Re: why birtherism might not matter, even if it's true ...
"Karl Swenson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Uh no, if he needs to be born on US soil *and* have a US parent, his birth certificate becomes essential to the claim. However the US citizen parent is a non starter. Any child born on US soil is an American citizen. That's the crux of the whole anchor baby debate. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter T. Chattaway Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 7:30 AM To: DADL (off topic) Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] why birtherism might not matter, even if it's true ... On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Bruce Geerdes wrote: > > Ergo, *it doesn't matter* where Obama was born. > > It seems that's debatable. Some differentiate between "citizen at birth" > (which Obama certainly was, being born to a US citizen) and > "natural-born citizen", which some define solely as being born on US > soil. Well, I've also heard it argued that Obama needed to be born on U.S. soil *and* be the son of U.S. citizens to be a "natural-born citizen" -- in which case, again, his birth certificate would be irrelevant. -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot