as I clearly stated, this commentary was from a website involving a different lawsuit ... with the gist of that separate lawsuit being that nobody has yet proven that Barack Obama was in fact born in Hawaii ( since Hawaiian law permits the registration and the obtainment of a Certificate of Live Birth by Hawaiian mothers even if the child was not born in Hawaii). This separate lawsuit then goes on to point out that the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth released by Obama's website does not include extremely important details that ARE included on an original Hawaiian Birth Certificate (namely the name of the Hawaiian hospital where the child was born and of the Hawaiian doctor who delivered the child). This separate lawsuit mentions the supposed existence of corroborating evidence that Barack was in fact born in Kenya due to his extremely pregnant mother being denied air travel from Kenya back to Hawaii for health/safety reasons ... and points out the very possible fact that under Hawaiian law Barack's mother may indeed have applied for a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth immediately on their return from Kenya (but with the place of birth being a hospital in Nairobi).Melonie stop copy/pasting form FW:FW:FW emails. What you posted isn't correct.
If this separate lawsuit receives further scrutiny (and there are at least two additional Obama 'natural born citizen' appeals headed for the US Supreme Court in addition to the Donofrio case), then the immigration laws concerning foreign born children of one American parent suddenly become extremely relevant. At any rate my response was to glambman's questions about foreign born children of one American parent (which is his own situation).
There's even a legal scholar out there who has made the case that, for the purposes of US immigration law / citizenship, Hawaii is actually an 'occupied' foreign country ... thus the only 'natural born' citizens of Hawaii are those descended from native inhabitants of Hawaii prior to the time the USA 'occupied' that country in 1893 / 1897. This position is based on United Nations citizenship rules regarding 'occupied' countries (specifically Lithuania and Latvia, which were formerly occupied by the Soviet Union as client 'states'). See . Under the UN (international law) interpretation, being born in the still legally existant but occupied 'foreign country' of Hawaii makes the child a Hawaiian citizen but the child's US citizenship is technically subject to the same immigration laws that apply to every foreign birth ... so again the laws pertaining to the foreign born child of a single US citizen parent become relevant. Yes that's right ... no bilateral treaty of annexation has ever been executed between the Hawaiian Kingdom National Government and the US Gov't, with the UN and the World Court both (still) recognizing the existance of a Hawaiian Kingdom National Government to this day. Thus under international law, even if Barack was born in Hawaii his 'natural born' citizenship status would remain dependent on his 18 year old mother's ability to transfer US citizenship under then existing immigration law (which required 5 years of US residency beyond the age of 16 for the mother to automatically transfer her US citizenship to her child in the absence of a US citizen father).
Again, I'm not voicing a personal wish that Obama be found ineligible for the US presidency. I am simply pointing out that the issue is NOT as cut and dried as many (including the Obama campaign) would like us all to believe, and that the US Supreme Court will have the opportunity to review the situation on December 5th. And in the final analysis, the US congress has the power to confer 'natural born' citizenship status on anyone it so chooses (providing a majority vote can be mustered).
~








Bookmarks