I know the (crackpot) debate over Obama’s citizenship (and therefore eligibility to be president) has been thoroughly debunked. That won’t make the issue go away for “birthers,” of course. Even though it was debunked more than a year ago (during the oh-so-thorough vetting of opposition candidates). But there’s one issue that bothers me about the coverage about this issue, even from the media that’s piled on top of Loud Dobbs (after needing a cue from Jon Stewart): Why doesn’t anyone discuss the definition of “natural born” citizen?
So far, the entire debate has hinged on whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii (he was, if you’re willing to believe the State of Hawaii). But the “birther” conspiracies (there’s more than one) continue. Since I commented on this on Twitter, I’ve gotten tweets & emails from “birthers” who challenged, arguing that as an alleged political science professor I “should know better.” Since I’m a Latin Americanist (one who primarily studies Latin American politics), not an Americanist (one who primarily studies US politics), I decided to do some of my own quick research. It took me less than an hour.
At first, like most people, I had assumed that the constitutional requirement to be US president (other than to be 35 years old & have lived in the US for at least 14 years) was being born on US soil. I later found out that this wasn’t necessarily true (more on that later), at least not according to the Title 8, Section 1401 of the US Code.
But, first, here are the various “birther” arguments for why Obama isn’t eligible to be a US president—a secret somehow kept safe from McCain, his campaign, and the entire GOP; the entire Democratic Party (especially those tricky Clintons!); the FBI, CIA, and NSA (the agencies that investigate candidates, before giving them the secret nuke launch codes); and all the US media (including the conservative media).
Argument 1a: Obama was not born in Hawaii (or any other US territory). This argument is false and readily debunked (use Google).
Argument 1b: Obama was born in Kenya because (despite all the legal documents stating that he was born in Hawaii) his grandmother, in a barely audible taped conversations (involving English-to-Swahili translation) allegedly stated that she was “present” at his birth. This argument requires three things: Trust that the woman on the phone is, in fact, Obama’s grandmother; belief that the memory of a 90-something old woman is better evidence than legal documents; and ignoring the rest of the conversation in which the woman corrects the translator by stating, emphatically, that her grandson was “Alizaliwa Marekani” (“born in America”). This is an interesting counter-argument, since it accepts at face value the (alleged) claim of a 90-something old woman as “proof,” even while refusing to accept legal documentation from the State of Hawaii.
Argument 2: Obama was born in Hawaii, but his father was a Kenyan or British (take your pick) citizen, so Obama inherited his father’s citizenship. This argument seems to ignore two key facts: Anyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen (unless his/her parents are diplomats, which was not the case here); and Obama’s mother was a US citizen. Interesting that “birthers” ignore his mother’s status, since that seems more relevant. (BTW, Obama’s father was Kenyan, but held a British passport at the time of Obama’s birth, since Kenya was still a crown colony. Not that any of this is relevant.)
Argument 3: Obama was born in Hawaii, but his father was a Kenyan or British (again, take your pick) citizen, and his mother was under age, so he inherited his father’s citizenship. This argument is flawed for two reasons: The age of the mother is irrelevant for conferring citizenship; and besides, Obama’s mother was 18 (an adult in any US state) when she gave birth to him.
Argument 4: Obama was born in Hawaii, but because his father was a Kenyan or British (again, take your pick) citizen, he had dual citizenship, and is therefore unqualified. This argument presumes that there’s a category of “half citizenship” (is that like 3/5 a person?). However, no such legal category exists. One either is, or is not, a citizen of the United States.
Any acknowledgement that Obama was born in Hawaii requires acceptance that he was born a US citizen.
But here’s where things get really interesting—primarily because I learned something about myself: None of that matters. Not. At. All.
According to Title 8, Section 1401 of the US Code (and all the interpretations of it I found), Obama would be a natural born
US citizen even if he was born outside the US. Why? Because his mother was a US citizen. I already knew most of that. After all, I was born outside the US & only one of my parents (my mom) was a US citizen at the time (my father became a US citizen about two decades later). But I didn’t realize I was legally also a “natural born” citizen, as interpreted by US law.
Look closely at the requirements to be a “citizen of the United States at birth” as spelled out in Title 8, Section 1401 of the US Code. Even assuming Obama wasn’t born in US territory (which he was), he would qualify under the provision that one of his parents (his mother) was a US citizen who had lived in the US for at least five years (including any military or diplomatic service).
And here’s where things get even more interesting. According to Wikipedia, a number of presidential candidates (none elected) have existed who’s status as “natural born” citizens was questionable. These include: George Romney (Mitt’s father), who tried to win the GOP nomination in 1968 (George was born in Mexico); Barry Goldwater, the GOP candidate in 1964 (Goldwater was born in Arizona territory, before it became a state); Lowell Weicker, who tried for the GOP nomination in 1980 (Weicker was born in Paris); John McCain, the GOP candidate in 2008 (McCain was born in Panama). BTW, being born on a US military base doesn’t automatically qualify someone for citizenship; it all depends on having at least one parent who is a US citizen.
As far as I can tell, I’m eligible for the US presidency. Unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise (and establishes case law that clearly states that presidents must be born in the United States). The same holds for Obama. Although none of that matters, since he was in fact born in Hawaii.
