Was President Obama born in the US?

Kind if ironic when you consider the USSC is made of nothing but politically biased appointments depending on which party is the majority when an opening needs to be filled.

really doesn't matter - his mother was a U.S. citizen. i looked it up - regardless of where he was born, since she's a citizen, he's a citizen. there is no requirement for the POTUS to be born w/in the country.

Actually there is... To be a President you have to be a Citizen born in the US.

From the constitution (Article II, Section 1):
"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."

Someone who is a US citizen by virtue of having American parents is a "natural born" citizen." It doesn't matter if they are born on Mars.

no... I have The Official Immigration Citizenship Book in here, issued by the Government of The United States, on my Hands, right now - and it says,

A Candidate for President of the United States must be:

• A Native-born, not naturalized citizen

Native born means Born in the United States.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedoc.../M-638_red.pdf

Under this document just do a search for "native".

Unless you want to tell me the government is teaching millions of people the wrong thing then...

How does the book define "Non-Native born citizen"?

The Government defines Native Born as:
"Individual born in the United States, in Puerto Rico, or in an outlying United States territory"

So, Non-Native Born Citizens are Either naturalized Citizens, like me, or children of US citizens, but Not born in US territory.
They further define Naturalization: "The process by which a foreign-born person can become a United States Citizen".

In addition, it is also required that the candidate has lived in the US for at least 14 years.

Here are the reasons the book gives:

"The writers of the Constitution wanted the President to be an experienced leader with a strong connection to the United States. The eligibility requirements try to make sure this happens. In Federalist Paper #64, John Jay wrote that the President should be a man "of whom the people have had time to form a judgment". This, Jay explains, is one main reason for the eligibility requirements."

If there is legally such thing as a "Non-Native Citizen", then it has to be defined in the book. If not, then it will legally fall under "Native Citizen". Nothing at all in the law accepts a default definition of something by virtue of it not being defined.

I am legally such a thing Mike Non-native born Citizen. I am a naturalized Citizen... I wish more people had taken a citizenship test sometimes... I learned a whole lot studying for that test...

And no, the book doesn't say Native Citizen it says Native Born citizen.
You can look anywhere for native born - it means born in the country. That is how the US defines it. I gave you the definition from the US government - you can go further and get definitions from the dictionary too.... not hard to do.
That is a requirement for the President... But, I was already asked this question and passed my Citizenship test with flying colors - didn't get one wrong... and so I am really not afraid of this one being wrong

There are plenty of places, Citizenship lawyers online who can easily confirm this - it is really not a mystery.

Then for the sake of clarity, what is the book's definition for "Non-Native Born Citizen"?

And eta: Does Constitutional Law use the same definitions as Immigration Law? They certainly don't appear to.

Mike, the book tells what I told you. I am not going to repeat myself as this is a repeated question. The book is not the constitution - it is about the constitution - I thought I would bring it up, and It clearly states the requirements for the president, and that is one question I also remember clearly being asked.

It is not Immigration law. This is a test one must pass to become a US citizen, about the constitution.

The problem with this issue, is that there is really no precedent in court, for all the Presidents in the US.

Theodore Roosevelt's son was found not eligible by many to be his successor because of the same issue (born in Canada). Interestingly enough, there was also a question about John McCaine, since he was born in the Panama Canal where his US citizen parents (both) were stationed in a military basis - if he won his eligibility would most likely have to be approved by the US Supreme Court.

Well, the difference being that you say the book states "Native Born Citizen", while the Constitution itself says "Natural Born Citizen". And, Congress has been recognizing foreign born children of US Citizens to be "Natural Born Citizens" since about 1790.

Yes, I say, and the book say - Native Born.
Look further Mike - it was briefly used in 1790, but quickly found potentially unconstitutional and the phrase "Natural Born" omitted/overtaken by subsequent legislation soon after.

Sorry to keep disagreeing, but the actual language of the Constitution CANNOT be found to be "unconstitutional". The very fact that it's in the Constitution makes it Constitutional. All that has happened is Congress has been given some leeway to more narrowly define the phrase "Natural Born".

Sorry, I changed my post my post as you typed we crossed posts in the air They found it to be potentially unconstitutional, and omitted the phrase in subsequent legislation soon after.
And no, it actually can be found unconstitutional - what you are referring to is a law that the First Congress passed in 1790 that defined children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born.” This was not originally found in the constitution, thus it could actually be potentially found unconstitutional. Thus the reason for the omission of "natural born".

The only possible way to omit "Natural born" from the Constitution is through amending the constitution to specifically remove it. This hasn't happened. There also has not been an amendment to include "Native Born". Perhaps I'm just not understanding what is being presented?

Wow, Carolina - I am impressed with your knowledge of the Constitution! Makes it even cooler that you took the time to learn all that, when many of us "natural born" folks haven't given these questions much thought.

I really do admire you for caring enough about the US to become a citizen...

That terminology started being omitted with the fourteenth amendment, when referring to citizenship. It is non-specific, but it starts to refer to citizens are either US-born or naturalized, and it omits that term.

Because of confusions like these, such as our discussion, many call for a clear amendment for this specific issue, and this issue only. Until then, when a dubious case shows up, it will end up and will be decided by the Supreme Court. Currently, the version thought by the government to us, soon to become Citizens (not my case anymore ), is that no, you are not eligible to be a President if you are not born in the US. If they are teaching something "wrong" then, who am I to tell them?
By the way, by dubious case, I mean a case of a candidate who is not born in the US territory.

Awww Thank you

It took me many years.... 12, to be precised... I worked really hard for it, and it was the proudest day of my life! Remembering that day makes me want to cry ....


Sorry for the hijack

Does this mean they also have to be a man

Oh boy Sarah, I swear I did not see this coming!

The Constitution was made very, very difficult to change for a reason. The fact that the 14th Amendment doesn't mention "Natural Born Citizen", specifically means that it has not been omitted.

Mike, read what I said again...

Ok... I will rest my case now. There have been many many many many layers, universities, judges, Congressmen, discussing this issue since the 17hundreds. I go by what I was told by the Government of the United States - with all due respect, I do trust their version, and the version I studied more than what you think or not.

As I also said there are no precedents in court - which begs the question: Why do you think that is Mike? A simple coincidence that to date all Presidents were Born in the US?

Is that also a coincidence that McCaine hired not one, but several legal consulting groups to review his case, even though he was born in a Military Base? Even then it was understood that if elected his case would risk being denied by the Supreme Court. His case was easier, as he was born in a US military base, but still.

Or Roosevelt Jr?

We can be here until we are both blue in the face - But here is the situation: I was thought a version directly by the Government and that version stands with me.

We can agree to disagree, and we will see when it actually happens - for now, there hasn't been a case.

If Obama is found to not be born in the US territory, his fate will be decided by the Supreme Court.

For now, the Government defines as a requirement to be Native Born Citizen - I hope you do not expect me to translate that from English to English. I am tired of doing so.

The Constitution of the United States IS the rulebook. Article II, Clause 5 is very, very plain on the subject. There has been no case decided by the Supreme court simply because it's not needed...it's just too black and white.

That clause has not been amended. It stands today as it was written then.

Is it Black and white? Really? So then tell me what is Natural Born Citizen?
It is absolutely NOT black and white. It is SO NOT black and white that it has been heatedly discussed since the late 17hundreds. If it was a cut and dry issue, there wouldn't be a discussion, period.


Unfortunately, but you will that it will be - a case of a person who is not born in the US running for President will naturally call for it.

Yes, it is black and white. The phrase "Native Born Citizen" does not appear in the Constitution concerning eligibility for President...period. All the years of discussion has not been on whether it says "Natural" or "Native". The discussion has been on who is a "Natural Born Citizen", and who is not, and that will continue to be debated, and the laws will continue to vary and be adjusted as to who is, and who isn't, just like they have been for years. But the fact that the requirement is to be a "Natural Born Citizen" is, was, has been, black and white.!



Unless and until the Constitution is amended to remove or change the phrase "Natural Born Citizen", it will remain the same. No other method of change is possible.

Again Mike, if it is Black and white, What is Natural Born Citizen? Who is a Natural Born Citizen?
If it is not in the constitution, what laws are being adjusted? So who are Natural Born according to the constitution?
Yes, and it has been discussed not to use that terminology on further amendments about Citizenship; the terminology has been discussed, more precisely as I pointed in regards to the law passed in 1790. From the 14th amendment on, the natives are very clearly separated from the naturalized, preventing this kind of confusion.

Furthermore, why is the Government lately teaching Native Born Citizen?

WAS McCain born on a military base? My parents are both Zonians, and they were never on a military base--it was a government holding, yes, but not a base. But there may have been a base in the area, I don't know for sure. And McCain's dad was miltary, right? My grandparents weren't military (at the time)--they worked for the PCC.

Anyway, all I know is that my mom was told that my brother was a "natural-born citizen" and could become president someday (LOL), even though he was born in an off-base hospital. She was told that by the military personnel.