"Is there any non racist, non xenophobic explanation..."
Is it really so hard to understand this one? It's not race and it's not unreasoning fear: A person who has potentially conflicting loyalties has no business commanding the US military. A person who has, in the past, been a citizen of another country has potentially conflicting loyalties which in the event of armed hostilities with that nation would become problematic.
@docdamag This point is weak. One can be simply be born in the U.S, spend most of their life in another country, become citizen of said country (if that country allows dual citizenship)move home 6 months before an election and still run for president.
Of course this is hypothetical and I don't mean to suggest this person would have any real chance of being elected, but the point is that the citizens still have a chance to decide.
@ryan84160 The constitution can't allow for every eventuality, the possibility that someone born in another nation might run for president is an obvious one which the founders made provision for. This is its obvious purpose, unless you are so married to the idea that everything in the universe is racist, sexist and homophobic.
@docdamag Are you saying that naturalized citizens can not be trusted to have the same loyalty to the U.S as natural born citizens ? They are required to take a oath of allegiance to the U.S and renounce loyalties to any other nation. Are you saying immigrants that take this oath are lying ?
@ryan84160 There are two factors to consider here: first there is the possibility not that all of them lie but that one of them might lie and the second is the possibility that they might have lingering loyalties to their nation of origin that could affect their decision making if they find themselves in a position of final military authority. Now let me ask you a question: If the natural born requirement is a result of hatred for dirty foreigners, why only the presidency? why not congress too?
@docdamag I certainly did not say that it was a result of the hatred of foreigners. Some of the founders of your country could be defined as foreigners themselves.
I think the original intent was to not allow anyone with lingering allegiances to the British crown become president. In those days they were rightfully worried about British trying to retake the U.S. This in no longer the case and ,in my opinion, is not needed anymore, but I don't really have a say,I am only free to comment on it.
Because its in the constitution you stupid piece of Jew communist dog shit. Get the fuck out of the US asshole, Found a country and write your own constitution or just move to Israelie
this might be one of the reason natural born is a prerequisite of presidency, though certainly cant be the main reason.
any foreign born person running for president will face tsunamis of ethnic and racial prejudice, the election would become a battleground for social infighting, instead of a presidential potency. Yes even in the 21st century. If A THIRD of americans are smarter then all those who can vote actually would for once. if HALF is smarter Ron paul would be president ALREADY =_=.
The reason why it was put in the constitution was because when the constitution was written our founding fathers did not want people born in lets say, England to become President and sway our allegiance to the crown. Right now, it really doesn't matter. I hope James reads this but doubt he will
And yes I do question things fuck stick, but as I said before thats what the founding fathers wanted and as I said before until its changed thats the way it is. So grow up a little more, do something for country then you can have a say, in other words SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Come say that to my face you little fuck, 16 years old? You dont know a fucking thing about life or living it, taking care of anyone except yourself, what a waste of sperm.
You idiot, you truly do not ever question anything do you? By the look of THAT particular comment, im guessing im right... but yeah, who knows.
Uhm, actually the man in the video is right, why is it so important being a NATURAL born citizen? I just dont get it, if your an american citizen, or any countries citizen... you should be allowed to have any right and any say in that country, regardless of its level or rank in government.
careful, emergency cheese. by uttering words such as racist and xenophobic in the context of clarifying and placing a presumptive value on responses to your basic question, you are in effect stating that all who do not take your paradigm as their own are racist and xenophobic. i know it wasn't your intention. but that was a very leading sentence structure you chose. i hope my spelling is not an embarrassment to me.
The only reason for natural born citizenship requirement is security reasons - the government needs to be as sure as possible you are not working for any other state. If you are born abroad, the difficulty of this multiplies tenfold.
meh. there are tones of natural born people in countries that assume different beleifs and religons and politcal views than that country. i know someone that loves communism... so that hole security thing is pretty useless nowadays...
natural born citizenship as a requirement to become president is ridiculous since all americans are immigrants from europe asia etc. there is nothing like american people, they are a mix of all possible cultures, religions etc.
Its a good question. Tradition I would guess. If Arnold is good enough for California then why not the White House? I believe that in the end no matter how much people try to sugar coat it the real reason does have to do with race.
I imagine when the Constitution was written, this was added to assure that none of the British nobility could usurp the highest office in the land and undermine American Sovereignty. Its mostly useless today anyway as all of our elected (federal) officials have more loyalty toward Israel, than the US despite being mostly natural born citizens.
The only reason I can think of is because of paranoia and security... as if someone is going to come to our country to destroy it after being elected president.. who knows.. some people cannot think logically
Originally put in due to the fact that a president could decended from england, than nation we declared independence from, from ruling in our highest office.
PS. another good reasons for American citizens only. the Govornator.....
I'm sure someone's already said this, but it was a protection added to the Constitution to keep bias towards or against foreign countries out of our highest office. Sure, it's impossible, there is always some level of bias, but it is not so much of a stretch to say a citizen has a unique relationship with their brith country- either favorable (in which case a turn to politics could be fueled by a desire to help said country) or unfavorable (being glad to escape, one would not lend aid quickly).
As far as why that requirement was placed in the text of the Constitution: my understanding is that the founders had to balance Britain's desire to retake the colonies against the interests of France, who had assisted our rebellion for not altogether altruistic reasons. It seemed prudent to those founders, who were sketchy about investing all the powers of the presidency in a single office, to ensure that anyone so empowered would be a further step removed from allegiance to either power.
As I'm sure you know, James, being a natural born citizen isn't THE qualifying characteristic for the presidency -- it's one of them. No reason except that lousy Constitution. If Obama were, say, under the age of 35, he'd be ineligible in that scenario.
Given the tortured logic of the birthers, I'm kind of surprised they aren't running to that one too. If they're really so concerned that his birth certificate has been faked, isn't uncertainty about WHEN he was born just as pertinent as WHERE?
no RETARD it only proves that Obama's mother RESIDED in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth. No one said she MOVED to Kenya. But we know she was in Kenya when he was born.
Have any proof? Plane ticket? And why would she leave Hawaii just to go to Kenya?
Let me get this straight. Obama's mother got knocked up in Hawaii, but moved to Kenya for the birth FOR SOME REASON, and even though the birth wasn't in Hawaii, it was still announced in a Hawaii newspaper. In fact, this scheme is so elaborate, it tricked Hawaii's REPUBLICAN governor into saying he's seen Obama's birth certificate himself. Damn this is one elaborate plot.
No one said Obama "MOVED" to Kenya, just that she was there at the time of Obama's birth. or maybe you're just stupid?
oh and Hawaii's republican governor only verified that there is an original birth certificate on file, but not if it was Kenyan or Hawaiian. You really like to put words in everyone's mouth don't you?
There is no evidence that she was in Hawaii when Obama was born. The Hawaiian newspaper NEVER states where Obama was born. It exists because his mother RESIDED in Hawaii only. Its proof of NOTHING. the original birth certificate is sealed and Obama refuses to release it. That proves he has something to hide. That is because he was born in KENYA.
and the Hawaiian governor only said there was a birth certificate on file. She NEVER said it was a Hawaiian birth certificate.
You're just making this shit up. We HAVE his birth certificate. Politifact has debunked this nonsense OVER AND OVER. Have you checked Politifact? No you haven't. The Hawaiian governor has said she's seen the birth certificate, why wouldn't she say it's from Kenya?
Where are the flight records on Obama's mother going to Kenya? WHY would she go to Kenya? It's just ridiculous
Will clearly you are confused. Obama has NEVER released his original birth certificate. That is why so many people are suing him over it! and the Hawaiian Governor NEVER said she saw the birth certificate, nor did she say it was issued in Hawaii! and who is "politifact" that anyone should care what they say?
Why would she go to Kenya? how bout cause Obama Sr's family was there! Your denial of the truth is ridiculous.
"Obama has NEVER released his original birth certificate."
Hawaii law prevents the release of the original birth certificate. Did you watch the video I sent you? Rick Sanchez LITERALLY HELD THE DOCUMENT ON LIVE TV.
Google "Obama's Birth Certificate Verified By State" and you'll see a shit load of articles and stories proving you wrong.
What I want to know is, what evidence do YOU have? You haven't provided anything.
The COLB is not the ORIGINAL birth certificate. You are not even consistent in your arguments. You liberals are scared to death of this now that the mainstream media is addressing it, and Lou Dobbs of CNN is even asking for the birth certificate! lol Obama's birth certificate will be his waterloo :)
You're just like a 9/11 truther. You don't provide any facts, you just keep asserting your argument, and disregard all evidence presented otherwise. You haven't even tried to debunk my sources that I've sent you.
Not quite. The truthers at least provide a semi-coherent argument. These people just ramble about inane and irrelevant points, like Certification of Live Birth vs. Birth Certificate. It's like saying the County Registrar is not allowed to be in charge of elections because their title is not County Clerk.
Will you are scared to death of this. We are going to expose Obama as the traitor and fraud that he is. Its only a matter of time now that Lou Dobbs of CNN is keeping this front and center :)
Are you going to watch the videos I linked you or not? It's irresponsible of you to keep making the same argument, but not looking at my evidence. I would look into yours, but you haven't provided any!!
Will i already know the obamabots lies. i don't need to see another video on them. they prove nothing. This is real simple. If Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims then he needs to show the ORIGINAL birth certificate, not some computer generated piece of crap made in 2007. the rest of your arguments are meaningless. we will continue to demand the original till we see it. PERIOD. end of subject. nice talking with you.
The truthers reasoning is full of shit, but I would not rule out negligence, willful or otherwise on the part of the Bush Admin. However, the fact that it succeeded is proof they did not have direct involvement.
The COLB is the only thing available. The original no longer exists. The birth certificate I have is half a sheet of paper that has the same information as Obama's, except it's not from Hawaii.
EmergencyCheese, I'm dissapointed in you! First, you are suffering from the tired idea that everything in life has to be fair and equal.---but let's just skip to the obvious; Loyalty. The rule is simply a safeguard to protect us from having leaders with non-US loyalties--even if they are subconsious. Is this so hard to understand?
yeah, let's just get rid of that pesky constitution. the reason you need to be a NBC is because we don't want traitors in our government, oh wait. too late.
In my opinion/experience, many naturalized citizens cherish their citizenship more, by not taking it for granted and giving it more value; for them, that citizenship was obtained through much difficulty, most likely.
I honestly cannot think of a reason. It seems to me that the people who come here and work very hard to become a citizen would be people motivated to make things here even better because they get to see both sides of an issue.
So if anything I think a naturalized citizen would be better informed then sadly most of us and most of the kids we are currently graduating.
Hi James! The reason why the clause exists is to help minimize the possibility that someone with divided loyalties assumes the office of the presidency.
This may come as a surprise to you, but there are people out there with less than benevolent intentions toward this country!
Some of those people are also smart enough to think of sabotaging it by obtaining a position of power within government!
This clause exists to deal with this unpleasant reality. Good question my friend!
I think the natural-born rule is because of the tradition that the natural-born citizen grows up with. Grow up knowing what freedom is, the more likely you are to recognize and protect freedom. Grow up in a Communist country, for example, you are more likely to have a Communist thought process.
Unfortunately, our liberties today have been so twisted that even natural born citizens don't know what freedom is, let alone what a government under the Constitution should and shouldn't do.
I was born in a communistic country. Communism fell when I was 5. My parrents lived most of their lives in communism and trust me... they know very well what freedom is. They longed and fought for it very long and I am sure they protect it much more than many people who were born in it, because they often take it for granted and sometimes misinterpret it... So as obvious.. I don´t agree with your argument.
Yes, it is "birth discrimination". You're saying that some people can be president, and some people can't, depending on where they were born. Allow me to remind you that people have no control over their own births.
Suppose I said that asian people can't be president, because clearly they have "an affinity" towards asia and that will mess with our foreign policy? Suppose I said that men can't be president, because they have "an affinity" towards men and that will mess with gender-equality issues.
Everyone on Earth has "affinities" towards this or that, but that shouldn't disqualify them from office! I say we let the voters decide. If foreign-born people really are unworthy, then the voters should simply vote for someone else.
It's not as if the constitution says "native-born people are generally preferable to foreign-born people". No, the constitution says that foreign-born people *can't* be president, under *any* circumstances. We're effectively saying that it's impossible for a foreign-born person to be a good president. It doesn't make sense to me. Again, let the voters decide for themselves
I don't think the initial reason was racist or xenophobic. In my understanding, after the events of the American Revolution, the leaders of the county were worried about the loyalties of an American leader. This is one of the requirements as to prevent one with other possible allegiances with other states from taking over without the best interests of America at heart. I think it's still a valid reason, and not really racist.
Personally, I see no legitimate reasons. Americans often take for granted the freedoms and potential opportunities they are granted for merely being born in a particular location. It is immigrants who often times go through extreme adversity to become an American citizen; And who truly knows what it means to fight for freedom.
James, there is no reason for this xenophobic and racist constitutional requirement.
iceheart920 the founding fathers weren't "paranoid" but they were thoughtful and careful, and their concerns are just as important today as they were then. Obama proves this concern. HIs foreign allegiances have already motivated him to extremely destructive actions against our republic in the last 7 months since he usurped the presidency.
It was my understanding that when the country was founded, the Framers were paranoid that foreign countries could easily usurp the nascent country. Therefore, to make sure that any president was truly loyal to the country, you had to be born here. That argument is rather archaic nowadays but good luck changing that; people will call you un-American and an America hater if you try to.
iceheart920 the founding fathers weren't "paranoid" but they were thoughtful and careful, and their concerns are just as important today as they were then. Obama proves this. His foreign allegiences have already motivated him to extremely destructive actions against our republic in the last seven months since he usurped the presidency.
Obama is usurping the presidency because he was never eligible to run for the position in the first place. He was born in Kenya and is therefore not a natural born citizen.
What is your evidence for this nonsense? How many people have already looked into this and debunked this ridiculous claim you tinfoil birthers keep pushing? You're nothing more than Holocaust deniers.
iceheart920 Its not nonsense. Part of the evidence is in how much effort Obama and his followers go through to shut us up about it. It has NEVER been debunked. and trying to connect us to Holocaust deniers is just disingenuous.
If you are so sure Obama was born in Hawaii then what harm would it do for him to release the ORIGINAL birth certificate to eliminate all doubt?
You don't see how insane the Birther accusations are? It's on the same level as Holocaust deniers and 9/11truthers. The amount of debunking already done has been enormous. The courts continue to reject to hear any birther litigation because they have zero merit at all. And the Obama Admin isn't going to bend to more crazy people just because they're crazy. He already bowed once when people started screeching about the presidential oath. Why should he do it again when he's done enough already?
The point is evidence has been provided and accepted by the vast majority of people except for a very small minority who are determined to resist it for whatever reason.
Zero, iceheart, no court has ever looked at the merits of whether or not Obama is eligible, & no individual or group I have heard of has debunked it, they just debunk made up eligibility issues that aren't the real issue, which is whether or not Obama is a *natural born* citizen-- not whether he's a citizen at birth or naturalized citizen or even a native born citizen, but a natural born citizen.
You are playing with words. How is a native born citizen different from a natural born citizen? Does natural mean white skinned?
This is just as absurd as Certificate vs. Certification of Live Birth, Birth Certificate, etc. All I have is a half a sheet of paper that says Birth Registration Certificate. But all these birth law experts suddenly come along and proclaim one thing is this and another thing is this.
GET REAL! It's like Republic vs. Democratic Republic.
Superathiest this has nothing to do with President Bush. and the evidence has been discussed here. There is no need for me to repeat it. Obama is usurping the presidency because he was never eligible to run in the first place because he is NOT a natural born citizen which you must be to run for president according to our constitution.
Please enlighten us as to these "foreign allegiances" and "destructive actions". I would love to hear your opinion on the presidential election of 2000.
the white Founding Fathers probably had most (but not exclusively) in mind the white Brits, so it's not about race, please, enough with the race baiting
What about those who were born on US soil but spent much of their childhood/life in another part of the world w/o relinquishing their US citizenship. They are still allowed to run, vs the vice-versa of these people.
No cherrtwi5t, that hypothetical is still missing the point: natural born citizenship requires that " parentS" (plural), both parents were citizens, & Obama's father was not, even if Barack Jr. had been born in the US and never left the country, he still could not be a natural born citizen
L8nitedave, that would be true, except that the Founding Fathers were given a special exception in the Constitutional eligibility clause that allowed them to be grandfathered in:
"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 the President..."
Not really, it was known. What is notable is that that women had just gained the right to vote. As only men voted when the constitution was written, that played a role in the thinking behind the definition of the status of different citizens in those times.
Of course we & so many disagree, that is why we need the court to make some findings of fact on the natural born citizenship requirement, & no doubt the Chester Arthur example Obamabots like to bring up (& I don't blame them, they have to grasp at something) will come up for sure. God willing, the Kerchner case Obama's trying to get dismissed will move forward, & if not that one, there will be one after another & another until the merits are addressed.
With the changes in our ability to travel, voting rights and the biological status of a father much less relevant and in some cases irrelevant, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see precedence evolve to be defined as born on US soil or territory and/or to one US citizen.
perhaps, given the political & cultural ignorance and degeneration of some elements in society, there will be moves to amend the natural born citizen requirement -- in fact, a woman from a Chicago law firm supportive of Obama, expended effort to do just that before the election, coincidentally. I'm all for going thru legislation proposal & if passed by House & Senate, ratification by the states, tho I think given the stated goals of Islamic imperialism & stealth jihad, amending it is not wise.
Fortunately the founding fathers were wise enough not to knee jerk react to common fears of the time and looked as far into the future as they could. Past amendments did the same thing as hopefully future ones will too.
sonicsuns, Natural born citizenship IS a requirement to be president. That may be changed someday (although i hope it isn't) but for now that is the law and Obama has violated that law. He has committed massive fraud and treason.
Barack Obama was born on August 4th, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. This has been thoroughly proven.
Obama's Certification of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii's Department of Health was released in 2007. Representatives from FactCheck have seen the document in person and attest to its legitimacy.
A birth notice for Barack Obama was published in two local newspapers in August 1961.
Thus, Obama has not violated the law, nor has he committed fraud, nor treason.
Obama was born in KENYA. It has NOT been verified by anyone that he was born in Hawaii as he claims.
The COLB generated by a computer in 2007 was issued to any child born in the 60's to residents of Hawaii no matter where they were born, so this proves NOTHING. also factcheck is biased towards Obama and not reliable.
The birth notices don't say where he was born, and his mother resided in Hawaii so they placed a birth announcement. so what?
I respond: Prove it. I don't suppose you have a Kenyan birth certificate on hand? Or an official statement from the government of Kenya? Or any official documents of any kind?
You are mistaken with regards to COLBs as well. If you are born somewhere else, Hawaii can certify that you were born...*somewhere* *else*! That you were born in Hawaii requires independent confirmation of actual birth in Hawaii. And the COLB says that he was born in Hawaii.
sonicsuns We are working on proving he was born in Kenya. Obama himself adds validity to this claim by refusing to release his ORIGINAL birth certificate.
The COLB is a smokescreen meant to confuse simple-minded people such as yourself. It is insufficient as proof of birth because it lacks the doctor and hospital name.
Why has Obama claimed to have been born in two hospitals in Hawaii but neither has been able to confirm this?
Why (if born in Hawaii) won't Obama simply release the original BC?
"We are working on proving he was born in Kenya. "
I respond: Wait, you're *working* on it? So you haven't actually proven it yet? Then why did you proclaim that he was born in Kenya? Even if you believe that he wasn't born in Hawaii, you could just say that he was born "elsewhere" until such time as you actually figure out where that "elsewhere" is. Jumping straight to Kenya seems like a clear logical fallacy.
I respond: No, it's an official document. That's one official document says he was born in Hawaii, vs. zero official documents saying he was born elsewhere. Thus far, the balance of evidence points towards Hawaii.
You said: "It is insufficient as proof of birth because it lacks the doctor and hospital name. "
I respond: Is it a legal requirement to posses this information? All we need to know is whether or not he was born in Hawaii. Extra information is nice, but it's not necessary, unless there's some law you know of that I don't.
You said: "Why (if born in Hawaii) won't Obama simply release the original BC?"
I respond: There are two possibilities here.
#1: Because it doesn't exist anymore. According to a Los Angeles Times article which in turn quotes CNN sources, Hawaii discarded old long form documents in 2001, and the COLB is sufficient documentation for all legal matters.
#2: If the document does still exist, it's possible that Obama is keeping quiet about it simply because he doesn't want to give the birthers any more publicity than they already gave. Again, according to Hawaii law, the COLB counts as "prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding". So from Obama's perspective, he's already proven that he's a natural-born citizen. Any more discussion would just be a waste of time.
It is a well-founded accusation that Obama has refused to address, and as such is an admission of guilt.
Since the COLB is insufficient to prove or disprove this, the original is necessary.
The original exists because his mother filed it with the state of Hawaii to get the COLB. Why not release it? it wouldn't give more publicity to "birthers", it would silence them. Instead we will continue to push this issue and you nor Obama will silence us.
"sonicsuns We are working on proving he was born in Kenya."
You can't work on something that's not true. Politifact has already released many articles disproving the Kenyan birth bullshit, and even have a picture of his birth certificate.
"I don't care what evidence you have to show! I'm going to believe what I want for however long I want!"
Google "obama birth hawaii newspaper". Obama's birth was announced in a hawaii newspaper the week he was born. Quite an elaborate plot if he was born in Kenya, hmm?
WillMio the birth announcement is completely irrelevant. All that means is that Obama's parents resided in Hawaii. No one is disputing that. The announcement doesn't say he was actually born there. So what? His paternal grandmother says she saw him born in Kenya. He won't release his original birth certificate. He claimed to be born in 2 Hawaiian hospitals and neither can verify it. Why? BECAUSE THE SON OF A B!TCH WAS BORN IN KENYA.
"WillMio the birth announcement is completely irrelevant. All that means is that Obama's parents resided in Hawaii. No one is disputing that. The announcement doesn't say he was actually born there."
Yes it does, it really does. What do you think they were announcing? That his parents lived in Hawaii? The announcement was ACTUALLY OF HIS BIRTH. There was an announcement in the Hawaii Advertiser back in 1961 of the birth of one Barack Hussein Obama. How can you hear that and still be so stupid?
You are the one that is stupid. I live in Kentucky. My my wife gives birth while we are overseas on vacation. Guess what? they are going to put a birth announcement in MY local newspaper for my child. They're not going to exclude them because they weren't born here. So the birth announcement only proves that Obama's mother resided in Hawaii and that Obama was born in 1961. NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT.
No Kirby it wouldn't in Obama's case because his mother wasn't old enough to confer citizenship on him according to the law in 1961, therefore he was born a citizen of the british empire and clearly not a natural born citizen.
It doesn't take an expert in "birth law" to realize that Obama hasn't provided sufficient verification of his birth. It just takes common sense, something Obama supporters seem to be lacking. Why not just get Obama to release his ORIGINAL birth certificate and clear this mess up one way or the other? Where is the transparency he promised during the campaign? Was that just another Obama lie?
Well you make the claim that he is not a citizen. He who makes the claim provides the proof. Obama has released the only birth certificate he can release. It says that he was born in Honolulu. If he was born in Kenya or Indonesia, it would say so. The birth certificate I have is a "short form" and was valid to obtain an official ID and passport. Further, it says Birth Registration Statement, so any semantic argument about "Certification of Live Birth" is invalid.
Actually I make an accusation that many of us are now making. Obama has failed to sufficiently answer the question by releasing his ORIGINAL birth certificate. So the accusations will continue. You will not silence this, only Obama's ORIGINAL BC will settle this matter. Until its released, those of us who know the truth will continue to speak out. Your misinformation won't stop us, but nice try tho.
The original birth certificate was destroyed in 2001 when the records were all computerized. Even so, the original one is just the record kept in the Dept of Vital Stats. You can not ask for it, you can only receive a certified copy.
You seem to be giving robotic responses that avoid the question. If you can provide evidence that he is not a natural-born citizen, I will join your movement.
kirby its funny how the Hawaiian governor said several months ago that they had it on file (although she didn't say it was a Hawaiian BC) and now you liars say it was destroyed. Lol you liberals are so scared of this issue :)
kirby you are a fountain of misinformation. i cannot just keep correcting you because it would be a full time job. good luck and next time please do your homework before you comment. thanks.
Americans are perfectly capable of duplicity, just like anyone else. Humans in general are capable of good or evil things, regardless of their place of birth. If a candidate for president is duplicitous, then the people should recognize that and vote for someone else. And if they can't recognize that, then we've got a problem. In either case, birth discrimination isn't going to help.
DivinityBleu is correct. It's about loyalty James and it needs to be a criteria to be president. And I have to disagree with you, Obama has not proven that he is born in the US at all. It seems likely he was born in Kenya and is not legally president at all. And being Kenyan-born he has committed massive fraud and treason. And I'm disappointed that you would bring race into this. It has nothing to do with race.
Yeah, Obama isn't a natural born citizen but was actually born in Kenya....
And the Nazis never committed the Holocaust and the NASA moon landings were faked and the US destroyed the World Trade Centers to start a massive war and Bigfoot is real and leprechauns are real and unicorns are real....
cherrytwi5t his refusal to release his ORIGINAL birth certificate is evidence that he was born in Kenya, also the fact that he has cited two hospitals in Hawaii where he claims to have been born, and neither have been able to verify this, and his paternal grandmother admitted in an interview that she saw him born in Kenya. If he is telling the truth then why won't he release the original birth certificate?
I cannot believe you can not see the reason. I will admit that immigrants can love America just as much if not more than some Americans. The rule was made for those who are trying to harm America. You could profess from your mouth that you love America. When in reality you want to cause problems. It is more unlikely for a natural born citizen to do this, since they do not have ties to another country.
If we're going to disqualify those who "have ties to another country", we'll be casting a very large net. What about people from foreign ethnic backgrounds? What if your parents were immigrants? What if you spent a few years abroad in China and you "really love it"? What if your brother emigrated to Germany?
Besides, it's nonsense to discriminate against the circumstance of someone's birth; we have no control over where we are born.
I agree with DivinityBleu, I want Americans first, if they have allegiance to another country before the US, that would affect our relations with that country
Who says that people born in a country have to be loyal to that country? If someone born abroad immigrates here, becomes a citizen, and finally manages to convince more than half the country that she/he deserves to be president, then presumably she/he is loyal to the U.S.
"Who says that people born in a country have to be loyal to that country?"
It's definitely not uncommon.
Also, it doesn't have to be loyalty, they could have any range of emotions and experiences that could adversely affect their relationship in an unhealthy way.
Yeah, but even if it's common to be loyal to one's own birth-country, why should that be a disqualifying factor? Even if only 1% of the foreign-born U.S. citizens achieve true loyalty to America, that 1% should still be allowed to run for office. The voters should decide who's loyal and who's not.
"they could have any range of emotions and experiences that could adversely affect their relationship in an unhealthy way. "
Native-born people are just as capable of having these problems! There are American-born people who feel loyal to other countries; some of them even hate America outright.
Birthplace is an incredibly small factor. People born abroad can love america; people born here can hate america.
If you hate America then you won't get elected to President. There's no doubt that if you were born in, for example, uh, Germany, then that might affect your relationship as president with Germany in a way that would be different from someone who was born in America. I don't want someone who might have a conflict of interests in the white house.
If you come to this country, bust your ass, and actually manage to convince a majority of your fellow citizens that you should have the job, you deserve the chance. Restricting the Presidency to natural-born citizens is inconsistent with American values (that's right: it's inherently ANTI-American).
I agree the requirement is now arbitrary in a post-globalization world. Only in the most jaded sense is this an age of empires and alliance systems in which national loyalties could jeopardize American sovereignty. The constitutional requirement is a relic from colonial expansionist days and mercantilism.
Much of the Constitution might be considered a relic from colonial expansionist days and mercantilism. Shall we just scrap the whole thing or maybe only follow the articles that you agree with. Amend it or follow it seems to the only logical choice.
Strawman, caserus. No one is advocating ignoring the Constitution outright. The question at hand is whether the requirement should be amended, not whether to uphold the existing law of the land.
It's still there because no one wants the chance of Arnold Schwarzenegger being president..... =\
palomaemia90 1 year ago
You have to have lived in US for 15 years and be a natural born citizen. I think the 15 years on US soil is enough.
CanadaDan1971 1 year ago
The question is: Could I, a natural born American, be leader of any other country?
bmf1706 1 year ago
The question is: Could I, a natural born American, be leader of any other country?
bmf1706 1 year ago
"Is there any non racist, non xenophobic explanation..."
Is it really so hard to understand this one? It's not race and it's not unreasoning fear: A person who has potentially conflicting loyalties has no business commanding the US military. A person who has, in the past, been a citizen of another country has potentially conflicting loyalties which in the event of armed hostilities with that nation would become problematic.
Rocket science this isn't. Nor is it racist.
docdamag 1 year ago
@docdamag This point is weak. One can be simply be born in the U.S, spend most of their life in another country, become citizen of said country (if that country allows dual citizenship)move home 6 months before an election and still run for president.
Of course this is hypothetical and I don't mean to suggest this person would have any real chance of being elected, but the point is that the citizens still have a chance to decide.
ryan84160 1 year ago
@ryan84160 The constitution can't allow for every eventuality, the possibility that someone born in another nation might run for president is an obvious one which the founders made provision for. This is its obvious purpose, unless you are so married to the idea that everything in the universe is racist, sexist and homophobic.
docdamag 1 year ago
@docdamag Are you saying that naturalized citizens can not be trusted to have the same loyalty to the U.S as natural born citizens ? They are required to take a oath of allegiance to the U.S and renounce loyalties to any other nation. Are you saying immigrants that take this oath are lying ?
ryan84160 1 year ago
@ryan84160 There are two factors to consider here: first there is the possibility not that all of them lie but that one of them might lie and the second is the possibility that they might have lingering loyalties to their nation of origin that could affect their decision making if they find themselves in a position of final military authority. Now let me ask you a question: If the natural born requirement is a result of hatred for dirty foreigners, why only the presidency? why not congress too?
docdamag 1 year ago
@docdamag I certainly did not say that it was a result of the hatred of foreigners. Some of the founders of your country could be defined as foreigners themselves.
I think the original intent was to not allow anyone with lingering allegiances to the British crown become president. In those days they were rightfully worried about British trying to retake the U.S. This in no longer the case and ,in my opinion, is not needed anymore, but I don't really have a say,I am only free to comment on it.
ryan84160 1 year ago
Because its in the constitution you stupid piece of Jew communist dog shit. Get the fuck out of the US asshole, Found a country and write your own constitution or just move to Israelie
JewCommunist 1 year ago
I believe that it's a ill applied attempt of weeding out candidates who have not been living in the country but have citizenship.
Some believe that non-natural born citizens are less likely to fall into that category.
C0NQUISTADoR 2 years ago
Look up various theories and definitions of "indoctrination" and "nationalism". You may find some answers there.
machaeroguy 2 years ago
this might be one of the reason natural born is a prerequisite of presidency, though certainly cant be the main reason.
any foreign born person running for president will face tsunamis of ethnic and racial prejudice, the election would become a battleground for social infighting, instead of a presidential potency. Yes even in the 21st century. If A THIRD of americans are smarter then all those who can vote actually would for once. if HALF is smarter Ron paul would be president ALREADY =_=.
ragnarocks0 2 years ago
The reason why it was put in the constitution was because when the constitution was written our founding fathers did not want people born in lets say, England to become President and sway our allegiance to the crown. Right now, it really doesn't matter. I hope James reads this but doubt he will
john135246alias 2 years ago
This is a deal breaker for me to immigrate to the US... Why would I leave my country to go to another country where I can't be its leader?
pigletx 2 years ago
BeatingNgSource
And yes I do question things fuck stick, but as I said before thats what the founding fathers wanted and as I said before until its changed thats the way it is. So grow up a little more, do something for country then you can have a say, in other words SHUT THE FUCK UP.
dlad38 2 years ago
BeatingNgSource
Come say that to my face you little fuck, 16 years old? You dont know a fucking thing about life or living it, taking care of anyone except yourself, what a waste of sperm.
dlad38 2 years ago
Because they're scared Hitler will come down from Canada and run their country.
AleXAleXAleXH 2 years ago
Because the U.S. Constitution says so. So until its changed thats the way it is. Got it?
dlad38 2 years ago
Wow, you truly are the beacon of enlightenment!
You idiot, you truly do not ever question anything do you? By the look of THAT particular comment, im guessing im right... but yeah, who knows.
Uhm, actually the man in the video is right, why is it so important being a NATURAL born citizen? I just dont get it, if your an american citizen, or any countries citizen... you should be allowed to have any right and any say in that country, regardless of its level or rank in government.
BeatingNgSource 2 years ago
careful, emergency cheese. by uttering words such as racist and xenophobic in the context of clarifying and placing a presumptive value on responses to your basic question, you are in effect stating that all who do not take your paradigm as their own are racist and xenophobic. i know it wasn't your intention. but that was a very leading sentence structure you chose. i hope my spelling is not an embarrassment to me.
kitty121000 2 years ago
'Citizenship' is a load of bullshit in the first place.
ttJinn 2 years ago
The only reason for natural born citizenship requirement is security reasons - the government needs to be as sure as possible you are not working for any other state. If you are born abroad, the difficulty of this multiplies tenfold.
DrArsenicum 2 years ago 6
meh. there are tones of natural born people in countries that assume different beleifs and religons and politcal views than that country. i know someone that loves communism... so that hole security thing is pretty useless nowadays...
