Birth Certificate: Obama's lawyer says forgery so obvious it cannot be used to deter

[JakeStarkey]

I know the explanations. Give me the law that says anchor babies can't run for president.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

By Dan Crosby
of THE DAILY PEN
April 12, 2012

Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery But Disregards "image" As Indication Of Obama’s Ineligibility

Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”. Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate....

Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens....

Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.

Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.

(The rest of Crosby's article can be found at the link shown below.)

Before It's News

Well, I guess all you Obamabots who made fun of the “birthers” have some explaining to do. Actually, the evidence of forgery was so compelling I cannot understand how anyone could have actually believed the documents were authentic. You Obamabots are looking more and more foolish with each passing day.

More Birther nonsense.

Prufrock's Lair: A House of Cards: the Case Against the Birther Movement

 

[Clementine]

This is great news! Birtherism is a great winning issue for the right. Obama is done! Time to swear in Joe Biden.

Why is it that when anyone mentioned the obvious forgery, we were called birthers? I thought it was fair to question why the forgery, though I never actually expected any answers.

It's like we get called names for daring to question the messiah. It's ridiculous. Does anyone on the left have any opinion as to why they would put this forgery out?

I don't doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. We know his dad wasn't a citizen, so thought maybe that was the issue. Or did his mom become a citizen of another country or something? I have heard some argue as the whether both parents needed to be citizens in order for the child to run for president.

It's not crazy to ask questions, especially when you see something that is not typical, such as Obama not obtaining a social security number till he was an adult and got it from a state he never lived in even though he worked before that time. That is a valid question, no matter which side you're on.

 

[Gadawg73]

I deal with vital records such as birth and death certificates weekly in my work for the last 30 years.
The Obama birth certificate is a valid certified COPY which is what most states give out. They retain the original as that is THEIR PROPERTY.
The Hawaiian Dept. of Health acts as the custodian of vital statistics records for that states. Most states do it that way and in some states townships do it as in New Jersey and other states the counties do it.

The Obama birth certificate is a valid document. One only has to see the pitiful show Orly Taitz and her birther movement put on here a few months ago to know that the birther movement is all about hats, T shirts and donations FIRST AND FOREMOST and conning the American public out of their $$$.
Taitz took in 25K here for that week, had NO opposition at the "trial" here and STILL LOST. What a joke the birther movement is. Taitz took in 25K, stayed at the Ritz in Atlanta and ran up over 10K in expenses for the week. Taitz pays herself $475 an hour for 50 hours that week here and she lost. Taitz paid herself 1.2 million from birther donations last year alone.
SUCKERS!

 

[nodoginnafight]

People like this aligning themselves with the Republican Party is probably why the Republican Party is in such dire straights

 

[Gadawg73]

This is great news! Birtherism is a great winning issue for the right. Obama is done! Time to swear in Joe Biden.

Why is it that when anyone mentioned the obvious forgery, we were called birthers? I thought it was fair to question why the forgery, though I never actually expected any answers.

It's like we get called names for daring to question the messiah. It's ridiculous. Does anyone on the left have any opinion as to why they would put this forgery out?

I don't doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. We know his dad wasn't a citizen, so thought maybe that was the issue. Or did his mom become a citizen of another country or something? I have heard some argue as the whether both parents needed to be citizens in order for the child to run for president.

It's not crazy to ask questions, especially when you see something that is not typical, such as Obama not obtaining a social security number till he was an adult and got it from a state he never lived in even though he worked before that time. That is a valid question, no matter which side you're on.

It is not an obvious forgery. NO forensic expert anywhere has stated the Obama birth certificate is a forgery in the numerous court cases nationwide on this.
Not one.
In fact NO ONE has been certified as an expert offered by anyone as a plaintiff in a couert case challenging the birth certificate, ever.
Why? Because NO certified forensic document examiner has stated it is a forgery.
Why? Because it IS NOT a forgery.
How hard is that for anyone to understand?

 

[Gadawg73]

People like this aligning themselves with the Republican Party is probably why the Republican Party is in such dire straights

No, I am a Republican and I call them out on it.

Name one Deomcrat that is calling Obama out for his false claims such as he will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. the wealthy do not pay enough taxes and if the Supreme Court rules the health care mandate unconstitutional it would be the first time they ruled against an act of Congress.

Where is that person? Will you step forward and be the first?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Oh my goodness...I have read more case law today researching this case than I would have liked to.

The case was not whether or not Pres. B.O. was a US Citizen or not, the case was to determine if Pres. B.O. needed to show proof of citizenship to be on the ballot for the Democratic Primary in NJ.

