I don't get birther buzz

I saw part of the Orly (Oily) breakdown, and this obsession with Obama's birth certificate. But according to Lexis-Nexis, he doesn't need one to be a U.S. citizen. Here's the excerpt:

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November
13, 1986?
Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as
one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.
When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent
must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five
of the years after the age of 14. An exception for people serving in the military was
created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.
While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,
amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.
Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was
resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child. Children born out
of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning
21.

--
Two simple questions: How old was Obama's mother when Obama was born? How many of those years did she live in the U.S.?

So it seems the simplest answer to the birthers rant about a birth certificate: HE DOESN'T NEED ONE!

But then, we're arguing with lunatics.

I wondered about the one-citizen parent case. You answered it.

Now read it again:

"the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14."

Hence, she could not have satisfied the five years after 14 years old condition.

This was the "send your pregnant daughter to a foreign convent" clause.

The thing is, and what the foreign-birth flavor birthers don't explain is how did she smuggle a foreign born baby BACK into the US. Even in 1961, you couldn't just wander through customs with a minor who was not on your passport (back when minor children would usually be included on a parent's passport).

Now, you could argue that she "resided" in Hawaii, despite taking a trip abroad. After all, just because you travel does not mean you lose your residence. But you seem to be reading a FAQ of some kind and not the State Department's exhaustive 7 FAM 1130, which is based on the statutory language of "present in the US" and not "residing"

Enjoy: www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf