Posted on 08/27/2012 7:16:44 PM PDT by Perdogg
@BarackObama is petrified of the birther issue so they go on the offensive to try & make the Republicans feel guilty & stupid. Watch what's coming!
(Excerpt) Read more at twitlonger.com ...
In any event, the USG would not pursue Obama on this. The only damage would be political if such an event ever occurred. You would need a copy of his Indonesian passport issued after he was 18. There are millions of Americans holding dual nationality.
I don't need you to explain citizenship and nationality laws. I know from personal experience as well as 28 years of professional experience about the laws governing them. You can speculate about all kinds of things, but unless you have actual proof, it is just that, mere speculation.
No, YOU claim that Obama could not possibly have lost his US citizenship.
THEREFORE YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT FACTS WE DO NOT KNOW.
Let’s say Obama gained Indonesian citizen as a child. This is corroborated by the one document on point that we have, his school record from Indonesia which lists him as an Indonesian citizen.
Becoming an Indonesian citizen as a child does NOT mean he lost his US citizenship. You are right about that. That’s about the only thing you are right about.
How do we know that Obama did not make use of his Indonesian citizenship on a college application in order to get a leg up on admission? Or financial aid?
And if he did that, perhaps he heard from his mother that if wanted to keep up his Indonesian citizenship, he needed to make an official declaration to Indonesia or else he would lose it at age 21.
If he did that, that would be a slam dunk legally. He would, as an adult, on his own application, be obtaining a foreign nationalization for the period beginning age 21. THAT IS A NO-NO UNDER OUR LAWS.
Is that what he in fact did? I don’t know. And neither do you.
Hey genious, how you gonna get this past the democrat media gate keepers?
Let’s say Obama gained Indonesian citizen as a child. This is corroborated by the one document on point that we have, his school record from Indonesia which lists him as an Indonesian citizen
This is not proof of Indonesian citizenship or that he was issued an Indonesian passport. Obama's mother remained a US citizen. We have no indication as to what proof was required by the school to make such a determination. Maybe the parents lied or used adoption papers to register him at the school. The document says he was born in Honolulu. And his name is Barry Soetoro. Do you accept the fact that he was born in Honolulu or that he was a Muslim, which were also on the form?
As someone who has lived a couple of years in Indonesia, it is easy to buy compliance. Corruption is rife. No dout given their financial situation, the Soetoros could not afford to send their child to an International School. Perhaps they bribed someone at the school and got him admitted. See I can make assumptions too.
How do we know that Obama did not make use of his Indonesian citizenship on a college application in order to get a leg up on admission? Or financial aid?
How do we know he ever had Indonesian citizenship? The school record is not proof for the reasons I provided. Did the school require proof of citizenship? If so, what? Was Obama ever issued an Indonesian passport during the period he was living there age 6-10? Dunham divorced Soetero in 1980 filing for divorce in Hawaii. Obama was almost 19 at the time.
If he did that, that would be a slam dunk legally. He would, as an adult, on his own application, be obtaining a foreign nationalization for the period beginning age 21. THAT IS A NO-NO UNDER OUR LAWS.
LOL. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, what a great time we would all have. The burden of proof is on the government and you to prove that he did that. Without any proof, then it is just part of the unknown that surrounds this guy. It should be easy to check and see if Indonesia ever issued him a passport. Has a request for this information ever been made to the Indonesian government for this information, and if so, what was their response?
YOU ARE THE ONE CLAIMING TO KNOW THE FACTS.
YOU ARE THE ONE CLAIMING THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO LOSE US CITIZENSHIP.
As I have pointed out to you, it WAS possible for him to lose his US citizenship, depending on what the facts are.
I don’t know whether Obama was in fact an Indonesian citizen. You don’t know either. The school record says he was.
If he was a citizen, I don’t know whether they obtained an Indonesian passport for little Barry. You don’t know either.
If so, I don’t know whether he renewed it or applied for a new one as an adult. You don’t know either.
I don’t know whether he used Indonesian citizenship in college. You don’t know either.
I don’t know whether he filed an official declaration with Indonesia so he could continue to be a citizen after age 21. You don’t know either.
Here’s what I know.
I know from our previous thread that you know very little about the details of this family while Barry was growing up.
I know from the FOIA correspondence with respect to Lolo’s visa status that this bunch were not scrupulously honest and would have no hesitation about trying to game the system if they thought they could get away with it.
I know that Obama himself is not an honest person. I see no reason to assume that Obama would not do something as a young adult to maintain Indonesian citizenship if he thought it would be convenient to him and if he knew it was highly unlikely the US State Dept would find out about it.
What I don’t know are the actual records, beyond the one document from Indonesia showing him as an Indonesian citizen.
But it is quite plausible that any or all these facts occurred.
When they moved to Indonesia, they didn’t know they would not be living there permanently. The US turned Lolo down for a permanent visa. They had no choice.
It would have been natural for Lolo to adopt Barry, given that he was only a toddler. He needed a father. They didn’t know in advance that the marriage would fail.
And if he adopted Barry, then it might well be the case that Barry became an Indonesian national, as stated on his school record.
This was an internationally-oriented family. Are we to assume they never traveled outside Indonesia during Barry’s young childhood? If they did, perhaps they used an Indonesian passport.
ALL OF THAT CHANGED WHEN BARRY WAS 10. Then, there were tensions in the marriage and Barry was sent to live in Hawaii.
But that doesn’t change anything that may have happened prior to when Barry was 10.
So when it came time for college, it is not implausible that Barry had in his back pocket a foreign status that he obtained years earlier. Did he make use of it?
I don’t assume without knowing what the facts are that the answer is no.
This was already confusing, so the Left and Team Obama were provided with a built-in wedge. Enter Sheriff Joe, riding to the rescue of the "Birthers" with actual evidence. Nice Joe! Too late, but nice. Good evidence, well presented, but where do you intend to present it? If one more Freeper says, "The Court of Public Opinion," I shall cause a pack of dysenteric bloodhounds to befoul that man's lawn.
Both Constitutionalists and Birthers lose big time. The former, because no court has yet been found that will listen to the issue qua issue. The latter, because the Birthers, good people though they are, have attracted unto themselves some truly obtuse characters who belong in Faulkner's attic and have put truly suspicious and impossibly inept people out front until Sheriff Joe, who now has nowhere to go.
Team Obama, with the help of the MSM, and the inept GOP Leadership that is terrified of them, has made a confusing pile of crap of two simple issues:
Add to this the evidence of forgery of the document released to the world as a "copy of the BC," which obviously does not match what was released to Obama's lawyer by the HIDOH. Pile on the highly irregular (to say the very least) SS#. Garnish with the highly dubious Selective Service Registration.
But why bother? It is painfully obvious that the GOP has decided in its infinite wisdom that these issues are never to be mentioned in public. The courts will not intervene. Those officials who have the constitutional authority in their states to halt the charades will not do so. Even our brave "right wing talk show hosts" have not stopped selling gold bars and sleep number mattresses for a second to mention the issue.
Indonesian citizenship? WTF? Anyone paying attention to this site, or who has a public library within 500 miles of his primary domicile already knows that American citizenship held as a minor, but removed for some reson, may be reclaimed upon reaching majority. Beside the point. Did he have it? Did he reclaim it? Bit late for those questions, isn't it? Besides, who has the official right to ask it and where? I don't, so neither do you.
Speaking of sucker punches, the GOP was completely owned by Team Obama over the faux hurricane issue. They actually cancelled Day 1 of the convention because of a mild rainy day. Any fool with access to Intellicast could see that this "Isaac Thing " was on its way to somewhere west of NOLA on Friday night. This "Hurricane" became the news ... not the Convention! And they let it!@! These doormats claim they can beat Obama?
You want Obama out? Vote him out. That will take better than the usual "50% turn-out." Work on that. Thanks to poor leadership, the eligibility issue has become the Right's answer to Wind Power, only much less well directed.
Just for the record, that’s not how it works. Here is the relevant statute, in the form in effect prior to the 1986 amendments (therefore at the time relevant to Obama), with the operative language for Obama’s situation bolded so it is easier to follow:
Section 1481(a). A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization shall lose his nationality by
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday ….
If Obama gained Indonesian citizenship as a young child in connection with being adopted by Lolo or upon an application filed by his parents, then he never lost his US citizenship by reason of that action. Because he did move to the US and establish residence prior to age 25, his US citizenship was never actually removed, so it does not need to be reclaimed.
However, if Barry did something on his OWN application, when he was old enough to know what he was doing (say, 17 or 18, no longer a little kid (the 18 year-old bright line test was added to the statute later)), then HE IS NOT SAVED by moving to the US and establishing permanent residence prior to age 25.
That is why I would like to know whether he claimed Indonesian status as a college student. If so, was he lying or was he actually an Indonesian citizen? If the latter, did he do anything on his own application as a young adult with respect to Indonesian citizenship?
As to your larger point, if some conservatives decide to ignore the constitutional eligibility issue on the grounds that nothing is likely to come of it, that’s fine. That is a reasonable position to take. Others of us may continue to look into it.
Duh. It depends on what the facts are and as I told you last time, it is very difficult to lose US citizenship even if you want to. The danger to Obama is political. He is in no danger of losing his citizenship even if somehow he got an Indonesian passport at 18. Obama would not be prosecuted nor would there be any legal proceedings to cause him to lose his citizenship.
And if he adopted Barry, then it might well be the case that Barry became an Indonesian national, as stated on his school record.
Yet his sister Maya was and is a US citizen. And Lolo was her birth father. I have lived abroad 25 years in 9 different countries. US citizenship is highly valued and prized. It is the reason why we have birth tourism. Obama's mother kept her US citizenship and I seriously doubt she would do anything to jeopardize Obama's or Maya's or her own.
I don’t assume without knowing what the facts are that the answer is no.
And you can't assume yes. You avoided my question about whether any request has been made of the Indonesian government to ascertain if Obama was issued an Indonesian passport. And if so, what was their response. Since you profess to know so much about Obama's Indonesian connection, what's the answer?
18? Yeah, OK, whatever, lol.
It’s not a “theory” it was already ruled on. A child does not lose their citizenship because of the parents.
But just wait - if all they have is Indonesian citizenship, it won’t do jack squat.
Wish it could but it is simply not sufficient unless you can show that Obama after 18 renounced his U.S. citizenship or if he convinced, say an embassy official before 18, that he wanted to renounce his U.S. citizenship.
Now IF *that* happened, then it’s fairly significant.
Maybe you folks can quote the court case on a child’s citizenship and parents.
Some still believe, apparently, that Soetoro could take away a child’s U.S. citizenship IF that child was born on U.S. soil.
Even though we’ve been over it ad infinitum.
Thank you very much!
I do know the answer to this, but having to inform you of the facts simply shows once again, as was clear from the last thread, that you are throwing around b.s. without knowing yourself what the facts are.
Some years ago, the White House stated that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen.
The Indonesian embassy in Washington was contacted and asked if he was an Indonesian citizen. The embassy supported the White House line that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen.
Make of it what you will, but both parties have reason to be less than honest. The White House in order to squelch eligibility concerns, and the Indonesian government would have nothing to gain by contradicting the president on a matter of such personal importance.
But for someone like you, who dishonestly reiterates false points even after being corrected, that no doubt settles the matter.
as I told you last time, it is very difficult to lose US citizenship
What an arrogant boob you are. You didn't know squat about the law. Your position was that the only legal way Obama could lose his citizenship was by making a formal renunciation before a consular officer. Wrong. You have no credibility.
A reading of our history shows us who a "natural born Citizen" is.
As you (& others) point out, however, no one in a position to do anything about this usurpation is willing to do the right thing.
Clearly, ""The Right" has been completely sucker-punched on the eligibility issues."
It amazes me how many people think this issue is no big deal, or that it shouldn't be focused on, or that it's a loosing issue and that it can be (essentially) ignored by simply voting him out.
Is allowing him to set this precedent really no big deal? If not for us now, his fraud and ineligibility (assuming SR legal birth father) must be resolved for posterity.
By allowing Barry's eligibility questions to be ignored or kicked down the road for the next election cycle or the next generation to deal with is a critically bad idea for the preservation of (what's left of) our Constitution and the meaning and reason our founders changed the requirement in our Constitution for the position of President and Commander in Chief of our armed forces from that of "Citizen" to "natural born Citizen."
What a jerk you are. I never said that renouncing your citizenship was the only way you could lose it. Cite one thing I said that says that. Stop making up these phony strawmen. And I don't appreciate the personal insults just because you are losing the argument. I have been on FR for over 10 years compared to your 15 months. This is not the way to make your case.
What I know is this (pay particular attention to the key terms in the heading itself, "renunciation" and "minor"):
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDRENParents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.
It is possible for a minor to renounce his/her own U.S. Citizenship.
Although common sense should dictate that the younger the person is, the less likely the diplomat or consular official would be to grant the renunciation, this U.S. citizenship law makes no mention of a minimum age. This tells me (and as evidenced by the law itself) it's left to the discretion of the US diplomat in Indonesia in the late 1960's.
All kinds of questions and scenarios come into play. Did Lolo know the US diplomat in Indonesia, and got him to help expedite the process? Was bribe money paid to obtain the officials OK or any number of other situations in a third world country back in the late 60's? Perhaps none of that was necessary and the official simply granted Barry's request to renounce his US citizenship because his commie world traveler mother convinced him that it would be better to become an Indonesian citizen. Who knows, except Barry.
I think the question remains...did Barry avail this law?
You claimed here that the question of whether Obama lost his citizenship was an issue of renunciation.
Again on this very thread THIS was your misleading post that caused me to post today and waste part of my day correcting your stupid ass:
He was a minor. The US accepts dual nationality. Obama never lost his US citizenship.
"Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship."
Obama returned to the US at age 10.
Even after I had gone to the trouble in the other thread of correcting you and citing the actual statutory language other than the renunciation provision you pretended in your post on this very thread that the relevant issue for Obama's possible loss of citizenship is renunciation.
It was a child taken to Mexico or somewhere else south IIRC. Anyways, there may have been a divorce involved and the one parent who took the child out of the country was trying to claim the child was a citizen of the new country.
The court said no.
I would LOVE to find out that Obama officially renounced his citizenship in either of the ways described because then he’s most definitely ineligible.
But I also know that Soetoro and SAD couldn’t take it away from him so I keep telling folks not to go down that road: it’s a dead end.
And that is exactly as I described it, before 18 and after 18.
Hopefully he was dumb enough to do it and there’s documentation.
If not, this is a virtual dead end.
Again on this very thread THIS was your misleading post that caused me to post today and waste part of my day correcting your stupid ass:
Read the context of the interchange of posts, you jerk. You don't know enough to correct me.
Even after I had gone to the trouble in the other thread of correcting you and citing the actual statutory language other than the renunciation provision you pretended in your post on this very thread that the relevant issue for Obama's possible loss of citizenship is renunciation.
How dense are you? Obama's parents could not have renounced his US citizenship on his behalf while he was a minor. That was the issue under discussion, not the convoluted happy horsesh*t you have been speculating on.
Read this. You may learn something about how difficult it is to lose US citizenship.
"There is no dispute that citizenship will not be lost where the U.S. citizen performs an act of expatriation under circumstances involving duress, mistake, or incapacity negating a free choice. The courts have been very generous in accepting claims of coercion where the U.S. citizen's actions were compelled by fear of injury, retaliation, imprisonment, fine, economic deprivation, and like consequences. Freedom of choice is also negated where the citizen performs an expatriating act after receiving erroneous advice from U.S. government officials. A person who is unaware of a claim to U.S. citizenship at the time that an expatriating act is performed likewise does not have an opportunity to make a free choice.
Not only must the U.S. citizen perform an expatriating act voluntarily, but he or she must also intend to relinquish U.S. citizenship as a result of such voluntary act. Prior to the landmark decision in Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253, 87 S. Ct. 16601118 L. Ed. 2d 757 (1967), previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions had ruled that the statutory grounds for loss of nationality were stated in objective terms, and that persons who voluntarily perform acts of expatriation designated by statute lost their citizenship, irrespective of whether they intended to surrender it. However, in Afroyim, the majority of the court held that relinquishment of U.S. citizenship had to be voluntary and concluded as follows:
We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship. Nine years later, the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Terrazas 444 U.S. 252, 100 S. Ct. 5401162 L. Ed. 2d 461 (1980) unanimously reaffirmed the principle stated in Afroyim.
According to INA §349(b), whenever the loss of U.S. nationality is put in issue, the burden falls upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation is presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily. The constitutionality of these provisions was upheld in Terrazas. However, the Court also found that the statutory presumption was applicable only to the voluntariness of the expatriating act itself. In finding that intention to surrender citizenship was a necessary element of expatriation, the Court in Terrazas ruled that such intention could not be presumed and that the government was required to establish such an intention by a preponderance of the evidence.