The determination of the Judge in this case was no, he does not, solely because it is not required by NJ law to show any proof of citizenship to be on the primary ballot.

The second issue that Judge Masin addressed was whether the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” includes the requirement that the child be born to two U.S. citizen parents. Judge Masin relied heavily upon the fact that no court in the nation has yet ruled that Mr. Obama had to have two U.S. citizen parents at the time of his birth. Most cases regarding Pres. B.O. have been ruled in his favor on procedural grounds rather than on the merits of the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” He relied heavily upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and its use of the English common law to define U.S. citizenship.

The problem with this part of the decision is that the Founders and Framers did not adopt the English common law to define the term, but rather natural law and the law of nations which under Article III became part of the “Laws of the United States.” The definition of a “natural born Citizen” comes from natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), which definition was recognized as American “common-law” in Minor v. Happersett (1875). Also, Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor’s definition (a child born in a country to citizen parents) and did not change it. Congress through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 abrogated the English common law as the law to define U.S. citizenship and that through those acts it told us that a child born in the United States to alien parents was an alien and not a “citizen of the United States. There is a constitutional distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,” and that the two terms cannot be conflated and confounded as per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, who told us that each clause of the Constitution must be given its own meaning. Judge Masin also reserved decision on the question of whether a “natural born Citizen” must be born to two U.S. citizen parents.

The Judges decision on this issue was wrong, he cited the law incorrectly and will most certainly open the door to an appeal on that basis.

Now the question of the statement in the OP about the PDF being forged....Alexandra Hill admitted in court that the PDF was legally worthless. A clue to me that it was no good was the word "the" mis-spelled above the signature...a signature which appears to have a smiley face in the letter "A".

Now I am not a computer geek by any stretch of the imagination, but I know enough to be dangerous (mostly to myself...damn those porn sites...lol). Following the same computer analysis that Sheriff Joe's computer forensic team used, it is plain to see that the document that is posted on the WH web site is a fake. You can download the program from cnet.download.com for free and do the tests yourself to verify and see exactly how a scanned image should appear.

 

[Toro]

Still makes me curious as to why President Obama spent millions concealing records.

It would have been much more fiscally prudent of him to merely produce any records in question, IE college transcripts.

This simple action would have shut the birther's mouths up!

The appearance of Jesus Christ on Fox, attesting to Obama's citizenship and religion and birth place as meeting all Constitutional requirements, would merely mean the birfers would all become Jews or something.

Even if JC appeared on Fox and proclaimed Obama a natural born citizen, birfers still wouldn't believe it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is great news! Birtherism is a great winning issue for the right. Obama is done! Time to swear in Joe Biden.

Why is it that when anyone mentioned the obvious forgery, we were called birthers? I thought it was fair to question why the forgery, though I never actually expected any answers.

It's like we get called names for daring to question the messiah. It's ridiculous. Does anyone on the left have any opinion as to why they would put this forgery out?

I don't doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. We know his dad wasn't a citizen, so thought maybe that was the issue. Or did his mom become a citizen of another country or something? I have heard some argue as the whether both parents needed to be citizens in order for the child to run for president.

It's not crazy to ask questions, especially when you see something that is not typical, such as Obama not obtaining a social security number till he was an adult and got it from a state he never lived in even though he worked before that time. That is a valid question, no matter which side you're on.

It's ridiculous that you keep posting nonsense and keep demanding to be taken seriously.

Your behavior is a road of insanity.

You are never going to be right, and you are never going to be taken seriously.

 

[Toro]

The countless Wars this President has declared on his own fellow Americans are the reason many Americans still don't believe he's a genuine American Citizen. His own awful behavior has fueled this belief. He has declared a new War against his fellow Citizens just about every other month since he became President. He is anything but a 'Uniter.' He has only divided the nation thus far. This eligibility skepticism will persist. His own behavior has encouraged it.

It has nothing to do with wars. It has to do with

1.) His perception he's a liberal, and/or
2.) He's black.

I think it's mainly (1), but for a minority, its also (2).

 

[Toro]

That is a minority conclusion with no basis in law, Al.

Obama is indeed a citizen and qualified to be president under the Consitution.

That is fact.

Is that so. It comes down to the definition of what natural born means. For the first 230 years of this countries existence, it meant your father had to be an Amerian citizen. Not only does this make sense, not only is this reasonable, not only is it historially true, but any other intrepretation of this definition trivializes the concept and makes the wording of our Constitution superflous. Every word in our Constitution as great import and meaning. We all know this is true, but yet you come along and argue that these words are the exception and as you do so you toss 230 years of our nation's history into the shitter.

Come on now, let's be serious! Are you really an Amerian?

