Anybody familiar with

[rich76]

WorldNetDaily? They are running this story today...interesting

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=210521

[hork]

it's amazing how much free time some folks have. from their own affadavit

Obama was born a British subject/citizen to a British subject/citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother.

maybe they should actually learn the law before they try to challenge it and make themselves (and those who buy into it) all look like complete dumb asses.

[rich76]

as far as I am concerned...Obama was born in Hawaii 2 years after it became a state...that should be enough right? I wasn't curious about who could/would be a dumbass....I was inquiring if the site mentioned above had any credibility as I have a hard time understanding all the legal jargon written in said article.

[hork]

Originally Posted by rich76

as far as I am concerned...Obama was born in Hawaii 2 years after it became a state...that should be enough right? I wasn't curious about who could/would be a dumbass....I was inquiring if the site mentioned above had any credibility as I have a hard time understanding all the legal jargon written in said article.

two names associated with the site will sum it all up....Joseph Farah and Aaron Klein.

to say the least, the source itself is speculative. they have a history of what many call a severe failure to perform fact checking. but given it's long standing history of its agenda it seems hardly surprising. it's not what one would call a reliable source. but then most blogs can hardly be accused of being unbiased or without agenda and this one (posing as a news source or not) is no different. it's cut from the same fabric as focus on the family or the huffington post both claim to be legit sources of information and both are little more than mouthpieces for their respective agendas and neither is overly concerned with truth or facts. like they say why let facts get in the way of a good story.

however, in this case, the litigation in question is real and the dumb asses who filed it continue to pursue it, and many in the general public remain ignorant to the facts (still trying to decide if it's because they're too stupid to check on their own or just too lazy).

[rich76]

are little more than mouthpieces for their respective agendas and neither is overly concerned with truth or facts. like they say why let facts get in the way of a good story.

kind of like Michael Moore eh?

[hork]

Originally Posted by rich76

kind of like Michael Moore eh?

except they actually try to frame it as news rather than bull---- you on the big screen.

[BlackDiamond]

http://www.grasmick.com/citizen.htm#WHAT+IS+A+U.S.

http://www.uscitizenship.info/citize...b-children.htm

My son/daughter was born overseas. Can he/she become a US citizen?

In many/most cases, a child born outside the US to a US citizen or citizens is a US citizen by birth (and, in the opinions of most legal scholars, qualifies as a "natural born" citizen eligible to become President or Vice-President).

So the question is not whether the child can "become" a US citizen, but rather how the parents can go about documenting the fact of the child's citizenship.

The law on US citizenship for children born outside the US depends on when the child was born, whether one or both parents are US citizens, and how long each parent lived in the US prior (not necessarily immediately prior) to the child's birth. A table describing US law on this subject during the 20th century (for children born in wedlock) can be found on the Web site of Buffalo immigration lawyer Joe Grasmick. Check with a US consulate for an exact interpretation of the rules with regard to a specific situation; however, here's a summary of the rules as they pertain to children born now or in the recent past.

For children born abroad since 14 November 1986 to a married couple consisting of two US citizens, at least one of the parents must have "had a residence" in the US at some time in his or her life, prior to the child's birth. Judging by what I was told in early 1994 by the US consulate in Toronto when I applied to have my son (born in Canada) registered as a US citizen, US officials seem to define "residence" in the US as being physical presence in the US for a total of at least one year prior to the child's birth. However, the actual law (as enacted by Congress) does not impose this interpretation.

For children born abroad since 14 November 1986 to a married couple consisting of one US citizen and one non-citizen, the American parent must have been "physically present" in the US for a total of at least five years prior to the birth of the child. Further, at least two years out of this five-year period must have been after the parent reached age 14 (e.g., no good if you lived in the US from birth till age five, then left the country never to return). From 24 December 1952 to 14 November 1986, the minimum requirement was ten years (five years of which had to have been after the parent's 14th birthday).

The time spent in the US need not have been immediately prior to the child's birth, and it is possible to combine multiple separate periods of physical presence in the US to reach the required figures. Additionally, time spent in US territories or possessions can be counted -- as can time spent abroad in the US military, in US government employment, or as a dependent spouse or child of someone posted abroad under such circumstances.

These rules are designed to prevent the proliferation of generation after generation of "Americans" who would be citizens by descent without ever having set foot in the US.

Different rules apply to a child born out of wedlock outside the US. If the mother of an "illegitimate" child is a US citizen, her foreign-born child is a US citizen by birth if she had ever spent at least one year's worth of continuous literal, physical presence in the US. If the father is a US citizen (and the mother is not), the child is a US citizen only if the father's paternity is formally established and if the father has agreed to support the child. (This more stringent requirement for an American father to pass along US citizenship to a foreign-born illegitimate son may be on shaky legal ground; see the discussions elsewhere in this FAQ of the court cases Miller v. Albright and U.S. v. Ahumada Aguilar.)

An American who has a child born outside the US should contact the nearest US embassy or consulate as soon as possible, to request an application for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. This form needs to be filled out by both parents and returned with payment (currently US$10 or the local equivalent, money order or cash only, personal checks or credit cards not accepted) and supporting documents including parents' birth certificates, marriage certificate, passports, and the child's own birth certificate. For the supporting documents to be returned, you must enclose sufficient local postage for registered mail (ask the consulate for the required amount), or else bring everything in person to the consulate (in which case they will prepare the certificate while you wait; expect the process to take about an hour).

Note, once again, that a child born abroad under these circumstances is a US citizen by birth (in addition to possibly being a citizen of the country of birth). The "consular report of birth abroad" is not a bestowal of US citizenship, but simply an acknowledgment of same.