It is not racist to question Obama's citizenship

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[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."

worlock77

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.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="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.

Laihendi

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.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

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

XaosII

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.

It's racist and incredibly dumb.

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.Laihendi

*Correction* If you establish the principle that someone doesn't have to be born in America to become president in America then almost anyone can run to become president

And this is bad because? Let our presidential voting process determine who should and shouldn't be president. If we find a foreign born nominee that presents better ideas, what makes him unfit to be a president? The artificial barriers imposed in the constitution?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="JML897"]

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.

DroidPhysX

Lai has an unhealthy obsession with Obama.DroidPhysX

"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

 Slippery slope is not a fallacy.

Laihendi

Please play the game properly. 

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[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.

NEWMAHAY

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

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.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] 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.Laihendi

Being pig-headedly stupid isn't a principal.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] 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.XaosII

*Correction* If you establish the principle that someone doesn't have to be born in America to become president in America then almost anyone can run to become president

And this is bad because? Let our presidential voting process determine who should and shouldn't be president. If we find a foreign born nominee that presents better ideas, what makes him unfit to be a president? The artificial barriers imposed in the constitution?

Also anyone who lives in an anti-US country is moving there to get away. If someone moves here to become a politician, then he is coming here with the specific purpose of gaining political power in it. That is not the type of person who should be president.Laihendi

That's a hell of a logical leap there.

When you have explaned why the Canadian born, but lived in the US for 35 years (minus 1 day), isnt "American" enough to run for President - you'll know why Obama is a legitimate candidate.

For the love of... If a person is born in the United States, that person is a citizen. Ipso facto, a natural-born citizen.

This thread has no reason to exist.

Lai is approaching Kraychik 2.0 I still doubt anyone can come close to that great manDroidPhysX

@ Warlock - Understanding the influences of the founders is crucial to interpreting their documents and understanding their intentions.Laihendi

No. The only thing that matters is what the law says. 10 different people can interpret someones intentions and produce 10 different conclusions.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Lai is approaching Kraychik 2.0 I still doubt anyone can come close to that great manNEWMAHAY

are you suggesting that obama moved here to become a politicianAbbeten

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]are you suggesting that obama moved here to become a politicianLaihendi

Rather have people that don't have an allegiance to other countries. Most countries have native born leaders anyway. Why should that change.LJS9502_basic

Anwar al-Awlaki, senior Al Qaeda member, was a US born citizen and about 2 years short of the living in the US for 14 year requirement, to run for president.

Where you are born does not correlate to allegiance of your birth place. Let our voting process handle it. Not arbitrary restrictions.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]are you suggesting that obama moved here to become a politicianLaihendi

I think Lai might have JUST discovered politics. DroidPhysX

For the love of... If a person is born in the United States, that person is a citizen. Ipso facto, a natural-born citizen.

This thread has no reason to exist.

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Abbeten"]are you suggesting that obama moved here to become a politicianDroidPhysX

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Rather have people that don't have an allegiance to other countries. Most countries have native born leaders anyway. Why should that change.XaosII

Anwar al-Awlaki, senior Al Qaeda member, was a US born citizen and about 2 years short of the living in the US for 14 year requirement, to run for president.

Where you are born does not correlate to allegiance of your birth place. Let our voting process handle it. Not arbitrary restrictions.

It's not racist, but at this point it is extremely stupid.

I need an app for my phone that tells me when Laihendi makes a new thread.PannicAtack

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]i must ask who cares what the founders thinkLaihendi

And once again your logic is flawed and I will post this again.

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.

Your moronic response will be "But USA didn't Exist". They know it didn't but people that were born on UK territory before it became USA (but then later became the United States) were allowed to run. People born on UK territory that didn't become the USA were not.

]No your point is not proven. If you look at the keynote speakers at previous DNCs then you will see along list of US senators/congressmen (even some majority leaders), a couple of vice presidents, civil rights activists of national repute, etc. Obama was perhaps the least prominent politician to have ever given a keynote address, so it is obvious that he was being artificially propped up for a presidential run. Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Abbeten"]i must ask who cares what the founders thinkNEWMAHAY

And once again your logic is flawed and I will post this again.

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.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Obama wasn't up-and-coming before the 2004 DNC. He wan't anything to anyone outside his district until the 2004 DNC, and then the very next day media pundits were talking about how he should run for president in 2008. And he did.Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]]No your point is not proven. If you look at the keynote speakers at previous DNCs then you will see along list of US senators/congressmen (even some majority leaders), a couple of vice presidents, civil rights activists of national repute, etc. Obama was perhaps the least prominent politician to have ever given a keynote address, so it is obvious that he was being artificially propped up for a presidential run. DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]]No your point is not proven. If you look at the keynote speakers at previous DNCs then you will see along list of US senators/congressmen (even some majority leaders), a couple of vice presidents, civil rights activists of national repute, etc. Obama was perhaps the least prominent politician to have ever given a keynote address, so it is obvious that he was being artificially propped up for a presidential run. Laihendi

when in doubt, it's a conspiracyAbbeten