Was there an age requirement for Obama's mother to pass citizenship to him in 1961?

[LLStarks]

Isn't anyone born on US soil a natural-born citizen or was the law different back then?

[rfranklin]

1. He was born in the USA...that is all that counts...

can we all let it drop now?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. He could have been born on the moon and he would still be a natural born citizen.

[Ganja Ninja]

2. Age of the mother is not an issue.

Born on America soil is all that matters.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. If the parent is an American, and she was.........

That's all that matters.

He could have been born on the freaking moon.

His mom was a citizen; therefore, he is a citizen too.

You're right: The mom's age is not a factor.

[hifiguy]

16. 100% correct CaliforniaPeggy!

Give yourself a gold star and take a drink out of petty cash. :)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. You would be amazed how many people I've spoken to who do not know this simple fact.

I was shocked my own self at the amount of people who are really that clueless in regards to citizenship in their own country.

[aquart]

21. I know a child born here to a Japanese mother and Argentine father.

Her passport is American. SHE WAS BORN HERE. But since her mom wasn't and isn't a citizen, they have a very peripatetic life getting permission to be together in one country or another.

[malaise]

22. Not true

My oldest sister was born in New York when my parents were returning home after WW2. Neither parent was American and she was always treated as a natural born American.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

45. My dear malaise!

I should have said that this is true too! Being born here to foreign parents is the other way to become an American.

There are TWO ways. Born in the actual country, or having an American parent.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

47. lol! I just posted about even if he was being born on the moon without seeing your post first!

:rofl:

[NoGOPZone]

3. The 14th Amendment hasn't changed much since then. nt

[MineralMan]

4. No. (nt)

[Capitalocracy]

5. Pulled out of unknown right-wing orifices.

Completely invented. No law ever in the United States addressed any such issue. Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution and no age is mentioned.

[gkhouston]

7. No. If that were the case, don't you think the birthers would have been touting

that all this time instead of yammering about which birth certificates do and don't count? :crazy:

[snooper2]

8. how old was your mom when she had you?

If she was under the age of 30 you are actually a Canuck...

So get North of the border where you belong :rofl:

[a la izquierda]

40. Fan-freakin'-tastic!

My mom was 22. I'm outta here, eh!

[quinnox]

9. Yes, have to be at least 80 years old

Its a very strict "age requirement".

<rolls eyes>

[emulatorloo]

10. So is that the latest dumbshit theory from freeperland?

[abelenkpe]

11. Is this the latest spin? nt

[demwing]

12. It might have been a factor, IF Obama was born outside the US

but he wasn't, so it ain't :)

Now what you WILL hear next, and it's already begun, is that Obama's father was not a citizen, and that BOTH parents must be citizens, even for a child born in the states.

Nonsense.

Subsection (e) of Section 1401 of the pertinent code clearly says otherwise.

[aquart]

15. Wasn't McCain the one born outside the US?

[treestar]

54. He was born in the Canal Zone, which meant he was born a citizen

so long as he had a citizen parent. So he's the one whose parents' citizenship mattered, ironically. Yet never has any birther wanted to see his parental units' birth certificates!

[SoCalDem]

58. There is one oddity I found when we were playing around with this one

In his bio, it says he was born at "....." hospital in Coco Solo..and when you research the hospital , it was built a few years after he was born there:rofl:

I have been to Coco Solo.. It was not much back when I was there, so in the early 30's it would have been little more than a mosquito-infested backwater base.. It's actually highly likely that if his mother had problems with the pregnancy, she MIGHT have been taken offbase to deliver...as was the case in 1955 when my mother gave birth to my brother in an out-of the Canal Zone hospital. My brother had dual citizenship since he was born off base.

Back in the McCain birth days, the US ran the whole place, so of course his birth certificate was probably "filled in" , back on base.. Women routinely died in childbirth back then, and some shifty little navy base may have not been the actual birthplace.. who knows? and it really should not even matter.

I would like to see this "natural-born" stuff decided once & for all, and spelled out to the letter. In this day and age, I don;t see why naturalized citizens should be barred either.. If one is naturalized, and has been a citizen for at least 20 years, they should be eligible as well.

[librechik]

13. wow. NO!

[BobbyBoring]

20. That's Fake!

Birth certs aren't green, they are white (I did hear that today).

If they had a camera in the delivery room and showed Obama coming out of moms womb, it wouldn't be enough.

[Capitalocracy]

23. Not even if you could see palm trees and coconuts

through the hospital window in the video.

[aquart]

14. Why is this ridiculous garbage being discussed?

ANYONE BORN ON US SOIL IS A CITIZEN. PERIOD.

[demwing]

17. That's not 100% correct:

the lawa says :

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"

and then goes on to list several subsection where "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" can apply outside of US soil.

The question thats going to be asked by the Afterbirthers is this "What does 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' mean?"

[aquart]

18. "A person born in the United States."

[demwing]

25. AND "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Now I have no idea what that fully means from a legal perspective, but I DON'T think it means Obama isn't a citizen at birth.

What I DO know is that the US Code says that there are two criteria under Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401, Subsection (a),
and that being born in the United States is only the first.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/title8/8usc1401.html

[ecstatic]

27. (Sigh). I'm not a lawyer, but I think

the meaning of this statement:

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"

is simply saying that people born in the United States who are required to followed the laws of the United States are citizens at birth. Basically the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" appears to be a redundant remark (because obviously someone born here will be subjected to US laws).

[demwing]

30. (sigh) I can think of one example, already given in this thread

The child of an ambassador w/ diplomatic immunilty.

Is that the only example? I don't know (sigh) that's why I asked (sigh)...

[Solomon]

34. dAMN!!! iS THERE ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND that if you're

born in the United States, that you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Jeez Looueeze.

Even if you're just friking here, you are "subject to the jurisdiction" of.


For chrissakes.

[ecstatic]

35. an enemy combatant's child nt

[Capitalocracy]

24. My understanding is that it has to do with children of ambassadors

With diplomatic immunity? Their children don't count as U.S. citizens if born on U.S. soil.

[blondeatlast]

33. It's also there for the children of parents from countries that preclude dual citizenship

so that the parents can give them citizenship of their own countries.

[CreekDog]

50. you're the constutional expert here, which is supreme, that law or the 14th Amendment?

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[demwing]

60. I guess that my timing on this is bad

because of the birth certificate announcement today. This question is setting off a level of response that I just did not expect. Nothing horribly negative, I'm just surprised by the fact that some people have shown a bit of frustration over my comments.

I tend to deal with my own frustration over things that I can't control, by focusing on things that I can solve. Or at least try to solve, with a little help from DU.

First, let me answer you: When there is conflict, Constitution trumps legislation. My guess is that you just wanted to see me to write that, maybe because you just didn't think I was getting something that was painfully obvious to you. But the US Code on naturalization quotes the 14th amendment as its base line for citizenship, then elaborates from there, being more inclusive than the constitution on what establishes a "citizen at birth," so there's no conflict between the two - just a lack of clarity.

Second, having stated all of the above, I would still like to know the answer to my question, if anyone knows it.

The US Code, and the 14th Amendment, state that persons born or naturalized in the United States AND "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are considered citizens at birth.

That's TWO criteria:

1. born or naturalized in the United States
2. subject to the jurisdiction thereof

If I'm incorrect there, if those are not two separate requirements, please straighten me out.

Otherwise, it's a simply drawn conclusion that there must be a group, or groups of people who were born in the United States who are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore are not US citizens at birth.

Some DUers have put forward the very reasonable explanation that the requirement refers to the children of Ambassadors, or of resident aliens that choose to maintain sole citizenship with their nation of birth. Does anyone here know if there are other groups or individuals that may have been born here, but are not considered citizens at birth? Has the SCOTUS ever ruled on this, or is there any other case law that could clarify?

peace...

[kestrel91316]

26. No such requirement exists. Birth on US soil to ANY parents of ANY

citizenship confers full legal citizenship at birth.

Which the RW ought to know, because it is their pet peeve about illegal immigrants - coming across the border to give birth to "anchor babies".

[demwing]

29. OK, lets clear this up

The consensus here seems to be that if you're born here, you're a citizen. I am completely open to that.

But US Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401, Subsection (a) has two pieces:

To be considered a be national and citizen of the United States at birth, you must be

1. born in the United States
2. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Explain #2. When is a person who is born in the US NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, but I want to understand this bit going forward.

Who here knows the truth?

[blondeatlast]

31. Any person in the United States or its territories is "subject to the jurisdictions thereof."

The Constitution is NOT limited to US citizens, neither are any US laws. Surprising, I know, but true.

It's addressing children who might, for whatever reason, choose not be citizens if born here--ie, those from countries that preclude dual citizenship, like India once did. My ex-husband 's family chose to give him Indian citizenship because he couldn't have both.

[demwing]

38. I know the constitution is not limited to citizens, but some laws ARE

For instance, the US jurisdiction regarding a ban on travel to Cuba does not include Canada. Canadians are not subject to this law.

[blondeatlast]

43. You're really straining. Wow. "Jurisdiction" has a distinct legal meaning.

And the way you are using it isn't it.

Laws don't have jurisdiction. Entities do.

[demwing]

48. OMG! Wow!

I know I've amazed you. I get it. I've corrected the grammar in that post. Care to check my spelling now :)

Instead, why not just offer your constructive input? If you can answer the question from the original post without an extra serving of snark, great. If not, then don't bother.

peace...

[blondeatlast]

51. Many besides me have answered it, but keep on keepin' on. nt

[demwing]

55. So the answer is "No"

you can't answer without the snark

And, like me, you don't know the definitive answer either.

[kestrel91316]

56. I don't know. I only know that as long as the US has existed, birth on US soil

has conferred automatic citizenship. Your legal hairsplitting notwithstanding.

Why don't you contact the State Department with your questions? They are the experts in citizenship law.

[demwing]

61. Jesus, why is this "hairsplitting"?

It's not like I'm dancing around on what the definition of "Is" is...

This is a legitimate question, and I thought for sure that someone on DU must know the answer.

[spanone]

28. shirley, you jest

oy

[Dr Fate]

32. No one ever asks white dudes, so my guess is no. n/t

n/t

[Skidmore]

36. Do you know how many people born in this country to

parents who were immigrants would not be considered citizens? I'd wager we have members of congress who would be moved over to the "illegal" category. Hell, if you can castigate the President as being an "illegal" by virtue of the fact that ONE of his parents was not a citizen, then you're well on your way to declaring whole groups illegitimate, including my children. I was born in this nation and descend from families who fought in the Revolution. But my children were from a marriage to an immigrant. This is bullshit of the first order and anyone denying citizenship is the right of any born on US soil is not only a birther but a teabagger as well, in my opinion.

[fishwax]

37. the mother had to be a U.S. citizen plus a resident for 5 years, including 2 years after age 14

I'm stating that from memory, but I'm fairly certain that was the requirement at the time. So even if he hadn't been born in Hawaii, he would be a natural born citizen under the law.

[demwing]

39. Thats only for children born outside the country, and after 1986.

Before 1986 it was "resident for ten years, 5 of which had to be after the 14th birthday."

[fishwax]

42. you're right about 1986--thanks for the correction n/t

[CreekDog]

41. no shame

:wtf:

[blondeatlast]

44. It's unreal. nt

[Fire1]

49. Good grief.

:nuke:

[Courtesy Flush]

52. That's only if he's born overseas.

Born to an American parent overseas, requires certain years of recent residency. That requirement is not an issue for someone born in America.

[treestar]

53. It was in that she could not have passed it on had he been born somewhere else

But he was born in the US, so it doesn't matter.

[WinkyDink]

59. And what is the source of this?

[treestar]

62. It's the law as it was at that time

Now, it's been liberalized, so that her being only 18, still having grown up in the US, she could have passed it on - that is, had he been born in another country.

[WinkyDink]

57. No. Republicans JUST MAKE UP CRAP.