Congress subsequently adopted the Terrazas principle in the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-653, §18, 100 Stat. 3655, by specifying that the acts of expatriation listed in the statute would terminate citizenship only if voluntarily performed "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." The Immigration Technical Corrections Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-25, §8(r), 102 Stat. 2609, 2618 went even further in providing that the 1986 amendment "shall apply to actions taken before, on, or after November 14, 1986."
“Obama never lost his US citizenship.”
THAT was your statement. And you supported your statement by reference ONLY to the renunciation provision! It was absolutely clear what you were saying in the eyes of anyone honest.
Look, you can google law review articles or newspaper articles all you want, but the question of duress, pain of imprisonment, etc. is beside the point.
If Obama did file an application as a young adult to have Indonesian nationality apply to him after age 21, no one can argue it wasn’t “voluntary.” Or a similar action with respect to an Indonesian passport. OF COURSE it would have been voluntary. No one was holding a gun to his head or threatening to put him in prison. Obama was not in any “fear.”
As to “intent to relinquish” the problem for Obama is that Indonesia has been clear on its prohibition on dual citizens. (An argument that he didn’t intent to relinquish US citizenship but instead intended to defraud both Indonesia and the US by attempting to hold dual citizenship in a way contrary to the laws of both countries would not be a winning argument.) It would be difficult for Obama to argue he didn’t intend to relinquish US citizenship when Indonesia was clear that it would not grant citizenship or issue passports to US citizens.
But yes, the best argument for this president of the United States and former president of the Harvard Law Review would be ignorance and stupidity.
If anyone reading this wants to understand WHY there is a basis for Obama to have lost his US citizenship OTHER than a formal renunciation and OTHER than because of something his mother or Lolo did, then I invite them to read my posts on the following thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2915837/posts
THAT was your statement. And you supported your statement by reference ONLY to the renunciation provision! It was absolutely clear what you were saying in the eyes of anyone honest.
LOL. What are you smoking. Yes I said that and still say that. Obama has never lost his citizenship. He, to this day, still travels on an Amercian passport. He votes in US elections. He has a driver's license.
He has never renounced his citizenship and more importantly, he has never been accused by the government or any other authority of commiting an act that would support the loss of citizenship.
If Obama did file an application as a young adult to have Indonesian nationality apply to him after age 21, no one can argue it wasn’t “voluntary.” Or a similar action with respect to an Indonesian passport. OF COURSE it would have been voluntary. No one was holding a gun to his head or threatening to put him in prison. Obama was not in any “fear.”
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
" There is no dispute that citizenship will not be lost where the U.S. citizen performs an act of expatriation under circumstances involving duress, mistake, or incapacity negating a free choice. The courts have been very generous in accepting claims of coercion where the U.S. citizen's actions were compelled by fear of injury, retaliation, imprisonment, fine, economic deprivation, and like consequences. Freedom of choice is also negated where the citizen performs an expatriating act after receiving erroneous advice from U.S. government officials. A person who is unaware of a claim to U.S. citizenship at the time that an expatriating act is performed likewise does not have an opportunity to make a free choice.
Not only must the U.S. citizen perform an expatriating act voluntarily, but he or she must also intend to relinquish U.S. citizenship as a result of such voluntary act.
In finding that intention to surrender citizenship was a necessary element of expatriation, the Court in Terrazas ruled that such intention could not be presumed and that the government was required to establish such an intention by a preponderance of the evidence.
You posit that Obama was 18 or 19 years old, when by some method, he was able to obtain an Indonesian passport. He wasn't President of the Harvard Law review. Yes, he could claim ignorance of the law or that his intention was not to relinquish voluntrarily his US citizenship hence his retention of his US passport and attendance at a US school. But that really isn't the point of this discussion, i.e., to argue his case. The burden of proof will be on the USG and from experience, I know they will not touch it especially given who it is.
Since foreign naturalization, particularly when coupled with an oath renouncing former allegiance, may be in derogation of undivided allegiance to the United States it may in some situations generate an inference of intention. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals has ruled that naturalization in a foreign state, coupled with an oath of allegiance to that state, gives rise only to a highly persuasive inference that U.S. citizenship was abandoned, which may be rebutted with proof that the person did not intend thereby to relinquish citizenship.
