The staggering ignorance of the birthers

Here is Lawrence Sellin writing at the Canada Free Press (a website that seems to be 100 percent about U.S. politics):

According to the Constitution, the narrative of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett (1874), other legal opinions and precedence, Obama has never been eligible for the presidency because he does not meet the requirements of natural born citizenship i.e. someone born in the US of citizen parents at the time of birth.

Does Sellin actually believe that if a person is born in the U.S. of, say, a U.S. citizen mother and a legal resident but non-citizen father, that person is not a natural born citizen, i.e., a citizen at birth? Does he believe that if a married couple consisting of two U.S. citizens are living for three months in another country and have a child there, that the child is not a natural born U.S. citizen, and therefore the child in order to return to the U.S. with his parents must enter the U.S. as an alien and in order to become a U.S. citizen he must be naturalized?

On what does Sellin base his notion, which legions of birthers keep repeating, that a person must be born on U.S. soil and be born of two U.S. citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen? As explained in Wikipedia’s article on natural born citizenship, from early in American history it was understood, based on English common law, that a child born in the U.S. of two legal aliens was born an American citizen. As the Supreme Court declared in 1830:

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.

Clearly the phrase “owing a temporary allegiance thereto” implies legal residence. Unfortunately, the same principle, that citizenship is derived from jus soli, the right of the soil, has been applied to children born in the U.S. of illegal aliens. That is very wrong and must be changed. But the fact remains that under existing interpretions of the law a child born in the U.S. of two illegal alien parents is a citizen at birth, i.e., a natural born citizen. Also, according to the same Wikipedia article, Congress in 1790 conferred natural born citizenship on children born abroad to American parents, in accord with jus sanguinis, the right of blood. Where, then, do the birthers get their whacky notion that a child must be born on U.S. soil of two U.S. citizens in order to be a citizen at birth? Indeed, according to these birthers, even if Barack Obama had been born in the United States he would not be a natural born citizen, because his father was not a citizen. Indeed, it turns out that from the point of view of these birthers, including Lawrence Sellin, the birth certificate issue is entirely irrelevant, since Obama is not a natural born citizen regardless of where he was born.

The widespread spectacular ignorance among the birthers (and I call myself a birther) does not bode well for the success of their effort to get at the truth of Obama’s birth, or, at the very least, to make Obama accountable for having concealed it.

- end of initial entry -

LA writes:

Lawrence Sellin has sent me a long and substantive reply, which I look forward to absorbing and replying to, but I won’t be able to do so today.

His e-mail begins:

Your blog post “The staggering ignorance of the birthers” was, if you will permit me, staggeringly ignorant.

If it turns out that it was, I won’t mind admitting it, because my desire is to get at the truth.

LA writes:

As I said in the previous comment, I am not posting Mr. Sellin’s main e-mail until I’ve had time to read it and reply to it, but below is a shorter and rather remarkable comment he has sent today.

Lawrence Sellin writes:

You wrote:

“Indeed, according to these birthers, even if Barack Obama had been born in the United States he would not be a natural born citizen, because his father was not a citizen. Indeed, it turns out that from the point of view of these birthers, including Lawrence Sellin, the birth certificate issue is entirely irrelevant, since Obama is not a natural born citizen regardless of where he was born. “

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

LA replies:

This makes Mr. Sellin’s position sound absurd on the face of it. But I will hold off judgment until I’ve had time to read his e-mail and the linked sources.

Paul Nachman has sent this to Lawrence Sellin:

Dear Mr. Sellin,

I’m with you on most of your article about the fishiness of Wonderboy’s origins. But this phrase …

“natural born citizenship i.e. someone born in the U.S. of citizen parents at the time of birth”

… is a clinker.

First, George Romney ran for President although he was born in Mexico. But he was a natural born citizen, because his parents were American citizens. Similarly, you presumably recall the fuss-over-nothing regarding the fact that John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, but again, his parents were both U.S. citizens.

You certainly wouldn’t say that Romney was “born in the U.S.,” and you probably wouldn’t say it for McCain, either. (True, neither actually became president, but arguments that they weren’t natural born citizens wouldn’t have achieved any purchase at all.) [LA replies: The McCain case is different because, if I remember correctly, he was born on a U.S. military base, i.e., U.S. soil, in the Canal Zone. Therefore the Romney case, in which Romney was born in a foreign country, not on a U.S. military base, yet was still considered a natural born citizen, is more relevant here.]

Second, I have absolutely no doubt that someone born in the U.S. with just one citizen parent is a natural born citizen, even if the other parent is an illegal alien. So the “s” in your “parents” has to go.

Third, the Wong Kim Ark case established that someone born here to non-citizen but legally resident parents is a natural born citizen. Or, anyway, that’s what the Supreme Court decided in 1898. I think it’s terrible public policy and would be worth challenging, but it’s the way things are. So your “citizen” has to go.

Finally, I also have no doubt that someone born to a legal-resident parent and an illegal alien is also a natural born citizen, given the way the laws are currently interpreted. And, of course, I think this is even worse public policy that what Wong Kim Ark has subjected us to.

Sincerely,
Paul Nachman
Bozeman, Montana

James N. writes:

“Birtherism” as an internet-based movement is a mess. Truth mixes with lies, lies swirl around with imaginings, fantasies, and things the protagonists WISH were true. Just an example of each:

Truths: The President must be a “natural-born citizen.” Obama is concealing something.

Lies: U.S. Passport holders could not travel to Pakistan in 1981.

Imaginings: Stanley Anne Dunham was in Kenya before her child was born.

Fantasies: Stanley Anne Dunham was never pregnant.

Wish it was true: The Constitution, or the U.S. Code, defines “natural born citizen” in a way that excludes Obama.

Underneath it all, SOMETHING is rotten. As you have often said, however, it is vital to stuck to, and repeat over and over, what is a provable fact.

For the longest time, I thought Obama was simply following Napoleon: “Never do what your enemy desires, for this reason alone: that he desires it.” In other words, Obama’s resistance to disclosure was explained by his unwillingness to do something simply because his enemies demanded that he do it.

Now, I’m not so sure. This has gone on long enough, and enough documentary evidence regarding Obama’s life has been suppressed, to raise the legitimate question, What is being hidden, and why?

Linda M. writes:

You wrote:

“Where, then, do the birthers get their whacky notion that a child must be born on U.S. soil of two U.S. citizens in order to be a citizen at birth?”

Believe it or not, that’s the way it was explained to students in the Los Angeles public school system in the 1950s. That’s where I learned it. I’m not necessarily a “birther” but I do wonder what the big secret is about the documentation of Mr. O.’s life in general.

Fraser M. writes:

I found your entry on the birthers’ insistence that a child born of a citizen parent and a non-citizen parent does not qualify as “natural born” very interesting given that the birthers’ new hero is Donald Trump. Trump himself was born to a Scottish-born mother of unknown citizenship status at the time of his birth, so even he may not live up to that standard.

LA replies:

Good point. :-)

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 19, 2011 10:22 AM | Send