Is Your Birth Certificate Enough?

Getting a US Passport is serious business and you must be sure you can prove you are an American. These days anyone from anywhere can be or claim to be an American. At one time just your presence in the country was nearly proof enough. Today you MUST have your papers in order because without them you could be deported. Even if you were born and have lived in America all your life without the proper papers deportation is possible.

In this article we will discuss and list what papers you need and papers that are worthless which many people believe is their birth certificate but in fact is not. You will see an example of a “short abstract birth certificate” an example of “acceptable birth certificate for a US Passport”.

Now to answer the question. Is your birth certificate enough? The answer is yes, in most cases. Your birth certificate should have the following elements in order to get your US Passport. If your birth certificate is missing any one of these elements you could have real problems. I will list all the elements in the order of importance.

  • Birth certificate should show a doctor’s signature, a midwife’s signature, the parent’s signature or the signature of a witness who was present at your birth.
  • The name of the hospital you were born at or taken to after your birth at home, in the car or where ever you happened to be born but later seen by a doctor at a hospital.
  • A raised registrar’s embossed, impressed or multicolored seal. Some older birth certificates may not have all of these elements on certificates from the 1970’s or earlier.
  • The paper itself should have a print pattern or emboss style that is sometimes raised again on some older certificates this may not be present.
  • Birth certificate should have been issued within one year of your birth.


The birth certificate below is an example of a birth certificate with major problems. The missing information is that there is no doctor’s signature or any signature of any witness nor is there the name of a hospital. You could have problems getting a US Passport with this birth certificate. This is an example of what the State Department referrers to as a “short abstract version of a birth certificate.” This is a re-issued birth certificate which is not a problem because people lose their birth certificates all the time but this one is missing vital information.

To be truthful people get US Passports everyday with short abstract version’s of their birth certificates that are missing a reference to their original birth “source documents” but the State Department can and does ask for source documents when there are questions or suspicions. You really can’t prove your citizenship without the signature of a witness and a written hospital report of your birth. Obama will not have to provide source documents of his birth but odds are you will be required to produce them if asked.

Why take a chance on this when anyone’s birth certificate can easily have this information placed on your birth certificate with a simple request. This data is required to be kept on file by every hospital in the United States. There is no reason for it not to be on every birth certificate.

Look at the pictures of these birth certificates closely and avoid the problems this certificate would bring you. If yours is missing these elements get it corrected and re-issued to avoid a major hassle.

barack_front.jpg

barack_rear.jpg

Click images for close up view.

The next pictures are of a valid birth certificate that has all of the necessary elements of a birth certificate that will not cause you any problems. It too is a Hawaiian birth certificate issued during the same time period.

edith_front.jpg

edith_rear.jpg

Click images for close up view.

Notice that both of these Hawaiian birth certificates were re-issued. This happens people lose their birth certificates all the time. But the first one does not have a witness or hospital that can validate that individual’s place of birth. That one will cause you problems if you want a U. S. passport. Make sure your birth certificate has all the required information.

 

 


 

People often engage in fraud in their attempts to gain a U. S. Passport. These frauds are often discovered by small errors that are made with US Passports of this era. Obama’s father would not have been referred to as “African” in 1961 but would have been identified as “negro” the letter “n” of negro would likely have been in small caps and not capitalized.

Obama the child himself may have been identified as “mulatto child: Barack Hussian Obamo II” and if he had been born out of wedlock may have been further identified as: “Illegitimate” or “Bastard” depending on the state he was born in.

Also there is a huge difference between a “Certification of Live Birth” and a “Certificate of Live Birth”. A “Certification of Live Birth” is a testament to the fact that you were born of a “woman”, certainly most of us can prove this fact by our mere presence. A “Certificate of Live Birth” is a testament of proof to the fact of “where” you were born.

There is no legitimate reason to issue a birth certificate without this vital information other than it cannot be submitted because it does not exist or there is something to hide.


14 Comments »

  1. Dear Anita,

    There is no excuse for the misspellings. All I can say is that I am new to using Word Press and apparently their spell check does not perform as well as Word or I am not using it correctly. Thank you for the corrections.

    However, I must take exception with your observation concerning the “validity of my argument” my poor spelling can not change facts nor does it compromise what has for many years been standard requirements for obtaining a passport. The State Department sets those standards and all the poor spelling in world cannot change that fact.

    Anita, look at your own birth certificate and I am fairly certain you will find your mother’s or father’s signature on it as well as a doctor’s and the name of the hospital in which your birth occurred.

    Mr. Obama “President Elect” is hiding something. This could all be solved in an instant simply by showing the source documents of his birth. As to my misspelling of his name that should not have occurred but non-American names do have their issues with spell check and my own spelling (lack of) abilities.

    I served 12 years in the public school gulag and 4 years of hard political indoctrination and I still have problems with spelling had I been home schooled I would not have this crippling handicap.

    Comment by James Coats — November 24, 2008 @ 04:50

  2. Excellent article. I believe that Obama has caused a Constitutional Crisis and hopefully he will be found out. I agree he is hiding something! He traveled on an Indonesian passport–even more recently–what does this mean? Wouldn’t he of had to of been an Indonesian citizen? I know that Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship. If he truly was a natural born citizen he wouldn’t be spending $800,000 to cover it up, when $15.00 would produce it. Yes, I do realize that you do not have to be born in Hawaii to have a birth certificate on record and I do know that none of the hospital records show Obama’s mother ever being in a hospital in Hawaii! Thank you again for the wonderful article!

    Comment by Linda — December 2, 2008 @ 06:12

  3. More info
    http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/birthcertificate/index

    Comment by Bug — December 2, 2008 @ 16:10

  4. Not all babies are born in hospitals. Our daughter was born at a planned home birth. She has never been in a hospital in her life. She did not need to be taken to a hospital after birth because she was completely healthy, and her birth was completely normal. Hospitals are full of sick people, and taking a healthy child there only risks catching diseases. But I am a US citizen, and our daughter was born on US soil, so she is unquestionably a US citizen.

    Comment by Eric Kessler — December 2, 2008 @ 17:28

  5. “This is a re-issued birth certificate which is not a problem because people lose their birth certificates all the time but this one is missing vital information. You might still get a passport with this birth but the odds are you won’t because you really can’t prove your citizenship without the signature of a witness and a written hospital report of your birth.”

    This is complete nonsense. My original birth certificate was lost so I used a reissued one to get my passport. The birth certificate was reissued to be by the state health department and it does not have a doctor, nurse, or witness signature or any kind (I just checked). And you know, what? I had no problems getting my passport.

    Comment by youreanidiot — December 2, 2008 @ 18:51

  6. Well…

    Yes, I see what you are saying but there’s a flaw in your reasoning. I am sitting here with both the “correct abstract of the original record” and “the correct reproduction of the original record” of my birth, from Texas in this case. Just because you have the abstract doesn’t mean the original doesn’t exist. In fact it probably means it does. Texas, in my case, sends me just the document I need for what I am doing and besides who knows what the rules were whem OBama got his first passport.

    I got a facsimile of my birth certificate (now lost) 30 years ago but today I doubt the original still exists in paper form. The same holds true in Hawaii. Obama can’t “show” the source documents because they are digital files in the posession of the Hawaiian government. And certainly not because you say he must.

    As for the Afican thing…well, the abstract was printed long after negro disappeared from common use. Nor do I see where “mulatto” appears (or race of baby for that matter). Even in Texas they didn’t bother to print the obvious.

    You sound like a resonable person and reason tells us if preponderance of evidence points in one direction it is the corrct direction.

    Best to you,
    Ed

    Comment by Ed Deems — December 2, 2008 @ 22:18

  7. these idiots who clam to be concern that mr obama is not a legal resident of america are bigots, and foolish to believe that they can over throw this country with the lie’s that they are trying to spread, good luck sucker./

    Comment by jerry coleman — December 3, 2008 @ 06:55

  8. Mr. Coats, thank you for posting your sister Edith’s Certificate of Live Birth from 1962. I hope your posting it with her mother’s maiden name does not result in her identity being stolen.

    This is an excellent source document to illustrate what is required instead of the dubious Certification of Live Birth for Barack Obama II presented by Daily Kos and FactCheck.

    Comment by MinutemanCDC_SC — December 3, 2008 @ 12:36

  9. i have processed over 15,000 passport applications through the U.S Postal Service in my 30 plus years on the job;and have never seen or heard of an applicant having a problem with with that type of birth certificate. Doctors signature and hospital name are not a requirement on a ” certified birth certificate” for proof of citizenship.

    Comment by dan — December 3, 2008 @ 17:37

  10. Lame that you are censoring the comments on here instead of responding to legitimate questions about your idiotic thought processes

    Comment by shocked — December 6, 2008 @ 06:00

  11. The reissue of Obama’s birth certificate is correct. Before 1966 many states east of the rockies and south of the Mason-Dixon line made the distinction between bastard or illegitimate, particularly if the child were born in a Catholic or other religious hospital. Also, only Southern states prior to 1971 listed Americans of African descent as Negro; between 1943 and 1971, the listing did have a capitol ‘N’. Otherwise, any African national who had children stateside did have their race listed as either African or the country of national origin. The mulatto classification was never used in Hawaii, or in any other state after the 1890 census, as the word fell out of favor with the Census Bureau and in common parlayance.

    Comment by Ellen — March 7, 2014 @ 00:54

  12. Thank you for posting this. Not that I agree with everything, but it clarifies a lot. I too was born in HI and when I tried to get another copy of my birth certificate, what they sent me looks just like Obama’s. I thought I had been scammed until I saw this. I still have my original birth certificate, but it’s old and falling apart and I cant comfortably send it in the mail. I made an appointment with the Passport agency.

    I hope they will see me because the website explicitly states appointments are for travel emergencies, but still.

    Comment by Marq — April 30, 2014 @ 18:52

  13. Wow, here I am trying to find some legitimate information on whether or not my short form, abstract birth certificate will be good enough for a passport and instead I find some right wing nut job complaining about Obama. Wow. Just wow. I guess my birth certificate is fake, even though it came from the department of State Health Services.

    Also, it’s not unreasonable to think they would change the wording, since some of that might be considered inappropriate or offensive.

    Comment by themegchan — October 27, 2014 @ 15:23

  14. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

    For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock) The person’s parents were married at the time of birth. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

    The presidents birth meets all of the above but not what follows:

    The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:

    “4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:

    Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
    (a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
    (b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.

    5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ….”

    Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama’s father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.

    Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama’s 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.

    Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that: “1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. [sic] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. [sic] if his father becomes. [sic] . . . a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subjection (1). [sic] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. [sic] 1963.” These provisions made Obama’s father and Obama citizens of Kenya, respectively. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain nor the Kenyan Constitution caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship. Rather, the statements have been that his British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963 and that he then lost Kenyan citizenship under the Kenyan constitution and laws when he did not renounce U.S. citizenship at age 21. But since Obama never lost his British citizenship, it does not matter that Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship as he contends.

    Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:

    “97. Dual citizenship

    1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”

    Hence, while the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. Kenya’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect Obama’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship.

    The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:

    “Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.

    Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child’s minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality.”

    Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.

    “It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .

    Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality.”

    British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.

    Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning “declaration of renunciation” at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any “declaration of renunciation” of his British citizenship.

    What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya’s 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.

    This all leads to the question of how can Obama be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was at birth both a U.S. citizen (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and a British citizen which alone disqualifies him from having that status? But to make matters worse, Obama continues to be a British citizen at a time that he is currently the President of the United States. Can we reasonably conclude that the Founding Fathers, who had just fought a war with Great Britain and who did not want a foreigner to occupy the Office of President, would have allowed a British citizen, who carries that status not only from birth but also to the time he occupies the Office, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its Military? Another question is how can a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military with current dual citizenship obtain a security clearance which he would need to access classified U.S. government information needed by him to carry out the sensitive functions of that Office?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    185 Gatzmer Avenue
    Jamesburg NJ 08831
    Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
    TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
    BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

    Per this President Obama is not qualified to be President.

    Comment by james — December 14, 2014 @ 00:11

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment