Obama Born in Kenya Lawsuit/Controversy

Someone posted the law on another similar thread showing it mattered not if his mother was a natural born citizen, he did not meet the requirement under the law of that time in being considered a citizen.

 

We need clarification on that law again, if someone can find it. Also need clarification if subsequent laws repealed that.

I was born in 1965, in Athens, Greece, to parents who were U.S. citizens (father was military). I grew up being told I couldn't be president because I was born in another country. I was also told that my son, who was born in England in 1991, could not be president.

So what's the current law, did it "grandfather" back to a certain year, etc.?

 

The law has been posted a couple of times.

 

You are qualified to run for office, no doubt about that one. Your son will be qualified if you some US residency requirements, but I am not sure what they are.

Your status has always been the same.

 

Okay, here's some references:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html

According to this, I've been told wrong all my life. So either I'm gonna run for president next election, or I'm gonna start grooming my kid to run in about 30 years....

In the meantime, as long as Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, has never revoked his U.S. citizenship or had his citizenship changed by his parents, and I haven't seen anything saying otherwise, then he's considered a U.S. citizen.

I'm not an Obama supporter, but this type of discussion is non-productive. If there actually is something to the lawsuit that proves he established citizenship in another country, I'd like to see that. Otherwise, the U.S. Code seems to support his citizenship.

 

I was born in Cali. but grew up in Kenya but now have lived in the US for 16 years. I have always been a us citizen and even served in the armed forces. If I ran for president do you think they would bring up my time in Kenya and question my citizenship?

 

If the opposition didn't like what you were proposing -- yes, definitely.

 

Perhaps this will clarify although it is not the law: wikipedia gives a clear definition of native born:
A native-born citizen of a country is a person who was born within the country's territory and has been legally recognized as that country's citizen from birth. Such a person is a citizen-at-birth by virtue of jus soli or birthright citizenship.

A person born outside a country, but who gained citizenship of the country at birth through descent from a citizen, is a citizen-at-birth through jus sanguinis, not a native-born citizen nor a naturalized citizen. A person who was born in a country that did not recognize him as its citizen at birth but later naturalized as its citizen is also not a native-born citizen.

In many countries (such as Japan), being native-born is not sufficient to confer citizenship. For example, Sadaharu Oh is not a Japanese citizen despite being born in Japan and having a Japanese mother.

The Republic of Ireland extends its citizenship laws on an extra-territorial basis to Northern Ireland. People from Northern Ireland (a region of the UK) who are Irish citizens by virtue of having been born on the island of Ireland are considered native-born citizens (see Irish nationality law).

In some countries (including United States), native birth is a requirement for certain high offices, such as the head of state or head of government.

Found here

but there is much to be confused about if you wish to study other entries:

Go here for issues of naturalization

Go here for issues of dual citizenship

The term citizenship is more loosely difined and pertains usually to political rights within a country It is often confused when the discussion is about native born vs natural born vs naturalized.

As if this isn't confusing enough, often we hear of people referred to as 'nationals'. For me, my first thought is that of 'citizen'.... but apparently this is not true in every case: More here on nationals but briefly:

So, to answer your question Thinkingstuff, it appears you are native/natural born without a break in your citizenship.... it has not been renounced by you. The amount of time spent living outside the US, has no bearing upon the status of citizenship which you came by naturally through native birth. This seems to still be true even if your parents were from another country, and even if they removed you to live back in that country: It appears that this latter may possibly require some acknowledgement by you after you reach a majority age, adult, or 28years depended upon the resources one consults. Perhaps there are some here who have better answers to this question than I.

 

I believe it has been stated that 5 of her years of citizenship in the US had to come after the age of 14 at or prior to the time of his birth. I've seen different ages for his mother at the time of his birth..... some as young as 17, which clearly did not meet the requirement of her obtaining majority age at the time of his birth.... to the age of 19, where upon that criteria might have been met. Considering that she met his father while attending college (I believe this to be correct) and most people are 18 or older upon the completion of high school, it is likely that she was 19 at the time of his birth. Whether this qualifies him for 'native born' if born outside of the US and its territories, is still an open question.... His dad was Kenyan: She, herself, had not reached the age of full participation of her citizenship..... was still subject to contracts and obiligations as befiting and protecting minors at that time..... and his birth had nothing to do with military deployment or service to the country by either of his parents as an obstacle to being born on US soil, or accounted as such. His mother could still register his birth as a live birth in Hawaii..... but without the signatures of doctors or witnesses in attendance..... it remains as a 'self-report' which neither confirms nor denies the possibilities of a birth occurring elsewhere. Personally, I question the newspaper announcement: Most hospitals, if not all back in that day, listed all babies born under their hospital census reports to the newspapers and births were listed by name and/or gender under the Hospitals logo. A birth announcement occurring elsewhere in the paper was usually a notice placed by parents from out of town..... or in papers in their home town where they had extended family and friends and did not always mean the baby was born there.

The privacy acts have stopped this practice.... but that was the custom in many places on into the 70's and 80's, that the hospitals published all birth announcements.