Main Menu

Hey Boy! Fetch me that I-9 form

According to the Sonoran News, a birther-friendly conservative web site in Arizona, Linda Jordan, a Seattle woman used the E-Verify system to check Obama’s employment eligibility. She claims to have gotten a “Notice of Mismatch with the Social Security Administration records.”

Jordan (as one of Obama’s employers) has written the President, asking him to fill out an I-9 form verifying his name, social-security number and citizenship status.

Logic only a birther could love.

E-Verify is a service of the US Department of Homeland Security. Users of the system must first electronically sign a Memorandum of Understanding that states:

The Employer agrees not to use E-Verify procedures for pre-employment screening of job applicants, in support of any unlawful employment practice, or for any other use not authorized by this MOU.

Since Obama is not a “new hire” (nor an employee of Ms. Jordan) I’d say she violated the agreement.

The Employer acknowledges that the information which it receives from SSA is governed by the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(1) and (3)) and the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1306(a)), and that any person who obtains this information under false pretenses or uses it for any purpose other than as provided for in this MOU may be subject to criminal penalties.

,

85 Responses to Hey Boy! Fetch me that I-9 form

  1. avatar
    Obsolete September 29, 2011 at 4:43 pm #

    When will these birther criminals wind up in the pokey like Commander Cordwood? Why do they think they are above the law?

  2. avatar
    Northland10 September 29, 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    Unless Ms. Jordan is in the White House Office of Administration, she does not. Have the authority. When I was on various non-profit boards and church councils I did not have the authority.

  3. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn September 29, 2011 at 7:00 pm #

    Well, is she doing this on behalf of the American people? Well, I guess _she_ is working for _me_. So she better show me her forms..

  4. avatar
    BatGuano September 29, 2011 at 7:35 pm #

    from the article:

    “Jordan noted there wasn’t a single “Catch-Me-If-You-Can” FBI agent, anyone in the CIA or the military, not a single judge or attorney general, senator or representative, no one in the Social Security Administration, the Hawaii Department of Health or the Federal Elections Department – nobody, and said, “Nobody cared for our republic.”

    millions of people i never met are corrupt and hate the US vs i may be wrong.

    occam’s razor, you have it pointed the wrong way.

  5. avatar
    john September 29, 2011 at 7:40 pm #

    Listen to Linda Jordan for yourself – http://networkedblogs.com/nMoyg

  6. avatar
    Keith September 29, 2011 at 7:42 pm #

    Obsolete:
    When will these birther criminals wind up in the pokey like Commander Cordwood? Why do they think they are above the law?

    Can we get up a petition to send to Sheriff Joe? Maybe the bit stream passed through a Motorola plant in Maricopa County?

  7. avatar
    Steve September 29, 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    This is the one thing I don’t get about these people who are claiming that Obama has been using a bogus Social Security Number.
    Obama has had this number since he was in high school, three-plus decades ago. I’m pretty sure at the time nobody outside his family or circle of friends knew or cared who he was.
    All this time, he has been filing tax returns with that number. If the number didn’t match, somebody at the IRS would have known and called him on it.
    I just can’t imagine in 1978 or so some IRS tax examiner saying to his boss “Hey, the number in this form doesn’t match.”
    “Who is it?”
    “A Baskin Robbins employee in Hawaii named Barack Obama.”
    “He’s supposed to be President in 2008, nothing to see here.”

  8. avatar
    Dave September 29, 2011 at 10:26 pm #

    To give credit where credit is due, this stupid “where’s his I-9” question was asked by itooktheredpill as early as March 2009, as can be seen here. He’s written numerous articles on this subject over the years, though none really add anything to it.

  9. avatar
    Lupin September 30, 2011 at 2:56 am #

    BatGuano: occam’s razor, you have it pointed the wrong way.

    It looks to me that she slit her own throat with it.

  10. avatar
    Lupin September 30, 2011 at 2:59 am #

    I want to hammer again on the point that all these people (very likely) never ever did things like that, even under Bill Clinton, whom they hated. It is obvious, as demonstrated in poll after poll, study after study, that one of the driving force of birtherism and tea partyism is simple old fashioned racism, as in “no n*** will ever be my president”, period.

  11. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 30, 2011 at 3:21 am #

    He’s still at it:

    itooktheredpill Says:
    September 28, 2011 at 6:52 pm
    Comment at Michelle Malkin’s site:

    Alabama didn’t wait for the feds to do the job they should be doing. Before the ruling, they implemented “AL-Verify:”

    Speaking of immigration law, can you please pay attention to the fact that Barack Obama is not in compliance with current immigration law?

    Obama has yet to produce a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification and “Acceptable Documentation”.
    JPG’s and PDF’s are NOT considered “Acceptable documentation” by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

    Also, can you please pay attention to the fact that Obama’s name and Connecticut Social Security # FAIL TO AUTHENTICATE in E-VERIFY?

    You attention to these legal matters would be greatly appreciated.

    Dave:
    To give credit where credit is due, this stupid “where’s his I-9‘ question was asked by itooktheredpill as early as March 2009, as can be seen here. He’s written numerous articles on this subject over the years, though none really add anything to it.

  12. avatar
    The Magic M September 30, 2011 at 3:23 am #

    Steve: “He’s supposed to be President in 2008, nothing to see here.”

    To most birthers, that makes perfect sense. As every conspiracy theory, this one has taken a life of its own, ever since it – required to explain more and more contradicting evidence – moved from “Obama was able to single-handedly fool the right people” to “the Big Konspiracee decided to make that Kenyan-born child President back in 1961”.
    They just haven’t all arrived at “the entire US has been a sham since 1810” yet, that’s the only position where birthers differ.

    The only thing that amuses me is when they try to explain away facts that make such a construct appear totally idiotic, like “why didn’t they choose someone you people would not consider ineligible?” or “why didn’t they use their vast resources to make perfect forgeries of all required documents?”. Because their answer is always so self-centered: “they did that on purpose to flip us (the people who ‘see through it all’) off, to mock us, to show us how powerful they are”. It’s amazing that people actually believe such stuff. That’s akin to claiming there’s a burglar who’s so stealthy he’s never been convicted, yet he left his card on every crime scene and smiled openly into every surveillance camera.

  13. avatar
    Tarrant September 30, 2011 at 7:57 am #

    The annoying thing is that in this case, what she is doing is actually a crime – and she’s flaunting it by sending it anywhere and everywhere, and using the fact that she isn’t being prosecuted as “proof” that she must be right.

    Of course, she, like Lakin foolishly thought before her, thinks that if she WERE to be prosecuted, that Obama would have to produce his documents during discovery, and that is why she isn’t being prosecuted.

  14. avatar
    Majority Will September 30, 2011 at 9:16 am #

    Steve:
    This is the one thing I don’t get about these people who are claiming that Obama has been using a bogus Social Security Number.
    Obama has had this number since he was in high school, three-plus decades ago. I’m pretty sure at the time nobody outside his family or circle of friends knew or cared who he was.
    All this time, he has been filing tax returns with that number. If the number didn’t match, somebody at the IRS would have known and called him on it.
    I just can’t imagine in 1978 or so some IRS tax examiner saying to his boss “Hey, the number in this form doesn’t match.”
    “Who is it?”
    “A Baskin Robbins employee in Hawaii named Barack Obama.”
    “He’s supposed to be President in 2008, nothing to see here.”

    Logic and common sense are the birthers’ kryptonite.

  15. avatar
    Dave September 30, 2011 at 10:49 am #

    At the risk of belaboring the obvious, this whole “where’s the President’s I-9” follows the familiar pattern of asking this question only of the President, in fact only of this President, while being careful to not ask it of any other elected official.

  16. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 30, 2011 at 10:56 am #

    Good point Dave, I think I’ll ask Mr. Anderson (Itooktheredpill) about it…

    Dave:
    At the risk of belaboring the obvious, this whole “where’s the President’s I-9‘ follows the familiar pattern of asking this question only of the President, in fact only of this President, while being careful to not ask it of any other elected official.

  17. avatar
    G September 30, 2011 at 11:29 am #

    Birthers and their other ODS ilk have to come up with conspiracy stories of this grand scale, because they simply cannot accept a world in which someone like Obama can legitimately win the election – and more importantly – not just barely eek out a win, but win with a commanding and overwhelming electoral vote margin victory *and* 9.5 million popular vote margin.

    Hence why a lot of the whole “ACORN” nonsense started right away and why you hear lots of this “grand conspiracy” plot talk. His election is stinging proof in their faces that their worldview is not practiced and accepted by the majority in this country. They fear being in a minority and wrap themselves in little entitlement fantasies to make themselves feel less inadequate.

    Hence why you hear them always try to proclaim that their arguments are representing 300+ million people or using language like “take their country back”.

    The prior two elections of “their” candidate (GWB) were very contentious narrow margin wins which hinged upon a single state for victory and were rife with controversy and his term turned out to be an abject disaster. These folks cannot accept being wrong or admitting their faults and so, to them, it is an unbearable salt in the wound to have someone like Obama who is so different from them in so many ways not only be elected to succeed right after their major failure, but to do so in such a commanding fashion.

    As much as they desperately tried, it is extremely hard to spin his win as “stealing” of votes or voter error. It is simply too commanding of a win and way outside any margin of disputable error. Hence, in order to shield themselves and their fragile egos from this “unbearable” reality, they must fully suspend sanity and travel down the rabbit hole to full-blown conspiracy land in order to come up with ways to explain away Obama’s election and be able to also dismiss the reality that their worldview does not actually dominate here.

    The Magic M: To most birthers, that makes perfect sense. As every conspiracy theory, this one has taken a life of its own, ever since it – required to explain more and more contradicting evidence – moved from “Obama was able to single-handedly fool the right people” to “the Big Konspiracee decided to make that Kenyan-born child President back in 1961‘.
    They just haven’t all arrived at “the entire US has been a sham since 1810‘ yet, that’s the only position where birthers differ.

  18. avatar
    Atticus Finch September 30, 2011 at 11:42 am #

    Majority Will: Logic and common sense are the birthers’ kryptonite.

    Analogy Test

    Birthers is to truth as

    a). Dracula is to garlic
    b). Superman is to kryptonite
    c). Jessica Simpson is to a tooth brush
    d). Minnesota Vikings is to the Super Bowl
    e). All of the above

  19. avatar
    bjphysics September 30, 2011 at 12:26 pm #

    Atticus Finch: Jessica Simpson is to a tooth brush

    Where’s that come from?

  20. avatar
    Red Pill September 30, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    Dave:
    At the risk of belaboring the obvious, this whole “where’s the President’s I-9‘ follows the familiar pattern of asking this question only of the President, in fact only of this President, while being careful to not ask it of any other elected official.

    We are supposedly a Republic… a nation ruled by the Rule of Law.

    Here’s what current Immigration Law (the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) states:

    “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.”

    All means ALL. There are NO exceptions. No government employee should be above the law. They are employed by, and are supposed to work for, We the People. All of them hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States are legally required to complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and show hard copy documentation from a list of Acceptable Documentation.

    The matter of whether or not the law has been enforced is not germane to what the law itself requires.

    We should be enforcing the law. If not, we have ceased to be a Republic.

  21. avatar
    Majority Will September 30, 2011 at 3:23 pm #

    Red Pill: We are supposedly a Republic… a nation ruled by the Rule of Law.

    Would that include respecting privacy laws for all U.S. citizens or does the Birther Hypocrite Rule automatically exempt you from acknowledging such blatant duplicity?

    /end rhetorical question

  22. avatar
    richCares September 30, 2011 at 3:23 pm #

    Tell us dear RED PILL, who did not file a I-19 form.

  23. avatar
    Red Pill September 30, 2011 at 3:49 pm #

    I can tell you who HAS completed a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and supplied hardcopy documentation from the list of Acceptable Documentation…

    …honest, law-abiding people.

    We’re coming up on the 25th anniversary of that November 6, 1986 date. For every new job I have started in the last 25 years, I have been required to complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and I have been happy to do so.

    If I had tried to get away with giving my employer a URL address, telling them to go to that URL to see a .JPG or .PDF of my Birth Certificate, they would never have accepted that because URLs, JPGs, and PDFs are not on this list of Acceptable Documentation. If I had not produced acceptable hardcopy documentation for their inspection, I would have been rightfully fired.

    I obeyed the law. And I expect the law to be enforced. And somehow you think I am wrong to expect the law to be enforced. You think that I should have to obey the law, but our government “civil servants” should not have to obey the law.

    Our nation was founded as a Constitutional Republic, ruled by the Rule of Law, and there are millions of people in this country who intend to keep it a Constitutional Republic.

  24. avatar
    Tarrant September 30, 2011 at 4:11 pm #

    I don’t believe the Constitutional offices are considered “employees” in the strictest sense. That said, why do you believe an I-9 hasn’t been filled out? Since you make it so clear that ALL means ALL, why is your assumption that he hasn’t done it, rather than the Occam’s Razor answer of “If everyone has to, he must have too.”

    After all, he doesn’t have to show a jpeg or the like. He had a Senate passport, and passports and acceptable as proof of both eligibility to work AND identity.

    Whether or not one was filled out, there’s certainly no requirement that it be shown to YOU, any more than if you have one share of stock of a large corporation you can ask for the HR files of any an all employees. There are agencies whose JOB it is to keep track of such things. Just like there are agencies whose responsibilry it is to check for SSN fraud – and said agency is not “Orly, Inc.” If said agencies say everything is in order, you don’t get to say “Sorry, show ME the paperwork” any more than I can go to HR at work and say “I know you said this guy is OK but I want to see his file.”

  25. avatar
    Scientist September 30, 2011 at 4:16 pm #

    Tarrant: Whether or not one was filled out, there’s certainly no requirement that it be shown to YOU, any more than if you have one share of stock of a large corporation you can ask for the HR files of any an all employees. There are agencies whose JOB it is to keep track of such things. Just like there are agencies whose responsibilry it is to check for SSN fraud – and said agency is not “Orly, Inc.” If said agencies say everything is in order, you don’t get to say “Sorry, show ME the paperwork” any more than I can go to HR at work and say “I know you said this guy is OK but I want to see his file.”

    Dead on! And if Mr. carmine Pharmaceutical Compound’s various employers had taken his I-9 and posted it on the bulletin board at work or on the internett, Mr Pill would have grounds for a great big old lawsuit.

    How’s that for respecting the law?

  26. avatar
    Scientist September 30, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

    Red Pill: I obeyed the law. And I expect the law to be enforced.

    Have you ever been on the interstate and checked the % of cars exceeding the speed limit (or talking on cellphones while driving)?

    Red Pill: Our nation was founded as a Constitutional Republic, ruled by the Rule of Law, and there are millions of people in this country who intend to keep it a Constitutional Republic.

    Pompous ass, much??

  27. avatar
    Daniel September 30, 2011 at 4:31 pm #

    Why is it that this “they’re all my employees” fallacy is so pervasive among the birthers? And why is it that birthers think that off all the hundreds of millions of people who are Obama’s “employer”, the only orders he has to follow are from the fringe who are birthers?

  28. avatar
    Dave September 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm #

    A couple points for Red Pill to think about:

    1. You are obviously avoiding the point that you can’t name any elected official who has filled this out.

    2. Having a properly filled out I-9 on file is a requirement on the employer, not the employee. Failure to comply results in a fine paid by the employer, not the employee. If you contend that you are the President’s employer, then please inform the USCIS that you owe them some money.

  29. avatar
    aarrgghh September 30, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

    Atticus Finch: Analogy Test

    Birthers is to truth as

    … c). Jessica Simpson is to a tooth brush

    bjphysics: Where’s that come from?

    that piqued my curiosity as well. answers via google …

  30. avatar
    Thrifty September 30, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    As a voting American citizen, and therefore Barack Obama’s boss, I declare that I am satisfied with the documentation that he has shown me. No further proof is required.

  31. avatar
    richCares September 30, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    OK, here is a copy of I-19 with instructions that RED PILL is hung up on, why I wonder. Is he making an assumption or an accusation? What is his point?
    .
    “because URLs, JPGs, and PDFs are not on this list of Acceptable Documentation”
    However passports are, as well as a state issued Driver license, and at least 10 other available items such as voter registration card, etc, but you knew that huh? So what is your point?
    .
    form from us gov, including acceptable documentation:
    http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf

  32. avatar
    Northland10 September 30, 2011 at 8:54 pm #

    Red Pill: They are employed by, and are supposed to work for, We the People. All of them hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States are legally required to complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and show hard copy documentation from a list of Acceptable Documentation.

    CEOs do not have to show the I-9, W-2 or other personal paperwork to Shareholders, the President does not have to show it to you or I. That is the sole domain of the Office of Administration for the Executive Office of the President. That is where you will find your HR and Payroll departments. It is HR and Payroll that are responsible for the I-9 and various other employment forms.

    Now, when I was running a camp, when staff would check in, we would have to the assorted paperwork and inspect documents. We would then send them off to our Business Manager at the council office (who was also the HR officer). If the volunteer council president or any board member walked in the office and wanted to see the paperwork of one of our staff members, I would have said he needs to go see the council executive and business manager. It was a manner of channels to ensure appropriate use of private information.

  33. avatar
    y_p_w September 30, 2011 at 11:10 pm #

    Dave
    2. Having a properly filled out I-9 on file is a requirement on the employer, not the employee. Failure to comply results in a fine paid by the employer, not the employee. If you contend that you are the President’s employer, then please inform the USCIS that you owe them some money.

    Long story, but I remember once my group at work was told that we all had to bring in proof of eligibility to work because it had never been properly collected. We’d been working there for several months. We had people bring in all sorts of documents, including Social Security cards with driver licenses, passports, or all three. A few green cards were brought in too. I don’t think anyone brought a birth certificate.

    It wasn’t really my problem. I’m not sure if my employer paid a fine or not, although I’d think they did.

    What I really remember about the I-9 was that the employer isn’t allowed to specify which document is acceptable. If you have one ID from list A or one from list B and one from list C then that’s all that’s required.

    And you better believe that the “employer” better be careful about who they show it to. The SSN is required, and disclosing that willfully isn’t something that the government takes lightly.

  34. avatar
    AnotherBird September 30, 2011 at 11:28 pm #

    Red Pill: We are supposedly a Republic… a nation ruled by the Rule of Law.

    Here’s what current Immigration Law (the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) states:

    “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.”

    All means ALL.There are NO exceptions.No government employee should be above the law.They are employed by, and are supposed to work for, We the People.All of them hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States are legally required to complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and show hard copy documentation from a list of Acceptable Documentation.

    The matter of whether or not the law has been enforced is not germane to what the law itself requires.

    We should be enforcing the law.If not, we have ceased to be a Republic.

    Sigh …. There is just too much misunderstand in that statement.

    1. You have no privileged knowledge on that any document required wasn’t submitted.
    2. You have no privileged knowledge on that the department in question overlooked any document required for employment.
    3. The person in question nor you have been entrusted with the responsibility to ensure that every government employee must submit documents for employment.

    I am confident that all the correct paper work ha been completed, just because it hasn’t been made pubic means nothing.

    Claiming that “We should enforce the law,” when no law has been broken is proof of a lack of understanding of the law.

  35. avatar
    Red Pill October 1, 2011 at 12:08 am #

    Tarrant:
    He had a Senate passport, and passports and acceptable as proof of both eligibility to work AND identity.

    A regular passport is acceptable as proof of both eligibility to work AND identity, because one has to provide other acceptable documentation of both citizenship and identity in order to obtain a regular passport. That is not true of Diplomatic passports, which are no-doc passports… one does not have to provide proof of citizenship and identity in order to obtain a diplomatic passport… they simply have to win an election for a federal office or be nominated to a diplomatic position.

    And guess what? The passport that Obama’s team has displayed is… you guessed it… a Diplomatic passport.

    Also, even though a regular passport is proof of both citizenship AND identity, it is not sufficient to prove eligibility to hold the office of President. Why not? Because anyone who is a U.S. Citizen can get a passport, but not all U.S. Citizens are natural born citizens of the United States.

    When you combine the requirements of both the I-9 and Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution, it becomes clear that the birth certificate is necessary, and JPG and PDF versions are not acceptable.

    Under Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, Congress has both the authority and responsibility to ensure that both the President and Vice-President HAVE QUALIFIED to hold the office. Members of Congress, in joint session, inspected two Certificates from the State of Hawaii, but have yet to inspect the third Certificate.

    I don’t have to personally inspect Barack Obama’s hard copy Certificate of Live Birth, but Members of Congress should.

    Two Certificates were sent, under seal, directly from the State of Hawaii to members of Congress. It shouldn’t be a big deal to do the same with the third Certificate… especially for someone who claimed:

    “President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history…”

    And, as discussed in another thread, Dr. Conspiracy himself has had numerous challenges with trying to get this administration to be transparent.

    I’ll repeat here what I wrote there:

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I suppose it’s too much to hope for someone to call me “objective.”

    I sincerely appreciate and respect objectivity.

    I sincerely appreciate and respect those who seek the truth.

    It’s amazing the run-around you’re getting, isn’t it?Especially from an administration that promised:

    “President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history…”

  36. avatar
    Red Pill October 1, 2011 at 12:12 am #

    My quoting of Dr. Conspiracy above doesn’t link to the proper thread. Here is the link to my earlier comment in the other thread where I quoted Dr. Conspiracy and thanked him for his objectivity.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/09/more-dunham-passport-documents/#comment-134458

  37. avatar
    G October 1, 2011 at 12:41 am #

    Obama has had passports most of his life. He wouldn’t have received a “diplomatic” one until he achieved government office requiring such. Therefore, for most of his life, he had the regular passport and lived a fairly regular life, like most Americans. He also had a car, a marriage, etc. long before he ever took public office.

    In summary – for all of these things, he would have had to provide the same info & documentation as everyone else does. Use your head and think for once, instead of being blinded by your emotional fear/hate of this man that you need to be your bogeyman. *sheesh*

    Red Pill: A regular passport is acceptable as proof of both eligibility to work AND identity, because one has to provide other acceptable documentation of both citizenship and identity in order to obtain a regular passport. That is not true of Diplomatic passports, which are no-doc passports… one does not have to provide proof of citizenship and identity in order to obtain a diplomatic passport… they simply have to win an election for a federal office or be nominated to a diplomatic position.
    And guess what? The passport that Obama’s team has displayed is… you guessed it… a Diplomatic passport.

    Nor do they. The HI DOH, which is the OFFICIAL AUTHORITY on that document verifies it’s authenticity. Therefore, FFAC. The story ends there.

    Red Pill: I don’t have to personally inspect Barack Obama’s hard copy Certificate of Live Birth, but Members of Congress should.

  38. avatar
    Red Pill October 1, 2011 at 12:54 am #

    Just send the certified document under seal from the State of Hawaii to members of Congress, as was done with the other two certificates.

    If everything’s legit, why not? What is there to hide?

    This could put to rest the question of whether or not the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true.

    (It would not put to rest the question of whether or not that birth narrative meets SCOTUS precedent defining who is a natural born citizen, but that’s a different part of the bigger picture… for now, let’s focus on Congressional inspection of the Birth Certificate in order to put that issue to rest)

  39. avatar
    Red Pill October 1, 2011 at 1:05 am #

    Dave:
    Having a properly filled out I-9 on file is a requirement on the employer, not the employee. Failure to comply results in a fine paid by the employer, not the employee.

    Filling out the form and producing acceptable documentation is a requirement on the employee.

    The I-9 Form refers to the M-274 Handbook. Here is one of the Q&A’s:

    4. Q. May I fire an employee who fails to produce the required documents within three business days of his or her start date?

    A. Yes. You may terminate an employee who fails to produce the required document or documents, or an acceptable receipt for a document, within three business days of the date employment begins.

  40. avatar
    richCares October 1, 2011 at 1:10 am #

    “it becomes clear that the birth certificate is necessary, and JPG and PDF versions are not acceptable. ”
    Not necessary, the State of Hawaii verified and certified Obama’s BC, case is over! Every court and all rational people know it’s over, only birthers want the “one more”, how silly!

  41. avatar
    Keith October 1, 2011 at 1:24 am #

    Red Pill: Here’s what current Immigration Law (the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) states:

    “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.”

    All means ALL. There are NO exceptions.

    I thought the word ‘citizen’ excluded ‘natural born citizen’. What am I missing in your argument?

  42. avatar
    Keith October 1, 2011 at 1:28 am #

    Red Pill: No government employee should be above the law. They are employed by, and are supposed to work for, We the People.

    So are you saying that all government employees need to fill out 330 million I-9s so that each and every one of We The People” will be able to fill out his tax details properly? I’m confused about what you expect to happen with this, can you help me out please?

  43. avatar
    richCares October 1, 2011 at 1:38 am #

    No matter how much proof Obama supplies, Bithers will want “one more”. To them Obama is the “other”, he has to be born elsewhere, has to, has to has to. Instead of finding and supporting a candidate to oppose Obama they latch on to the losing birther issue. What a waste of time (and waste of precious life), notice RED PILL won’t give up, He attempts to project that he is reasonable, but is really delusional. The one Birther I know lost his wife and daughter to this silliness, wonder what RED PILL lost.

  44. avatar
    Keith October 1, 2011 at 1:41 am #

    Red Pill:
    I can tell you who HAS completed a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and supplied hardcopy documentation from the list of Acceptable Documentation…

    …honest, law-abiding people.

    So you are claiming that the President has filled out an I-9 then. What is your beef?

    We’re coming up on the 25th anniversary of that November 6, 1986 date.For every new job I have started in the last 25 years, I have been required to complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and I have been happy to do so.

    Just out of curiosity, did you fill out an I-9 form for every member of the company’s Board of Directors and each and every stock holder? Was there any kind of employee profit sharing scheme and did you therefore fill out an I-9 for each of your workplace colleagues and get one from each of them, including the entire management hierarchy, in return?

    If I had tried to get away with giving my employer a URL address, telling them to go to that URL to see a .JPG or .PDF of my Birth Certificate, they would never have accepted that because URLs, JPGs, and PDFs are not on this list of Acceptable Documentation.If I had not produced acceptable hardcopy documentation for their inspection, I would have been rightfully fired.

    So how did you get your Form I-9 to all the shareholders then? Did you post them by registered mail? Did you get a local Printjobs ‘R’ Us to do up a bunch of copies and then mass mail them out? Did anyone ever kick back at your copy and claimed you faked it and they can tell because the font is wrong?

    I obeyed the law.And I expect the law to be enforced.And somehow you think I am wrong to expect the law to be enforced.You think that I should have to obey the law, but our government “civil servants” should not have to obey the law.

    I am really curious where you get the idea that our government “civil servants” have not obeyed the law. From where did you get the idea that anyone, the President included, has not filled out an I-9. How would you even begin to know?

    Our nation was founded as a Constitutional Republic, ruled by the Rule of Law, and there are millions of people in this country who intend to keep it a Constitutional Republic.

    Agreed 100%. Its a pity you don’t seem to be one of them.

  45. avatar
    Red Pill October 1, 2011 at 1:52 am #

    Keith: I thought the word citizen’ excluded natural born citizen’. What am I missing in your argument?

    Of all of the people living in this country…
    … a subset of those are here legally…
    … a subset of those are citizens…
    … a subset of those are born citizens…
    … a subset of those are natural born citizens.

    The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Minor vs. Happersett, directly construed the Article II Section 1 phrase “natural born citizen” as persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens.

    The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark, directly construed the 14th Amendment and included those born on U.S. soil, to permanently-domiciled non-citizen parents, as born citizens, but it did not call them natural born citizens (in fact, it diferentiated between them and natural born citizens by saying that the first is every bit as much a CITIZEN as the second) and the Wong Kim Ark ruling did not alter the ruling in Minor.

    A natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents (plural) who are citizens.

  46. avatar
    Red Pill October 1, 2011 at 1:55 am #

    richCares:
    wonder what RED PILL lost.

    Answer: any respect for you.

  47. avatar
    Red Pill October 1, 2011 at 1:58 am #

    Keith: From where did you get the idea that anyone, the President included, has not filled out an I-9. How would you even begin to know?

    From where did you get the idea that anyone, the President included, HAS filled out an I-9. How would you even begin to know?

    He promised to be open, transparent, and accountable.

    Words, just words. Speeches, just speeches.

  48. avatar
    richCares October 1, 2011 at 2:02 am #

    “Answer: any respect for you”
    doesn’t mean a thing if it ain’t got no swing!
    find a therapist to help you get over the Obama derangement syndrome, it will help!

  49. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 1, 2011 at 2:04 am #

    Mr. Anderson,

    I think you made a mistake here – saying that something is “every bit as much” of something as something else is NOT differentiating between them – it is, in fact, EQUATING them.

    Red Pill: Of all of the people living in this country…
    … a subset of those are here legally…
    … a subset of those are citizens…
    … a subset of those are born citizens…
    … a subset of those are natural born citizens.

    The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Minor vs. Happersett, directly construed the Article II Section 1 phrase “natural born citizen” as persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens.

    The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark, directly construed the 14th Amendment and included those born on U.S. soil, to permanently-domiciled non-citizen parents, as born citizens, but it did not call them natural born citizens (in fact, it diferentiated between them and natural born citizens by saying that the first is every bit as much a CITIZEN as the second) and the Wong Kim Ark ruling did not alter the ruling in Minor.

    A natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents (plural) who are citizens.

  50. avatar
    Keith October 1, 2011 at 2:12 am #

    Red Pill: Of all of the people living in this country…
    … a subset of those are here legally…
    … a subset of those are citizens…
    … a subset of those are born citizens…
    … a subset of those are natural born citizens.

    I can agree with that.

    But you missing one vital point:

    The “subset of those who are born citizens” is exactly equal to the “subset of those who are natural born citizens”.

  51. avatar
    Obsolete October 1, 2011 at 2:25 am #

    Blue Pill: “The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Minor vs. Happersett, directly construed the Article II Section 1 phrase “natural born citizen” as persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens”

    Another birther purposefully misunderstanding Minor vs. Happersett. Color me surprised.

    Getting Wong Kim Ark wrong too makes it a twofer!

    It may not be physically painful, but I am glad that Obama Derangement Syndrome seems to be psychologically painful. It corrodes the Soul and alienates friends and relatives.

  52. avatar
    Keith October 1, 2011 at 3:08 am #

    Red Pill: From where did you get the idea that anyone, the President included, HAS filled out an I-9. How would you even begin to know?

    I never had ‘the idea’ in the first place, I frankly don’t care one way or the other. By that I mean that of course I care that the law followed, but it is not my job to investigate each and every trivial thing to that level of detail. “We the People” employ thousands of “civil servants” to do that job on our behalf. I do not wish to have every one of those civil servants show me their I-9.

    It seems to be your windmill to tilt at. Considering that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by not doing it and he has a huge staff to ensure that such things are taken care of it is much more reasonable to assume he has done so, or it will be caught and fixed quite soon. White House staff are quite used to personnel turnover, from kitchen hands to the President, and know what forms they have to ensure people fill out in order to satisfy the requirements of the law.

    He promised to be open, transparent, and accountable.

    Words, just words.Speeches, just speeches.

    By assuming that this trivial detail has not been handled, you are not casting aspersions on the Presidents ‘transparency’ you are insulting the professionalism of the White House staff, many of which are not political appointees but professional civil servants.

    This triviality is destructive to your obvious desire to see Obama lose the next election. In fact he has had a great deal of trouble keeping his promises on transparency. But those promises had nothing to do with this trivial nonsense about birth certificates or I-9 forms or draft records or school records or anything approaching that degree of personal information.

    It had to do with stuff that is actually very important like lobbyist influence and government contracts. You know stuff that actually affects people.

    Of 16 promises specifically about ethics, he has broken 3, and 2 have been watered down by Congress.

    Of 20 promises specifically about transparency, he has broken 3, and one has been watered down by Congress.

    (My source is here: The Obameter by SubjectThose two sets overlap, so it isn’t 36 different promises, and it is not 6 total broken promises).

    Why don’t you discuss his failure to prevent no-bid contracts for jobs greater than $25,000 or to properly centralize the lobbyist contact information for public study.

    In fact, your motive is transparent to the point of obviousness. Since nobody on ‘your side’ of politics could possibly support any of those ethical or transparency reforms most of them having in fact fought them tooth and nail, and the failure of those reforms is mostly beyond Obama’s control, the only way you think you have to attack him is to go after him personally and lie about what he promised and what he is doing.

    You are really doing yourself no favors at all.

  53. avatar
    G October 1, 2011 at 3:17 am #

    *yawn* What a weak attempt at concern trolling. The question has already been more than definitively answered byt the HI DOH & as far back as 2008 with the public release of his COLB info – backed by the HI DOH. Give it up.

    Red Pill: Just send the certified document under seal from the State of Hawaii to members of Congress, as was done with the other two certificates.If everything’s legit, why not? What is there to hide? This could put to rest the question of whether or not the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true.(It would not put to rest the question of whether or not that birth narrative meets SCOTUS precedent defining who is a natural born citizen, but that’s a different part of the bigger picture… for now, let’s focus on Congressional inspection of the Birth Certificate in order to put that issue to rest)

  54. avatar
    G October 1, 2011 at 3:20 am #

    BFD. You really have comprehension problems, don’t you? That simply means that an employee has to give that info to their employer. As much as you fantasize about it, sorry, but every individual member of the US is not the “employer” in that sense of ANY member of government. No citizen has to file W-2 statements, I-9 statements or *ANY* other documentation in respect to *ANY* government official…you know, like “actual” employers do. BIRTHER FAIL.

    Red Pill: Filling out the form and producing acceptable documentation is a requirement on the employee. The I-9 Form refers to the M-274 Handbook. Here is one of the Q&A’s:

  55. avatar
    G October 1, 2011 at 3:23 am #

    Again, this has been pointed out to you repeatedly, so I can only conclude that you intentionally LIE.

    There is NO legal case that requires 2 citizen parents in US law for NBC or for citizenship – period. None. NADA. The cases you cited simply do NOT imply what you claim. You are intentionally full of horse sh*t.

    Red Pill: The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Minor vs. Happersett, directly construed the Article II Section 1 phrase “natural born citizen” as persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens.
    The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark, directly construed the 14th Amendment and included those born on U.S. soil, to permanently-domiciled non-citizen parents, as born citizens, but it did not call them natural born citizens (in fact, it diferentiated between them and natural born citizens by saying that the first is every bit as much a CITIZEN as the second) and the Wong Kim Ark ruling did not alter the ruling in Minor.
    A natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents (plural) who are citizens.

  56. avatar
    ballantine October 1, 2011 at 3:23 am #

    The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Minor vs. Happersett, directly construed the Article II Section 1 phrase “natural born citizen” as persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens.

    The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark, directly construed the 14th Amendment and included those born on U.S. soil, to permanently-domiciled non-citizen parents, as born citizens, but it did not call them natural born citizens (in fact, it diferentiated between them and natural born citizens by saying that the first is every bit as much a CITIZEN as the second) and the Wong Kim Ark ruling did not alter the ruling in Minor.

    A natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents (plural) who are citizens.

    It is amazing that people with no understanding of law repeats this nonsense over and over. Minor had dictum that said native born children of citizens were natural born. It didn’t didn’t say native born children of aliens were not. It said someone had doubts, didn’t say what they were or if they were right. Minor is simply not authority on the citizenship status of children of aliens as it expressly declined to address such issue. And calling somone a “citizen” does not mean they are not “natural born citizens” as the Minor court only called Virginia Minor a citizen, not a natural born citizen, though the court made clear a person of her status was natural born.

    Similarly, Justice Gray called Wong Kim Ark a citizen but made clear a person of his status was both a natural born citizen and a citizen under the 14th Amendment. It is simply a lie to say he differentiated between the two. The whole basis of the case is that natural born citizen and the first clause of the 14th Amendment meant the same thing. A court does not need to call someone natural born in order to define the term and have it be binding precedent. Clearly you don’t understand how to read case law any better than idiots like Donofrio who miscontrues pretty much everything about this cases only to have one idiot after another repeat his nonsense.

  57. avatar
    G October 1, 2011 at 3:31 am #

    *yawn* Give it a rest. You are so full of it. You seriously can’t be that stupid and must know better than how you come off.

    The President’s statements of transparency apply to GOVERNMENT RECORDS. Personal info on any citizen, whether government employee or not is NOT a government record and is protected by applicable privacy laws, same as everyone else’s info. End of story.

    That lame “transparency” whine BS won’t work here or any other site where people have a functioning brain. Government transparency may only be marginally better than in the past, but the whole point is that it is currently IMPROVED than it was under PRIOR administrations.

    Detailed breakdown PROOF:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/transparency/

    Simple fact: Only a subset of promises by ANY candidate for President ever get addressed in the reality of an actual Presidential administration. Obama’s record on either meeting or making progress on campaign promises he made is actually quite impressive in comparison to history. Because you wallow in hate, you only focus on the negative and cling to many false perceptions. Reality paints a very different picture.

    Red Pill: He promised to be open, transparent, and accountable.
    Words, just words. Speeches, just speeches.

  58. avatar
    G October 1, 2011 at 3:35 am #

    Bingo! Exactly.

    Keith: Why don’t you discuss his failure to prevent no-bid contracts for jobs greater than $25,000 or to properly centralize the lobbyist contact information for public study.

    In fact, your motive is transparent to the point of obviousness. Since nobody on ‘your side’ of politics could possibly support any of those ethical or transparency reforms most of them having in fact fought them tooth and nail, and the failure of those reforms is mostly beyond Obama’s control, the only way you think you have to attack him is to go after him personally and lie about what he promised and what he is doing.

  59. avatar
    Slartibartfast October 1, 2011 at 3:39 am #

    Mr. Anderson,

    Why was this issue never raised against natural born Greek citizen Vice President Agnew? His father was not naturalized before his birth.

    Answer: Because your argument is completely fallacious.

    Blue Pill: A natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents (plural) who are citizens.

  60. avatar
    sfjeff October 1, 2011 at 3:53 am #

    So much anger- and all about speculation.

    You assume that Presidents are required by law to fill out an I-9.

    But frankly you are just speculating- and frankly you never speculated about this until Barack Obama. You never thought or cared about whether GW filed an I-9, but suddenly after BO is elected, and you started reading Birther blogs, you are convinced that Presidents must file an I-9.

    I am fairly confident President’s don’t file an I-9. Why? Where in the Constitution does it say a President must fill out such a form? The President is not an employee in any usual sense. You and I cannot fire him. There is no CEO or Board of Directors that can issue orders that he is required to follow.

    Frankly- does the military even require an I-9 be filled out?

    Anyway- you are letting your clear bias determine your biased speculation.

    Then after speculating that the President must fill out an I-9, you then claim that this President(not any other President) failed to do so. Based upon of course once again, pure speculation.

    And when challenged on that, you claim as a transparent President he should have revealed whether he filed a form he may or may not have been required to fill out and that no President has ever been asked about.

    So to recap: everything you have posted is biased speculation.

    Red Pill: We are supposedly a Republic… a nation ruled by the Rule of Law.Here’s what current Immigration Law (the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) states:“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.”All means ALL. There are NO exceptions. No government employee should be above the law. They are employed by, and are supposed to work for, We the People. All of them hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States are legally required to complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and show hard copy documentation from a list of Acceptable Documentation. The matter of whether or not the law has been enforced is not germane to what the law itself requires. We should be enforcing the law. If not, we have ceased to be a Republic.

  61. avatar
    Majorty Will October 1, 2011 at 3:56 am #

    Red Pill: He promised to be open, transparent, and accountable.
    Words, just words. Speeches, just speeches.

    Privacy laws. Just laws.

    Why do birther idiots despise U.S. laws so much?

    Why are birther idiots so determined to destroy our republic?

    Here’s a fun quote. What would an honorable, conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointed by Ronald Reagan say about President Obama’s natural born status?

    “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”

    – US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)

  62. avatar
    sfjeff October 1, 2011 at 4:09 am #

    Red Pill: Just send the certified document under seal from the State of Hawaii to members of Congress, as was done with the other two certificates.<)

    You are very confused.
    Or you are attempting to confuse.

    Hawaii sent two certificates to Congress regarding the election. Hawaii sent these certificates in just as they had for all previous elections because they were required by law.

    Hawaii didn’t send Barack Obama’s birth certificate(a completely different document certifying something completely different) to Congress because:
    a) There was no legal requirement for Hawaii to send it to Congress
    b) Congress has never asked for it- nor shown any interest in seeing it- they approved Obama’s election almost 3 years ago.
    c) Hawaii has never sent any Birth certificates for any candidate to Congress- and neither has any other state.

    And at this point of course, since Hawaii has repeatedly confirmed that the certified birth certificate Barack Obama showed voters originally, and the certified ‘long form’ that he showed reporters (and the voters) are both authentic and that Barack Obama was born in the United States, and since most of these very members of Congress have already both approved Barack Obama’s election and a measure applauding Obama’s birth in Hawaii, there isn’t much point to sending a copy the Birth Certificate to Congress, that would be identical to the one that any member of Congress could download any time they wish.

    Not that I think that this will influence your bias or speculation.

    Since you are already willing to turn your back on what you and all of us raised here in America learned in school- that anyone born here in the U.S. can aspire to grow up and be elected President.

    Just to try to remove this one President.

  63. avatar
    Majorty Will October 1, 2011 at 4:33 am #

    sfjeff: Hawaii didn’t send Barack Obama’s birth certificate(a completely different document certifying something completely different) to Congress because:
    a) There was no legal requirement for Hawaii to send it to Congress

    Birthers have no respect for U.S. law.

  64. avatar
    The Magic M October 1, 2011 at 7:21 am #

    ballantine: And calling somone a “citizen” does not mean they are not “natural born citizens”

    The number of birthers who believe that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are actually distinct sets of people (and not, as in reality, the latter a subset of the former) is astonishing.
    Those people don’t only claim “X said Y was a citizen, X didn’t say Y was a natural born citizen”, but in fact “X said Y was a citizen, so Y cannot possibly be a natural born citizen”.
    So if hatred makes blind for basic set logic, it shows you that we’re dealing with a medical condition here, not just ignorance.

  65. avatar
    The Magic M October 1, 2011 at 7:27 am #

    Red Pill:Just send the certified document under seal from the State of Hawaii to members of Congress, as was done with the other two certificates.If everything’s legit, why not? What is there to hide? This could put to rest the question of whether or not the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true.

    Why would it? Birthers have already concluded that the entire Congress is part of the conspiracy, too. So what would change if Hawaii sent anything to Congress? Congress would say “Uh-huh, yeah, we knew that already” and birthers will (still) go “Congress are traitors, they are covering for Obama”. Change = zero.
    It’s just another moved goalpost in the neverending line of “if he only does X, it will all go away” birfer demands, translated to “go, n***a boy, jump through that hoop for me”.

  66. avatar
    ballantine October 1, 2011 at 7:46 am #

    The Magic M: The number of birthers who believe that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are actually distinct sets of people (and not, as in reality, the latter a subset of the former) is astonishing.
    Those people don’t only claim “X said Y was a citizen, X didn’t say Y was a natural born citizen”, but in fact “X said Y was a citizen, so Y cannot possibly be a natural born citizen”.
    So if hatred makes blind for basic set logic, it shows you that we’re dealing with a medical condition here, not just ignorance.

    What is funny is that the Minor court itself refutes this silly argument. They point out that the court says “children born in the country of citizen parents” are natural born citizens. The court twice says that such persons are “citizens.” She was a citizen because she was a “natural born citizen” just like Wong Kim Ark.

    “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

    “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

  67. avatar
    Northland10 October 1, 2011 at 8:23 am #

    Red Pill: Two Certificates were sent, under seal, directly from the State of Hawaii to members of Congress. It shouldn’t be a big deal to do the same with the third Certificate… especially for someone who claimed:

    And why did Hawaii or the President not send a BC to Congress? They did not ask for it.

    Since there is no requirement that Congress inspect specific documents. They inspect what they feel is necessary and prudent. As it is, the electoral college certifications are not “inspected” but opened and read, as per the requirements of the Constitution (which says nothing about inspecting “bona fides”).

    Since you now move the goalposts to “must see his I-9”, it shows that no amount a papers will be enough to “end this.” This is expected since the birthers will not accept any evidence that shows he is eligible.

  68. avatar
    Northland10 October 1, 2011 at 8:32 am #

    The birthers keep saying that Obama is a usurper and not really the President. They claim he cannot be impeached because he is not really the President so he must removed. Once removed, since he was not really the President, everything he did will go away and revert to January 2009.

    If Barack Obama is not really the President, how can Ms. Jordan, Mr. Hollister and Mr. Pill be his employer?

  69. avatar
    Sef October 1, 2011 at 9:53 am #

    Northland10: If Barack Obama is not really the President, how can Ms. Jordan, Mr. Hollister and Mr. Pill be his employer?

    “It’s turtles all the way down”.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 1, 2011 at 10:15 am #

    Why do you think that President Obama has not filled out an I-9 form with the requisite documentation?

    You make a big deal that the President be treated like everyone else, but the public doesn’t get to inquire into the I-9 filings of everybody else — so why are YOU demanding the President be treated differently?

    Red Pill: All means ALL. There are NO exceptions. No government employee should be above the law. They are employed by, and are supposed to work for, We the People. All of them hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States are legally required to complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and show hard copy documentation from a list of Acceptable Documentation

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 1, 2011 at 10:23 am #

    No constitutional authority shares your crank interpretation of the cases you cite. I understand that in your own mind that natural born citizen is defined the way you say, but your reading of the source material is wrong, and you ignore other citations and authorities that would proved beyond any question, that your interpretation is wrong.

    A prominent historian William Rawle, jurist and contemporary of George Washington said in his book A View of the Constitution that the status of the parents was not a factor in whether someone was a natural born citizen. The Indiana Court of Appeals said, in the case of Obama specifically, that persons like Obama are natural born citizens, and retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said the same. The list goes on.

    If I had to choose between the long list of jurists, historians, legal scholars and elected officials and a handful of unqualified Internet bloggers, guess which I would pick?

    The certainty you express and the vehemence with which you espouse that position doesn’t make it true.

    Red Pill: A natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents (plural) who are citizens.

    See also:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/

  72. avatar
    gorefan October 1, 2011 at 12:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: A prominent historian William Rawle, jurist and contemporary of George Washington

    William Rawle was also a member of the “Society of Political Inquiry”. They were a group of prominent Philadelphians who got together twice a month to discuss issues of the day. The meetings were held at Ben Franklin’s house. Franklin was the Society’s president. Members included Thomas Paine, Benjamin Rush, and Robert Morris. The first meetings were in the winter and spring of 1787, and were suspended in the summer so that some of the members could attend the Constitutional Convention.

  73. avatar
    Tarrant October 1, 2011 at 12:55 pm #

    It’s actually pretty funny when I think of the way Red Pill is looking at the world.

    Premise #1: You must fill out an I-9 to be employed (I don’t think that’s necessarily true for elected officials but let’s go with it).
    Premise #2: Obama is employed as President (again, he’s not an “employee”, but let’s go with it).
    therefore…
    Conclusion: OBAMA DID NOT FILL ONE OUT AND IS A FRAUD (????)

    If you’re allowed to make your conclusion the exact opposite of what would be logical from your premise, we can do this all day.

    Premise #1: In order to be alive, you have to have been born.
    Premise #2: Barack Obama is alive and serving as President.
    therefore…
    Conclusion: BARACK OBAMA SPROUTED FROM THE HEAD OF SATAN HIMSELF LIKE ATHENA FROM ZEUS

  74. avatar
    gorefan October 1, 2011 at 1:12 pm #

    gorefan: William Rawle was also a member of the “Society of Political Inquiry”.

    My mistake, it is the “Society for Political Inquiries”. And here is an article about the Society for all you history buffs:

    http://tinyurl.com/427nxw3

  75. avatar
    y_p_w October 1, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

    Red Pill: A regular passport is acceptable as proof of both eligibility to work AND identity, because one has to provide other acceptable documentation of both citizenship and identity in order to obtain a regular passport.That is not true of Diplomatic passports, which are no-doc passports… one does not have to provide proof of citizenship and identity in order to obtain a diplomatic passport… they simply have to win an election for a federal office or be nominated to a diplomatic position.

    Really? The State Department seems to think differently:

    http://iraq.usembassy.gov/iraq/official_passports.html

    To apply for an official or diplomatic passport, you must present:

    Either a completed but unsigned passport application DS-11 (if this is the first time you have applied for any kind of passport) or a completed DS-82 (if you have a tourist passport or are renewing your diplomatic or official passport)
    two passport photographs (PDF)
    original proof of citizenship or certified copy (e.g. U.S. birth certificate, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or Certificate of Citizenship)
    one valid form of photo identification (e.g. foreign passport, driver’s license, military ID, etc.)

    The information does seem to be somewhat incomplete. It doesn’t mention naturalization certificates specifically, but that would seem to be an “original proof of citizenship”. It also mentions foreign passports, which is leading me to think that perhaps a foreign national in the military can get one?

  76. avatar
    Jorge Pilz October 1, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    Let us apply Orly logic to this –

    Linda Jordan, by asking for an I9 has waived her right to question the president’s legitimacy, and as Orly has used Ms Jordan’s ‘daffydavid’, including relying on such evidence in a court of law, has admitted, ipso facto, that the president is actually the president!!

    Res ipsa loquitur – case closed….

    Northland10:
    The birthers keep saying that Obama is a usurper and not really the President.They claim he cannot be impeached because he is not really the President so he must removed.Once removed, since he was not really the President, everything he did will go away and revert to January 2009.

    If Barack Obama is not really the President, how can Ms. Jordan, Mr. Hollister and Mr. Pill be his employer?

  77. avatar
    Majority Will October 1, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    Tarrant: It’s actually pretty funny when I think of the way Red Pill is looking at the world.

    Funny perhaps, as in strange, twisted and horribly delusional, but I see no humor in the rantings of these birther bigots.

  78. avatar
    y_p_w October 1, 2011 at 2:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Why do you think that President Obama has not filled out an I-9 form with the requisite documentation?

    You make a big deal that the President be treated like everyone else, but the public doesn’t get to inquire into the I-9 filings of everybody else — so why are YOU demanding the President be treated differently?

    I would think the career civil servants at the White House collect the I-9 for all personnel, including the President. It’s should be required of all employees, including the guy in charge.

    The only government agencies (outside of specific HR personnel at the specific agency) with a broad authority to inspect I-9 files are from DHS, the Dept of Labor, and some Special Counsel related to immigration.

    I’m actually wondering if FOIA might apply to the I-9 for government employees. If reporters can get reams of email messages about the Salahis trying to get into a state dinner, then would it be possible to get copies of an employee’s I-9? I realize some personnel records are exempt, but a heavily redacted I-9 might be possible to get.

  79. avatar
    Sef October 1, 2011 at 3:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Why do you think that President Obama has not filled out an I-9 form with the requisite documentation?

    I envision a process where President Obama was presented with a deskfull of papers to sign having been previously filled out by someone else. One of those might have been an I-9. I doubt the President, himself, or the President-elect dug out the requisite documents.

  80. avatar
    Northland10 October 1, 2011 at 3:47 pm #

    Sef: I envision a process where President Obama was presented with a deskfull of papers to sign having been previously filled out by someone else. One of those might have been an I-9. I doubt the President, himself, or the President-elect dug out the requisite documents.

    After traversing through various Federal regulations and US Code (which, oddly enough, I found somewhat interesting), I do not believe the President, Vice President or Members of Congress are considered employees, or officers. US Code, Title 5 is quite specific on what consists of an officer and what is and employee and neither the President or Members of Congress are mentioned (except that they may appoint).

    This would not necessarily mean he does not fill out paperwork for various offices (or at least an assistant fills it out for him). This is, after all, the federal government which would cease to exist if there were not such thing as another form.

  81. avatar
    Dave October 1, 2011 at 8:05 pm #

    The contention below, that filling out the form is a requirement on the employee, is absolutely false.

    According to the USCIS:

    All U.S. employers must complete and retain a Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States.

    Red Pill: Filling out the form and producing acceptable documentation is a requirement on the employee.

  82. avatar
    Keith October 1, 2011 at 10:09 pm #

    y_p_w: It also mentions foreign passports, which is leading me to think that perhaps a foreign national in the military can get one?

    Or a non-citizen sponsored or employed in the US Diplomatic Corps for some reason, perhaps a refugee delegate to an international conference? Or a nationalized citizen that has held the original country’s passport, but never a U.S. passport?

  83. avatar
    Keith October 1, 2011 at 10:10 pm #

    Majority Will: Funny perhaps, as in strange, twisted and horribly delusional, but I see no humor in the rantings of these birther bigots.

    To be fair, the Strunk courtroom transcript is hilarious.

  84. avatar
    Keith October 1, 2011 at 10:13 pm #

    Sef: I envision a process where President Obama was presented with a deskfull of papers to sign having been previously filled out by someone else. One of those might have been an I-9. I doubt the President, himself, or the President-elect dug out the requisite documents.

    I automatically assume that Radar O’Reilly works for every President.

  85. avatar
    Sef October 1, 2011 at 10:53 pm #

    Keith: I automatically assume that Radar O’Reilly works for every President.

    That’s probably where I got the idea.