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

[jillian]

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

so many words.... so much stupidity.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

Elsewhere on your link:

Korean Rocket Shot Down By UFO!

NASA Trick To Remove Alien Evidence From Moon, Mars Revealed

Intelligent Alien Dinosaurs?

Is This A City On Mars? (Very Clear Detail)

Was Jesus The First Alien Hybrid?

Coincidence Of The Bootylicious Spotted Hippo

UFO: Scary Encounter At Military Base

 

[Cowman]

This is all no more silly than the rest of the shit conservatives say.

 

[Toro]

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.

Elsewhere on your link:

Korean Rocket Shot Down By UFO!

NASA Trick To Remove Alien Evidence From Moon, Mars Revealed

Intelligent Alien Dinosaurs?

Is This A City On Mars? (Very Clear Detail)

Was Jesus The First Alien Hybrid?

Coincidence Of The Bootylicious Spotted Hippo

UFO: Scary Encounter At Military Base

 

[Toro]

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

so many words.... so much stupidity.

You must be one of those leftist careless readers and thinkers.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

so many words.... so much stupidity.

Another drive-by moron.

Oh? Stupidity? And what precisely is incorrect and why? Please explain to this expert on naturalization law where he went wrong. How about a little chapter and verse? How about a real argument, demonstrating that you actually know something about the matter or even understand what you're reading? That should be fun . . . and revealing.

*crickets chirping*

Never mind. I am an expert, and only a know-nothing dolt touching on a matter of such complexity would foolishly dismiss my post. A fellow expert would both recognize and be glad to have encountered another, especially given the avalanche of ignorance permeating the minds of so many.

You're either a flaming soiler, a birther or a leftist loon who is blissfully ignorant of the legislative history and practice prior to Wong Kim Ark, and the subsequent and historic legal and political debate. Which is it?

Well, there is another possibility. You failed to read past the first couple paragraphs and assumed to know the rest of my sentiments. . . .

I can back my words, little girl; I've done my homework.

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

Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

Prufrock's Lair: Who Are the Real Conspirators?

 

[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.

Elsewhere on your link:

Korean Rocket Shot Down By UFO!

NASA Trick To Remove Alien Evidence From Moon, Mars Revealed

Intelligent Alien Dinosaurs?

Is This A City On Mars? (Very Clear Detail)

Was Jesus The First Alien Hybrid?

Coincidence Of The Bootylicious Spotted Hippo

UFO: Scary Encounter At Military Base

Precisely! LOL! Good one!

Or as I put it on my blog:

Birtherism—from Mombasa to Kenyan birth certificates—is the stuff of tabloid sensationalism: the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, "Elvis lives!", Batboy, "I was corn-holed by a Martian!" —Michael David Rawlings​

See link and pics: Prufrock's Lair: A House of Cards: the Case Against the Birther Movement

LOL!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You must be one of those leftist careless readers and thinkers.

Toro, you disappoint. I didn't exclusively put leftists into that category, nor did I say that the leftists on this board were wrong about the current law of the land regarding the status of anchor babies. Conservatives generally know that and do not dispute it. On the contrary, I emphatically stated that such are natural-born citizens, despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or case law stopping Congress from declaring that all future anchor babies would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, an understanding that flies right over the heads of many, an understanding that should alert one to the fact that the majority's claim in Wong Kim Ark that a common-law tradition applied after the ratification of the Constitution is bogus, knowingly and cynically bogus. (That's a think about it for a moment thingy.)

Hello! I know the law inside and out.

Wong Kim Ark and subsequent statute and practice stands as the law of land.

That doesn't mean that the majority decided the matter correctly in 1898, that it was a good decision, a rational or honest decision, that it's good law or that the Court's decision did not throw naturalization law into chaos for the next few decades, necessitating, for example, a series of subsequent decisions clarifying jurisdiction for constitutional purposes with regard to incorporated and unincorporated territories in the Insular Cases and prompting a legal backlash reversing the direction in which progressives attempted to take case law as a result Wong Kim Ark. LOL!

jillian is a careless reader and thinker, regardless of her politics. Soilers and birthers and fawning, knee-jerk worshipers of Wong Kim Ark (the latter, mostly leftists) can be found on both sides of the political divide, though, tragically, most of the birthers are conservatives. Whatever the case may be, jillian's foolish drive-by dismissal of my post clearly demonstrates that she is a smarmy, know-nothing dolt. ROTFLMAO!

Precisely what is the alleged stupidity in my post?

Huh?

What?

Where?

When?

*crickets chirping*

On the other hand, jillian's sort of drive-by without substance is typical of leftists, you know, the sort who, without any first-hand knowledge, go along with whatever fad the elites of progressivism currently embrace. Most leftists don't debate in good faith with facts and reason. They "demagogue" and "ad hominem". After all, progressivism is an ever-changing/shifting dynamic--yes?--an agenda striving to overturn historical tradition and precedent, move the nation away from its founding principles of individual liberty and self-determination predicated on the principle of private property toward a collectivist Nirvana. Of course its all marginalization and demonization via lies and name-calling. What else could it be given that the Founder's Lockean philosophy of government predates the 19th-century statism of Marxism and the 20th-century statism of fascism by decades!

Leftists are statist bootlicks. I loath them.

 

[Misty]

Does Obama have a driver's license? You have to have a birth certificate to get one.

 

[Toro]

Toro, you disappoint. I didn't exclusively put leftists into that category, nor did I say that the leftists on this board were wrong about the current law of the land regarding the status of anchor babies. Conservatives generally know that and do not dispute it. On the contrary, I emphatically stated that such are natural-born citizens, despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or case law stopping Congress from declaring that all future anchor babies would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, an understanding that flies right over the heads of many, an understanding that should alert one to the fact that the majority's claim in Wong Kim Ark that a common-law tradition applied after the ratification of the Constitution is bogus, knowingly and cynically bogus. (That's a think about it for a moment thingy.)

Hello! I know the law inside and out.

I appreciate your knowledge, rationality and obvious conclusion on the birfer issue, but you'd do even better if you laid off the trite and hard-edged ideological bias.

 

[Gadawg73]

Bottom line on Obama and just my opinion:
He is a legal citizen and was born in Hawaii, period.
He is a good family man and 100% devoted to them. That is so important to me and I admire him for it.
He has not done an effective job as leader and no offense to him so I do not support him.
I am tired of the lame attacks based on things not related to his job performance.
I hope he makes a lot of dough off of his book in his retirement next year.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bottom line on Obama and just my opinion:
He is a legal citizen and was born in Hawaii, period.
He is a good family man and 100% devoted to them. That is so important to me and I admire him for it.
He has not done an effective job as leader and no offense to him so I do not support him.
I am tired of the lame attacks based on things not related to his job performance.
I hope he makes a lot of dough off of his book in his retirement next year.

Just so.

We can beat him on his performance.

Not on his color.

Not on where he was born.

Not on whether he has a driver license.

Those of you who suggest he is not qualified under the Constitution to be president are flatly and completely and forever wrong.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

True. Anchor babies are considered to be natural-born citizens and therefore can run for president, but that is not emphatically spelled out in Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Naturalization Code with regard to the judicial term of "permanent residents". There is nothing in the Code that emphatically states that persons born on U.S. soil of illegal aliens are citizens at birth, as anyone can see for themselves with a careful reading of the same, as anyone can see from the summarization at the other end of your link. And there is nothing in constitutional or case law preventing Congress from declaring that because their parents are illegal aliens all future anchor babies are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thereby ending the practice of conferring natural-born status on them.

Instead, the fact that anchor babies are considered to be citizens at birth is mostly due to the lack of specification in the Wong Kim Ark decision featuring the mysterious discovery of a post-constitutional common-law birthright citizenship and to the consequential recognition by the several states and by the federal government's silent assent by default that anchor babies are U.S. citizens at birth, i.e., natural-born citizens via "the law of the soil" or birthright.

In Wong Kim Ark the Court merely stated that anyone born on U.S. soil of foreign parents with a permanent residence and not officially engaged are citizens at birth. The Court has never clarified precisely what "permanent residence" means in this instance. Presumably or initially, it meant that the foreign parents must be residing in the U.S. legally with respect to the official jurisdiction of the United States and at some established abode or another, but since neither Congress in the naturalization code nor the Court in subsequent decisions have definitively resolved the matter . . . well, the decades-long practice as a result of the Court's decision came to effectively define and establish the matter, even though the governments of the several states and that of the federal government by default did not initially recognize anchor babies to be natural-born for many years after the decision. Fact. It simply became the practice in lieu of the black hole in the legalese and in the wake of the flood of illegals in latter decades.

Congress eventually amended the code accordingly, but still without defining the term "permanent residence" relative to the legal status of foreign parents' on U.S. soil. The language is vague, neutral. Read: political hot potato . . . insanity, really, given that the integrity of our national sovereignty is at stake. Why should it be controversial to assert that the offspring of illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for constitutional purposes when the citizenship at birth of offspring born abroad of parents who are U.S. citizens must be emphatically provided for by statute? (Another red flag alerting the intellectually honest as to why the common-law rationale of the Court was bogus) Hence, the irrationality, the stupidity of progressives who demagogue the matter with phony accusations of racism where none exists.

Question: What do race or ethnicity have to do with legal or illegal immigration? Answer: nothing. LOL!

Speaking of demagoguery--more at leftist, anti-American political spin--take the definition of "anchor babies" provided by your source:

The term "anchor babies" is used by anti-immigrant commentators to refer to children born in the United States to undocumented parents. . . .​

"Anti-immigrant"?! The soft-sell term "undocumented" rather than "illegal interlopers" spitting on our national sovereignty. No. "Anti-illegal alien commentator" is the correct and accurate term applying to persons like myself. Hello! Only the enemies of the rule of law, barbarians, intellectually and morally depraved morons who do not appreciate the destructive consequences to a nation's cultural and political stability or welcome the latter are pro-illegal immigration. Obviously, the definition in the above was imposed by leftist, politically correct thuggery. As I said before, the entire political agenda of progressivism is a pack of lies and name-calling.

 

[candycorn]

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!

Maybe he's a better politician than you think.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

I would like to play Devil's Advocate here;
I would like to ask his supporters some questions regarding this issue. Im not a birther by any stretch, but a friend asked me these questions and I couldnt answer them with absolute certainty.

1) Pres B.O. nor his attorneys has ever said he was born in the US. only his supporters and pundits have...why do you believe he was if he has never admitted such himself?

2) Pres. B.O. has spent close to $1 million fighting to not show his birth record...if he was born here (as his supporters claim) why is he wasting that money rather than just show the proof?

3) After several dozen legal proceedings, not one has confirmed Pres. B.O. is a citizen, just that he didnt need to show his records (NJ case to be the last). Why do you supporters use that as confirmation that he IS a citizen?

4) Pres. B.O. has a social security number that was issued to a Conn. resident (female) who was born in 1890....Pres. B.O. was issued this Conn. number while living in Hawaii in 1980, The Social Security Administration states that they never reuse the numbers. How did Pres. B.O. get this number?

5) With absolutely no evidence, on only the word of pundits and supporters...not even the man himself...why do you believe Pres. B.O. is a natural born citizen?

 

[Gadawg73]

I would like to play Devil's Advocate here;
I would like to ask his supporters some questions regarding this issue. Im not a birther by any stretch, but a friend asked me these questions and I couldnt answer them with absolute certainty.

1) Pres B.O. nor his attorneys has ever said he was born in the US. only his supporters and pundits have...why do you believe he was if he has never admitted such himself?

2) Pres. B.O. has spent close to $1 million fighting to not show his birth record...if he was born here (as his supporters claim) why is he wasting that money rather than just show the proof?

3) After several dozen legal proceedings, not one has confirmed Pres. B.O. is a citizen, just that he didnt need to show his records (NJ case to be the last). Why do you supporters use that as confirmation that he IS a citizen?

