Posted on 08/27/2012 7:16:44 PM PDT by Perdogg
“Are you qualified to be President if you have two citizenships?”
_____________________________________________________________
Good question.
To this day Obama is British citizen. You have to specifically and formally renounce British citizenship via form RN.
People want to talk about Obama not losing his US citizenship. But how do you lose your British citizenship or your claim to British citizenship? Only via form RN and a visit to a British official.
Obama qualifies as a Brit to this day.
I can’t believe your story unless you show me the obituary that had the photo you claim is your brother. The obituary is online with ONE photo. So where did this photo come from?
You may be telling the truth.
But I don’t believe your concocted story about your birth certificate.
That is my personal opinion.
“My COLB was printed for me at my mothers request in a letter that was received (and confirmed by computer records by the Vital Stats office in the Hawaiian Dept of Health in Honolulu) and my COLB that I received should have had the date of Mar.6 2000. It states Mar. 6 2007 (!). “
So to believe Danae’s story...you have to believe that an order for her birth certificate after knee surgery is stamped on the SAME DAY and SAME MONTH but 7 years later as the first one...
and as she is spinning her story the excuse is she didn’t remember ordering. What a coincidence that is it the same day and month..but not year
yeah...right...
btw, I would like to point out when doing a search what people looked like when the graduated the Naval Academy that uniform does look like what the purported picture of Brian Skelly. It also does appear he could be askew..as if on the shoulders of someone.
that doesn’t mean for a second that I believe the concocted story about the BC..which by the way, the famed Dr Conspiracy vouches for it.
“No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President”
The Supreme Court has never issued a holding as to what “natural born citizen” means for purposes of this clause.
Some say the purpose of the “natural born citizen” requirement is to ensure that the president is not a person of divided loyalties, and that holding citizenship in two countries simultaneously is the very definition of divided loyalties and therefore would defeat the purpose of the clause.
But, it doesn’t actually say that the president may not be a citizen of another country. It says only that the president must be a “natural born citizen.”
To be a “natural born citizen” one must be a “citizen.” Obviously, if one is no longer a citizen, then one is no longer a “natural born citizen.” So losing citizenship at any time in one’s life would render one no longer a “natural born citizen” from that time forward, even if one were to become a “citizen” again in the future through naturalization (because at that point one would be a citizen by virtue of having been naturalized, not by virtue of having been natural born).
However, the “natural born” element of the term implies a status determined exclusively at time of birth with respect to that part of the requirement.
If after the time of birth one gains citizenship in another country, in principle that cannot change a status determined exclusively in the past, at the time of birth. If a natural born citizen gains citizenship in another country at a time after birth in a way that under our law does not cause that person to lose citizenship in the United States, then nothing has changed as to his US citizenship status -- he continues to be a citizen of the United States which he gained by virtue of having been natural born.
What about at time of birth? Can a person be “natural born” at time of birth if at that time he became a citizen of two countries simultaneously?
Let’s say the country of Ruritania passes a law providing that everyone born in the United States shall automatically be deemed a citizen of Ruritania at birth. Therefore, everyone born in the United States would be a dual citizen at birth. Would that act by Ruritania render everyone born in the United States ineligible to be president? Surely that cannot be the correct result.
We can’t make the term “natural born citizen” carry more baggage than it can bear. Logically, to my mind the question boils down to simply was that person born into the circumstances that are considered “natural born” and did that person maintain his citizenship derived from that initial status on an uninterrupted basis?
While the “natural born citizen” requirement in the Constitution provides some measure of assurance that a president will have a strong attachment to the United States, it only goes so far. (Just to pick two examples, both Alger Hiss and Aldrich Ames were natural born citizens, if I recall correctly.) Because Congress has the power to determine when someone loses citizenship, it is the role of Congress to determine whether someone’s relationship or actions with respect to another country so conflict with loyalty to the United States that such person should no longer hold United States citizenship and, as a consequence, be ineligible to be president.
The safeguard as to dual citizenship lies with Congress. It is the role of Congress to decide under what circumstances someone gains a status that calls into question one’s loyalty to the United States, such as making allegiance to another country or making voluntary application as an adult to be a citizen of another country, and therefore that such person loses citizenship together with the rights and privileges thereto, such as the possibility of being a natural born citizen.
That may be. I’d have to take your word for it. I am not myself in a position to speak on that.
“Watch what’s coming”
“How many freeking times have I heard this? How many times does Lucy have to pull the foot ball from us? The Obamas LOVE THIS ISSUE.”
************************************************
You said it first and said it best.
Here is the source of the my statements.
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b4ec8.html
“Article 7.
(1)A foreign woman married to a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if and when she makes a statement as to that effect within 1 year after contracting said marriage, except in case when she acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia she possesses still another nationality, in which case the statement may not be made.
(2)With the exception as mentioned in para 1 the foreign woman who marries a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia also acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia one year after the marriage has been contracted, if within that one year her husband does not make a statement as to release his citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia.”
Key element:
the foreign woman who marries a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia also acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia one year after the marriage has been contracted, if within that one year her husband does not make a statement as to release his citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia.
Further breakdown:
the foreign woman [Stanley Ann] who marries a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia [Lolo Soetoro] also [automatically according this law] acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia one year [March 15, 1966 since they were married March 15, 1965] after the marriage has been contracted, if within that one year her husband [Lolo Soetoro] does not make a statement [that he did not] as to release his citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia [so this execption does NOT apply, thus Stanley Ann became an Indonesian citizen March 15, 1966 according to Indonesian laws in effect in 1958].
So that is the law that indicates Stanley Ann definitely WAS an Indonesian citizen according to Indonesia.
What about Obama as a young child.
“Article 2.
(1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.
(2)Said declaration of legality by the Pengadilan Negeri shall be requested by the person adopting the child within 1 year after such an adoption or within 1 year after enforcement of this law.”
Lets break this down....
(1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age [which Obama was at the time of the marriage and at the time his mother’s citizenship would have been automatic] who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia [it is very likely Lolo formally adopted the young Barry. Whether outright while still in the US or as custom in Indonesia. With a mother recognized as an Indonesian citizen there would be no reason to not adopt the young Barry formally to give him all the rights of an Indonesian citizen while there.] acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, [right there - if adopted he DOES aquire Inodnesian citizenship] if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri [Indonesian legal function] at the residence of the person adopting the child.
Supporting data points beyond laws stated above:
- Indonesia was in cold-war political turmoil in the mid-1960s. It would have been very risk for Stanley Ann and Barry to go around parading themselves as red, white and blue Americans in Indonesia. Fitting in would have been required. In fact it reasonable to be believe that Barry’s American roots may have been found out - making it too dangerous for him to stay in Indonesia. And hence his quick departure. This is speculation - granted.
- The Indonesian school records. Clearly consistent with Indonesian citizenship and father adoption.
- The 1968 removal of Barry from Stanley Ann’s US passport. Did he have his own Indonesian passport? Did he get get his own US passport? If so, why? Barry/Barack had a passport in 1968...what was it?
So please do not take my word for it. Read this and understand that legally, according to Indonesian law - child AND MOTHER were Indonesian citizens.
This is the present "key" to Democrat Power. "Vote against us, (me, Obama, actually) Racist Capitalist Dogs, and we will call our urban blacks into the streets of every major city."
However, IMHO, the Republicans are very foolish indeed to fall for this blatant call for an insurrection, so reminiscent of the tactics actually used by Obama in Kenya, when he tacitly supported a murderous insurrection after his man Odinga lost an internationally monitored election.*
There WILL BE riots after Obama loses. But as the late Police Chief of Philadelphia once said, "I assure you good people that they will be the shortest f*&king riots in all of recorded history."
*The greatest uncovered story of the 2008 election.
Pls see me aft the elect.
The Donald...still *all hair and no cattle.*
[yawn]
I'm currently reading David Maraniss' book, "Barack Obama the Story". His book seems well annotated with interviews and documented evidence. Sr. didn't leave Ann & baby Barak. Ann and the baby left Hawaii in less than a month after giving birth. She stayed the h*ll away from Hawaii until the drunken and probably abusive B.O. Sr. (note: he also periodically deserts Kezia and beats on Ruth) left for Harvard. Only then did she and the kid return to Hawaii. Fast forward to December 1971. Ann's marriage to Lolo has disintegrated. She leaves Jakarta and stays in a temporaray apt. in the bldg where Stan and Madelyn are living. B.O. Sr's marriage to Ruth in Africa has blown up. He's a drunk and keeps losing jobs. He borrows money from a "wealthy patron" and with his severance pay, flies to Hawaii, rents a temporary apt in the same bldg as Stan, Madelyn, Barak, and Ann. Both Ann and Sr stay just over a month with Sr supposedly begging Ann to come to Africa with him (never mind he's still married to both Kezia and Ruth while had has not divorced Lolo, yet). Not only does Ann continue glorify Sr to the boy and everyone else, she irons his shirts for him during this vacation!!! Into January, Ann goes back to Indonesia and Sr. returns to Ruth and his family.
Yeah, I know where you stand on this issue. The reply was directed to others, lurkers.
Are you going to apologize to me if I post the full photo?
Your family has a history of serving in the Navy.
Your concocted story over the BC makes no sense to me. And you didn’t even request it to be certified.
There is nothing for me to apologize for. If you show the picture and it does look like your father holding up someone else then I will think that that poster is posting misleading info...but I have to see it on the original site.
Not something that could have been altered by your computer software engineer husband or anyone else.
. You said that she got it from his obituary. Where?????????
Why is there a picture of your dad holding up your brother in an obituary. It seems an odd thing to post in an obituary. How come no pictures with other family members? Unless it was in some tribute area with a lot of different pictures.
I am one of those that firmly believe Obama’s family was involved with intelligence. I also believe there are a lot of doctored photos of his family.
Thus, I have a skeptical eye when it comes to people posting things about his birth certificate.
Your father might have been a very nice kind man. Probably looking down wondering how he got mixed up in all of this.
But ....the fact remains...the shenanigans with your BC are suspect.
Thank you for your detailed reply. What I wonder is this. The U.S. does recognize the status of dual citizenship in some cases. I am a dual citizen of the U.S. and another country. Both countries mutually recognize each other’s citizenship and the status of dual citizenship. So everything is above board, so to speak. And yet... and yet there IS a problem of divided loyalties (even though histyorically the two countries have been at peace with each other). An underlying potential conflict does exist. So what I am saying is this. Even though I understand that while dual citizenship has not been officially excluded from the status of the natural citizen, which itself has not been officially defined, it would still be pretty weird in my eyes if a dual citizen were considered eligible for presidency in the U.S., where the requirements for presidency are so stringently and narrowly defined. It simply wouldn’t make sense to me if this were the case. To me, being a dual citizen is worse that being born elsewhere and growing up in the U.S.
Since Romney “joked” about the BC, they have backed off his tax returns. Anytime they start to attack, all Romney needs to do is mention BC, MSM goes crazy.
I remember RummyChick’s handle. She had been active on this Natural Born forum arguing against “birthers” throughout many topics. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was one of the people who argued that the computerized image of the long (or short) birth certificate was legit. I don’t remeber for sure whether she was participating in these threads. But if she was, she owes people on this board an admission of being wrong.
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.