Quote:
Originally Posted by Twoller
It doesn't matter what people agree to. What only matters is what is beyond debate. The only thing that is truly beyond debate is that his father was not a US citizen. Not only is this beyond debate, but it also puts into dramatic highlight the crisis of US citizenship that has come to bear at this point. Anchor babies are the issue here and the fact that we have a fraud in the white house that should not be there at a time when the issue of birthright citizenshiip needs to be confronted the most is no accident.
|
You're right, insofar as your statement that Obama's father is not a U.S. citizen is concerned, that is. No one (to my knowledge) has ever claimed he was. That part is not your problem. What is your problem is federal law. You don't seem to understand it. I'll give you a reprint of much of what I posted last time you made this assertion (a post, I might add, to which you didn't respond):
That assertion is flat out wrong. You have misstated federal law pertaining to birthright citizenship ...
Not only is what you have stated inaccurate, it would be inaccurate if the law was modified in the fashion many border security activists would like to see undertaken. Currently, a child is legally a U.S. citizen if he is born on U.S. soil, regardless of his parents' unlawful residency status. Many individuals feel this is the result of a perversion/misinterpretation of the Civil War Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They opine that a person should not receive legal residency if born in our country, if one or more parents is an illegal alien. Even under this formula, Barack Obama would be a citizen.
So I'll ask you again, Twoller. How does Obama's father's citizenship status prevent our current president from holding office?