52

In this Politico Article dated 8/5/10 the results of a poll taken on President Obama are discussed:

The poll of 1,018 adults shows 27 percent of Americans believe the president was “probably” or “definitely” born in another country, compared with 71 percent who think he was born in the United States.

So 1 in 4 Americans do not believe that President Obama is really a natural born citizen.

Is there any evidence to back up the Birther claims that Obama is not a natural born citizen?

Borror0
  • 7,581
  • 6
  • 48
  • 67
Mark Rogers
  • 11,324
  • 11
  • 55
  • 71
  • 12
    Arnold Schwarzenegger for President in 2012! – Paul Mar 26 '11 at 06:15
  • 10
    For laughs here's an older version of the same question on yahoo answers Q: [Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen? Was his legal name changed when he was adopted?](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080907094212AA4TI30) A: "He appears to have been born in Kenya. the birth certificate he produced is FAKE..." – Mark Rogers Mar 26 '11 at 15:24
  • 3
    [Daily Show: The Born Identity](http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-22-2009/the-born-identity) – Richard Stelling Mar 26 '11 at 16:12
  • 1
    @Mark great link. It's especially astounding that the *correct* answers are the most downvoted :) – Pekka Mar 27 '11 at 14:50
  • Those 71% don't necessarily think he was born in the USA. They may have no opinion one way or another. Based on the information presented publicly, that'd be the only conclusion that can be made (as both camps have released doctored documents to "prove" their point, neither has released anything conclusive to the public AFAIK). – jwenting Mar 28 '11 at 11:24
  • I said it in my answer below, but I think it should be said here. Nowhere in the constitution does it define what a "Natural Born Citizen" is. The only place that phrase is used is in the qualification for president. And neither Congress or the Supreme Court has passed anything defining the term either. [Here](http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/20/chin.natural.born/index.html) is an op-ed piece by a legal professor on the very subject. – fred Apr 27 '11 at 15:52
  • 3
    Just because it's not in the Constitution doesn't mean that it is undefined. There is an operating legal definition determined through judicial review: [Legislation and executive branch policy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Citizen_Clause#Legislation_and_executive_branch_policy) – jennyfofenny Apr 27 '11 at 18:18
  • 2
    It's probably worth noting that Obama's 2008 election opponent [John McCain was born outside the United States](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html) but is still considered a natural born citizen. – Bruce Alderman Sep 19 '11 at 19:42
  • What is really astonishing to non americans is why there is such a fuss. Most countries constitutions don't require their leaders to be born there. It seems like a minor technicality even if there were any evidence. Why not just have a sensible argument about his policies instead of invoking deep conspiracies? – matt_black Dec 31 '11 at 14:37
  • 2
    @matt_black From what I recall the provision of having to be natural born was originally written into the constitution to prevent, say, a British Royalist immigrating into the US, running for president, and then somehow turning the country back over to Britain... Ahh, paranoia. – Shadur Mar 05 '13 at 08:27

3 Answers3

103

One piece of evidence is the long-form birth certificate showing that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on Hawaii: (long-form on whitehouse.gov in PDF format)

enter image description here

The reissued short-form birth certificate:

enter image description here

You can find a detailed examination of the birth certificate on Factcheck.org. They conclude in their investigation

FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino, also confirmed that the certificate is genuine:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen," Fukino said in a statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago." -- source

The Barack Obama birth announcement, published in The Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961:

newspaper clipping of Obama's birth

ff524
  • 10,181
  • 6
  • 47
  • 60
Mad Scientist
  • 43,643
  • 20
  • 173
  • 192
  • 31
    ...just as a comment (an anecdotal one): The format of Obama's Certificate is the same as the one I have for my niece, when I requested her "Birth Certificate" from Hawaii 5 years ago. That IS the certificate they give out. – Darwy Mar 26 '11 at 07:22
  • 16
    There are also the newspaper announcements from 1961 in Hawaii. Would take quite the conspiracy to put those in. – Larian LeQuella Mar 26 '11 at 14:22
  • 42
    But it doesn't say whether he was natural born or by caesarean section. – Paul Mar 26 '11 at 17:48
  • 1
    the controversy erupted over the fact that the scan of the certificate the Obama campaign posted on their website seemed to have been doctored (it looked like Tip-Ex or some similar correction fluid had been used to remove content I think). Ever since the Obama administration has refused to provide another document, leading people to believe they've something to hide. Is he a natural born citizen? I don't know, but from what information I have available to me I can't draw a conclusion either way. – jwenting Mar 28 '11 at 11:21
  • 16
    @jwenting I don't see any signs of whiteout on the one posted above. Not to mention ample other evidence (such as the notice in the paper). It sounds like you're less 'wanting to be convinced' and more 'unwilling to concede the point despite the evidence'. – Nick Johnson Apr 05 '11 at 00:57
  • 2
    @jwenting: Beats the birth certificate I've seen floating around on the net that is apparently from a time-traveling version of the Republic of Kenya. – David Thornley Apr 06 '11 at 02:10
  • @Nick: the one posted on the Obama campaign website was a different one I think. – jwenting Apr 08 '11 at 20:24
  • 15
    @jwenting You are seriously suggesting that the massive power of the US presidency wanted to forge a birth certificate, and the best they could do was Tip-Ex? – DJClayworth Apr 27 '11 at 16:15
  • This is just proof that the CIA or the NSA is in on the conspiracy and forged this birth certificate! (just kidding) – Lagerbaer Apr 27 '11 at 16:39
  • 2
    Thank @Mark for the long-form certificate, I was just about to add it when I noticed that it was already added to my answer. – Mad Scientist Apr 27 '11 at 21:09
  • @DCJlayworth mind he wasn't a president at the time, but a candidate struggling in the primaries against the wife of a former president. Was it doctored? Who knows. Nor can I know who if anyone would have done so. Might have been an attempt to correct a typo on the real one (which would have invalidated it, a new form should have been filled out instead). – jwenting Apr 28 '11 at 07:02
  • 1
    This came up in the news today. There was a Swedish woman who also gave birth at the same time who they've managed to track down: http://www.thelocal.se/33472/20110429/ – Kit Sunde Apr 29 '11 at 12:08
  • And, just to be clear, the "short form" is THE official document issued by Hawaii as proof of birth. Claims about whether or not he did, or did not produce the long form, originally, were complete nonsense. – PoloHoleSet Sep 30 '16 at 16:32
34

There is a simple (legal) answer to this question, but it won't satisfy the conspiracy theorists.

  1. Obama has released his birth certificate, and the State of Hawaii confirms that it is real. op cit - previous answers
  2. Article 4 of the US Constitution states, in part,

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. emphasis mine

What this means, is that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen solely for the reason that Hawaii says he is. No other argument is necessary or required. The only way to counter this argument is to have Hawaii repeal the certificate.

I realize that this doesn't answer the implied question "Where was Barack Obama really born?" But it does shoot a hole into any Arizona laws intending to keep Obama off the ballot. If Hawaii says he's eligible, then Arizona has to respect that.

Chris Cudmore
  • 1,505
  • 13
  • 16
15

While the constitution does state that to be president, one must be a "natural born citizen", it in NO WAY defines what that term means. So we are left with something of a legal void.

There is the Part of the U.S. Code that address this. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, being born in Kansas, was a natural born citizen (I don't believe there is any question on that point).

Section (e) of the code above stats:

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

So, regardless of where he was born (Hawaii or Kenya as some have claimed but provided little if any evidence), he is a citizen.

However, the U.S. Title only states that "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth", and does not use the phrase "natural born".

There is no final, legal definition even today on what "Natural Born Citizen" means, according to legal professor Gabriel "Jack" Chin:

Unfortunately, the text of the Constitution does not define natural born citizenship, and neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has weighed in on the question.

fred
  • 1,419
  • 13
  • 15
  • 4
    Apparently, people don't like my answer. I'm curious as to why. There is no legal, accepted answer to what a "natural born citizen" is. I am not saying he shouldn't (or wasn't) eligible. What i was trying to say was that since there is no agreed upon definition of "natural born citizen", the question is meaningless. – fred Mar 26 '11 at 20:13
  • 6
    It seems reasonable to me to assume that the 1787 Constitutional Convention found the term *natural born* to be self-evident. If you ignore the term *natural* entirely, this would cover everyone who is simply *born* into citizenship via [jus soli](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli) or [jus sanguinis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis). I'm curious if you think a reasonable argument can be made that the term *natural* could modify *natural born* enough to disqualify Barack Obama. (FWIW, I did not mark down your answer.) – kojiro Mar 26 '11 at 22:03
  • 3
    I have never doubted he was eligible. I was just trying to point out that there is no official, legal definition that everyone agrees with, as that exact phrase is never used in the constitution or any court case of which I am aware. Since that is the case, different people will interpret it how they see fit. One other point - the mere existence of a birth certificate may not be proof. I have a birth certificate for my daughter issued by the state of MO, listing me an my wife as the birth parents, even though she was born in China 2 years before I ever saw her. – fred Mar 27 '11 at 16:20
  • @fred: my opinion is that your answer is not relevant enough to be a true answer, it just seems to be adding a tangential side question. This answer is really more of a comment on the original question. – Mark Rogers Mar 27 '11 at 17:36
  • 1
    @fred- Also "Since there is no final, legal definition even today on what those few words mean, the debate will continue.", that hasn't been my experience living in the US, can you provide a link that backs-up this claim? Specifically why do you think that this legal question is still "up in the air", for all defacto purposes it appears settled. – Mark Rogers Mar 27 '11 at 18:02
  • 1
    @fred: "Since there is no final, legal definition even today on what those few words mean" - I think US Immigration is operating on a final, working definition of this term. Also, some members of Congress are even trying to change it. Here's some [information on US citizenship](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause#Birthright_citizenship). – jennyfofenny Mar 27 '11 at 18:07
  • 1
    IANAL, I would expect that if threw some weird set of events it ever came before the supreme court they would say that congress accepted his citizenship when they validated the results of the electoral college, and that it is a political question. The Precedent for this would be Luther V Borden which was about a state having republican government – Zachary K Mar 28 '11 at 13:14
  • 2
    @Mark Rogers, I would say the burden of proof is on you. Show me where it IS defined. I can't find any case law where a judge has defined the term. Again, I am not saying that I don't believe he is eligible, but am simply trying to explain the rational for those who do. With no legal def., they are free to interpret it how they see fit. And to some degree, they may be afraid to challenge it in the courts, since if there IS a ruling against them, then the legal precedent has been established. – fred Mar 28 '11 at 13:41
  • @fred: "I would say the burden of proof is on you. Show me where it IS defined." - see the two comments before yours for why your legal interpretation is unusual. Also since this is your answer, and you are asserting something that many do not believe, therefore **the burden of proof is on you**. – Mark Rogers Mar 28 '11 at 13:48
  • 5
    @Mark There is no possible way I can prove that the term is NOT defined. And just because my interpretation is 'unusual' or 'something that many people do not believe' doesn't mean it is wrong. My ONLY point here is that nobody has yet provided the DEFINITIVE, LEGAL definition of what "natural born citizen" means, discussing whether someone IS or ISN'T is pointless. – fred Apr 27 '11 at 15:47
  • 2
    Section (e) applies to "outlying possessions of the United States". Neither Hawaii nor Kenya is an "outlying possession of the United States". I don't see how it is relevant, or how it shows "regardless of where he was born..., he is a citizen." – user102008 Nov 14 '14 at 00:37
  • 1
    user 102008, it says that since his mom was a citizen and present in a US possession (Kansas) for at least 1 year of her life, that make him a citizen by default. Read the answer again. – Astor Florida Mar 08 '17 at 16:41