The Real Donald Trump - "Obama is petrified of birther issue..Watch what's coming!"

@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!

Since you profess to know so much about Obama's Indonesian connection, what's the answer?

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.

Nice post, and I share your frustrations. Pretty much spot on with the exception of the question:
"(1)What is "Natural Born Citizenship"

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."

I don't know of a specific court case on this particular issue.

What I know is this (pay particular attention to the key terms in the heading itself, "renunciation" and "minor"):

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN
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.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

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?

I never said that renouncing your citizenship was the only way you could lose it.

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.

The issue was renouncing of citizenship, which is one way to lose it. There are other ways to lose one's citizenship and I never said there weren't.

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.

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

“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.

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.

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.

"However, even if he WAS an Indonesian citizen, when did he naturalize? Why does his SS# fail E-Verify?"

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.

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.

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.

Is allowing him to set this precedent really no big deal?

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.

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.