Given the laws of Indonesia, Obama is in greater jeopardy of losing his Indonesian citizenship, if he ever had it, rather than his US citizenship.
If anyone reading this wants to understand WHY there is a basis for Obama to have lost his US citizenship OTHER than a formal renunciation and OTHER than because of something his mother or Lolo did, then I invite them to read my posts on the following thread:
Obama still has his US citizenship. It would take an overt legal action to take it from him. It will be a high bar to clear to do that. "Lost" is past tense. There can only be grounds to make a case that he be stripped of his citizenship. The burden of proof is on the government.
The only real danger for Obama, if in fact he ever had applied and received Indonesian citizenship after 18, would be political. He would be finished. Still, you don't lose your citizenship until it is taken away. Obama has never lost his US citizenship.
On the intent point, what we would have to show is that Obama likely knew that Indonesia did not permit dual citizenship.
In the only context in which this is likely to arise, that will NOT be the difficult hurdle.
You keep going on about what the burden is on the US government and so forth, but this will not come up in the context of a prosecution by the US government. I know it is hard for you to move outside of your rigid patterns of thinking.
This will likely ONLY come up if the House of Representatives elects to take up impeachment proceedings.
(Indeed, it is not at all clear that a department or agency of the US government would even have the right under the Constitution to bring such an action against a sitting president over his objection.)
If this matter were to get as far as an impeachment proceeding in the House of Representatives, then it would mean that very likely:
(a) Obama was shown to have claimed Indonesian citizenship, as for example in college applications, and that he lied about that;
(b) Obama was shown to have in fact had Indonesian citizenship, and that he lied about that; and
(c) Obama was shown to have done something as an adult, such as submit an official declaration to Indonesia that he desired to be an Indonesian citizen after age 21, or make application for an Indonesian passport.
So Obama’s credibility would be shot already. And whatever one may say about Obama, one thing that everyone who knew him from college to law school to beyond is that Obama is overly deliberative and analytical. Indeed, people complain that it is hard to get him to stop contemplating the considerations and come to an actual decision. If one reads his college girlfriend’s account of his personality at that time, he is downright creepy on this point. So it would be hard for Obama to credibly claim that he is the type to take a careless or undeliberate approach to submitting a legal document, and he wouldn’t have much credibility at that point anyway.
If we are to the stage where House impeachment managers are arguing to the Senate that Obama defrauded the Joint Session of Congress as well as various electoral bodies about his eligibility, then it means the political climate is against Obama and the fact that he lied and covered up Indonesian nationality will be the damning point against him and in that environment I would expect that the Senate is unlikely to be receptive to a defense that he was a frivolous and irresponsible type of person who submitted legal documents without considering what they mean.
Summary of Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 87 S. Ct. 1660, 18 L. Ed. 2d 757 (1967).
Facts
Afroyim (P) was born in Poland and became a United States citizen in 1926. In 1950 Afroyim went to Israel and voted in an Israeli election the following year. In 1960 the State Department refused to grant his reapplication for a U.S. passport on the grounds that he had lost his citizenship by virtue of the Nationality Act of 1940 which provided that a United States citizen shall lose his citizenship if he votes in a foreign election.
Afroyim brought this lawsuit against Secretary of State Dean Rusk (D) in federal district court for a declaratory judgment, contending that the Nationality Act of 1940 violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He also asserted that the Constitution does not grant Congress the express power to revoke citizenship once it has been acquired, and that citizenship can only be lost through voluntary renunciation in light of Section 1 Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Government in turn contended that the Act empowers Congress to terminate citizenship without voluntary renunciation. The district court held that Congress has the authority to revoke citizenship by voting in a foreign election by virtue of its implied power to regulate foreign relations. The court of appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue
Does Congress have the power to strip an American citizen of his or her citizenship if that person has not voluntarily renounced it?
Holding and Rule (Black)
No. Congress does not have the power to strip an American citizen of his or her citizenship if that person has not voluntarily renounced it.
Congress has no express power under the Constitution to revoke a person’s citizenship. Congress recognized before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, as did the Supreme Court in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, that no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States completely controls that status and prevents the cancellation of Afroyim’s citizenship.
You’re repeating yourself yet again on a point I’ve discussed.
If Obama submitted an application for citizenship or a passport to Indonesia as an adult, he cannot credibly argue he did not do so voluntarily. He was not under duress, in jail, etc.
And if we show he likely knew (that’s what preponderance means) that Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship to a person obtaining such status, that suffices as to intent.
And I just explained how this will not be the hurdle for eligibility impeachment.
If Obama is strong politically, then no matter how many lies he tells or how many damning documents are found and brought to light, he will not be impeached for eligibility fraud.
If Obama is weak politically, and the weight of his various lies has turned the political climate against him, then an attempted defense that he didn’t know what he was doing is unlikely to fly in face of his lies, his loss of credibility and weakness.
Thanks bitt.
But where will he hide. . ?
;)
Those are excellent questions, along with why there was a need for the Selective Service registration forgery.
"As you see, I didn't even bring up his presumed father BO Sr., was a foreigner anyway." If "Obama" is telling the truth about the Kenyan being his father, he's automatically ineligible to hold the office he currently enjoys the trappings of, no matter where born.
"IMO, 0b0z0 is the highest-ranking illegal alien in the USA.
You could very well be right. I also believe you are correct on the importance of the education records. As a bonus, there's no reason why questions on that subject can't be hammered home relentlessly, as it is a topic that is quite legitimate in its own right.
He doesn't have to be under duress. He could claim he made a mistake and was ignorant of the law. He said he never intended to give up his US citizenship.
And I just explained how this will not be the hurdle for eligibility impeachment.
Do you think that this Congress would ever seek to impeach him between now and November 6th? That is insanity. And the next Congress, if Obama is reelected, would never try to remove him for getting an Indonesian passport at the age of 18 or 19. They would be undoing an election and removing our first black President to boot. There would be riots in the streets and the MSM and the Dems would go nuts.
You are living in a fantasy world. I think we have exhausted this subject.
Of course it's a big deal. There is none bigger. But it is a done deal. We have lived through an anti-constitutional coup; a somewhat successful one at that. Just like Chile. Just like Honduras.
Unlike those two Republics, we are completely unable to get rid of our answer to Allende. We are powerless when confronted with our answer to Zelaya. Unlike those two Republics, we haven't a supreme court that will take a piece of the action, and we certainly have no one else in responsible authority who will act.
Our opposition party recommends Rubio and/or Jindal for VP! Both are, IMNSVHO, CLEARLY ineligible except by some deconstruction of the Constitution.
By allowing Barry's eligibility questions to be ignored or kicked down the road for the next election cycle or the next generation to deal with is a critically bad idea for the preservation of (what's left of) our Constitution and the meaning and reason our founders changed the requirement in our Constitution for the position of President and Commander in Chief of our armed forces from that of "Citizen" to "natural born Citizen."
That can has already been kicked down the yellow brick road to non-existence. One of two things may yet happen:
There may be some sort of unspoken consensus among the powerful to restore the constitutional requirements in the future
The Supreme Court as reconstituted by a "Republican" winner may eventually take the issue up.
This IMO, seems to be the way our leaders are dealing with hot issues, e.g., The Affaire Zimmerman/Trayvon. Any mail-order Diploma DUI Attorney knows the prosecution hasn't a leg to stand on ... as does the politically correct prosectution itself. The idea they have come up with is to screw around with it until after the election and the phonily aggrieved minority have a new cause, and then let Zimmerman go. Perhaps this is the rationale behind the Supreme Court's absolute refusal to do its duty in the matter of Natural Born Citizenship.
And if you find out, to whom, or to what official body, or to what individual official, do you intend to complain? Bear in mind what will happen to your lawn if you answer "The Court of Public Opinion."
if some conservatives decide to ignore the constitutional eligibility issue on the grounds that nothing is likely to come of it, that’s fine. That is a reasonable position to take. Others of us may continue to look into it.
By all means carry on ... after we get a successful ... more or less ... outcome to the election of 2012.
The fact that I think it is unlikely he will ever be impeached does not mean people should not be pushing for the truth to come out as to what the facts are and calling for disclosure of his records.