Where did you get this from? That's not how the SCOTUS defined a natural born citizen. They made it clear in Wok Kim Ark that natural born means being born in the United States, as evolved under common law.

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” ... The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, ... and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. ...

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. ...

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.​

... 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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” ...

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

 

[JakeStarkey]

CitizenAl is kooky, Toro. He substitutes his opinion for facts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Still makes me curious as to why President Obama spent millions concealing records.

It would have been much more fiscally prudent of him to merely produce any records in question, IE college transcripts.

This simple action would have shut the birther's mouths up!

You’re not curious, you’re gullible.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gullible, yes; very sweet, very yes.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Is that so. It comes down to the definition of what natural born means. For the first 230 years of this countries existence, it meant your father had to be an Amerian citizen. Not only does this make sense, not only is this reasonable, not only is it historially true, but any other intrepretation of this definition trivializes the concept and makes the wording of our Constitution superflous. Every word in our Constitution as great import and meaning. We all know this is true, but yet you come along and argue that these words are the exception and as you do so you toss 230 years of our nation's history into the shitter.

Come on now, let's be serious! Are you really an Amerian?

Then explain anchor babies.

Anchor babies can't run for president.
Unless your insinuating obama is an anchor baby this is not exactly relevent to the subject of this thread.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Generally, your sentiments are correct . . . well, almost, except for the 230-years thingy. Try 109 years, from the time at which the Constitution became operational (1789) to the time at which the Wong Kim Ark decision was handed down (1898).

In the past, prior to Wong Kim Ark, Congress required that one be born of the blood of the nation in order to be a natural-born citizen regardless of where one was born. Anyone born on American soil and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a natural-born citizen since Wong Kim Ark regardless of the parents' nationality.

Wong Kim Ark's parents were not citizens of the United States, but citizens of China at the time of his birth; howbeit, they were residing in the United States legally. Wong Kim Ark was never naturalized. Hello!

Anchor babies are a gray area, but only because of the dunderheaded decision of Wong Kim Ark in which the Court failed to definitively establish whether or not the offspring of persons residing in the United States illegally are in fact subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Contrary to the belief of many, neither Congress nor the Court has ever emphatically legislated or ruled on that particular question.

But the distinction is moot after these many decades, as in lieu of the federal government's silence on the matter, the several states have recognize all persons born on U.S. soil to be citizens at birth so long as they are not the offspring of foreign officials. Though it be constitutionally ass backwards, so does the federal government by default.

Hence, tragically, anchor babies certainly can run for the office of the presidency. . . .

Natural-born citizenship goes to the moment of conferral. Persons upon whom citizenship is conferred at the moment of birth are natural-born citizens. Naturalized citizens are those upon whom citizenship is conferred after birth. That is the definitive distinction. Those upon whom citizenship at birth can be conferred is spelled out by Congress relative to the constitutional requirement that the claim ultimately rests, either directly or indirectly, on the soil of the nation.

That last assertion will confound many as they read on and fail to carefully think their way through to the ultimate essence of natural-born citizenship. Hint: jurisdiction.

Now, could Congress pass a law tomorrow barring all future anchor babies from citizenship, emphatically declaring that such are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Sure. There have been a small handful of such proposals over the years.

It would most certainly be challenged in the courts though.

Would it hold up? In my opinion it should as long as the prohibition did not apply retroactively, as neither the Constitution nor case law allows Congress to strip one of one's citizenship once it has been conferred without due process relative to certain acts of expatriation.

On the other hand, it's as likely as not that the Court would strike it down. Practically (political realities), as a result of the decision of Wong Kim Ark, the only thing that would stand would be a constitutional amendment.

Prior to Wong Kim Ark, Congress held that one had to be born of both the blood and the soil of the nation in order to be a citizen at birth, i.e., a natural-born citizen, wherein citizenship at birth included those born abroad of natural-born parents (jus sanguinis, i.e., the law of the bloodline). That is to say, "the soil of the nation" was imputed to such offspring via "the blood of the nation" based on the parent's prior claim on the soil. Keep in mind, however, that the conferral of natural-born status upon those born abroad of U.S. citizens must be provided for by extant law, as natural-born status via the law of the bloodline is a legislative prerogative, not a constitutional requirement.

Finally, in my opinion, Wong Kim Ark was a bad decision, not only because the Court failed to definitively established whether or not the offspring of illegal residents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but also because for the first time in constitutional history (regardless of the bogus rational of a so-called common-law tradition) the Court declared, in defiance of constitutional precedent, which established a unique requirement, a departure from English Common Law, and in defiance of congressional directive, that said jurisdiction pertained to the soil of the nation only!

