Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(20,453 posts)

11. I believe the law was different in 1961 in regard to

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 05:05 AM

Mar 2012

"no matter where in the world that child is born." Others have posted the details here previously.

Regardless, it doesn't matter because he WAS born in the US and therefore any other laws about births outside of the US are irrelevant.

Edit: Here's an explanation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8530440&mesg_id=8530876

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

'Birthers' sue to force California to verify eligibility of Obama, Romney, others [View all] Newsjock Mar 2012 OP

Kreep...appropriate surname pinboy3niner Mar 2012 #1

If you always reject the actuial SheilaT Mar 2012 #2

Let me guess...Orly Taitz is their dental/slash/legal advisor? pinboy3niner Mar 2012 #4

Don't forget realtor/slash/martial arts advisor. tanyev Mar 2012 #12

And with each piece of evidence Mz Pip Mar 2012 #7

And also two Honolulu newspapers, all the way back to 1961 jmowreader Mar 2012 #10

you know what? Maybe no Americans are eligible. provis99 Mar 2012 #6

Did I really misunderstand in social studies all those years ago...? AmyDeLune Mar 2012 #9

I believe the law was different in 1961 in regard to NYC Liberal Mar 2012 #11

My former DIL Mz Pip Mar 2012 #13