Simoncanada 2 years ago
Yes.... So Arnold Schwarzenegger never becomes President....
slammah2012 2 years ago 2
natural born citizenship as a requirement to become president is ridiculous since all americans are immigrants from europe asia etc. there is nothing like american people, they are a mix of all possible cultures, religions etc.
Shaddock2009 2 years ago
You're almost right, but you're forgetting about NATIVE-americans... :P.., they are american people... you know.
JrockNerd 2 years ago
yeah ^^
Shaddock2009 2 years ago
he is 100% right
karieltheone 2 years ago
If your home country went to war with the USA when you were president, wouldn't you feel just a little guilty?
Guitar241997 2 years ago
ther aren't that many nations that went to war with the US. the Us went to war with those nations
huizewolters 2 years ago
Prrretty true, i know very few countries that went to war with the U.S.
The English - Uhm, yeah... you all know the story, you attacked. You were right in doing so, but still, just saying so.
Vietnam - Offensive
The cold war - what, the fuck war? I GOT A BIGGER PENIS!
The Korean war - you guys entered a pre existing war.
Iraq - The country itself never declared war, nor did any other country in the middle east.
Seriously, what country declared war on you?
BeatingNgSource 2 years ago
Comment removed
ipromisenot 2 years ago
Its a good question. Tradition I would guess. If Arnold is good enough for California then why not the White House? I believe that in the end no matter how much people try to sugar coat it the real reason does have to do with race.
csrtitus 2 years ago 3
I imagine when the Constitution was written, this was added to assure that none of the British nobility could usurp the highest office in the land and undermine American Sovereignty. Its mostly useless today anyway as all of our elected (federal) officials have more loyalty toward Israel, than the US despite being mostly natural born citizens.
naberius417 2 years ago
The only reason I can think of is because of paranoia and security... as if someone is going to come to our country to destroy it after being elected president.. who knows.. some people cannot think logically
jakehubbb 2 years ago
Originally put in due to the fact that a president could decended from england, than nation we declared independence from, from ruling in our highest office.
PS. another good reasons for American citizens only. the Govornator.....
Austin4President 2 years ago
Sure that's fine if you want to be ruled by the queen of england.
Paddywagonexpress 2 years ago
I've got one good explanation to keep the legislation the way it is.
If you change it you may get arnold schwartzenegger for president!
francisco1977 2 years ago
I'm sure someone's already said this, but it was a protection added to the Constitution to keep bias towards or against foreign countries out of our highest office. Sure, it's impossible, there is always some level of bias, but it is not so much of a stretch to say a citizen has a unique relationship with their brith country- either favorable (in which case a turn to politics could be fueled by a desire to help said country) or unfavorable (being glad to escape, one would not lend aid quickly).
DyeBieFyre 2 years ago 3
two words: Arnold Schwarzenegger
zurich75mwp 2 years ago
As far as why that requirement was placed in the text of the Constitution: my understanding is that the founders had to balance Britain's desire to retake the colonies against the interests of France, who had assisted our rebellion for not altogether altruistic reasons. It seemed prudent to those founders, who were sketchy about investing all the powers of the presidency in a single office, to ensure that anyone so empowered would be a further step removed from allegiance to either power.
satyr9us 2 years ago
As I'm sure you know, James, being a natural born citizen isn't THE qualifying characteristic for the presidency -- it's one of them. No reason except that lousy Constitution. If Obama were, say, under the age of 35, he'd be ineligible in that scenario.
Given the tortured logic of the birthers, I'm kind of surprised they aren't running to that one too. If they're really so concerned that his birth certificate has been faked, isn't uncertainty about WHEN he was born just as pertinent as WHERE?
satyr9us 2 years ago
"So the birth announcement only proves that Obama's mother resided in Hawaii and that Obama was born in 1961."
Guess what retard? It's the WOMAN who gives birth. So if Obama's mother was in Hawaii when Obama was born, THEN HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII.
WillMio 2 years ago
no RETARD it only proves that Obama's mother RESIDED in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth. No one said she MOVED to Kenya. But we know she was in Kenya when he was born.
alancook01 2 years ago
Have any proof? Plane ticket? And why would she leave Hawaii just to go to Kenya?
Let me get this straight. Obama's mother got knocked up in Hawaii, but moved to Kenya for the birth FOR SOME REASON, and even though the birth wasn't in Hawaii, it was still announced in a Hawaii newspaper. In fact, this scheme is so elaborate, it tricked Hawaii's REPUBLICAN governor into saying he's seen Obama's birth certificate himself. Damn this is one elaborate plot.
Or maybe you're just stupid?
WillMio 2 years ago
No one said Obama "MOVED" to Kenya, just that she was there at the time of Obama's birth. or maybe you're just stupid?
oh and Hawaii's republican governor only verified that there is an original birth certificate on file, but not if it was Kenyan or Hawaiian. You really like to put words in everyone's mouth don't you?
alancook01 2 years ago
"No one said Obama "MOVED" to Kenya, just that she was there at the time of Obama's birth. or maybe you're just stupid?"
She was not in Kenya!! All the evidence points to him being born in Hawaii. The Hawaiian newspaper, the birth certificate, all of it.
And WHY WOULD THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNOR NOT SAY IT WAS A HAWAIIAN CERTIFICATE?
Dude, you're seriously retarded. I hope people like you don't breed.
WillMio 2 years ago
There is no evidence that she was in Hawaii when Obama was born. The Hawaiian newspaper NEVER states where Obama was born. It exists because his mother RESIDED in Hawaii only. Its proof of NOTHING. the original birth certificate is sealed and Obama refuses to release it. That proves he has something to hide. That is because he was born in KENYA.
and the Hawaiian governor only said there was a birth certificate on file. She NEVER said it was a Hawaiian birth certificate.
Wake up ignoramus.
alancook01 2 years ago
You're just making this shit up. We HAVE his birth certificate. Politifact has debunked this nonsense OVER AND OVER. Have you checked Politifact? No you haven't. The Hawaiian governor has said she's seen the birth certificate, why wouldn't she say it's from Kenya?
Where are the flight records on Obama's mother going to Kenya? WHY would she go to Kenya? It's just ridiculous
WillMio 2 years ago
Will clearly you are confused. Obama has NEVER released his original birth certificate. That is why so many people are suing him over it! and the Hawaiian Governor NEVER said she saw the birth certificate, nor did she say it was issued in Hawaii! and who is "politifact" that anyone should care what they say?
Why would she go to Kenya? how bout cause Obama Sr's family was there! Your denial of the truth is ridiculous.
alancook01 2 years ago
"Obama has NEVER released his original birth certificate."
Hawaii law prevents the release of the original birth certificate. Did you watch the video I sent you? Rick Sanchez LITERALLY HELD THE DOCUMENT ON LIVE TV.
Google "Obama's Birth Certificate Verified By State" and you'll see a shit load of articles and stories proving you wrong.
What I want to know is, what evidence do YOU have? You haven't provided anything.
WillMio 2 years ago
The COLB is not the ORIGINAL birth certificate. You are not even consistent in your arguments. You liberals are scared to death of this now that the mainstream media is addressing it, and Lou Dobbs of CNN is even asking for the birth certificate! lol Obama's birth certificate will be his waterloo :)
alancook01 2 years ago
You're just like a 9/11 truther. You don't provide any facts, you just keep asserting your argument, and disregard all evidence presented otherwise. You haven't even tried to debunk my sources that I've sent you.
WillMio 2 years ago 3
Not quite. The truthers at least provide a semi-coherent argument. These people just ramble about inane and irrelevant points, like Certification of Live Birth vs. Birth Certificate. It's like saying the County Registrar is not allowed to be in charge of elections because their title is not County Clerk.
kirby4d 2 years ago
Maybe, but they're still both full of shit
WillMio 2 years ago
Will you are scared to death of this. We are going to expose Obama as the traitor and fraud that he is. Its only a matter of time now that Lou Dobbs of CNN is keeping this front and center :)
alancook01 2 years ago
Are you going to watch the videos I linked you or not? It's irresponsible of you to keep making the same argument, but not looking at my evidence. I would look into yours, but you haven't provided any!!
