Without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that Obama is in Violation of Current Immigration Law. This is not a matter of “innocent until proven guiltly”, but rather “ineligible until proven eligible”.
There has been a lot of attention on the fact that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer just signed the nation’s toughest immigration enforcement bill.
I commend that new law, but how about enforcing a current Federal Immigration Law that has been on the books for over 23 years?
All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.
Anyone who has started a new job in the last 23 years has been legally required, by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, to fill out an I-9 form and supply the necessary hardcopy documentation.
I’ve done it, and chances are that you’ve done it, too.
But has Obama done it?
I see no evidence of him being in compliance with this legal requirement.
If you have evidence that Obama has submitted an I-9 form in compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, please provide that evidence.
This is not a “birther” issue, it is a law enforcement issue.
Everyone who has started a new job after November 6, 1986 has been legally required to present hardcopy documentation.
Obama started a new job on January 20, 2009. He, like every other employee in this country, was legally required to submit an I-9 form with substantiating hardcopy documentation. He has not done so, and he is in violation of current immigration law.
The I-9 does not accept newspaper birth announcements as documentation.
The I-9 does not accept URL links to a web page with .JPG images of a COLB as documentation.
Regardless of where you think Obama was born, why does anyone who respects the Rule of Law think that Obama should be allowed to present to his employers (We the People) a web URL instead of a hardcopy Birth Certificate? No one who respects the rule of law should blindly accept what has been presented by Obama to date.
If a URL is not good enough to meet the legal requirements to work a minimum wage job, why does anyone accept it for the job of President and Commander in Chief?
To put this to rest, two things need to happen:
1) Obama needs to release an original, initial birth certificate, verifying his birth hospital, directly from the state of Hawaii to members of Congress. If Obama refuses to verify his “birth narrative” with official hardcopy documentation, he is not legally eligible to work, per CURRENT IMMIGRATION LAW.
2) If Obama does verify his “birth narrative” with official hardcopy documentation, there is still the legal question of whether or not someone born a British subject (which Obama’s campaign already acknowledged he was, because his father was a British subject, not a U.S. Citizen) can or cannot be considered a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.A. To put this to rest, the Courts must rule on this and clarify the legal definition of “natural born citizen”.
Those two things will put this to rest.
Nothing else will.
Now, I am well aware that Obama could complete an I-9 form with just a passport, or the combination of a driver’s license and Social Security Card.
But guess what? So could any naturalized citizen. So, while being a naturalized citizen is sufficient for an I-9 form and employment in the U.S.A., that is not sufficient for the job of President and Commander in Chief.
Once again, the argument is two-fold:
1) Obama is in violation of current federal immigration law because he has not submitted an I-9 form.
2) Obama, to be eligible to serve as President, must not only submit an I-9 form but also prove that he is a natural born citizen. Even a passport is insufficient for that purpose. He must present an original, initial birth certificate including birth hospital and delivering dotor’s signature, to prove native birth, and the Court must rule on the issue of whether someone born a subject of a foreign country (as Obama’s campaign admits he was) can be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States. If you have evidence that a court of law has ruled against Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” (even though it is clear that our Founders read and referrenced Vattel), then please provide that evidence.
UPDATE: Don’t look now, Hawaii wants to change the law to stop people from asking questions about Obama’s records…