Perhaps TOO interesting, as his presidency would be illegal under US law and thus, arguably, every single thing he has done as President would be, too. I know I wouldn't want to try sorting a mess like that out!
On the other hand, it's pretty much been proven beyond doubt that he was born on Hawaii.
And the only thing I know about Arnold is that the state he's running has got a wrecked economy.
Where he was born is not the issue Ube...My oldest daughter was born is St Ives, UK, but she was never a British citizen, even though she has a British birth certificate as well as an American birth certificate. I was American, on military assisgnment in Cornwall, England so she maintained US citizenship.
Obama could have been born in Hawaii and still not been an American citizen....that is what the question is all about...He may well have had a British passport...which he never addresses, when he traveled to countries which were on the no fly list...just a question...
The Rapture will be the world's greatest Airlift!! and it is about to start..!!
While all these offices require citizenship, that could have been acquired later in life (see Arnie - though beware of Austrians in power positions... ), only the presidency requires 'original' citizenship.
One thing from farther above:
...emerged in the late 19th century, IIRC (But I'm going on memory...)
If Wikipedia is accurate being born on American soil is enough to be considered an American citizen. Even if you're born to illegal immigrants (probably). Barrack wasn't born to illegal immigrants, he was born to a legal immigrant and an American.
Your daughter is considered American because both her parents (I assume) were. That's another requirement for American citizenship, but that one does not apply to Barrack since he was born on American soil.
Whoever can see through all fear will always be safe.
Current state of play from my POV. Filled this in on a questionnaire, then realised it was too good not to share! ;D
I think this election is quite the most difficult of my lifetime when it comes to knowing who to vote for. Not because the parties are all so good, sadly, but because they are all so bad.
The Conservatives seem to lack confidence in their own beliefs and their own message. A party ready to govern should be completely convinced it has the answers and is ready to do the right thing and I do not get that impression from the Conservatives. They are running scared on far too many issues where they are allowing Labour to lead the agenda.
The Labour Party are quite the worst shambles I have ever seen and Brown has less than no understanding of economics, which is terrifying. They are the party of cloud cuckoo land and their rampantly Politically Correct agenda is doing immeasurable harm to Britain.
The Lib Dems have received a fantastic boost from 'Clegg Mania' but despite having a few good policies (Like lifting the tax bar to £10,000) they are still more a party of well meaning but muddled thinkers than a serious political force. The only real reason to vote for them is to try to help them replace Labour as the second party, as Labour are far more divisive and dangerous. That's not a great reason, and it's still based on hoping the Lib Dems can get their act together enough to destroy Labour a couple of elections down the line, which is far from certain.
No-one has a responsible policy on Europe, immigration or the deficit & debt. I'm not even sure any of them are coherent on those issues, as they have managed to avoid discussing them all as much as possible. They are united in fear of the electorate on all three, which saddens me.
The message from all three parties is "Vote for me because I'm not them!" That's pretty sad.
So where is the party which is fit to govern? There isn't one. Which is why I am still not sure how to vote.