This is a game Taitz can't win. Once it's been established that her conduct is sanctionable, the court has the authority to deter her. And there's no maximum fine that can be imposed; she can't buy her way out of this one by simply saying "hey, there's at most a $10,000 fine and I can afford this." If $20k won't work, try $50k. If that doesn't work, try $100k.

 

[D'rok]

Judge Land's order is a hella good read. I almost feel sorry for poor Orly.

 

[drkitten]

I'm bumping this thread just to raise this question, in the hope someone knowledgeable will address it:

Mom Obama was, when he was born, a life-long resident and citizen of the US. Under the law in force in 1962, as described elsewhere in this thread, it was logically impossible for her to have satisfied the requirement. If you are 19 yo, you cannot have lived 5 years in the US after your 16th birthday, no matter how hard you try.

Sucks to be her, then.

It's hard to believe this was Congress's intent, or that this was a workable policy.

Which may be why the law was changed.

SO. I think there was more to the law in 1962 than the section quoted on the internet. There must have been procedures or policies that would allow a baby that everyone would agree should be a citizen to gain citizenship.

Sure. It's called "changing the law." Happens all the time.

Separate crazy question: What if Mom Obama had listed the Father as John Fitzgerald Kennedy, US citizen, profession POTUS? There was no DNA testing in 1962.

There's a good chance that she would have been arrested for fraud or something similar if she had tried.

But, again, this is a well-understood problem; paternity suits have been around forever. Just because a mother writes something on the birth certificate doesn't mean that it's true, and any interested party (usually the father who's being asked for child support) has an opportunity to rebut.

If we're talking specifically about the hypothetical case where Obama was born in Kenya, and his mother lied on the birth certificate to make it look like Obama had US citizenship, a sharp-eyed consular officer would have been within his rights to deny him citizenship (and to arrest her) on the grounds of suspected fraud. Someone would have had to depose JFK, and when it came out that she had never even met the man and her story fell completely apart under cross-examination, some (Federal) court somewhere would make an appropriate ruling based on the evidence presented to it.

Similarly, while there was no DNA testing, there was blood typing and a few other types of genetic markers. I suspect that just the fact that a white woman and a white man had a clearly "mulatto" child would be sufficient for a court to suspect shenanigans.

 

[D'rok]

Yeah.

From your article:



The irony -- or something -- is that the purpose of sanctions is to deter future sanctionable conduct. The judge raised the sanction from the proposed $10,000 to $20,000, because a mere $10,000 fine demonstrably deter her from filing frivolous paperwork.

If her response to this is to file another frivolous piece of paper, then that will prove that even $20k isn't enough to deter her, and justify the judge in raising the sanctions again.

This is a game Taitz can't win. Once it's been established that her conduct is sanctionable, the court has the authority to deter her. And there's no maximum fine that can be imposed; she can't buy her way out of this one by simply saying "hey, there's at most a $10,000 fine and I can afford this." If $20k won't work, try $50k. If that doesn't work, try $100k.

Yup. Also, I'd be willing to bet that disbarment is in her very near future. (Check out the final sentence of the order).

 

[MervinFerd]

Sucks to be her, then.
Which may be why the law was changed.
Sure. It's called "changing the law." Happens all the time.

Respectfully, I'm not sure whether these answers knowledgeably address the question posed. Sure. The law may have been stupid; but, situations must have arisen often enough to require some kind of work-around. How was the law actually administered? If citizenship was not "automatic", was there a non-automatic procedure that could fix the problem? They really could not have wanted a bunch of Stateless babies toddling around.

This is mostly a matter of idle curiosity, but it helps to put the Birther in some kind of context.

There's a good chance that she would have been arrested for fraud or something similar if she had tried.

But, again, this is a well-understood problem; paternity suits have been around forever. Just because a mother writes something on the birth certificate doesn't mean that it's true, and any interested party (usually the father who's being asked for child support) has an opportunity to rebut.

Suppose she had named a recently deceased Black neighbor, then. Who would ever challenge it? Or know about it? Would JFK bother to challenge, if there was never a claim for child-support?

 

[Hokulele]

Yup. Also, I'd be willing to bet that disbarment is in her very near future. (Check out the final sentence of the order).

Awe. Some.

 

[Yoink]

Respectfully, I'm not sure whether these answers knowledgeably address the question posed. Sure. The law may have been stupid; but, situations must have arisen often enough to require some kind of work-around. How was the law actually administered? If citizenship was not "automatic", was there a non-automatic procedure that could fix the problem? They really could not have wanted a bunch of Stateless babies toddling around.

Wikipedia seems to have the answer to your question:

Statelessness may also arise at birth. For example, an American born abroad that has not spent five years in the US or one of its possessions does not have the right to transfer citizenship (i.e., that person's children will not be US citizens at birth). If that person continues to live abroad (e.g., as a resident alien, not a dual citizen) and then has children with a person with the same status in a country that does not have jus soli, their children will automatically be stateless at birth (Immigration and Nationality Act Sec. 301g). (However, many states have signed the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and will grant nationality to otherwise stateless persons born on their territory.)

 

[CptColumbo]

Orly Taitz fined $20,000!

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/orly_taitz/

Ouch.

That still probably won't stop her.

 

[Matthew Best]

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.

Wikipedia says she was born in the US while her father was "a visiting fellow at the National Institute of Mental Health of the United States", and that the family didn't return to Australia when she was four.

 

[MervinFerd]

Wikipedia seems to have the answer to your question:

Thanks for finding this article, but I don't think it directly addresses the question I'm posing:

... an American born abroad that has not spent five years in the US or one of its possessions does not have the right to transfer citizenship ... .

This describes a person with truly minimal contacts with the US. What about the lifelong resident and citizen who happens to give birth while visiting another country, and who then continues to reside in the US?

In brief, I'm having trouble believing that a baby born to a Kansas girl normally residing in the US would not be a citizen under some provision of the law.

The Internets tend toward simplistic answers.

 

[timhau]

This is a game Taitz can't win.

Yes, but she's determined to play anyway. It could lead to something beautiful.

 

[L. Ron Hoover]

The end is near...

Taitz grossly underestimated the gravity of a court proceeding. Judges don't take matters lightly and the LAST thing he or she will tolerate is a lack of respect. Taitz kept pushing her luck, failing to address the judge's questions, refusing to heed his warnings, and flouting strongly-worded orders that declared her case over. Despite all those chances, she kept it up, and was punished for wasting the court's time, especially where she declared herself counsel (who should know better).

If she pays the fine, she may be admonished or suspended by California. If she refuses to pay the fine, she will almost certainly be disbarred. It can't come soon enough. The fact that she passed the bar is almost unbelievable considering her arguments and logic.

 

[IMST]

I find O rly to be about the best political entertainment since Bush I puked on someone's prime minister. This cannot possibly go on too long.

 

[Yoink]

Thanks for finding this article, but I don't think it directly addresses the question I'm posing:



This describes a person with truly minimal contacts with the US. What about the lifelong resident and citizen who happens to give birth while visiting another country, and who then continues to reside in the US?

In brief, I'm having trouble believing that a baby born to a Kansas girl normally residing in the US would not be a citizen under some provision of the law.

The Internets tend toward simplistic answers.

You missed the crucial part of the Wikipedia article I linked to (and which I quoted in my post): i.e., the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. So, yes, under the terms of that convention, some kind of citizenship would be found for a child born, say, in Tokyo airport to a teenaged American mother and a Nigerian father. But the very existence of the convention speaks to the fact that your broader point was incorrect: in other words, there clearly were instances in which babies could be born with no de jure claim to citizenship in any country.

 

[twinstead]

Take note 9-11 truthers--this is what happens when kooky conspiracy theories get into an actual court.

 

[MervinFerd]

Aha! Radioactively Retroactive!

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
.
.
...
(g) 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 five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: ... This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; ...

Aha! Retroactive! This would make Obama a citizen from birth, even if he had been born in the Outer Mongolian African Republic.

I continue to believe that in 1962 there must have been provisions of the law that would make the infant child of an American citizen living in the US a citizen. But, this will do for now.

Simplest anti-birther argument:
Mom's Amurcan; Babe's Amurcan.

 

[MervinFerd]

You missed the crucial part of the Wikipedia article I linked to (and which I quoted in my post): i.e., the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. So, yes, under the terms of that convention, some kind of citizenship would be found for a child born, say, in Tokyo airport to a teenaged American mother and a Nigerian father. But the very existence of the convention speaks to the fact that your broader point was incorrect: in other words, there clearly were instances in which babies could be born with no de jure claim to citizenship in any country.

See my post directly above quoting the current law as posted on this board. If I read the statute correctly (never a certainty) the new provisions are retroactive, so the issue is moot as regards Obama.

I still do not think the article is on point. It refers to a US citizen born outside the US and not living in the US, or raising the child in the US. Surely, an unusual situation and not one where American Citizenship is an obvious right.

It is a different situation if Mom is a citizen and resident of the US and returns immediately to raise the child in the US. This must be a common occurrence and it would be politically painful to deny such children citizenship.

This is not a question that Google is likely to answer; we need a person with actual knowledge. I suspect that one or more of the following are true:
a) the legal dependent child of a citizen residing in the US is automatically a citizen. Current law makes this provision for adopted foreign children.
or
b) the child is regarded as born in the USA if it is returned to the US within a short time and properly registered.
or
c) Something else..

As I said, this needs an expert opinion. It's a good example of the kind of question that the Internets don't answer.