That argument will never get off the ground. The qualifications for holding the office of President are in the Constitution.
Before the discussion gos any farther as if this story is true I'll point this is probably another bull shit birther fantasy
Fraud is difficult to prove because it requires proof of intent. In this case it would require proof of intent to commit a crime that allegedly took place over 20 years ago. If it could be proven in a court of law (which I doubt), then perhaps you could try to impeach Obama. Good luck with that.
Of course, False per Snopes. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp Birthers are funny.
Intent is inscribed in the statutes, not the definitions. Talk to any prosecutor and you'll get an earful about how difficult it is to prove fraud, specifically the issue of intent. Below are examples: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/the-difficulty-of-proving-financial-crimes/ "....a decision issued on Friday by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that reversed the conviction of a financial executive accused of accounting fraud for lack of evidence of any intent to defraud or mislead." http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00949.htm Because the defendant must intend to harm the fraud's victims, "[m]isrepresentations amounting only to a deceit are insufficient to maintain a mail or wire fraud prosecution."
Thanks, but it's so easy to disprove most of the lies by the crazies. The mentality of the followers of these types of people is really funny.