Talk:Lists of Presidents of the United States by place of birth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jackson[edit]

Technically, it is not know whether or not Andrew Jackson was born in North or South Carolina. Some speculate it to be South Carolina, but if you read his wiki it clearly states Jackson probably said this because the state was considering nullification of the Tariff of 1824, which he opposed. Plus the monument that says he was born in this spot, is located in North Carolina.

Untitled[edit]

Since we now have tabelaric functions that allow sorting by date or place or any other parameter, we don't actually need two separate articles here. --Tone 18:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The total of Presidents born in Virginia shows the number 8.I count nine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.181.4 (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obama[edit]

I know this is nit-picking... but Obama isn't the President yet (he is only President Elect)... Adding him now would technically go against WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. God forbid, but should something happen to him between now and inaurguation day in January, he would not qualify for this list. Please be patient and wait. Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Im not sure Obama was born a British subject. In fact, Im sure of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.110.42 (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Obama from the list of British subjects area. The claim is baseless and only made by those with a political agenda. Furthermore, I'm doubtful of the Chester A. Arthur claim as well. Riptor3000 (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama was born with UKC Citizenship admits it himself and it's obvious because his father was only ever a Kenyan (at the time Kenya was a British colony) (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html) i.e. born with dual citizenship which makes him not a natural born US citizen by its very definition (jus soli jus sanguinus). The Constitution is based on British Common Law which defines a NBC the same way as does Barack Obama himself as cosponsor of Senate Resolution 511. It's obvious Barack Obama has never been a Natural Born US Citizen, all of the obfuscation has to do with confusing the public about Article II's requirements for POTUS; they mainly think that any US Citizen is eligible as POTUS, but Article II is highly specific as to NBC eligibility requirements for POTUS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fodderoni (talk • contribs) 02:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this nonsense which apparently was placed some time ago by those pushing nutty conspiracy theories. As the linked article on "British Subject" clearly states "At common law, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the British Crown (and no other) was a British subject. " This obviously does not apply, unless one considers Hawaii within the dominion of the British Crown (in which case, one would be an idiot). --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was me who rewrote the part and put it back in a couple days ago and I am certainly not one of those pushing nutty conspiracy theories. Barack Obama's status as a British subject from birth until 1963 was governed by the British Nationality Act 1948 and not common law. The statute makes it clear that he was a CUKC, as was referenced in the article. Please either read the British subject article to completion or read the reference.--Jiang (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read both the reference and the related article on British Subject. The reference discusses the fact that he was eligible for Kenyan citizenship until he turned 21 (by virtue of his father's citizenship) but makes no claim that he was a British subject (which would be false as the phrase has a very specific meaning). He was not a "British Subject" and does not in any way fit that definition (as I quoted above). To claim otherwise without providing reliable third-party sources is a violation of WP:BLP. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is FactCheck, which should be reliable enough to satisfy WP:BLP. I think you missed something. Specifically, it states:


I have bolded the relevant sentence that summarizes the facts. The statute here is unambiguous for the situation. The definition you quoted above was made obsolete by the enactment of the British Nationality Act of 1948. Obama was born in 1961 and the British Nationality Act of 1948 was in effect from 1949 to 1982.

The part you quoted from the Wikipedia article is irrelevant and even under the heading "Prior to 1949". The relevant section here is British_Subject#1949_to_1982 which states that British subjects include "Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies". Please note that when a statute contradicts the common law, the statute will always override the common law. --Jiang (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're relying rather heavily on your own WP:OR in that argument. But we can't rely on that in articlespace. In order to make the claim in this article you will need a few reliable third-party sources that state explicitly that he was a British Subject for the first two years of his life. A synthesis of several facts that lead to that conclusion is insufficient. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your argument there Loonymonkey. You're saying that quoting FactCheck constitutes original research? Gabbe (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Jiang (talk · contribs) is quoting a reliable source, and Loonymonkey (talk · contribs) is quoting Wikipedia, I've reinstated Jiang's edit. Gabbe (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenhower[edit]

I would say Eisenhower was based in Kansas more than New York. He was raised in Kansas from age two and his Presidential Library is located in Kansas. Admittedly, he's a tough call because he moved around so often. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend change to table[edit]

In the first table Buchanan is listed twice (by county and by city) in PA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.109.178 (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to recommend that a change be made to the "By State" table.

The column heading "Presidents (Year Elected)" is misleading.

Example: Lyndon B. Johnson is listed as being elected in 1963. Lyndon B. Johnson was not elected in 1963. Johnson took office in 1963 due to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. However, Johnson was elected in 1964.

I do not know how this column should be modified.

Should the years reflect the year the president took office, rather than when most were elected? Or should footnotes be added for the 10 presidents who took office during non-electoral years? Or should some other date be indicated such as year of birth?

66.60.234.87 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the second entry for James Buchanan from the first table. He should only be listed once now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.231.34 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington's year of election[edit]

In the "By State" table, George Washington is listed as being elected in 1788. However, on the "US Presidential Election, 1789" Wikipedia page, it is explained why George Washington was elected in 1789, rather than in 1788.

This relates to my earlier comments about the incongruities of the "By State" table.

66.60.234.87 (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ContribJCM626[reply]

Tyler[edit]

John Tyler is listed as the first president not born a British subject. I believe this is incorrect. Martin Van Buren was born in 1782, after the American revolution, and was the first president born an American citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3hartm2 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Again[edit]

OK, let's go over this one more time.

  • Obama was born a British subject. As the son of Barak Obama Sr, then a British Subject, Obama inherited his status as a British Subject under the The British Nationality Act of 1948. He lost this when Kenya became independent, and became a Kenyan citizen in 1963. The Kenyan constitution prevents dual citizenship in adulthood, and so at the age of 23, when Obama had failed to either renounce his US citizenship or swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, he lost his Kenyan citizenship.
  • Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, as testified by a number of verifiable sources. This is not the place to discuss any rumours or suggestions otherwise. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, they're just restoring the page as it was a month ago! --Pretty Green (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, apparently some people refuse to get it, as evidence by the wiki article. Obama was born in Hawaii as confirmed and verified by Hawaiian health director Fukino in July 2009 in an official statement, as further verified by the governor of Hawaii in 2009 in an official statement. Sooner or later Obama will be added to this article with Hawaii coloured. Some people can beat the bush as long as they want about this but he is the president and will be for the history books to come, was confirmed december 15th 2008, and has been president for the last 2 years. Wikipedia has got to take the initiative and cut playing into political and partisan rumors, this article is well overdue for an update. It's been more than two years since he was elected, people need to get over it. --Southern Wind (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2011

If nothing else, the "British subjects" statements about Obama & Chester Arthur are merely opinions. For that reason alone the comments should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.163.251 (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Arthur[edit]

The following Presidents were born British subjects, as well as American citizens, after the establishment of the United States:

  • Chester A. Arthur[9] .... Chester Arthur was not even a U.S. citizen until his father naturalized when he was 14-years old.
Is there something wrong here? Either he was born a US citizen, or he wasn't. This is having it both ways. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're correct, there's a contradiction there; someone more familiar with nationality law needs to have a look at it. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_place_of_birth&oldid=1203707279"