My point, just to repeat it yet again (I'm typing slowly for you) is that IF it ever came to the point where impeachment proceedings would be ventured against Obama on this basis, your defense of "ignorance" isn't going to get him far because of the lies and cover-up. The lies and the cover-up demonstrate that he knows he did something damaging to him and is akin to a "consciousness of guilt" as we like to say. It is the lies and cover-up that will turn the climate against him, and he will not get the benefit of favorable inferences from the Senate that he was innocent out of carelessness and ignorance. On the other hand, if the Congress and the American people have not reached the point where they are fed up with his lies and cover-ups, then it doesn't matter how damaging the evidence is, they won't proceed with it.
There is only one body that can act on this, at least while Obama is in office, and that is the Congress.
I readily concede that it is unlikely they will do so, either now or if Obama wins a second term.
But stranger things have happened in history.
The principle that no man should be above the law is a principle worth pursuing for its own sake, even if the odds against successfully prevailing in a particular situation are quite long.
Oh I forgot to add, I got my short and long forms in 2000 when I had my wallet stolen. My Mom ordered them. She kept my long form for me for safe keeping. I ordered the 20007 short form right after I had knee surgery. I totally don’t remember doing it, but I remember why. I didn’t want to go into the garage to hunt for my COLB in a Passport application because I had just had knee surgery. I wanted to go to BC Canada to attend the Opening of the Police Reunion tour. I had tickets to the show, and needed a passport to get back into the states after seeing it in Canada. Yeah, I have the Police Concert Tickets still. Why? Because my knee would not allow me to go, so I still have them and the FedEx envelope they came it. I explained this back in the day when it happened. I told the truth Rummy. For some reason some people either want me to be lying, or telling falsehoods of some kind. I admitted my mistakes, Fully admitted them. I have been honest, and gotten smeared for it.
My documents are not only real and authentic, they are more than anyone else has presented, with supporting documentary evidence. Yet somehow I am the one not telling the whole story? Right.
Trump has a knack of being able to stay in the limelight. If he were so concerned, he'd be offering a sizeable reward to anyone who can come up with all of Obama's college records..........
If you have not seen the movie then go see it, will help answer your question.
I have just one question. What years did your father go to the University of Hawaii?
http://www.musgroves.com/obituary.cfm?name=BrianSkelly
As for this post, I went back and looked at that thread. You had several posters calling you out on what you posted.
I can’t fathom how you got so mixed up on what you were posting
Amen. The reality and truth is......IF this birth issue was legally pursued by the Republicans, the truth would be staring us in the face and there would be no alternative but impeachment, the republucan leaders know the facts and can’t do a thing about it because......America would explode, and I mean that literally. The riots would consume us, people would die, lots of them and so would the republican party, flawed as it is, our only immediate hope. Many say, “so what, let the riots begin”. I am not ready to see my children and grandchildren live in chaos for a piece of shit imposter.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
_____________________
I agree! He HATES it, Jarrett hates it, they all hate it. They make jokes because they are scared to death, wondering if they covered all the bases, destroyed the evidence but they are always waiting for the shoe to drop.... wondering who will do it, when or even if.
LMAO!
None of your effing business. He went for 2 years before I was born for a real estate license. In the middle 60s, after 66. And you are lying. You got more than one question. I have been 100% honest. Wrong at times, but honest in admitting it.
It’s called knee reconstruction and percocet, a narcotic pain killer I took for a short time post surgery. There are more than I few things I do not remember well or at all. Miserable experience, not that you give a crap.
Sorry for phone posting. “Aunts” = Aunt’s signature. Homeschool = High school
Re: losing or not losing the American citizenship. Please correct me if I am wrong. But let’s say he hasn’t lost his American citizenship. Does it even matter? He would still be a dual citizen (unless he had officially renounced his Indonesian citizenship). Are you qualified to be President if you have two citizenships? That’s what I would like to know.
“Let’s say Obama gained Indonesian citizen as a child.”
__________________________________________________________
We do not need to ‘lets say’. He WAS, without a single doubt an Indonesian citizen according to Indonesian law.
His step-father/adopted-father was an Indonesian citizen. And so was his mother! His mother was an Indonesian citizen according to Indonesian citizenship laws.
A woman who marries an Indonesian citizen herself becomes an Indonesian citizen if after one he has not given up his Indonesian Citizenship.
So if the father was an Indonesian citizen and mother was an Indonesian citizen then of course Obama was also an Indonesian citizen. There is no other conclusion. How can a 3 year old child have different citizenship that his birth mother and the father of his household?
Obama WAS an Indonesian citizen in the eyes of Indonesia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.