obama birth certificate: yes or no

[Syriusly]

birfer alert!!! Statistikhengst We got ourselves a live one Look at the user name

So if you think you git all the answers, you ready to debate me on the issue? I KNOW I will prove you wrong! READY???

Step up to the plate- so far all you have demonstrated is a devotion to proving your mental deficiency.

Next, we have the Thomas Jefferson, a member of the Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary (who later wrote that declaration above) was asked to redesign the curriculum and add a class on law. That class was titled "Class of National Law" shown here: Laws and Regulations of the College of William and Mary in Virginia ... - College of William and Mary - Google Books
d

Class of National Law?

You trying to bring Vattel in eh?

Vattel which prior to the writing of the Constitution- never mentioned 'natural born citizen'?

You don't seem to understand, it's not a TERM "natural born citizen", they are adjectives. A natural-born Citizen is a born citizen according to Natural Law, that is where the word natural comes from!

The founders could read French and could see the qualifications for being natural born as it is described as:

Vattel’s Law of Nations §212. Citizens and natives:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Why do you think Franklin would order 3 copies of Vattel's Law of Nations, if no one could read it? LOLOL
Try taking a stroll through the congressional records and see how much French Language you see, it's ALL OVER!

Once again- no version of Vattel's Law of Nations mentioned "natural born citizen' when the Constitution was written.

Meanwhile

A natural-born Citizen is a born citizen according to Natural Law,

Every person born in the United States- other than the children of diplomats- is born a citizen of the United States.

So by your definition you have just included President Obama- and Jindal and Rubio.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!
)

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

Within the domain mean within the allegiance and YES, he was clearly under the allegiance pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948. SORRY!

 

[Syriusly]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

the supreme court has not defined, as of today, the expression "natural born"... which happens to come with it's own grandfather clause.

Yes they did, In Minor v. Happersett, Vattel's definition was also enacted into the 1873 Revised Statutes under Title XXV, Section 1992, so even if a court didn't adjudicate the intent of the term, we still know what the law says about it. Section 1992 of the 1873 Revised Statutes can be seen right here: Revised Statutes of the United States Passed at the First Session of the ... - George Sewall Boutwell - Google Books
And you can clearly see that it cites the Civil Rights Act definition of citizen, which 100% follows Vattel's definition!

The Supreme Court didn't define "Natural Born Citizen" in Minor- you just want to ignore how the court specifically stated that it was not.

Then what do you think this is?
"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"

I think that is you attempting to avoid the rest of the story

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

So the court said- there is no doubt that a person born in the United States of citizen parents are natives- or natural born citizens.

And the court clearly stated that children born in the United States without citizen parents might be natives or natural born citizens.

You want to ignore that part.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Actually it does matter IDIOT and everything he has signed is null & void. He's not eligible!

birfer alert!!! Statistikhengst We got ourselves a live one Look at the user name

So if you think you git all the answers, you ready to debate me on the issue? I KNOW I will prove you wrong! READY???

Step up to the plate- so far all you have demonstrated is a devotion to proving your mental deficiency.

Next, we have the Thomas Jefferson, a member of the Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary (who later wrote that declaration above) was asked to redesign the curriculum and add a class on law. That class was titled "Class of National Law" shown here: Laws and Regulations of the College of William and Mary in Virginia ... - College of William and Mary - Google Books
d

Class of National Law?

You trying to bring Vattel in eh?

Vattel which prior to the writing of the Constitution- never mentioned 'natural born citizen'?

I didn't bring Vattel in, Thomas Jefferson made it a textbook in the first Law College in the nation and he called Vattel's Law of Nations, NATIONAL LAW! SORRY! It's confirmed in the Declaration of Independence!

 

[Syriusly]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!
)

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

Within the domain mean within the allegiance and YES, he was clearly under the allegiance pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948. SORRY!

Hmmmm no- according to how Elk itself framed the issue- no Obama was not excluded


Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

the supreme court has not defined, as of today, the expression "natural born"... which happens to come with it's own grandfather clause.

Yes they did, In Minor v. Happersett, Vattel's definition was also enacted into the 1873 Revised Statutes under Title XXV, Section 1992, so even if a court didn't adjudicate the intent of the term, we still know what the law says about it. Section 1992 of the 1873 Revised Statutes can be seen right here: Revised Statutes of the United States Passed at the First Session of the ... - George Sewall Boutwell - Google Books
And you can clearly see that it cites the Civil Rights Act definition of citizen, which 100% follows Vattel's definition!

The Supreme Court didn't define "Natural Born Citizen" in Minor- you just want to ignore how the court specifically stated that it was not.