So remind me again, Lou Dobbs, why this isn’t actually about race?
-----
Note: I’m no longer accepting most (if any) comments to this post. The reason is simple: Most of the comments are from people who spew racist vile, use profanity, and/or perpetuate false claims. It’s not my job to educate the world’s crazies.
Re: "allegedly stated that she was “present” at his birth.'
All your points about it not being legal proof even if the grandmother had said it are true.
BUT, she did not say it at all. In fact, she clearly said that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Listen to the complete tape, and you can hear her say "America, Hawaii" right after the question "Whereabouts was he born?" http://www.obamacrimes.info/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-08.mp3
If it is too difficult to follow the tape, here is the complete transcript of that call. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf
And, not only was the story that the grandmother said that Obama was born in Kenya made up, so was the allegation that other relatives said it (nothing has been published) and the allegation that there are birth files in Kenya that have been sealed by the Kenyan government was also made up (no confirmation from any agency other that WND that there are any files or that any files are sealed).
If Obama had been born in Kenya or anywhere outside of the USA, there would be proof in the US State Department records of visas granted. Say that he was born in Kenya. Then he would have to get from Kenya to the USA. If he is considered a Kenya (British) citizen, he would have to get a USA visa on a British passport. If he is considered a US citizen, his mother's passport would have had to be changed to include him, while she was overseas.
Either of these would be in the files of the US State Department which was under Republicans for many years and for three months after the election. If there were any proof that Obama received a visa or his mother's passport was changed, it would have been revealed by now.
@smrstrauss:
First, thanks for the comment. I tried to be very clear that I don't think Obama's grandmother said that at all in the sentence or two following my quote.
However ... because I'm a stickler for accuracy ...
Your claims that if Obama was born in Kenya (which we both know he wasn't) he would need a visa and/or that is mother's passport would have to be amended are both false. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, he would be a US citizen. All that his mother would have to do is get the consular certification of birth overseas (which is the kind of US "birth certificate" I have). After that, his mother's passport would not be amended (US passports say nothing about a person's civil status). Instead, Obama would've obtained his own US passport (I had one by the time I was 6 months old; it was issued to me through the US consulate in Santa Cruz, Bolivia).
Re: "Instead, Obama would've obtained his own US passport (I had one by the time I was 6 months old; it was issued to me through the US consulate in Santa Cruz, Bolivia)."
Possibly. I traveled on my mother's passport, which included me, until I was nine.
Depends on the year, I guess.
But still, if Obama were born in Kenya and received a US passport, there would be a record of a US passport issued to Barack Obama in Kenya in 1961. That record would not have been erased, and would have been found by now, IF it existed.
@smrstrauss: Weird. I've never heard of that. I was born in 1975. Maybe things have changed? But let me be very clear: I am 100% sure that Obama was born in Hawaii, that even if he wasn't it doesn't matter, and that "birthers" are idiots.
If racism is so obvious in this case, how do you explain: whitewater,that bush national guard fiasco, or the stolen election in 2000? Doesn't it make more sense that people would cling to ideas that tarnish the legitimacy of someone they don't like? It is all the more obvious when the country is so evenly split: All the recent elections have been pretty close: Obama won by 52.9%, Bush by 50.7% according to wiki.
@dv: The difference between the examples you listed & the claims about Obama are pretty simple: they are meant to suggest he is not an American. That comes from an anti-immigrant bias. Because it doesn't matter where he was born. Being born to a US citizen automatically makes him a natural born citizen, even if he was born on Vulcan to a Klingon father. Similarly, the claims that he is Muslim are based on similar feelings. I'm actually glad of the contrtoversy: it made obvious who the bigots in our media/politics/etc are.
Claiming that Clinton murdered a staffer or the Bush 2000 election was a coup d'etat seems no more beyond the pale than claiming Obama was not born in this country.
I would find the claim of racism more credible if there wasnt a much larger number of people who just really dislike Obama because he is a democrat and will jump at anything that even has the veneer of possibility.
I don't think the "birther" argument is exclusively racist or bigoted. A bunch of people wouldn't have accepted McCain as president just because he wasn't born in the 50 states but rather in the US military zone in Panama (technically US territory). McCain, first Hispanic president?
At the height of Schwarzenegger's political popularity, some Republicans were considering amending the constitution to allow any US citizen (either born in the US or not) to be president. Thankfully, nothing arose out of that.
On other note, when you refer to "anti immigrant," do you refer to those against all immigrants or against illegal aliens? There's an important difference.
I've got two kids born outside of the States, one in El Salvador and one in Honduras. They're both American citizens even though their mom was not a U.S. citizen at the time of their birth, and they have American passports to prove it, based on the Certificates of Birth Overseas issued by the American Consulates in their countries of birth.
The reason for this is simple, as you mention, Miguel: the other parent (that's me, the father, to be clear) is an American citizen, and so they are too.
Anecdote in this globalized day and age: Kids arguing loudly in back of car until shushed by parents. Subject of argument: How many different passports they have, and who has more. Winner: younger brother (much to the irritation of his older sister) because he can have three, U.S., Salvadoran, and Honduran, and she only gets two, U.S. and Salvadoran. What a world...