WillMio 2 years ago
Will i already know the obamabots lies. i don't need to see another video on them. they prove nothing. This is real simple. If Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims then he needs to show the ORIGINAL birth certificate, not some computer generated piece of crap made in 2007. the rest of your arguments are meaningless. we will continue to demand the original till we see it. PERIOD. end of subject. nice talking with you.
alancook01 2 years ago
Your post is the equivalent of "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU"
WillMio 2 years ago
The truthers reasoning is full of shit, but I would not rule out negligence, willful or otherwise on the part of the Bush Admin. However, the fact that it succeeded is proof they did not have direct involvement.
kirby4d 2 years ago
The COLB is the only thing available. The original no longer exists. The birth certificate I have is half a sheet of paper that has the same information as Obama's, except it's not from Hawaii.
kirby4d 2 years ago
Kirby the original exists. and it confirms his Kenyan birth and his massive fraud against America. Welcome to Obama's waterloo hahahahaha
alancook01 2 years ago
Also, the law allowing of foreign births to get Hawaiian certificates was not adopted until long after Obama was born.
This is not his waterloo. The recession is more likely to be his waterloo.
kirby4d 2 years ago
wrong again kirby. please recheck your "facts" as they are wrong.
alancook01 2 years ago
EmergencyCheese, I'm dissapointed in you! First, you are suffering from the tired idea that everything in life has to be fair and equal.---but let's just skip to the obvious; Loyalty. The rule is simply a safeguard to protect us from having leaders with non-US loyalties--even if they are subconsious. Is this so hard to understand?
radiofriendly 2 years ago
yeah, let's just get rid of that pesky constitution. the reason you need to be a NBC is because we don't want traitors in our government, oh wait. too late.
marco114 2 years ago
wait there just a minute james. seems you have most of the answers on just about everything in the world of politics james.
why don't you answer it yourself!
wntoply6 2 years ago
In my opinion/experience, many naturalized citizens cherish their citizenship more, by not taking it for granted and giving it more value; for them, that citizenship was obtained through much difficulty, most likely.
ariaofdreams 2 years ago
I agree with you dude you are a smart young man and I hope you run for office one day.
prw51 2 years ago
"Arnold Schwarzenegger 2012!"
That's why.
vietnamveteranusa 2 years ago
Fear of a British take over was the main reason for that provision in the Constitution. Now we just have it to keep Arnold from running.
DangerousTalk 2 years ago 3
I think this might be the answer.
kirby4d 2 years ago 2
I have always thought it would be a bad idea to get rid of it, if only to keep Arnold Schwarzenegger from being president ;).
chukmaty 2 years ago
come on... a little of austrian accent hasn´t killed anybody.. :D
carymaryfuk84 2 years ago
I honestly cannot think of a reason. It seems to me that the people who come here and work very hard to become a citizen would be people motivated to make things here even better because they get to see both sides of an issue.
So if anything I think a naturalized citizen would be better informed then sadly most of us and most of the kids we are currently graduating.
mynameisbobtoo 2 years ago
to prevent a Manchuran(sp?) candidate.
godlyfighter 2 years ago
Hi James! The reason why the clause exists is to help minimize the possibility that someone with divided loyalties assumes the office of the presidency.
This may come as a surprise to you, but there are people out there with less than benevolent intentions toward this country!
Some of those people are also smart enough to think of sabotaging it by obtaining a position of power within government!
This clause exists to deal with this unpleasant reality. Good question my friend!
winjaxer 2 years ago 2
I think the natural-born rule is because of the tradition that the natural-born citizen grows up with. Grow up knowing what freedom is, the more likely you are to recognize and protect freedom. Grow up in a Communist country, for example, you are more likely to have a Communist thought process.
Unfortunately, our liberties today have been so twisted that even natural born citizens don't know what freedom is, let alone what a government under the Constitution should and shouldn't do.
RedGyl 2 years ago 2
I was born in a communistic country. Communism fell when I was 5. My parrents lived most of their lives in communism and trust me... they know very well what freedom is. They longed and fought for it very long and I am sure they protect it much more than many people who were born in it, because they often take it for granted and sometimes misinterpret it... So as obvious.. I don´t agree with your argument.
carymaryfuk84 2 years ago
Haha- there is the "Support Sarah Palin Pac" ad running on this video.
rowflowers 2 years ago
Yes, it is "birth discrimination". You're saying that some people can be president, and some people can't, depending on where they were born. Allow me to remind you that people have no control over their own births.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
"An affinity"? That's your disqualifying factor?
Suppose I said that asian people can't be president, because clearly they have "an affinity" towards asia and that will mess with our foreign policy? Suppose I said that men can't be president, because they have "an affinity" towards men and that will mess with gender-equality issues.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Everyone on Earth has "affinities" towards this or that, but that shouldn't disqualify them from office! I say we let the voters decide. If foreign-born people really are unworthy, then the voters should simply vote for someone else.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
It's not as if the constitution says "native-born people are generally preferable to foreign-born people". No, the constitution says that foreign-born people *can't* be president, under *any* circumstances. We're effectively saying that it's impossible for a foreign-born person to be a good president. It doesn't make sense to me. Again, let the voters decide for themselves
sonicsuns 2 years ago
I don't think the initial reason was racist or xenophobic. In my understanding, after the events of the American Revolution, the leaders of the county were worried about the loyalties of an American leader. This is one of the requirements as to prevent one with other possible allegiances with other states from taking over without the best interests of America at heart. I think it's still a valid reason, and not really racist.
emilailai92290 2 years ago 4
Personally, I see no legitimate reasons. Americans often take for granted the freedoms and potential opportunities they are granted for merely being born in a particular location. It is immigrants who often times go through extreme adversity to become an American citizen; And who truly knows what it means to fight for freedom.
James, there is no reason for this xenophobic and racist constitutional requirement.
jm083b 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
iceheart920 the founding fathers weren't "paranoid" but they were thoughtful and careful, and their concerns are just as important today as they were then. Obama proves this concern. HIs foreign allegiances have already motivated him to extremely destructive actions against our republic in the last 7 months since he usurped the presidency.
alancook01 2 years ago
It was my understanding that when the country was founded, the Framers were paranoid that foreign countries could easily usurp the nascent country. Therefore, to make sure that any president was truly loyal to the country, you had to be born here. That argument is rather archaic nowadays but good luck changing that; people will call you un-American and an America hater if you try to.
iceheart920 2 years ago
iceheart920 the founding fathers weren't "paranoid" but they were thoughtful and careful, and their concerns are just as important today as they were then. Obama proves this. His foreign allegiences have already motivated him to extremely destructive actions against our republic in the last seven months since he usurped the presidency.
alancook01 2 years ago
alancook01
I agree that it is still important for our president to be a natural born citizen, but exactly how did obama usurp the presidency?
like it or not he was elected.
SuperAtheist 2 years ago
Obama is usurping the presidency because he was never eligible to run for the position in the first place. He was born in Kenya and is therefore not a natural born citizen.
alancook01 2 years ago
What is your evidence for this nonsense? How many people have already looked into this and debunked this ridiculous claim you tinfoil birthers keep pushing? You're nothing more than Holocaust deniers.
iceheart920 2 years ago
iceheart920 Its not nonsense. Part of the evidence is in how much effort Obama and his followers go through to shut us up about it. It has NEVER been debunked. and trying to connect us to Holocaust deniers is just disingenuous.
If you are so sure Obama was born in Hawaii then what harm would it do for him to release the ORIGINAL birth certificate to eliminate all doubt?
alancook01 2 years ago
iceheart920
Holocaust deniers???
really??
is that what you really think?
SuperAtheist 2 years ago
You don't see how insane the Birther accusations are? It's on the same level as Holocaust deniers and 9/11truthers. The amount of debunking already done has been enormous. The courts continue to reject to hear any birther litigation because they have zero merit at all. And the Obama Admin isn't going to bend to more crazy people just because they're crazy. He already bowed once when people started screeching about the presidential oath. Why should he do it again when he's done enough already?
iceheart920 2 years ago
iceheart920
claiming obama is not a natural born citizen is NOT on the same level as denying 6 million jews were murdered by the nazies.
SuperAtheist 2 years ago
The point is evidence has been provided and accepted by the vast majority of people except for a very small minority who are determined to resist it for whatever reason.
iceheart920 2 years ago
Zero, iceheart, no court has ever looked at the merits of whether or not Obama is eligible, & no individual or group I have heard of has debunked it, they just debunk made up eligibility issues that aren't the real issue, which is whether or not Obama is a *natural born* citizen-- not whether he's a citizen at birth or naturalized citizen or even a native born citizen, but a natural born citizen.
EncompassedRunner 2 years ago
You are playing with words. How is a native born citizen different from a natural born citizen? Does natural mean white skinned?
This is just as absurd as Certificate vs. Certification of Live Birth, Birth Certificate, etc. All I have is a half a sheet of paper that says Birth Registration Certificate. But all these birth law experts suddenly come along and proclaim one thing is this and another thing is this.
GET REAL! It's like Republic vs. Democratic Republic.
kirby4d 2 years ago
alancook01
maybe, but do you have any evidence to support your accusation?
as far as usurping the presidency goes, the same could be said of bush!
by law there should have been a recount
where you against bush taking office without the recount?
SuperAtheist 2 years ago 2
Superathiest this has nothing to do with President Bush. and the evidence has been discussed here. There is no need for me to repeat it. Obama is usurping the presidency because he was never eligible to run in the first place because he is NOT a natural born citizen which you must be to run for president according to our constitution.
alancook01 2 years ago
Please enlighten us as to these "foreign allegiances" and "destructive actions". I would love to hear your opinion on the presidential election of 2000.
junior2173 2 years ago
In the 21st century, no. People should be able to elect whoever they want to represent them.
hascat 2 years ago
the white Founding Fathers probably had most (but not exclusively) in mind the white Brits, so it's not about race, please, enough with the race baiting
EncompassedRunner 2 years ago
that's right DivinityBleu, & searching the historical record behind the requirement would show that this was a concern of our Founding Fathers
EncompassedRunner 2 years ago
What about those who were born on US soil but spent much of their childhood/life in another part of the world w/o relinquishing their US citizenship. They are still allowed to run, vs the vice-versa of these people.
cherrytwi5t 2 years ago
No cherrtwi5t, that hypothetical is still missing the point: natural born citizenship requires that " parentS" (plural), both parents were citizens, & Obama's father was not, even if Barack Jr. had been born in the US and never left the country, he still could not be a natural born citizen
EncompassedRunner 2 years ago 2
By that definition neither could the first 20 presidents.
L8nitedave 2 years ago
L8nitedave, that would be true, except that the Founding Fathers were given a special exception in the Constitutional eligibility clause that allowed them to be grandfathered in:
"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 the President..."
EncompassedRunner 2 years ago
POTUS 21 Chester Aurthur's father was not a US citizen either naturalized or grandfathered.
L8nitedave 2 years ago
yup, a big coverup fraud that was
EncompassedRunner 2 years ago
Not really, it was known. What is notable is that that women had just gained the right to vote. As only men voted when the constitution was written, that played a role in the thinking behind the definition of the status of different citizens in those times.
L8nitedave 2 years ago
Of course we & so many disagree, that is why we need the court to make some findings of fact on the natural born citizenship requirement, & no doubt the Chester Arthur example Obamabots like to bring up (& I don't blame them, they have to grasp at something) will come up for sure. God willing, the Kerchner case Obama's trying to get dismissed will move forward, & if not that one, there will be one after another & another until the merits are addressed.
EncompassedRunner 2 years ago
With the changes in our ability to travel, voting rights and the biological status of a father much less relevant and in some cases irrelevant, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see precedence evolve to be defined as born on US soil or territory and/or to one US citizen.
L8nitedave 2 years ago
perhaps, given the political & cultural ignorance and degeneration of some elements in society, there will be moves to amend the natural born citizen requirement -- in fact, a woman from a Chicago law firm supportive of Obama, expended effort to do just that before the election, coincidentally. I'm all for going thru legislation proposal & if passed by House & Senate, ratification by the states, tho I think given the stated goals of Islamic imperialism & stealth jihad, amending it is not wise.
EncompassedRunner 2 years ago
Fortunately the founding fathers were wise enough not to knee jerk react to common fears of the time and looked as far into the future as they could. Past amendments did the same thing as hopefully future ones will too.
L8nitedave 2 years ago
natural born citizenship should not be a requirement.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
sonicsuns, Natural born citizenship IS a requirement to be president. That may be changed someday (although i hope it isn't) but for now that is the law and Obama has violated that law. He has committed massive fraud and treason.
alancook01 2 years ago
Barack Obama was born on August 4th, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. This has been thoroughly proven.
Obama's Certification of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii's Department of Health was released in 2007. Representatives from FactCheck have seen the document in person and attest to its legitimacy.
A birth notice for Barack Obama was published in two local newspapers in August 1961.
Thus, Obama has not violated the law, nor has he committed fraud, nor treason.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Obama was born in KENYA. It has NOT been verified by anyone that he was born in Hawaii as he claims.
The COLB generated by a computer in 2007 was issued to any child born in the 60's to residents of Hawaii no matter where they were born, so this proves NOTHING. also factcheck is biased towards Obama and not reliable.
The birth notices don't say where he was born, and his mother resided in Hawaii so they placed a birth announcement. so what?
Obama is guilty of FRAUD and TREASON.
alancook01 2 years ago 2
You said: "Obama was born in KENYA."
I respond: Prove it. I don't suppose you have a Kenyan birth certificate on hand? Or an official statement from the government of Kenya? Or any official documents of any kind?
You are mistaken with regards to COLBs as well. If you are born somewhere else, Hawaii can certify that you were born...*somewhere* *else*! That you were born in Hawaii requires independent confirmation of actual birth in Hawaii. And the COLB says that he was born in Hawaii.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
sonicsuns We are working on proving he was born in Kenya. Obama himself adds validity to this claim by refusing to release his ORIGINAL birth certificate.
The COLB is a smokescreen meant to confuse simple-minded people such as yourself. It is insufficient as proof of birth because it lacks the doctor and hospital name.
Why has Obama claimed to have been born in two hospitals in Hawaii but neither has been able to confirm this?
Why (if born in Hawaii) won't Obama simply release the original BC?
alancook01 2 years ago
"We are working on proving he was born in Kenya. "
I respond: Wait, you're *working* on it? So you haven't actually proven it yet? Then why did you proclaim that he was born in Kenya? Even if you believe that he wasn't born in Hawaii, you could just say that he was born "elsewhere" until such time as you actually figure out where that "elsewhere" is. Jumping straight to Kenya seems like a clear logical fallacy.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
You said: "The COLB is a smokescreen"
I respond: No, it's an official document. That's one official document says he was born in Hawaii, vs. zero official documents saying he was born elsewhere. Thus far, the balance of evidence points towards Hawaii.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
You said: "It is insufficient as proof of birth because it lacks the doctor and hospital name. "
I respond: Is it a legal requirement to posses this information? All we need to know is whether or not he was born in Hawaii. Extra information is nice, but it's not necessary, unless there's some law you know of that I don't.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
You said: "Why (if born in Hawaii) won't Obama simply release the original BC?"
I respond: There are two possibilities here.
#1: Because it doesn't exist anymore. According to a Los Angeles Times article which in turn quotes CNN sources, Hawaii discarded old long form documents in 2001, and the COLB is sufficient documentation for all legal matters.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
#2: If the document does still exist, it's possible that Obama is keeping quiet about it simply because he doesn't want to give the birthers any more publicity than they already gave. Again, according to Hawaii law, the COLB counts as "prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding". So from Obama's perspective, he's already proven that he's a natural-born citizen. Any more discussion would just be a waste of time.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
It is a well-founded accusation that Obama has refused to address, and as such is an admission of guilt.
Since the COLB is insufficient to prove or disprove this, the original is necessary.
The original exists because his mother filed it with the state of Hawaii to get the COLB. Why not release it? it wouldn't give more publicity to "birthers", it would silence them. Instead we will continue to push this issue and you nor Obama will silence us.
alancook01 2 years ago
"sonicsuns We are working on proving he was born in Kenya."
You can't work on something that's not true. Politifact has already released many articles disproving the Kenyan birth bullshit, and even have a picture of his birth certificate.
WillMio 2 years ago
WillMio: Politifact. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
they have disproven nothing. we will expose the truth and you and other liberals won't silence us.
alancook01 2 years ago
You sound like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
"I don't care what evidence you have to show! I'm going to believe what I want for however long I want!"
Google "obama birth hawaii newspaper". Obama's birth was announced in a hawaii newspaper the week he was born. Quite an elaborate plot if he was born in Kenya, hmm?
WillMio 2 years ago
WillMio the birth announcement is completely irrelevant. All that means is that Obama's parents resided in Hawaii. No one is disputing that. The announcement doesn't say he was actually born there. So what? His paternal grandmother says she saw him born in Kenya. He won't release his original birth certificate. He claimed to be born in 2 Hawaiian hospitals and neither can verify it. Why? BECAUSE THE SON OF A B!TCH WAS BORN IN KENYA.
alancook01 2 years ago
"WillMio the birth announcement is completely irrelevant. All that means is that Obama's parents resided in Hawaii. No one is disputing that. The announcement doesn't say he was actually born there."
Yes it does, it really does. What do you think they were announcing? That his parents lived in Hawaii? The announcement was ACTUALLY OF HIS BIRTH. There was an announcement in the Hawaii Advertiser back in 1961 of the birth of one Barack Hussein Obama. How can you hear that and still be so stupid?
WillMio 2 years ago
You are the one that is stupid. I live in Kentucky. My my wife gives birth while we are overseas on vacation. Guess what? they are going to put a birth announcement in MY local newspaper for my child. They're not going to exclude them because they weren't born here. So the birth announcement only proves that Obama's mother resided in Hawaii and that Obama was born in 1961. NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT.
alancook01 2 years ago
That would still technically count as natural born citizen. Case in point: John McCain.
kirby4d 2 years ago
No Kirby it wouldn't in Obama's case because his mother wasn't old enough to confer citizenship on him according to the law in 1961, therefore he was born a citizen of the british empire and clearly not a natural born citizen.
alancook01 2 years ago
Why not produce a link from a government file to this law since you seem so well-versed in birth law?
kirby4d 2 years ago
It doesn't take an expert in "birth law" to realize that Obama hasn't provided sufficient verification of his birth. It just takes common sense, something Obama supporters seem to be lacking. Why not just get Obama to release his ORIGINAL birth certificate and clear this mess up one way or the other? Where is the transparency he promised during the campaign? Was that just another Obama lie?
alancook01 2 years ago
Well you make the claim that he is not a citizen. He who makes the claim provides the proof. Obama has released the only birth certificate he can release. It says that he was born in Honolulu. If he was born in Kenya or Indonesia, it would say so. The birth certificate I have is a "short form" and was valid to obtain an official ID and passport. Further, it says Birth Registration Statement, so any semantic argument about "Certification of Live Birth" is invalid.
kirby4d 2 years ago
Actually I make an accusation that many of us are now making. Obama has failed to sufficiently answer the question by releasing his ORIGINAL birth certificate. So the accusations will continue. You will not silence this, only Obama's ORIGINAL BC will settle this matter. Until its released, those of us who know the truth will continue to speak out. Your misinformation won't stop us, but nice try tho.
alancook01 2 years ago
The original birth certificate was destroyed in 2001 when the records were all computerized. Even so, the original one is just the record kept in the Dept of Vital Stats. You can not ask for it, you can only receive a certified copy.
You seem to be giving robotic responses that avoid the question. If you can provide evidence that he is not a natural-born citizen, I will join your movement.
kirby4d 2 years ago
kirby its funny how the Hawaiian governor said several months ago that they had it on file (although she didn't say it was a Hawaiian BC) and now you liars say it was destroyed. Lol you liberals are so scared of this issue :)
alancook01 2 years ago
She said they had the records on file and it satisfies the constitutional requirements. She is a Republican. Wouldn't she want to expose Obama?
kirby4d 2 years ago 2
kirby you are a fountain of misinformation. i cannot just keep correcting you because it would be a full time job. good luck and next time please do your homework before you comment. thanks.
alancook01 2 years ago
Americans are perfectly capable of duplicity, just like anyone else. Humans in general are capable of good or evil things, regardless of their place of birth. If a candidate for president is duplicitous, then the people should recognize that and vote for someone else. And if they can't recognize that, then we've got a problem. In either case, birth discrimination isn't going to help.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
DivinityBleu is correct. It's about loyalty James and it needs to be a criteria to be president. And I have to disagree with you, Obama has not proven that he is born in the US at all. It seems likely he was born in Kenya and is not legally president at all. And being Kenyan-born he has committed massive fraud and treason. And I'm disappointed that you would bring race into this. It has nothing to do with race.
alancook01 2 years ago
Hey alancook01,
The middle ages called: they want their stupidity back.
Seriously.
AH!
Do you also think that the Jews were flying the planes on 9/11?
On a side note, Nice point James.
BillySurges 2 years ago
Billy what do the Jews have to do with this? are you an anti-semite as well as an ignoramus?
alancook01 2 years ago
Yeah, Obama isn't a natural born citizen but was actually born in Kenya....
And the Nazis never committed the Holocaust and the NASA moon landings were faked and the US destroyed the World Trade Centers to start a massive war and Bigfoot is real and leprechauns are real and unicorns are real....
iceheart920 2 years ago
iceheart920:
the Holocaust was real
Man walked on the moon
terrorists destroyed the WTC
Bigfoot, leprechauns, and unicorns may exist but as of yet are undiscovered, and i do not believe in them.
Obama WAS born in KENYA and is NOT legally president.
Does that clarify it for you?
alancook01 2 years ago
alancook01:
what is your evidence for Obama's birth in Kenya, making him a British-born?
cherrytwi5t 2 years ago
cherrytwi5t his refusal to release his ORIGINAL birth certificate is evidence that he was born in Kenya, also the fact that he has cited two hospitals in Hawaii where he claims to have been born, and neither have been able to verify this, and his paternal grandmother admitted in an interview that she saw him born in Kenya. If he is telling the truth then why won't he release the original birth certificate?
alancook01 2 years ago
I cannot believe you can not see the reason. I will admit that immigrants can love America just as much if not more than some Americans. The rule was made for those who are trying to harm America. You could profess from your mouth that you love America. When in reality you want to cause problems. It is more unlikely for a natural born citizen to do this, since they do not have ties to another country.
thejette61 2 years ago
If we're going to disqualify those who "have ties to another country", we'll be casting a very large net. What about people from foreign ethnic backgrounds? What if your parents were immigrants? What if you spent a few years abroad in China and you "really love it"? What if your brother emigrated to Germany?
Besides, it's nonsense to discriminate against the circumstance of someone's birth; we have no control over where we are born.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
I agree with DivinityBleu, I want Americans first, if they have allegiance to another country before the US, that would affect our relations with that country
WillMio 2 years ago 3
Who says that people born in a country have to be loyal to that country? If someone born abroad immigrates here, becomes a citizen, and finally manages to convince more than half the country that she/he deserves to be president, then presumably she/he is loyal to the U.S.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
"Who says that people born in a country have to be loyal to that country?"
It's definitely not uncommon.
Also, it doesn't have to be loyalty, they could have any range of emotions and experiences that could adversely affect their relationship in an unhealthy way.
WillMio 2 years ago
"[Birth-loyalty is] definitely not uncommon."
Yeah, but even if it's common to be loyal to one's own birth-country, why should that be a disqualifying factor? Even if only 1% of the foreign-born U.S. citizens achieve true loyalty to America, that 1% should still be allowed to run for office. The voters should decide who's loyal and who's not.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
"they could have any range of emotions and experiences that could adversely affect their relationship in an unhealthy way. "
Native-born people are just as capable of having these problems! There are American-born people who feel loyal to other countries; some of them even hate America outright.
Birthplace is an incredibly small factor. People born abroad can love america; people born here can hate america.
Let the voters decide.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
If you hate America then you won't get elected to President. There's no doubt that if you were born in, for example, uh, Germany, then that might affect your relationship as president with Germany in a way that would be different from someone who was born in America. I don't want someone who might have a conflict of interests in the white house.
WillMio 2 years ago
Like a Catholic?
kirby4d 2 years ago
Not exactly. I don't think being Catholic would present a conflict of interest that would prevent you from doing your job well.
WillMio 2 years ago
The Pope?
kirby4d 2 years ago
I don't think JFK was a lackey for The Pope. It's not like being born in another country.
WillMio 2 years ago
Good question.
vulpix 2 years ago
If you come to this country, bust your ass, and actually manage to convince a majority of your fellow citizens that you should have the job, you deserve the chance. Restricting the Presidency to natural-born citizens is inconsistent with American values (that's right: it's inherently ANTI-American).
rocketdogmedia 2 years ago 2
I agree the requirement is now arbitrary in a post-globalization world. Only in the most jaded sense is this an age of empires and alliance systems in which national loyalties could jeopardize American sovereignty. The constitutional requirement is a relic from colonial expansionist days and mercantilism.
DJK1726 2 years ago
Much of the Constitution might be considered a relic from colonial expansionist days and mercantilism. Shall we just scrap the whole thing or maybe only follow the articles that you agree with. Amend it or follow it seems to the only logical choice.
caserus 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
DJK1726 2 years ago
Strawman, caserus. No one is advocating ignoring the Constitution outright. The question at hand is whether the requirement should be amended, not whether to uphold the existing law of the land.
DJK1726 2 years ago
cool, then, Let's amend the constitution.
sonicsuns 2 years ago 2