Then what do you think this is?
"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"

I think that is you attempting to avoid the rest of the story

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

So the court said- there is no doubt that a person born in the United States of citizen parents are natives- or natural born citizens.

And the court clearly stated that children born in the United States without citizen parents might be natives or natural born citizens.

You want to ignore that part.

NO IT DID NOT, geez libtards are not good with comprehension. He said:
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens" CITIZENS, he said citizen, NOT natural born citizens! WAKE UP!

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!
)

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

Within the domain mean within the allegiance and YES, he was clearly under the allegiance pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948. SORRY!

Hmmmm no- according to how Elk itself framed the issue- no Obama was not excluded


Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

And Obama was born into the Luo Tribe, what's the difference?

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!
)

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

Within the domain mean within the allegiance and YES, he was clearly under the allegiance pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948. SORRY!

Hmmmm no- according to how Elk itself framed the issue- no Obama was not excluded


Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

He certainly was, Obama born subject to a foreign power!

 

[Syriusly]

birfer alert!!! Statistikhengst We got ourselves a live one Look at the user name

So if you think you git all the answers, you ready to debate me on the issue? I KNOW I will prove you wrong! READY???

Step up to the plate- so far all you have demonstrated is a devotion to proving your mental deficiency.

Next, we have the Thomas Jefferson, a member of the Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary (who later wrote that declaration above) was asked to redesign the curriculum and add a class on law. That class was titled "Class of National Law" shown here: Laws and Regulations of the College of William and Mary in Virginia ... - College of William and Mary - Google Books
d

Class of National Law?

You trying to bring Vattel in eh?

Vattel which prior to the writing of the Constitution- never mentioned 'natural born citizen'?

I didn't bring Vattel in, Thomas Jefferson made it a textbook in the first Law College in the nation and he called Vattel's Law of Nations, NATIONAL LAW! SORRY! It's confirmed in the Declaration of Independence!

And again- what does that have to do with the writers of the Constitution never having read any edition of Vattel which said "Natural Born Citizen".

It did not exist when the Constitution was written- Vattel himself never said 'Natural born citizen'

 

[Syriusly]

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!
)

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

Within the domain mean within the allegiance and YES, he was clearly under the allegiance pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948. SORRY!

Hmmmm no- according to how Elk itself framed the issue- no Obama was not excluded


Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

And Obama was born into the Luo Tribe, what's the difference?

Do you really not know the difference between a native American tribe and an African tribe?

 

[Syriusly]

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!
)

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

Within the domain mean within the allegiance and YES, he was clearly under the allegiance pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948. SORRY!

Hmmmm no- according to how Elk itself framed the issue- no Obama was not excluded


Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

He certainly was, Obama born subject to a foreign power!

Elk only mentions children born in foreign countries- or children born to diplomats here in the United States.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
Obama was not born within the domain of any government.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Ted Cruz is INELIGIBLE along with Jindal and Rubio. My evidence here Obama Eligibility proves them INELIGIBLE TOO! TRY AGAIN OBOT!

LOL- all eligible- Cruz being born in Canada is the only one not covered by the ruling below

Ankeny v. Daniels.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Ankeny is notwithstanding under the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the Constitution. Sorry bout that!

Now all you have to do is point us to a decision which says otherwise. Which you can't.

Ankeny v. Daniels- like virtually every other constitutional authority- such as the Congressional Research Service relied upon Wong Kim Ark- and Wong Kim Ark was the Supreme Court case which affirmed a lower courts ruling that Wong was a natural born citizen due to his birth in the United States.

OF COURSE I CAN, you think I'd come to a gun fight with NOTHING? LOLOL

here ya go!

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”.

Minor itself says that

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. citizenship of their parents

Birthers always want to ignore the part of Minor which specifically says it was not addressing the issue of parents citizenship.

The court here is saying specifically that any child born in the United States AND born of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen.

The court not only does not say that a Natural Born citizen MUST have two citizen parents- Minor points out that a Natural Born Citizen may not require citizen parents.

And of course the Courts disagree with you also

Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon in Arizona wrote in his order in the case of Allen v. Obama:

…this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 99 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.

It's funny how you completely ignore the case of The Venus where Justice Waite cites VATTEL BY NAME and reads his definition...lolol, how ya gonna debunk that one? hahaha

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!
)

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

Within the domain mean within the allegiance and YES, he was clearly under the allegiance pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948. SORRY!

Hmmmm no- according to how Elk itself framed the issue- no Obama was not excluded


Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

He certainly was, Obama born subject to a foreign power!

Elk only mentions children born in foreign countries- or children born to diplomats here in the United States.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
Obama was not born within the domain of any government.

