It is not racist to question Obama's citizenship

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

I am not saying that he isn't American, I am just saying that it is a legitimate question to ask if he is really a natural born citizen. He was born with dual-citizenship to the UK and the US, and then became a legal citizen of Kenya after it became an independent country. This is due to his father who was never legally recognized as an American citizen. 

This is significant because if we use the definition of natural born citizen established by Emerich de Vattel in his The Law of Nations (a book known to have been read by Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, among other early US politicians) then we see that Obama is actually not a natural citizen, which is a constitutional requirement to be president of the US. Since the term "natural citizen" is never explicitly defined in the constitution, we cannot actually know for sure what the founders meant by it, but it is not a stretch to consider that they had Vattel's definition in mind.

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

Obama's supporters are quick to accuse anyone bringing this up as being racist but this has nothing to do with race - it is a matter of interpreting the laws established by the founders.

#2 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151048 posts) -
Wasn't he born in Hawaii? That makes him an American citizen...doesn't matter where his father was born.
#3 Posted by jimkabrhel (15419 posts) -

There could be racist intent, but I'm sure that not all the cases are of racist origin.

It's just silly at this point. He's been elected TWICE. If conclusive proof that he is not a citizen of the US exists, wouldn't it have come to light after all the researching has been done by various parties?

Look, he can't be elected again, and if he is removed, Joe Biden probably becomes President. 

Why keep this up?

#4 Posted by Aljosa23 (24945 posts) -

"The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen."
#5 Posted by Treflis (11555 posts) -
If it was a matter before then he wouldn't have already one therm under his belt nor a ongoing second one.
#6 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -

Wasn't he born in Hawaii? That makes him an American citizen...doesn't matter where his father was born. LJS9502_basic

 

He is a US citizen because he was born in the USA.

#7 Posted by JML897 (33125 posts) -
lmao
#8 Posted by XaosII (16592 posts) -

Its not racist. Its just stupid. Even the requirement is stupid.

#9 Posted by Aljosa23 (24945 posts) -

There could be racist intent, but I'm sure that not all the cases are of racist origin.

It's just silly at this point. He's been elected TWICE. If conclusive proof that he is not a citizen of the US exists, wouldn't it have come to light after all the researching has been done by various parties?

jimkabrhel

^ This too. Especially the first part. Laihendi is more naive and ignorant than I thought if he doesn't think at least some of the accusations from the tea party and other cretins isn't rooted in racism or xenophobia.

#10 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
Not racist to question it (then again any criticism of Barry used to be called "racist"), but a cover up, fake birth certificate etc doesn't make sense to me. Too complicated. Could've used a different figure head if that were the case.
#11 Posted by wis3boi (31375 posts) -

6f6.gif.

#12 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -

Its not racist. Its just stupid. Even the requirement is stupid.

XaosII
I agree it isn't racist. Its just plain stupid.
#13 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Its not racist. Its just stupid. Even the requirement is stupid.

NEWMAHAY
I agree it isn't racist. Its just plain stupid.

It, however, is preferable to real questions being asked about things like civil rights, drone strikes, wall street et al. No wonder the media is actively repeating the "birther" meme.
#14 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -

You know who else was born with a UK citizenship? All our founding fathers.

 

Obama father was a UK citizen. Obama was born in the United States of America. His mother was a US citizen. Obama is a US citizen and natural born.

#15 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151048 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Wasn't he born in Hawaii? That makes him an American citizen...doesn't matter where his father was born. NEWMAHAY

 

He is a US citizen because he was born in the USA.

Yeah...I knew that. Didn't you understand my post?
#16 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -
[QUOTE="NEWMAHAY"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Wasn't he born in Hawaii? That makes him an American citizen...doesn't matter where his father was born. LJS9502_basic

 

He is a US citizen because he was born in the USA.

Yeah...I knew that. Didn't you understand my post?

I actually didn't even noticed I replied to your post lol
#17 Posted by JML897 (33125 posts) -
No wonder the media is actively repeating the "birther" meme.MrPraline
They're really not though
#18 Posted by PannicAtack (21021 posts) -
You're right, it isn't racist. What it is is fvcking stupid because the question was put to rest years ago.
#19 Posted by Allicrombie (25197 posts) -

Its not racist. Its just stupid. Even the requirement is stupid.

XaosII
They only put that as a requirement so Alexander Hamilton wouldn't be president. Nobody liked Hamilton, lol.
#20 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrPraline"]No wonder the media is actively repeating the "birther" meme.JML897
They're really not though

oh, sad ok they were back when it was relevant
#21 Posted by XaosII (16592 posts) -

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Its not racist. Its just stupid. Even the requirement is stupid.

Allicrombie

They only put that as a requirement so Alexander Hamilton wouldn't be president. Nobody liked Hamilton, lol.

Hmmm? None of the first few presidents were natural born citizens either. It wasn't until the 10th president, i believe, that was an actual US born citizen. Not sure how it would've stopped Hamilton.

#22 Posted by PannicAtack (21021 posts) -
To actually address the TC's point, by actual American law, if you're born here, you're a citizen. That's the law. It is, in fact, in the Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment and all that, y'know?
#23 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
ITT: OP doesn't know the constitution
#24 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151048 posts) -

[QUOTE="Allicrombie"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

Its not racist. Its just stupid. Even the requirement is stupid.

XaosII

They only put that as a requirement so Alexander Hamilton wouldn't be president. Nobody liked Hamilton, lol.

Hmmm? None of the first few presidents were natural born citizens either. It wasn't until the 10th president, i believe, that was an actual US born citizen. Not sure how it would've stopped Hamilton.

What? Washington was born in Virgina. Virginia became part of the US. Doesn't matter that the British had the colonies. They were born on the American soil.
#25 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

"The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen."
Aljosa23

But if we go back to the original intent of the founders then he may not be considered a natural citizen. He clearly does not meet the qualification called for by Vattel (who is known to have had an influence on Benjamin Franklin and George Washington). Washington was even reported to have been reading it during his first day after inauguration.

[spoiler] pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of- [/spoiler]

#26 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

"The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen."

Laihendi


But if we go back to the original intent of the founders then he may not be considered a natural citizen. He clearly does not meet the qualification called for by Vattel (who is known to have had an influence on Benjamin Franklin and George Washington). Washington was even reported to have been reading it during his first day after inauguration.

[spoiler] pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of- [/spoiler]

Our founding fathers and their parents were UK citizens...

 

Obama had parent that had UK citizenship but Obama was born in the legal boundry of the United States of America. If this was a problem, then the founding fathers themselves wouldn't have run for president (but it wasn't because our founding fathers were born in what they considered the United States of America despite their parents UK citizenship and their UK citizenship).

 

Your logic is flawed. You are playing a what if game with no actually supporting evidence. If you are questioning Obama's right to be president, then you are questioning George Washington's right as well.

#27 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

"The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen."
Laihendi

But if we go back to the original intent of the founders then he may not be considered a natural citizen. He clearly does not meet the qualification called for by Vattel (who is known to have had an influence on Benjamin Franklin and George Washington). Washington was even reported to have been reading it during his first day after inauguration.

[spoiler] pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of- [/spoiler]

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF We're not living in the world of ifs bro
#28 Posted by XaosII (16592 posts) -

What? Washington was born in Virgina. Virginia became part of the US. Doesn't matter that the British had the colonies. They were born on the American soil.LJS9502_basic

You can't be a citizen of a country that doesn't exist.

#29 Posted by zenogandia (912 posts) -

Did anyone else have a feeling that Leidnli was going to be this topics creator?

#30 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151048 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What? Washington was born in Virgina. Virginia became part of the US. Doesn't matter that the British had the colonies. They were born on the American soil.XaosII

You can't be a citizen of a country that doesn't exist.

You can if it becomes one and allows that all people currently in said country are now citizens.
#31 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

Its not racist. Its just stupid. Even the requirement is stupid.

XaosII

No the requirement is not stupid. The whole point is to keep the government from being taken over by foreigners with no true loyalty to the country and the principles it was founded on. That is very important. Obama has made it clear that he does not respect those principles.

Obama does not respect personal responsibility. Obama does not respect freedom of speech. Obama does not respect habeas corpus - the concept of being innocent until proven guilty.

#32 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

Vote Laihendi for best troll.

#33 Posted by XaosII (16592 posts) -

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What? Washington was born in Virgina. Virginia became part of the US. Doesn't matter that the British had the colonies. They were born on the American soil.LJS9502_basic

You can't be a citizen of a country that doesn't exist.

You can if it becomes one and allows that all people currently in said country are now citizens.

Yes, that will certianly grant you citizenship. But that doesn't make you native born. Its why theres an exception permitting anyone living in the americas at the time of the adoption of the constitution to be able to run for president.

#34 Posted by JML897 (33125 posts) -

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Its not racist. Its just stupid. Even the requirement is stupid.

Laihendi

No the requirement is not stupid. The whole point is to keep the government from being taken over by foreigners with no true loyalty to the country and the principles it was founded on. That is very important.

I just don't understand how there's any harm done if someone is born in Italy and then legally immigrates to the United States as an infant. All they'd know their entire lives is being an American.

#35 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -

Vote Laihendi for best troll.

theone86
mhmm
#36 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

Our founding fathers and their parents were UK citizens...

 

Obama had parent that had UK citizenship and was born in the legal boundry of the United States. If this was a problem, then the founding fathers themselves wouldn't have run for president (but it wasn't because our founding fathers were born in what they considered the United States of America).

 

Your logic is flawed. You are playing a what if game with no actually supporting evidence.

NEWMAHAY

What you are saying is absurd. Obviously the founders couldn't have been born in a country that didn't exist yet.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.Article II section 1
The constitution explicitly states that those who were citizens at the time of the founding of the US were eligible to run for president.

#37 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -

Vote Laihendi for best troll.

theone86
#38 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Its not racist. Its just stupid. Even the requirement is stupid.

JML897

No the requirement is not stupid. The whole point is to keep the government from being taken over by foreigners with no true loyalty to the country and the principles it was founded on. That is very important.

I just don't understand how there's any harm done if someone is born in Italy and then legally immigrates to the United States as an infant. All they'd know their entire lives is being an American.

Yeah, apparently lai thinks a couple of day makes a HUGE difference.
#39 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151048 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

You can't be a citizen of a country that doesn't exist.

XaosII

You can if it becomes one and allows that all people currently in said country are now citizens.

Yes, that will certianly grant you citizenship. But that doesn't make you native born. Its why theres an exception permitting anyone living in the americas at the time of the adoption of the constitution to be able to run for president.

Then if you understand that...I'm not sure why you're arguing. Obviously there would have been no one old enough to run the country when it was first created otherwise.
#40 Posted by dave123321 (34064 posts) -
Astounding insights, lai
#41 Posted by XaosII (16592 posts) -

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Its not racist. Its just stupid. Even the requirement is stupid.

Laihendi

No the requirement is not stupid. The whole point is to keep the government from being taken over by foreigners with no true loyalty to the country and the principles it was founded on. That is very important. Obama has made it clear that he does not respect those principles.

Obama does not respect personal responsibility. Obama does not respect freedom of speech. Obama does not respect habeas corpus - the concept of being innocent until proven guilty.

No, the requirement is very stupid. You have to be 35 years old (which is also stupid as its an arbitrarily defined age) and you must have lived in the US for 14 years.

If you were born in the US and lived the next 21 years in an anti-US country, then moved to the US, lived there until 35 - you can run for president.

If you were born in Canada, moved to the US in under 24 hours, lived there for 35 years - you can't run for president.

Your opinion of what obama respects or doesn't has little bearing on your misconception of his "foreign" status.

#42 Posted by Allicrombie (25197 posts) -
OT needs a constitutional amendment to lock argumentative threads like these.
#43 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151048 posts) -
OT needs a constitutional amendment to lock argumentative threads like these. Allicrombie
Or a dictator with mod tags....>__>
#44 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -

[QUOTE="NEWMAHAY"]

Our founding fathers and their parents were UK citizens...

 

Obama had parent that had UK citizenship and was born in the legal boundry of the United States. If this was a problem, then the founding fathers themselves wouldn't have run for president (but it wasn't because our founding fathers were born in what they considered the United States of America).

 

Your logic is flawed. You are playing a what if game with no actually supporting evidence.

Laihendi

What you are saying is absurd. Obviously the founders couldn't have been born in a country that didn't exist yet.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.Article II section 1
The constitution explicitly states that those who were citizens at the time of the founding of the US were eligible to run for president.

My argument is completely rationalized.

George Washington was born in what came the United States of America. He considered a natural born because he was born in a colony that became the United States of America. His parents were citizens of UK and so was he, but mattered was that he was born on what became US soil.

Obama was born in the United States of America in a state of the United States of America. His father was a citizen of the UK. If this was a problem for George Washington, he wouldn't have ran along with our founding fathers. Your logic is inherently flawed.

If you are questioning Obama right to be President then you are questioning George Washington.

#45 Posted by Allicrombie (25197 posts) -
[QUOTE="Allicrombie"]OT needs a constitutional amendment to lock argumentative threads like these. LJS9502_basic
Or a dictator with mod tags....>__>

I can dream.
#46 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
Lai has an unhealthy obsession with Obama.
#47 Posted by XaosII (16592 posts) -

Then if you understand that...I'm not sure why you're arguing. Obviously there would have been no one old enough to run the country when it was first created otherwise.LJS9502_basic

I dont care enough about the semantics to argue what "native born" *would've* meant during the time of the formation of the constitution. *I* dont think Washington was native born citizen of the US because the US did not exist when he was born. Maybe you do.

I don't think it really matters either way.

#48 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

"The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen."

Laihendi


But if we go back to the original intent of the founders then he may not be considered a natural citizen. He clearly does not meet the qualification called for by Vattel (who is known to have had an influence on Benjamin Franklin and George Washington). Washington was even reported to have been reading it during his first day after inauguration.

It doesn't matter if he was an influence on them or not, his book is not the law of the United States. You're a f*cking moron for even dreaming that this is a remotely valid argument.

#49 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Its not racist. Its just stupid. Even the requirement is stupid.

JML897

No the requirement is not stupid. The whole point is to keep the government from being taken over by foreigners with no true loyalty to the country and the principles it was founded on. That is very important.

I just don't understand how there's any harm done if someone is born in Italy and then legally immigrates to the United States as an infant. All they'd know their entire lives is being an American.

If you establish the principle that someone doesn't have to be born in America to become president in America then almost anyone can become president, which would undermine the purpose of the rule. If you say "Oh well he moved here when he was 1 so he should be eligible for president", then someone else can say "oh well he moved here when he was 3", or "he was only 8 when he moved here", and then before long the age limit is thrown out altogether.
#50 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -
no its pretty racist