Here is an 8 minute YouTube video made by the birthers. If you watch it, it brings up a rather important point, and not another load of crap from the birthers. I HATE posting YouTube links and would much rather read real news then watch a video but this one says it well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlYNBEJnjDA&feature=player_embedded I got the video from another forum and decided to give that birther the time of day to watch it and realized there's a real point to be made. I ask you folks watch it and comment on it- from both sides. It has me rethinking my pre-concieved notions. At the very least I hope you folks give me ammo to retort to the video. Thanks-
If that were true? then all those illegal immigrant children who were born here wouldn't be citizens. Because their parents aren't citizens. You're born here, you're a natural-born citizen, no matter what. Obama was born on US soil in Honolulu, Hawaii. McCain was a special case, because he was born in Panama...Obama was born in the territorial US, so is NOT a special case. This is a red herring. Sorry. McCain's case is special, and has no bearing on Obama's case. If anything, McCain's validity to run/serve as President...was semi-questionable due to being born what was considered US soil only by treaty. Obama could have been born to two British Citizens, but if his mom gave birth inside the physical territory of the US, then he's a natural-born citizen, no question. Rich foreigners actually come to the US to have their children so that their kids can have dual citizenship, poor illegal immigrant families have US citizen children all the time...if you pop out on US soil, you're a natural-born citizen. Period. These guys, despite their denials, are really looking for a loophole that does not exist in fact. Sorry.
From my understanding-they are eligible. These guys are incorrect in their understanding of the law. Now you could go on a constitutional law forum and get a much more educated opinion on that...but as far as I know, that's exactly what "Natural Born Citizen," means, up to and including for the purpose of running for President. You physically popped out on US turf. That's it. That's all. Has jack-squat to do with your parent's citizenship status. You have to remember, when the requirement was written into the constitution, it took-what? three months or so? to cross the Atlantic? And some portion of the people on the boat usually died of disease on the way over? So if you were born here, your family was here, chances are, you were committed to here and not Europe. Travel's a lot easier now. Oh well.
There does not seem to be research on that...so in the meantime... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...teabonics_the_flawed_language_of_protest.html (My fave: the sign that reads "Make English America's OFFICAL(sic) language") Also, I found this debunk on Snopes...regarding Orly (O RLY?) Taitz and her one-woman legal show against Obama: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/carter.asp According to that, EVERY legal challenge for Obama's fitness to hold office on constitutional grounds has been pitched out summarily.
And they shouldn't be citizens. The parents did the wrong thing, and yes the children shouldn't be considered citizens simply because the parents decided to dash for the border before birth. As to birther claims : they are BS.
But it's a much easier legal road to travel if we keep it a white/black issue, and don't stray into the gray area of having all sorts of qualifiers and exceptions. Better to 1) keep the immigration problem at bay, or better yet 2) tackle the reason why people are immigrating, but of course that's a whole other topic altogether.
I wouldn't say dash. Citizenship usually takes an average of ten years to get...and that there's people who've been living and working here for 20 years plus without papers...contributing to social security accounts they can never access in many cases because it isn't legally their number...and keep in mind that means they've not come to the attention of the police in 20 YEARS. That means that if we didn't have a 6000-person cap per year from Mexico, as well as extremely low caps on legal immigration from other Latin American countries, that person would probably work out well as a citizen. I've met enough cleaners, landscapers and laborers who *haven't* got their papieles in order...they would work out okay. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-26-immigration-wait_x.htm That's an old article, but the problem's not improved much. But it's easier to exploit someone who's not working legally. A lot easier, so I think there's big money interests against getting the green-card situation rectified. NAFTA can go away now? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Free trade devastated small farmers in Latin America-and they came here...so we stop dumping subsidized agricultural products on Latin markets...and many might go home...:bravo: I like them, but they scare me, in that they work hard. Very, very hard.
For those that aren't certain about being born in the US is all it takes, I have to say that you evidently missed the news articles about the "baby citizenship mill" that was closed down recently in California. Wealthy Chinese pregnant women spent a small fortune to stay in this "center" just long enough for their kids to be born so that the children would automatically become U.S. citizens. There weren't any records kept to prove how many did this, but baby pictures posted on the walls counted into the hundreds. Was anyone charged with a crime? Nope, there's *nothing* at all illegal with them coming here on a visitor's visa and then giving birth. Even the people operating the establishment cannot be charged with any wrongdoing - nothing in the law prevents anyone from providing room and board for legal foreign visitors. The two articles I read didn't even offer ANY specifics about HOW the place was "closed down." :shrug: One did rather meekly suggest it might have been on the grounds of operating a "hotel" without a license and not collecting the required state occupancy taxes.
Yes, they should. People whose parents chose to come here, often at great cost and risk, would seem to me more entitled than people whose parents just happened to be born here. One of those things is a choice made in favor of America - the other is nothing more than an accident. This is why birthers and anti-immigrant types get so over-heated: they recognize, deep down, that people who are American by choice are actually more legitimate and patriotic than those who are American by accident of birth. So they try to compensate by inflating their own patriotism, attacking that of immigrants, etc. It's pathetic.
It is not possible for a nation to remain stable and fix the problems of every other nation. So number 2 isn't really an option as to number 1Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! see below. Yes, however; these parents, aren't even trying to become citizens in many cases. (Not all, there certainly are those that do.) Besides that issue, if we streamlined the border crossing system, and allowed them to immigrate that is fine. But it should be done legally, and when you do it illegally your children shouldn't be given the rights of those that did.
Yeah, but when we're causing Mexico's problems...do we not deserve all those guys who want to mow our lawns? http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htm How many illegals have you worked with lately? It isn't cheap. Because the process is so byzantine, you have to hire an abogado. We screwed up Mexico's economy and made life harder there, now they're making life harder here for those of us who compete directly with them for low-level work. Karma's a bitch. Let's see when they have a revolution. I've been told Mexico's ripe for it.
Too Easily Amused Cheap troop rallying by Trump: Daddy's boy bankrupt real estate market-collapse king, running on the dieing embers of Gary Busey on his TV show...looking for a fresh fix. Trump's a rump.
We are not causing all of Mexico's problems, or even most, so cut the anti-american rhetoric. The lack of a strong central government, and natural resources has weakened them. Secondly I WANT them here, I don't mind the immigration, I mind the illegal immigration. Wow, what horseshite your pushing here, first NAFTA damaged all economies involved, ours was stronger and had a greater loss percentage wise than Mexico's. The difference is we are still in better shape (depending on the criteria). Mexico's main problem right now contrary to the crap your trying to trade here, is actually that the government is loosing its civil war against entrenched drug cartels. So why don't we discuss ACTUAL problems, not false ones.
Which hospital would that be? Queens Medical Center, or Kapi'olani Children's Hospital? Just wondering. They can't seem to get it straight. The urban legend debunking website snopes.com allegedly had originally listed Queen's Medical Center as part of his official birth record, which they later scrubbed. http://24ahead.com/barack-obama-gives-differing-accounts-which-hospital-he-was- Not surprising. Wikipedia is not exactly known for impartiality when controversies exist around official scientific and government lines. In fact, Wikipedia is on occasion a very hostile, unlevel playing field regarding certain topics. Former dean of Arts and Sciences at Virginia Tech, chemistry and science studies professor Dr. Henry Bauer, who is also a self-described HIV/AIDS skeptic who regularly writes on that topic, as well as science philosophy and related topics, complained about a biased biography in which he is referred to as a "denier" and the fact that his own bio is locked, thus meaning he himself cannot correct or add anything to it. Global warming topics have also received the Wikipedia treatment, with a rather rabid editor/admin (William M. Connolley) who was bound and determined to continually efface alternative viewpoints of global warming. It's no surprise then, that Wikipedia would allow it's version of the truth to evolve to match official government pronouncements. Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate Hospitals in Hawaii to Obama: You Were Not Born Here! http://genealogy.about.com/od/aframertrees/p/barack_obama.htm About.com's ancestry page lists Queen's Medical Center as Obama's birth hospital. Where did they get that information? Has someone forgotten to update them that his birthplace has changed? See also http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=103465 Of course, who could forget his Connecticut social security number?
