In this version of the Barack Obama article dated 23 Aug 2008 12:53:04 GMT, it is stated that :



However, in this version of the article for the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, it says :



and gives this webpage as a reference.

Since Obama's birthplace is rather a hot topic these days, it might be worth everyone's while to investigate this further and correct the one that's not correct....

Looking into it a bit, the first thing I noticed was that the end of the article for Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children reads "The hospital is the birthplace of Barack Obama, the Junior United States Senator for Illinois.[1]"
[1] Maraniss, David (October 20, 2008). "Obama in Hawaii: Shaped by mother's devotion". Honolulu Advertiser.

I think that someone probably saw his "birth certificate" from his website, saw Honolulu, and thought that The Queen's Medical Center must be it.

I don't get _why_ people think this is an issue? What, they think he might not be a natural-born citizen? Even though his mother was?

They're trying to plant a subliminal message in people's minds that Obama is less American than say John McCain.

He's certainly less Panamanian than McCain. (not that I take seriously the argument that McCain is supposedly not a citizen; just pointing out that they're kind of playing with fire here)

McCain being born on a naval base is no different than being born on American soil, as far as citizenship goes. If, however, Obama was born elsewhere (for sake of argument, we'll just say in Iraq, for example ), then, regardless of his mother's citizenship, he would not be considered a natural born citizen and, therefore, does not qualify for the Presidency.

That's my understanding anyway. Hopefully he comes up with a valid certificate soon.

Am I correct in recalling that you made some rather controversial remarks on WP a while back? Something about "white pride" being a positive thing? I'd hardly have remembered, if not for this...

Hey, she's just stating the facts here. This is going to be a huge issue during the elections and that's the whole reason I pointed this out. What she said or didn't say on WP is beside the point and derails the thread.

Sorry. My tolerance for that kind of thing decreases as election day approaches.

Your understanding is incorrect. If one of your parents is American, you are always considered a natural born citizen no matter where you're born.

Also, the rule clarifying the status of the Panama Canal Zone was actually _after_ McCain's birth (though most people understand it to be retroactive). Before that, it only worked within the US or in territory not belonging to the US (which was enough of a loophole w.r.t. the Panama Canal Zone in particular for congress to find it worthwhile to pass a law changing the situation)

A military base is NOT considered American soil; if someone whose parents are _not_ American is born on a military base I don't think they're considered a citizen.

Your understanding is also incorrect. Having one American parent does not automatically make the child American, regardless of place of birth. There are restrictions on that.

The Act of Congress clarifying the citizenship status of persons born in the old CZ was indeed passed after McCain's birth. It makes no difference to McCain's status, however, as both of his parents were US citizens before he was born. Accordingly, he could have been born in the Belgian Congo to the same parents and still would have been a US citizen at birth under already existing US law.

That being said, there is even less of an issue re Obama's citizenship. This is nothing more than a case of the election year sillies.

Is that true? Under the US definition of jus sanguinis (citizen by blood), having both parents US citizens when you're born certainly makes you a citizen, no matter where you're born. However, the US constitution specifies "natural born citizen". Is that simply old-fashioned language meaning "citizen at time of birth" whether by blood or by location of birth?

In the US, anybody born on US soil can claim citizenship, but even that's not true in some countries. There are all kinds of combinations of blood and location requirements (see the linked article above, which is Wikipedia at its best, as is nationality law), including (understandably) less effect from blood-citizenship in some jurisdictions, if the putative father is a citizen, rather than the mother. These laws not having caught up with modern DNA based paternity testing.

Fieryangel is quite correct in that the misunderstandings that took place on Wikipedia have nothing to do here. 1/ I'm not a racist, so stfu. 2/ Look at my userpage, knowitall.

As I understand it, that language would mean American citizenship as determined at the time of birth, as opposed to later "naturalization" by process authorized by statute. But I also understand that the Supreme Court has never given a particular definition to the phrase. I cannot imagine the Court seriously adopting a significantly different definition--not only would that cause some pretty serious legal havoc, it would touch off a huge political firestorm.

OK, so there's residency requirements so that someone who is born to US parents can't pass on US citizenship to their own children without ever having set foot in the US. But it's not applicable to either McCain or Obama, regardless.



Right, but citizenship applied to people born in the US, and people born "outside the limits and jurisdiction" of the US to US citizen parents. The canal zone was outside its limits but within its jurisdiction.

This was enough of an issue for Congress to decide it needed clarification. But any sane person realizes that the clarification was meant to be retroactive, so there's no problem with McCain.



The term is defined nowhere. It's generally assumed to mean citizen at time of birth.