Birthers aren’t conservative, they’re just nutty

“Secondly, when somebody says “natural born” citizen to a member of the general public, they assume that means both parents are U.S. citizens. That, my dear friend, is what the vast majority of the general public believe.”

Really? Because that raises a curious blind spot by the entire American public.

Obama first hit the national stage with his conventional keynote address in 2004. In that address, he talked about his father being from Kenya. In his 1995 memoir, he wrote extensively about his father’s Kenyan nationality. By the time he declared his candidacy for President in February 2007, he was a household name, since he’d been mentioned as a possible contender since that 2004 speech.

And yet, despite being a prominent Presidential contender, and despite his father’s Kenyan nationality being very public and well-known, when did people start alleging that he wasn’t a “natural-born citizen” because of his father’s citizenship? In 2004? No. In February 2007? No. In January 2008, when the primaries started? No.

No, that allegation first cropped up in June-July 2008, AFTER Obama had already won the Democratic nomination. If we’re to believe that the American public has an accepted definition of natural-born citizen that Obama doesn’t satisfy, why then did NOBODY call him out on it until almost a year and a half after he began his formal campaign, and after he’d won his party’s nomination?

The reason no one called him out on it, of course, is that nobody seriously defined “natural-born citizen” that way before June-July 2008. Only when some opportunists realized that they could manufacture a new definition that Obama couldn’t satisfy did that new definition start to be tossed around. It was a definition created by people who empathized with the motives of the ‘born in Kenya’ conspiracy theorists (which also blossomed in June 2008), but recognized the absurdity of the Kenyan birth claim, so they concocted an alternative, legalistic theory for disqualification.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bobby Jindal is a perfect example. Another great example is Bill Richardson. His mother was not a U.S. citizen, and no one ever claimed he was ineligible during the campaign.

Other fairly good examples are Colin Powell, Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, and Paul Tsongas. All have been candidates (or potential candidates) for President, and all had immigrant parents. I don’t know if their parents had naturalized or not before they were born, but I certainly don’t recall anyone ever seeing the need to ASK whether their parents were naturalized or not. The candidates themselves were all born in America, and that was sufficient.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Loren Collins,

You are, of course, entitle to your own opinion as to what the general public believes or doesn’t believe. But I believe the reason why this issue didn’t gain traction “with the general public” is largely because of my first observation: “As far as what the general public believes, they believe the same two things I believed in before I heard one word about this issue. I always thought there was some kind of formal, legal process whereby candidates for high public office had to “prove” their qualifications. I now know that to be untrue. ”

As you may well know, it takes time to raise the consciousness of the general public to any given issue not presently in the public’s eye. This, I believe, is one of them.

Now, tell me again, why you believe Barack Obama is a nartual born citizen; or do you?

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

This is very much a extreme right conservative political game. It was pushed by all of the typical conservative smear-masters, and is funded, in part at least, by Farah and his WND crew, and supported by some of the Religious Right (certainly the latest ad buy was funded by one RR group). So, while it may not be the “mainstream” conservative movement, it has gained purchase by their efforts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Loren Collins,

That’s it? That’s all you got? You throw in a couple of presidential wannabes, some immigrant parents, and the fact that nobody of any importance has raised the question, makes you believe Barack Obama is a natural born citizen? You can’t be serious?

I find it exceedingly strange you have suddenly run out of your usual cold, hard erudite responses when asked to explain just how Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. It can of makes me believe you really don’t really have a good explanation, and you know it, or at least part of you does, but you are in denial.

When you are ready to give me a serious answer, I’ll tell you why I think on the surface there is no way he is a natural born citizen, but there is a chance he just may be one. Of course a full disclosure of his vital records to ascertain his real birth place and family history will be absolutely necessary. I guess we will all have to wait until he tries to qualify again for that story to be told. But told, it will be.

You know, I have been thinking about this hospital issue all day today, and you know what? I keep finding myself in a Catch-22. Obviously, someone told Barack Obama which hospital he was born in. At the very least the hospital itself can confirm this fact to Obama. So if he knows which hospital he was born in, and has confirmed it with the hospital itself, why not simply allow at least that fact to be acknowledged by the hospital? After all, the hospital would not be confirming something he hasn’t already admitted?

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Loren Collins,

I apologize if my question wasn’t focused enough to allow you to address what the writers of the U.S. Constitution meant by “natural born” citizen and how Barack Obama considers himself one in less than 350 words. And one doesn’t need a law degree to understand that natural born citizenship means being a citizen by natural law, not by statute. It derives from location of birth and the citizenship of the parents.

While someone may be a US citizen at birth under the operation of statute (if circumstances are compliant with the law) such a citizen is not a “natural born” citizen, and for those who insist that all forms of citizenship can be divided into two classes, “natural born” and “naturalized”, then these children must be considered as “naturalized” as their citizenship devolves upon them by operation of statute law, as it does with all other forms of naturalized citizenship.

There are many ways you can not be considered Natural Born. There appear to be only three ways you can be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court as being natural born. In both its majority and minority opinion in the Wong case, it agreed on what is unquestionably Natural Born: 1) Born of two citizen parents on native soil 2) Born of two citizen parents on foreign soil when parents are diplomats 3) Born of two citizen parents in foreign territory, occupied by native country

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Loren Collins,

Let’s work on this a bit more. By Barack Obama own admission, he was born a subject of the British Commonwealth (Kenya). Even if he was also a US citizen by birth (assuming he was born in Hawaii), he cannot be a “natural-born” citizen in the Constitutional sense. The same is true with the 14th Amendment. Barack Obama may be a “native-born” U.S. citizen, as he has called himself, but he is not a “natural-born” citizen. If the two are the same, why bother differentiating the two in the Constitution?

Clearly, the writers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind something more than a citizen when they inserted the term “natural-born” citizen into Article I, Section II, Clause IV of the U.S. Constitution. While the citizenship of the mother would confer U.S. citizenship, it would take the citizenship of the father to establish a “natural-born” U.S. citizenship.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] Obama a natural-born U.S. citizen? Is Obama a natural-born U.S. citizen? Jay Bookman blog, Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | October 1, 2009 | David [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

David,

“Clearly, the writers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind something more than a citizen when they inserted the term “natural-born” citizen into Article I, Section II, Clause IV of the U.S. Constitution.”

You’re absolutely right that they did mean something more than “a citizen”, but you’re wrong as to what they had in mind. They meant to exclude NATURALIZED citizens. Your Arnold Schwarzeneggers, Jennifer Granholms, or Henry Kissingers. The modifier “natural born” serves to exclude persons who were not born U.S. citizens. The Constitution does not have any distinction between “natural born” and “native born,” as you said.

The idea that “natural born” implies “two citizen parents” is an interpretation that simply is not supported by two plus centuries of American law and practice. Ask a Constitutional law professor. Consult a textbook. If “two citizen parents” was an absolute requirement, the professors would know and the textbooks would include that in the definition.

What is your argument for why “two citizen parents” is the CORRECT interpretation of “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution? What reliable legal sources support that view? Because, as I pointed out above, the overwhelming majority (by which I mean ‘almost universal majority’) of them do not support it.

• Link
• Report this comment

I hope you don’t mind if I enter this discussion. I’ve been doing some research on the topic.

Re: ““Not owing allegiance to anybody else.” or in the words of the primary author Sen. Jacob Howard “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.”

That is because by US law when anyone (except a foreign diplomat) is born in the USA she or he is under the absolute and complete jurisdiction of the USA. The only exceptions are foreign diplomats and the comment was made to show that the children of diplomats are excluded. (Some also held at the time that Indians born on reservations were not considered Natural Born because the tribes still had a measure of sovereignty. However, there was disagreement over whether Indians born on reservations were not Natural Born or whether they were simply not citizens.)

The common definition of Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written was simply citizenship at birth. It stemmed from the British term “Natural Born Subject” which meant born in the British realm regardless of the number of parents who were British (even travelers passing through could give birth in England and the child would be considered British). The only exceptions were the children of diplomats. In the American colonies the same applied (with perhaps the exception of Indians). Blacks were considered Native Born, but they were not considered citizens in most states.

Over the years there have been some changes in the legal meaning of Natural Born. There have been statutes extending the meaning to include the children of two children when they are born abroad. There is some debate as to whether these statutes apply to the Presidential definition. But the extensions to the original definition do not, and Constitutionally cannot, change the original definition, which was simply birth in the country.

Where is the proof that the original meaning of Natural Born is simply birth in the country? Well, we all know that there are two kinds of citizens, citizens at birth and naturalized citizens. But what is the source of the word Naturalize? It comes from Natural Born. A naturalized citizen is made like a Natural Born citizen.

The first example I’ll give is from the first Constitution of the State of New York, in 1777, which was written mainly by John Jay. It reads: “Every foreigner of good character, who comes to settle in the State, having first taken an oath of affirmation or allegiance to the same, may purchase or by other means acquire, hold and transfer land or other real estate, and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.”

This is a kind of naturalization provision. It says that if a foreigner takes an oath and resides in the state the specified time she or he is entitled to all the rights of a Natural Born Subject. There are some who hold that the word “subject” changes the meaning of Natural Born in some way. But it doesn’t. The clear meaning of Natural Born is the same for Natural Born Citizen and Natural Born subject, and it simply means someone who is a citizen at birth.

In 1776 or 1777 a committee of the Continental Congress, with Thomas Jefferson as a member, wrote to the US Ambassadors abroad, including John Adams and Benjamin Franklin that the congress had: “Resolved, that it is inconsistent with the interests of the United States to appoint anyone, not a natural born citizen thereof, to the office of minister, charge d-affairs…..”http://books.google.com/books?id=l1gpkmF4YPgC&pg=PA105&dq=%22good+character+who+comes+to+settle+in+this+state,+having+first+taken+an+oath+or+affirmation+of+allegiance+to+the+same,+may+purchase,+or+by+other+just+means+acquire,+hold,+and+transfer+land+or+other+real+estate%22#v=onepage&q=%22natural%20born%22&f=false

In this resolution and the letter Congress was simply telling the ambassadors that they could not appoint ministers who were not born in the USA. There is nothing in the context of the words that indicates that it means anything other than a citizen who was born in the USA. If the Congress had wanted to say that a Natural Born citizen required two US parents or could not be a dual national, it would have been easy to insert those terms. But the letter assumes that the diplomats who read it were familiar with the meaning of Natural Born. Where was the common meaning of Natural Born found? In the common law and the citizenship laws of the colonies at the time, and it meant a person who was a citizen at birth.

• Link
• Report this comment

Could you point me to some of the literature you mention to support your statement of consensus on the matter. I can’t find any scholarly works that address the matter directly except those recent ones that discuss the issue in the context of this matter. Something that discusses natural born citizenship independent of the passions of the matter at hand would go a long way in helping me solidify my own thoughts. Both sides seem to want to point to evidence that requires you to infer the answer. I have seen evidence on both sides that is compelling. Right now in my mind the whole subject seems rather murky and subjective thus making it a matter of first impression for the courts. Of course there is that little problem of separation of powers. I am not sure the courts should be ruling on the matter anyway. I think this is congress’s problem unless they delegate the matter for the courts to decide.

I think your second point and all of this citizens debate only underlines the need for constitutional solution for the matter. Intuitively, I too am uncomfortable with idea of a dual citizen being President. We can imagine all sorts of life or death scenarios where this could be a problem. It is not impossible that the founder’s might have seen things this way as well. I don’t like the idea of the courts or the congress deciding the matter exclusively. The states should have a say.

Personally, I think there should be an amendment to the constitution to end the matter. If substantive debate such as we are having now was going on more publicly, I think the citizenry could come to a consensus on the matter rather quickly. It is a rather simple question when you subtract out all of the historical interpretation. Then we use the amendment process to enact our solution as law. As regards Obama the amendment could reflect that he gets a pass or not. If not then he should step down.

• Link
• Report this comment

Re: “Unfortunately, we may never know if Obama was really born in the US, because Obama doesn’t want anyone seeing the documentation. In Hawai’i, they will not confirm if the document available on line is real.”

Total Baloney. The document that is on line is the same one that Obama showed to FactCheck AND Polifact, and the facts on the posted document were confirmed twice by the authorities in Hawaii. Moreover, there are birth notices in the newspapers on the weekend after Obama was born. These notices were NOT advertisements but were instead official notices of births sent out by the government of Hawaii. The Hawaii government sent out the notices for births IN Hawaii, and not for births outside of Hawaii. And. by the way, it was not possible to register a foreign birth in Hawaii when Obama was born in 1961. That was not allowed until 1982.

So, there is an official birth certificate, whose facts were confirmed by two officials in Hawaii, that he was born in Hawaii.

He provided his birth certificate, the official birth certificate of Hawaii. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)

Obama put it on his web site, and showed the physical document to both Polifact and Factcheck. So, he has shown the physical document.

The document that he has shown is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii. It is accepted by ALL the departments in Hawaii as proof of birth in Hawaii (Yes, including DHHL. I checked, they prefer the original, which some people have, but they accept the Certification as proof of birth in Hawaii) The US State Department and US Military also accept the Certification as proof of birth in Hawaii.

The facts on the Obama birth certificate, that he was born in Hawaii in 1961, were confirmed by the two officials of the Hawaii government who looked into his file. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)

The Wall Street Journal also notes that it is the official document. It said: “Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement.”

Many states now issue only short-form birth certificates. They are legal documents, and when they have the raised seal and signature as required by the US State Department, they are accepted by the State Department. (Obama’s physical document has the seal and signature, as shown in FactCheck’s detailed photograph).

This is what the Wall Street Journal concludes: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”

Moreover, There is no proof that Obama was born in Kenya. There is excellent proof, in the official legal documents, confirmed by authorities, that he was born in Hawaii.

Neither his Kenyan grandmother, nor anyone else, ever said that he was born in Kenya. His Kenyan grandmother actually said that he was born in Hawaii. This can be clearly heard if you listen to the complete recording of the tape, which is on Berg’s site. The complete recording includes a question asking “Whereabouts was he born?” And her answer was: “America, Hawaii.”

Here is the complete recording on Berg’s site. Be sure to listen for at least five minutes until the question is asked. (http://obamacrimes.com/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-08.mp3)

If it is too difficult to listen to the complete tape, here is a transcript (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf).

There have been NO official documents from Kenya (numerous forgeries, however) that say that Obama was born in Kenya, and the only organization to have claimed that there are documents “sealed” in Kenya is WND. Its reports have not been confirmed by anyone. (And it would be easy to confirm because all you have to do is to find out if there are files which area sealed). There are hundreds of journalists in Kenya, and the fact that there were sealed files would be news.

Moreover, IF a child had been born in Kenya and subsequently came to the USA, there would be US documents showing that the trip took place. That is because if a child were born in Kenya, she or he would have to have either a US visa on a British passport or be issued its own US passport while in Kenya. IF either of those took place, there would still be US records in the US embassy in Kenya and in the US State Department in Washington, and they would have been found by now, and they have NOT been found.

All the allegations of Obama’s birth abroad were checked out by the McCain campaign, and they found that there were no facts. No facts at all. (http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors)

• Link
• Report this comment

Some may consider me a “Birther” – which I am not. I consider myself a Constitutionalist. I accept that Obama was born in Hawaii and a citizen under the terms of the 14th Amendment. However, Obama was ALSO born a British citizen under the terms of the British Nationality Act of 1948 – which applied at the time of his birth. Therefore, Obama was born a dual national. I am not convinced that a dual national is actually a natural born citizen. Here are five reasons:

First, when separating from England, the colonists agreed to be bound by one supreme law – the Constitution. That document is binding upon ALL American citizens and NO AMOUNT of change in public opinion can alter that – EXCEPT by amendment. And if the public wants the Constitution changed, then change it – but unless that happens, live with the document as CURRENTLY written.

Second, although NOT EXPRESSLY stated in the Constitution, it has become the province of the Supreme Court to state what the law is (Marbury v. Madison). When the Founding Fathers’ intent is UNCLEAR – the Supreme Court must look to English Common Law to determine their intent (Wong Kim Ark v. United States, with imbedded citations). To declare otherwise is to invalidate such landmark decisions as Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona (where the Supreme Court “interpreted” the Constitution in these cases).

Third, when CAREFULLY reading the Common Law (Blackstone) and the English cases cited by the Wong Kim Ark decision, it is clear that a child born in England of an alien is a natural born subject – EXCEPT in rare circumstances. One of those circumstances is when the child is also considered a subject of another sovreign. In this case, the child is considered a “Denizen” – having MOST of the rights of a natural born subject, EXCEPT that of holding high office.

Fourth, in the Wong Kim Ark decision, Justice Gray “liberally” mis-stated what Common Law actually said about natural born citizenship – stating that ALL children born to aliens in England were natural born subjects. He conveniently left out the caveats in Common Law that applied when the child’s alien father owed an additional allegiance to another sovreign. Perhaps he was giving his own political opinion – but it had NO bearing on the outcome of the Ark decision, since it was decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment and the 14th Amendment ONLY. The 14th Amendment ONLY declares that ALL children born within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens – NO MENTION of natural born citizenship.

Fifth, the Founding Fathers did not elucidate the term “natural born citizen” in specific terms since it was universally accepted at the time as to what it meant. The Founding Fathers had their legal training in Common Law and IF they had wanted to stray from historical definitions in the Constitution – they WOULD have EXPRESSLY stated so. To them, a natural born citizen was born under the jurisdiction of the sovreign AND owed a single, distinct loyalty to that sovreign and that sovreign ONLY. In the most general terms, it meant a child born on English soil to two English subjects. In the case of a child born to aliens, it meant being born on English soil to aliens who owed NO allegiance to a different sovreign and that sovreign DID NOT confer citizenship (subjectship?) to the child.

***

What needs to happen now is that the Supreme Court should emphatically state what a natural born citizen is (or is not). Absent that, a constitutional amendment EXPRESSLY defining the term would be in order, so that this mess NEVER happens again …

• Link
• Report this comment

Imo56 — have you actually read Wong Kim Ark? Because you missed the definitions of jurisdiction and allegiance, particularly in the context of the citizenship.

From Wong Kim Ark v US: The [Fourteenth] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court, “independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.”

Jurisdiction means that if an alien commits a crime here, he can be charged, tried, and imprisioned under our laws. Diplomats can’t, so aren’t under our jurisdiction. Visitors can, thus are under our jurisdiction. Allegience is the obligation that aliens follow our laws while they are here. Diplomats don’t have to, they do not owe our government allegiance. Visitors do.

Born in this country, regardless of parentage — natural born citizen. Unless you are born to diplomats, on a ship at sea, or in an invading army — the traditional set of people who don’t owe allegiance to this country as they are not under our jurisdiction.

• Link
• Report this comment