|
Post by twik on Jun 21, 2011 15:17:47 GMT -4
It certainly doesn't seem a good way to attack a politician whose policies you dislike - "He shouldn't be president! His mother made the mistake of leaving the country just before he was born!" It's not like Obama could have done anything about that at the time.
If one doesn't like Obama, or any other politician, the best solution would be to protest what he does, not what his parents did.
However, it does fit in with the conspiracy theorist obsession with "anomalies". It doesn't really matter to them what the anomalies are, or what they imply - it's enough that they can point out "Hey! An anomaly!"
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 21, 2011 15:28:59 GMT -4
If Obama wasn't born a US citizen, it does matter from a Constitutional perspective. However, it's a silly argument because you have to overcome so much evidence. I can make a better--by which I mean supported by evidence--argument that John McCain was ineligible, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. After all, the Constitution never actually defines "natural born citizen," and who's to say that being born in a military base in another country counts?
The thing is, I only half think the "birther" issue is about race, though it is in part about race. It's also, however, about our national distrust of immigrants. I find it interesting that the first black US President has no slave ancestry (at least no slaves in this country), but he is also the first US President in nearly two centuries to have been the child of an immigrant.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 21, 2011 16:12:18 GMT -4
I don't think racism has anything to do with it, at least for most "birthers". It's just part of the general distrust of government (and the current government in particular) that any conspiracy theorist has.
As Twik pointed out, the best arguments against trusting Obama with a second term have all been provided by Obama himself. There's really no need to fish for more material from what his parents did or did not do.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jun 21, 2011 17:32:36 GMT -4
gillianren, I know it's a constitutional issue, but I think attacking someone on a technicality, rather than on an issue of substance, is an admission that one has nothing more important to use.
If a (hypothetical) president were THAT perfect, I'd hate to see him (or her) disqualified because of a few days here or there regarding his birth vs his mother's presence in the US.
I agree with Jason that most birthers seem to be conspiracy addicts, so whatever the effect of racism, it's certainly not the only cause. A lot of it is a knee-jerk reaction that whatever the "official story" is, it's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 21, 2011 18:06:11 GMT -4
Mmm. I really don't think Constitutional eligibility is a "technicality." I mean, if I myself ran for President, I would be deemed ineligible even if everyone somehow miraculously agreed that I was the best person for the job. (I'm soooooo not.) The fact is, I am, at thirty-four, too young for the job. The next election will be the first one where I meet the job requirements. Though of course I am eligible for the Supreme Court, where there are no job requirements listed in the Constitution. If I believed Obama weren't a natural born citizen (which of course I don't), I would also believe that he should not be President. It's the law, and on that issue, I don't actually fault birthers. Just, you know, on their actual paying attention to evidence.
As to race, of course it's part of the issue. It doesn't take much examination of their literature to know that. However, I doubt most birthers are all that "addicted" to conspiracies, whatever that means. Honestly, I think there are quite a lot of birthers who are the same as fence-sitters on other conspiracies. I think they are following "if there's so much smoke, there must be fire here somewhere." I think some are using it as a cheap political ploy to promote their own ambitions. I think some just want something to be wrong with Obama which would make him ineligible for the Presidency because they disagree with his politics. As with any other conspiracy, I hesitate to claim anything as the motivation for "most." But denying the importance of the racial and immigration issues? That's denying evidence, too.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 21, 2011 18:40:37 GMT -4
As to race, of course it's part of the issue. It doesn't take much examination of their literature to know that. Sample? I haven't seen anything to indicate it is. Not that I've perused a lot of "birther" literature. That would be my impression.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 21, 2011 21:06:19 GMT -4
The birther argument is about race in the same way that almost all relationships are about race. It is the first identifiable characteristic we notice when meeting someone and as much as we say it is not significant, it is always there. We simply can't deny that another persons race affects us, because if nothing else, race, clothing and other first impressions can give us some idea about a person's culture. Even if the impression is not always reliable.
I personally have not run into any birthers that have stated in racial motives for their complaints, but undoubtedly there are some. The irrational birther argument does though make a good "code" in which to frame an irrational racial arguments. Most of the racisim that exists today is pretty well buried in code arguments and its difficult to decipher the individual speaker's intent since racism is only one contributor to irrationality.
That said the non-racist birthers just counterproductive idiots who would rather feel the smug righteousness of the hoax believer than address the substantive issues on which to oppose Obama, which are vast.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 22, 2011 12:16:09 GMT -4
I think the first identifiable characteristic I notice when meeting someone new is their gender, not their race.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jun 22, 2011 16:18:59 GMT -4
I think racists will latch on to birtherism as part of their weaponry. But there are many people who would be birthers if McLain had been elected as well, looking for that obscure fact that would prove it was All Wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 22, 2011 16:30:05 GMT -4
Since the "birther" movement predates Obama's actual election, it is clearly not that he was elected that is the issue. Indeed, Obama's isn't the first campaign wherein some of the opposition claimed the candidate had been born in another country. (I don't remember who it was off the top of my head and don't feel like doing the required research, but there were claims that one of our former Presidents was born in--gasp!--Canada.) However, the fact that Obama is alleged to have been born in Kenya is, I think, significant. Yes, that's because that's the country his father was born in. However, large amounts of our nation's history are swayed by African immigrants, albeit mostly of the involuntary kind. It would not surprise me to know that a lot of the people planning big, elaborate Civil War anniversaries which just happen to fail to mention slavery are also birthers.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 22, 2011 18:03:29 GMT -4
Chester A. Arthur was the President rumored to have been born in Canada.
There is in fact a small "birther" movement around the circumstances of Sen. McCain's birth in Panama (at a U.S. Navy Base). There were apparently lawsuits filed on the issue, and an opinion by a US District Judge that he was eligible to serve as President. There was also a Senate resolution in 2008 that acknowledged he was legally Natural-Born.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jun 24, 2011 12:10:47 GMT -4
Well, the "technicality" I was referring to was an argument that I've seen, that goes like this:
Obama wasn't born in the US (not true, but let's take that as a starting point). No, but his mother is a US citizen, so that doesn't matter. Yes, but the relevant section that says the child of a US citizen only gets citizenship if the parent has spent "at least 5 years after the age of 15" in the US. So? Other than the hypothetical trip to Africa, his mother stayed in the US. AHA!!!1! But she was 19 when Obama was born! That means she was only 4 years and some days "after the age of 15" in the US! We WIN!
Honestly, I'm not sure the founding fathers would really have meant that. In fact, if it were given to the Supreme Court to decide, I'm not sure that they would consider that the intent of the law, to deprive automatic citizenship to the child of a 19 yo parent, while the child of a 20 yo parent would get it. There can be little argument that the first child is "less American" than the second, except as a technicality of the way the law was worded (probably to try to stop long-term expatriots from claiming citizenship for their children, not to punish children of younger parents).
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 24, 2011 14:19:20 GMT -4
Given the makeup of the Supreme Court? I wouldn't want to risk it.
|
|
|
Post by coelacanth on Jun 26, 2011 9:33:14 GMT -4
Well, the "technicality" I was referring to was an argument that I've seen, that goes like this: Obama wasn't born in the US (not true, but let's take that as a starting point).No, but his mother is a US citizen, so that doesn't matter. Yes, but the relevant section that says the child of a US citizen only gets citizenship if the parent has spent "at least 5 years after the age of 15" in the US. So? Other than the hypothetical trip to Africa, his mother stayed in the US. AHA!!!1! But she was 19 when Obama was born! That means she was only 4 years and some days "after the age of 15" in the US! We WIN! Honestly, I'm not sure the founding fathers would really have meant that. In fact, if it were given to the Supreme Court to decide, I'm not sure that they would consider that the intent of the law, to deprive automatic citizenship to the child of a 19 yo parent, while the child of a 20 yo parent would get it. There can be little argument that the first child is "less American" than the second, except as a technicality of the way the law was worded (probably to try to stop long-term expatriots from claiming citizenship for their children, not to punish children of younger parents). I think the idea is to prevent existence of whole generations of people who have no connection to the country at all, but who are nonetheless citizens. Some countries do have this situation going on - in fact, I'm a citizen of a country I may not ever have visited (possibly I did for a few days as an infant). FWIW, I am not a citizen of the country in which I was born. (More accurately, the country that my place of birth is now in; the country it was in then no longer exists.) I'm having trouble getting detailed information on the US citizenship laws in effect at the time, but from what I can tell, it looks like (under the assumed counterfactual) your analysis is correct - had Obama been born in Kenya, he would not have made the cut. Since he was born in Hawaii, though, it's all irrelevant. Given the makeup of the Supreme Court? I wouldn't want to risk it. Such a legal action would be brought by people who are contending that Obama is not a US citizen, and they would be perfectly willing to risk it. However, they would have to get to the Supreme Court first, and so far, none of them have even gotten close. I guess "I heard a rumour on the interent" was not found to be compelling testimony in the lower courts . . .
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 27, 2011 17:24:11 GMT -4
I think the idea is to prevent existence of whole generations of people who have no connection to the country at all, but who are nonetheless citizens. Specifically to prevent someone who has no real connection to the country of holding its highest executive office. Rather like how congressmen are supposed to be residents of the state they nominally represent.
|
|