YES, Obama was born under the allegiance of the Crown, so he was within the domain!
You also took it out of context and excluded the part where Justice Gray states:

"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens"

NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER~ you lose!

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!
)

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

Within the domain mean within the allegiance and YES, he was clearly under the allegiance pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948. SORRY!

Hmmmm no- according to how Elk itself framed the issue- no Obama was not excluded


Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

And Obama was born into the Luo Tribe, what's the difference?

Do you really not know the difference between a native American tribe and an African tribe?

An African tribe would be MORE distant from America and definitely not under US jurisdiction!

 

[KenyanBornObama]

What happened to all the debaters saying WE GOT A LIVE ONE...looks like they all died!

 

[Syriusly]

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

Within the domain mean within the allegiance and YES, he was clearly under the allegiance pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948. SORRY!

Hmmmm no- according to how Elk itself framed the issue- no Obama was not excluded


Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

And Obama was born into the Luo Tribe, what's the difference?

Do you really not know the difference between a native American tribe and an African tribe?

An African tribe would be MORE distant from America and definitely not under US jurisdiction!

Does the United States recognize the Luo tribe as a sovereign nation?

 

[Syriusly]

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

Within the domain mean within the allegiance and YES, he was clearly under the allegiance pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948. SORRY!

Hmmmm no- according to how Elk itself framed the issue- no Obama was not excluded


Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

He certainly was, Obama born subject to a foreign power!

Elk only mentions children born in foreign countries- or children born to diplomats here in the United States.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
Obama was not born within the domain of any government.

YES, Obama was born under the allegiance of the Crown, so he was within the domain!
You also took it out of context and excluded the part where Justice Gray states:

"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens"

NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER~ you lose!

Not out of context- the decision specifically provided the examples of who was excluded.

And they did not mention children born in the United States who have a parent with foreign citizenship.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- all eligible- Cruz being born in Canada is the only one not covered by the ruling below

Ankeny v. Daniels.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Ankeny is notwithstanding under the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the Constitution. Sorry bout that!

Now all you have to do is point us to a decision which says otherwise. Which you can't.

Ankeny v. Daniels- like virtually every other constitutional authority- such as the Congressional Research Service relied upon Wong Kim Ark- and Wong Kim Ark was the Supreme Court case which affirmed a lower courts ruling that Wong was a natural born citizen due to his birth in the United States.

OF COURSE I CAN, you think I'd come to a gun fight with NOTHING? LOLOL

here ya go!

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”.

Minor itself says that

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. citizenship of their parents

Birthers always want to ignore the part of Minor which specifically says it was not addressing the issue of parents citizenship.

The court here is saying specifically that any child born in the United States AND born of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen.

The court not only does not say that a Natural Born citizen MUST have two citizen parents- Minor points out that a Natural Born Citizen may not require citizen parents.

And of course the Courts disagree with you also

Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon in Arizona wrote in his order in the case of Allen v. Obama:

…this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 99 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.

It's funny how you completely ignore the case of The Venus where Justice Waite cites VATTEL BY NAME and reads his definition...lolol, how ya gonna debunk that one? hahaha

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

And notice- he never mentions Natural Born Citizen.

 

[Syriusly]

Got to run- things to do- feel free to continue to post the usual Birther BS.

Meanwhile just to point out- your nutty theories have been rejected by the voters, by the Electoral College, by Congress and by Chief Justice Roberts.

They have been rejected by the courts and by Secretaries of State.

Your nutty Birther theories have been laughed off the stage- and President Obama is in the 7th year of his presidency.

 

[Clementine]

does one exist ?? or does it just exist in the digital world...

we as a country will eventually need to know..

Obama Jokes About Birth Certificate During Kenya Visit

Personally, I'd like to see his college transcripts. You know. The ones he won't release.

That would tell everyone exactly where he came from. Who paid for college and why.

I've never been a birther but the fact he won't release those transcripts makes people wonder why the hell doesn't release them.

Is there something in them that he doesn't want anyone to see??

I suspect that he may have lied about being a Kenyan, possibly to receive aid as a foreign student. His publisher twice listed him as a Kenyan in his bio. Later, when he ran for Illinois senate, he was also referred to as a Kenyan. It's no mystery why so many have become suspicious of his college transcripts or even his birth certificate. Just so many strange things to explain:

Over the years, three different times being called a Kenyan citizen and never corrected it until it came up during campaigning. His campaign dismissed it as a mere typo, but seriously, three different times over the years. They didn't pull that out of their ass. He was claiming to be Kenyan that whole time and that is the only explanation.

The issue with the stamped date on his selective service registration.

His social security number coming from a state he never lived in and at an older age (years after he claimed to have worked).

Refusal to release college transcripts.

He is hiding something, but we'll never find out.