4) Pres. B.O. has a social security number that was issued to a Conn. resident (female) who was born in 1890....Pres. B.O. was issued this Conn. number while living in Hawaii in 1980, The Social Security Administration states that they never reuse the numbers. How did Pres. B.O. get this number?

5) With absolutely no evidence, on only the word of pundits and supporters...not even the man himself...why do you believe Pres. B.O. is a natural born citizen?

BS. Where is there an expert that can testify to anything you claim?
Fact is every birther case has been thrown out of court because NO ONE can verify it.
The social security number claim is so bogus it is hilarious. That claim was refuted years ago in a birther case and the social security administration denies it out right
And you mention "after several legal proceedings":
How come the birthers LOSE EVERY ONE of those legal proceedings?
It gets even better and more hilarious. At every one of those legal proceedings no one on the Obama side shows up to defend the accusations.
And the birthers STILL LOSE.
Pretty bad when you show up for a ball game and the other team does not show up and YOU STILL LOSE.
Guess why they always LOSE?

BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE, NO EXPERT WITNTESSES AND NOTHING OF ANY SUBSTANCE TO ARGUE. NO FACTS, JUST RUMOR, RANK HEARSAY AND INNUENDO.

I vote Republican.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would like to play Devil's Advocate here;
I would like to ask his supporters some questions regarding this issue. Im not a birther by any stretch, but a friend asked me these questions and I couldnt answer them with absolute certainty.

1) Pres B.O. nor his attorneys has ever said he was born in the US. only his supporters and pundits have...why do you believe he was if he has never admitted such himself?

2) Pres. B.O. has spent close to $1 million fighting to not show his birth record...if he was born here (as his supporters claim) why is he wasting that money rather than just show the proof?

3) After several dozen legal proceedings, not one has confirmed Pres. B.O. is a citizen, just that he didnt need to show his records (NJ case to be the last). Why do you supporters use that as confirmation that he IS a citizen?

4) Pres. B.O. has a social security number that was issued to a Conn. resident (female) who was born in 1890....Pres. B.O. was issued this Conn. number while living in Hawaii in 1980, The Social Security Administration states that they never reuse the numbers. How did Pres. B.O. get this number?

5) With absolutely no evidence, on only the word of pundits and supporters...not even the man himself...why do you believe Pres. B.O. is a natural born citizen?

Because he said he was. Because Hawaii proved he was. Because the quality of his naysayers are in the barrel, the shit barrel that is.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

I would like to play Devil's Advocate here;
I would like to ask his supporters some questions regarding this issue. Im not a birther by any stretch, but a friend asked me these questions and I couldnt answer them with absolute certainty.

1) Pres B.O. nor his attorneys has ever said he was born in the US. only his supporters and pundits have...why do you believe he was if he has never admitted such himself?

2) Pres. B.O. has spent close to $1 million fighting to not show his birth record...if he was born here (as his supporters claim) why is he wasting that money rather than just show the proof?

3) After several dozen legal proceedings, not one has confirmed Pres. B.O. is a citizen, just that he didnt need to show his records (NJ case to be the last). Why do you supporters use that as confirmation that he IS a citizen?

4) Pres. B.O. has a social security number that was issued to a Conn. resident (female) who was born in 1890....Pres. B.O. was issued this Conn. number while living in Hawaii in 1980, The Social Security Administration states that they never reuse the numbers. How did Pres. B.O. get this number?

5) With absolutely no evidence, on only the word of pundits and supporters...not even the man himself...why do you believe Pres. B.O. is a natural born citizen?

BS. Where is there an expert that can testify to anything you claim?
Fact is every birther case has been thrown out of court because NO ONE can verify it.
The social security number claim is so bogus it is hilarious. That claim was refuted years ago in a birther case and the social security administration denies it out right
And you mention "after several legal proceedings":
How come the birthers LOSE EVERY ONE of those legal proceedings?
It gets even better and more hilarious. At every one of those legal proceedings no one on the Obama side shows up to defend the accusations.
And the birthers STILL LOSE.
Pretty bad when you show up for a ball game and the other team does not show up and YOU STILL LOSE.
Guess why they always LOSE?

BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE, NO EXPERT WITNTESSES AND NOTHING OF ANY SUBSTANCE TO ARGUE. NO FACTS, JUST RUMOR, RANK HEARSAY AND INNUENDO.

I vote Republican.

I havent claimed anything...please read the opening lines of that post before you say I claimed anything.
I hate having to educate people on how to read and that words...when put together one after another...form a sentence that has a meaning. Im sorry you decided NOT to read the post in its entirety (not even the opening lines) but rather took an opportunity to try and belittle someone for asking questions. Maybe you should try asking questions once and a while rather than believing you know everything.

Thank you for your time...have a nice day...Schmuck.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

I would like to play Devil's Advocate here;
I would like to ask his supporters some questions regarding this issue. Im not a birther by any stretch, but a friend asked me these questions and I couldnt answer them with absolute certainty.

1) Pres B.O. nor his attorneys has ever said he was born in the US. only his supporters and pundits have...why do you believe he was if he has never admitted such himself?

2) Pres. B.O. has spent close to $1 million fighting to not show his birth record...if he was born here (as his supporters claim) why is he wasting that money rather than just show the proof?

3) After several dozen legal proceedings, not one has confirmed Pres. B.O. is a citizen, just that he didnt need to show his records (NJ case to be the last). Why do you supporters use that as confirmation that he IS a citizen?

4) Pres. B.O. has a social security number that was issued to a Conn. resident (female) who was born in 1890....Pres. B.O. was issued this Conn. number while living in Hawaii in 1980, The Social Security Administration states that they never reuse the numbers. How did Pres. B.O. get this number?

5) With absolutely no evidence, on only the word of pundits and supporters...not even the man himself...why do you believe Pres. B.O. is a natural born citizen?

Because he said he was. Because Hawaii proved he was. Because the quality of his naysayers are in the barrel, the shit barrel that is.

Im not up on this issue, I think it is BS but in what I HAVE researched, Pres. B.O. has never said anything on the issue. He has let his attorneys fight over and over again to avoid showing any documentation. His answer is always the same....lets stop with this side show and concentrate on the issues.

Hawaii never proved he was, Hawaii hasn't proved anything. Abercrombie, the former governor retracted and changed his statement after it was proven he lied.

Neither of the two hospitals admit to his birth taking place there, no doctor has said he delivered him...was he a home birth, my oldest was. he has no attending physician on his birth form...which would explain a lot.

Either way, that still doesnt answer the questions.

Let me ask you...if someone was asking you (being an elected official) to show your actual birth certificate...would you ;
A- get it and show it, put the issue to rest
B- spend over a million $ fighting not to show it

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would like to play Devil's Advocate here;
I would like to ask his supporters some questions regarding this issue. Im not a birther by any stretch, but a friend asked me these questions and I couldnt answer them with absolute certainty.

1) Pres B.O. nor his attorneys has ever said he was born in the US. only his supporters and pundits have...why do you believe he was if he has never admitted such himself?

2) Pres. B.O. has spent close to $1 million fighting to not show his birth record...if he was born here (as his supporters claim) why is he wasting that money rather than just show the proof?

3) After several dozen legal proceedings, not one has confirmed Pres. B.O. is a citizen, just that he didnt need to show his records (NJ case to be the last). Why do you supporters use that as confirmation that he IS a citizen?

4) Pres. B.O. has a social security number that was issued to a Conn. resident (female) who was born in 1890....Pres. B.O. was issued this Conn. number while living in Hawaii in 1980, The Social Security Administration states that they never reuse the numbers. How did Pres. B.O. get this number?

5) With absolutely no evidence, on only the word of pundits and supporters...not even the man himself...why do you believe Pres. B.O. is a natural born citizen?

Because he said he was. Because Hawaii proved he was. Because the quality of his naysayers are in the barrel, the shit barrel that is.

Im not up on this issue,

Man, have you pegged yourself correctly.

What you think does not matter.

The State of Hawaii states the BHO was born there: end of story.

To think anything else is to enter a time warp conspiracy syndrome that defies imagination.

Yep, you live in the bottom of a shit barrel. Sorry to have to say it, but there it is.