But the Court’s agenda-driven majority was comprised of persons who were akin to the "progressives" of today.

I loath leftists.

I appreciate the fact that careless readers and thinkers, particularly those with wrongful notions about what does and does not constitute the United States' jurisdiction for constitutional purposes relative to the soil of the nation, will imagine a contradiction in the above.

Study to show thyself approved: Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That is a minority conclusion with no basis in law, Al.

Obama is indeed a citizen and qualified to be president under the Consitution.

That is fact.

. . . Where did you get this from? That's not how the SCOTUS defined a natural born citizen. They made it clear in Wok Kim Ark that natural born means being born in the United States, as evolved under common law.

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” ... The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, ... and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. ...

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. ...

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.​

... 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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” ...

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

So the majority claimed as if the Framers truly did have that in mind. LOL! No they didn't. And you would do well to consider the dissenting justices' argument documented in that same decision which utterly exposes the majority's claim for what it was, not to mention the congressional record which held that one's parentage was abundantly pertinent to the "jurisdiction thereof". Finally, consider the fact that the Wong Kim Ark decision occurred 109 years after the application of the Constitution. Hello! Persons born on U.S. soil of foreign nationals, including those not officially engaged by a foreign power, were not recognized to be natural-born citizens, even after the ratification of the 14th! Hence, Ark sued the U.S. government, and the progressives on the Court obliged him.

The majority's claim in Wong Kim Ark that the common-law tradition of citizenship prevailed in America under constitutional law prior to its decision is bullshit! And guess what. The agenda-driven majority knew that! The status of natural-born citizenship was understood to apply to both the blood and the soil of the nation. It is abundantly clear from a careful reading of the legislative history, starting with the First Congress, that both obtained to the jurisdiction of the United States. The dissenting justices were right. That common-law citizenship (or birthright citizenship) stands today as the law of the land as a result of Wong Kim Ark is certainly a fact. That I do not dispute. But that is a different observation altogether.

The bottom line, the Court usurped a power exclusively granted Congress by the Constitution in this instance.

But of course that is now the law of the land, and those who claim that a person born on U.S. soil of foreign nationals, including, presumably, those born of illegal aliens, are wrong. Yes, they can, as they are natural-born citizens under the birthright citizenship of Wong Kim Ark and subsequent statute and/or practice.


I cover the matter here: Prufrock's Lair: A Critique of the Chin Argument

But to understand that matter fully, begin here: Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

Yes. The birther claim that Obama is not eligible is nonsense, but his legitimacy has nothing to do with Wong Kim Ark. Obama was born on the soil of the nation, born of a duly established U.S. citizen. He was a citizen at the moment of birth, i.e., a natural-born citizen.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

People like this aligning themselves with the Republican Party is probably why the Republican Party is in such dire straights

No, I am a Republican and I call them out on it.

Name one Deomcrat that is calling Obama out for his false claims such as he will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. the wealthy do not pay enough taxes and if the Supreme Court rules the health care mandate unconstitutional it would be the first time they ruled against an act of Congress.

Where is that person? Will you step forward and be the first?

I too am a Republican and a staunch conservative (or more accurately, a classical liberal who loathes leftists, particularly the lying, cynical bastard that is Obama); nevertheless, this birther business is hogwash, like nodoginnafight's claim that the Republican Party is in "dire straights". Obama is a natural-born citizen who legitimately holds the office of President and come next year he will still be natural-born citizen, albeit, resting his bruised and battered ass back in Illinois, well-removed from the Oval Office, after the drubbing Romney gives him.

 

[Conservative]

Is that so. It comes down to the definition of what natural born means. For the first 230 years of this countries existence, it meant your father had to be an Amerian citizen. Not only does this make sense, not only is this reasonable, not only is it historially true, but any other intrepretation of this definition trivializes the concept and makes the wording of our Constitution superflous. Every word in our Constitution as great import and meaning. We all know this is true, but yet you come along and argue that these words are the exception and as you do so you toss 230 years of our nation's history into the shitter.

Come on now, let's be serious! Are you really an Amerian?

Then explain anchor babies.

Anchor babies can't run for president.
Unless your insinuating obama is an anchor baby this is not exactly relevent to the subject of this thread.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

incorrect.

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

anchor baby...
Anchor Babies - Definition of Anchor Babies

Definition: The term "anchor babies" is used by anti-immigrant commentators to refer to children born in the United States to undocumented parents. These children, like all people born in the United States, are considered natural-born citizens under U.S. law.

Anchor babies are considered 'natural born', and CAN run for President.

 

[slackjawed]

Then I stand corrected. Always good to learn something.


Still the birther "issue" is a non- issue.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk