Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OK, here's the REAL back story on Obama's birthplace!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:21 AM
Original message
OK, here's the REAL back story on Obama's birthplace!
Donald Trump laid it all out for us, the unenlightened, today on Morning Joe.

You see, Obama's African grandmother has been saying all along that Obama was born in Africa. According to Trump, his grandparents, mother and father came to Hawaii one week after Obama's birth and placed the birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper, listing Honolulu as his birthplace. They did that so they could claim welfare benefits for him and he would enjoy the rights of a U.S. citizen.

Simple as that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. funny as hell . . n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I thought his mention of "welfare benefits" was a particularly nice touch by The Donald.
Make sure we all get it that Obama comes from no-good stock of Africans...

Can Trump sink much lower?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. and, of course, they had presidential aspirations for Obama - not unlike all other grandparents.
But they had the foresight to insure he would be eligible to run for the office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gidney N Cloyd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. The Donald never disappoints, does he?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
5. Ah The Old Anchor Baby Trick...
Yeah...that's how it really worked...



:rofl:

And to the great unhinged who need to believe, this is the "missing link" I'm sure...Da Donald has 'em all figured. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
6. omg- what an absurd, strange little man he is.
Glad I don't get cable tv.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
7. but Dan Rather had to resign after saying Bush avoided most TANG service
the MSM blacklists many more responsible critics but gives bankrupt birthers airtime.

Seems like you can say anything on the MSM

as long as it isn't true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
8. The Donald is woefully ignorant about US Immigration law
Even if he was born in Kenya, as Mr. Bad Combover suggests, Obama was still born a US Citizen by virtue of one US Citizen parent married to an alien father. By birth to a USC mother who resided 10 years inside the US, 5 of which were after age 14, Obama effectively has the same rights as a US Citizen born inside the U.S. to two USC parents, including the right at age 35 to be elected President. Therefore, no need to carry out a charade with the newspaper birth announcement placement, and all that bogus crap.

The Donald isn't really as smart as he thinks he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. I'm sure they would argue that the Constitution says you have to have been born in the U.S. to
be eligible to be President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. "Natural born" means not naturalized. There's no need for the USC child of a USC to be naturalized.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 09:50 AM by leveymg
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:

* be a natural born citizen of the United States;
* be at least thirty-five years old;
* have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.


So, either way, he's a citizen as far as the Constitution is concerned.

Naturalization is a legal term-of-art that refers to the administrative process under which an alien must go through in order to become a US Citizen. There are only two legal categories of persons inside the U.S.: citizens and aliens. Permanent Residents Aliens have many of the contractual and civil rights of citizens, but are aliens who may not vote or run for federal office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Hey, I'm with you on this. I'm just sayin' what the RW would probably argue.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. McCain was born in Panama
No one said he wasn't eligible... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. Which would have eliminated John McBush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. "5 of which were after age 14" - You want to apply that to an 18 year old mother now?
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 10:23 AM by jberryhill
While the birther thing is incredibly stupid, it's irritating that they seize on things like your incorrect counterargument, based on current immigration law.

You seem to understand that in 1961, five years of residence post-age-14 were required of a US citizen parent to establish US citizenship of a child born abroad to a US citizen.

You seem not to understand that Ann Dunham was 18 years old in August 1961 and thus, in the hypothetical "foreign birth" scenario, would not have been five years a resident of the US post age 14. She would not be 19 until November of 1961.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. That was under the '52 Act. The '66 Amendment liberalized that so children born after '52
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 10:55 AM by leveymg
didn't have to have their mother present in the US for 5 years if during that period the mother was an unmarried dependent with a parent who was USG or US military or employed by an NGO: http://www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html

On December 24, 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the "1952 Statute") became effective. As under the previous statute, where both parents were U.S. citizens, one parent would have to have resided in the United States prior to the child's birth in order to transmit U.S. citizenship. The meaning of residence previously applied under the 1940 Statute was essentially the same as under the 1952 Statute.

In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child's birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14. "Physical presence" was different from the concept of "residence" which had applied under the previous statute. The physical presence requirement could be satisfied by mere presence in the United States even if the person had not established a legal residence there.

The physical presence requirement was intended to preclude extended absences from the United States during the required period. However, it was found to be too restrictive. In 1966, Congress passed an amendment which, for children born on or after December 24, 1952, permitted the transmitting U.S. citizen parent to count presence abroad in the following capacities towards the physical presence requirement:

1. honorable service in the United States Armed Forces;
2. employment by the United States Government;
3. employment by an international organization with which the United States is associated; or
4. physical presence abroad as a dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person employed in one of the above categories.

The Immigration and Nationality Amendments of November 14, 1986 further liberalized the transmitting U.S. citizen parent's physical presence requirements. For children born on or after November 14, 1986, a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent would acquire U.S. citizenship if the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for at least 5 years, at least 2 of which were after attaining the age of 14 years.


I guess the issue of unmarried crops up here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Not only the unmarried part, but also the employment part

It's a silly backwater of an argument, but the amazing thing is that the birthers will dismiss the "it doesn't matter anyway" response re: foreign birth, because it would have mattered. It's about the only thing they get right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
E_Pluribus_Unitarian Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
9. And where's the proof that...
the grandparents added this birth information in the newspaper(s)? Isn't it more likely that this was a regular feature of the newspaper(s) along the lines of a "police blotter" report, in which the paper has some agreement with local agencies to gather and report this information on a regular basis? As Sagan once said, extravagant claims demand extravagant proof -- and these idiots have none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. In fact, if you look at the actual paper in question, it says "Health Bureau Statistics"
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 09:59 AM by jberryhill
right at the top:


And the $2.50 all-you-can eat luau from Kaneda's is AWESOME!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
15. Oh I can just see all the teabaggers trying to find old airline records now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC