First, I can tell you that it is very risky to attempt to make a firm conclusion as to what a particular foreign law is or how it is applied based on a document such as this without consulting knowledgeable foreign counsel. And I don’t mean that as just a perfunctory cya statement. Aside from the obvious problem of whether we have an accurate English translation, we would need to know whether this is the proper law during the relevant times, whether other statutory provisions are also relevant, whether there are administrative regulations that would affect the interpretation and whether there is an interpretive gloss that would affect a proper understanding of the statute or any regulations. And especially in lesser developed countries, it may well be the case that the attitude of government officials toward these cases is more important than the words on the page of the statute or regulations. (In the US we are moving beyond banana republic status in laws such as Obamacare and Dodd-Frank where we give nearly complete discretion to government officials to both decide what the law is and to apply it.)
Anyway, having said that, the following discussion assumes that the statute we are looking is indeed the relevant law at the relevant time and the only law we need to look at, and that the English translation is a correct enough understanding of the law. (One cannot escape that the quality of the English translation is not high.)
Let’s look at Stanley Ann’s situation under Article 7:
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. Said statement may only be made and only results in the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if by such a loss the husband does not become stateless.
(3) If one of the statements mentioned in para 1 and 2 have been made, the alternative statement may not be made.
(4) The statements mentioned above shall be made to the Pengadilan Negeri or the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the person making such a statement.
Looking first at paragraph (1): The provision allows a foreign woman who marries an Indonesian man to become an Indonesian citizen by making a statement before the local court or embassy/consulate within a year – except that it is NOT available to a women who would continue to be the citizen of another country after acquiring Indonesian citizenship. So we see here at work the strict policy of Indonesia against dual citizenship.
I don’t know for certain, but I am skeptical that Stanley Ann would have made such a statement. By doing so, that is by voluntarily applying for Indonesian citizenship where it is clear that she could not continue to be a US citizen, she would have lost her US citizenship. Now maybe she thought she could do this but keep it quiet. But I doubt that in her case she would have felt it worth the risk.
Looking at paragraph (2), we see that a foreign woman who marries an Indonesian man automatically becomes an Indonesian citizen UNLESS the husband gives up his own Indonesian citizenship. But wait – the paragraph starts off with the words “with the exception as mentioned in para 1.” What is this exception? It is the exception that says “except in case when she acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia she possesses still another nationality.” This exception WOULD apply to Stanley Ann – she has not HERSELF made any voluntary application for Indonesian citizenship, so she would not lose her US citizenship. Here again, we see at work at work the strict policy of Indonesia against dual citizenship: Stanley Ann could not have become an Indonesian citizen under this paragraph (2) because she would have fallen within the exception – Indonesia would not have permitted her to become an Indonesian citizen without giving up her US citizenship.
So to summarize Stanley Ann’s situation, to my mind she very likely did NOT become an Indonesian citizen because (a) I think it unlikely she would have risked losing her US citizenship by making use of paragraph (1) and (b) the provisions of paragraph (2) would not have applied to her because of the exception language.
Looking now at little Barry’s situation under Article 2:
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.
Lolo and Stanley Ann were married in March 1965. If little Barry was born in August, 1961 he would have been three years old.
Did Lolo adopt little Barry immediately after the marriage? My own opinion is I don’t think they would have gone through the hoops and expense of having Lolo adopt little Barry under Hawaiian law unless they knew that Lolo’s visa status had been resolved favorably and he could stay permanently in the United States. It just wouldn’t have been worth it.
Lolo was required to return to Indonesia and he did so in July 1966. Sometime after August 1967 when she received a degree from UH, Stanley Ann and little Barry joined Lolo in Indonesia.
If Lolo adopted Barry it was likely shortly after Barry’s arrival in Indonesia. One can imagine that the easiest path would have been for Lolo to take little Barry down to the local court, state that he was under 5 (he wasn’t) and acknowledge that little Barry was his adopted son upon which he would be granted Indonesian citizenship and presumably the name “Soebarkah.” As an Indonesian citizen he would be eligible for the local schools and other privileges, such as an Indonesian passport if they thought it useful. Whether Lolo could have gotten away with this likely depended simply on whether he had a good relationship with the folks at the local court. But it strikes me as completely plausible.
Assuming Barry received Indonesian citizenship, what plausibly might have happened later, when he became a young adult, with respect to Indonesian law? When we are talking about what he may have done, for example, in the 1979-1981 period, it seems to me too much of a stretch to assume that this law from 1958 was likely still unamended and was the proper legal authority. I note however that under this law at the end of Article 17 if Obama had wanted to continue Indonesian citizenship beyond age 18 after having lived in Hawaii for so many years then he needed to make a declaration to Indonesia that he wished to continue to be an Indonesian citizen prior to his 18th birthday.
In any event if the type of language contained in this law: “I swear (promise): that I release entirely all loyalty to foreign authority” was in any English version of a declaration Obama may or may not have given as a young adult in order to continue Indonesian citizenship or renew a passport, then that would be very damaging to any “stupidity” defense that he didn’t know what he was doing.
Obviously, this is all somewhat speculative in the absence of seeing the relevant records.
It's not beyond the realm of possibilities he did just that. In "Barak Obama the Story", when referring to Ann leaving Barry for years at a time, it does say, "She was gone, then back for the better part of 3 years, then gone, mostly but not entirely for another 4, with the family reuniting in Hawaii or Indonesia during summer vactions". Without Barry Soebarkah's passports, we don't know for sure.
Amazing that all this speculation is cleared up with just some cancelled passports or passport records from 1965 to 1985 or so....
But remember in 2008 the state departements records illegally accessed not once, not twice, but three times. The last one being 2 days after the datestamp in the original COLB photos posted at Fact Check.
Passport records - a story to themselves.