Obama, the President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen

Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States' right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.

"4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:

Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth— (a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or (b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ...."

Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.

Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama's 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.

Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that: “1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. [sic] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. [sic] if his father becomes. [sic] . . . a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subjection (1). [sic] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. [sic] 1963.” These provisions made Obama’s father and Obama citizens of Kenya, respectively. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain nor the Kenyan Constitution caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship. Rather, the statements have been that his British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963 and that he then lost Kenyan citizenship under the Kenyan constitution and laws when he did not renounce U.S. citizenship at age 21. But since Obama never lost his British citizenship, it does not matter that Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship as he contends.

Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:

1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament."

Hence, while the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. Kenya’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect Obama’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship.

The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:

"Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.

Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child's minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality."

"It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .

Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality."

Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning "declaration of renunciation" at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any "declaration of renunciation" of his British citizenship.

What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya's 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.

This all leads to the question of how can Obama be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was at birth both a U.S. citizen (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and a British citizen which alone disqualifies him from having that status? But to make matters worse, Obama continues to be a British citizen at a time that he is currently the President of the United States. Can we reasonably conclude that the Founding Fathers, who had just fought a war with Great Britain and who did not want a foreigner to occupy the Office of President, would have allowed a British citizen, who carries that status not only from birth but also to the time he occupies the Office, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its Military? Another question is how can a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military with current dual citizenship obtain a security clearance which he would need to access classified U.S. government information needed by him to carry out the sensitive functions of that Office?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. 185 Gatzmer Avenue Jamesburg NJ 08831 Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906 BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com ####

His father being an alien is quite a different matter than Obama being a UK citzen. Apuzzo is making the argument that Obama is a UK citizen.
I don’t care what Obama claimed.

He can say it all day long..his claim doesn’t make him a UK citizen.

A divorce DOES NOT MAKE THE MARRIAGE VALID. A bigamous marriage could NEVER BE CONTRACTED.

The idea is preposterous to believe that foreign citizens can enter a bigamous marriage, get a divorce..and then say..HEY ..we had a valid marriage. LET ME INTO THE COUNTRY.

It is just ridiculous.

But go ahead and make that claim.

Btw, a later act addressed VOID marriage.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1976/cukpga_19760031_en_1

Don’t pretend that the UK law would just ignore a VOID marriage because there was a divorce.

there is a Luo tradition that illegitimate babies cannot go live with a new family..and can even be killed. They are considered bad spirits..or some such thing. I can’t remember the exact details.

Well that gives pause to Stanley Ann's supposed idea to go live in Kenya after Sr's finished at Haaarvard unless she planned on going to Kenya and get tribally married before birth. When did she find out that Sr was already married and did he explain the whole tribal polygamy customs to her?

UK law only mattered at birth here, insofar as it affected parentage, assuming Obama was born in the United States, RummyChick.

If Mario Apuzzo is going to hang his hat strictly on British citizenship for Obama, it makes for a compelling narrative, and enables him to put the matter in an historic context.

But, the only reason his self-admitted British citizenship by way of Kenya matters, is because his father was a British citizen, which makes his father an alien.

That’s all that matters as far as natural born citizenship is concerned, regarding parentage, that his father was an alien.

Was that 1-year thing in force back in 1961? I hadn’t heard that at all. And, according to 0bambi’s own book, he has no record of them marrying, however, they did get divorced. That tells me they may not have gotten married in the U.S. And yes, Sr. was a bigamist.

I still think with all the questions and all the money he’s spending, that he should at least be forced to prove he’s eligible. The Chicago machine really covered this as much as they could and smoothed it over.

I am back and forth on whether there never was a marriage at all..or whether the divorce was really about getting a divorce from a Kenyan marriage.

It is quite possible she was shipped off to a home for unwed mothers and then decided to keep the baby. Pretended to get married to legitimize it to everyone...and then got the divorce because she had already made the claim they were married.

Even Obama admits the circumstances were strange about that marriage and he was afraid to look into it. This leads me to believe he has looked into and found out they were never married.

Here’s what I’m going by (and I’ve seen this more than once about his Indonesian citizenship, used to attend school in Indonesia):

From http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/08/11/obamas-dual-citizenship-disaster/

“Soetoro is the name on Obama’s Birth Certificate (BC) because a new BC was issued when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his step-father. His original BC, which we assume was issued for Barack Hussein Obama at birth, would have been sealed at the time of the adoption.

Barry Soetoro probably acquired Indonesian citizenship in approximately 1965-1966, and may still hold it. He possibly changed his legal name back to Barack Hussein Obama as an older child, teenager, or adult, possibly never did – but even if he did, this procedure would not result in a change to the BC. (If he never legally changed his name back, I imagine his current name on the Presidential ballot would be invalid.)

The Birth Certificate published by Obama on his campaign website (still there, by the way) and distributed to the media was forged because the real BC on file is in the name Soetoro, an identity he apparently wanted to hide from the American people. I am getting reports from different sources that Obama traveled to Pakistan in `81 with an Indonesian passport.

Prior to 2007, Indonesian law did not permit dual citizenship. Thus, if Obama actively kept his Indonesian citizenship, his US citizenship could be challenged. I suspect that Obama may have dumped his Indonesian citizenship at some point along the way, to advance his political career. But I would not be shocked if he still holds it. This question, however, should not overshadow the serious problem of hiding his Indonesian identity from the electorate….. What else is he hiding?”

So, you may be right an all of this is a moot point. I’m not a lawyer, but wish I were to take on this whole mess and set it straight.

Thanks for the email, El Gato!

>>> Elected officials are “cleared” by their election to office. <<<<<

It’s all very simple. All classification authority emanates from the President, who obviously cannot and does not “clear” himself.

Congress, as an independent branch of government, is not subject to the classifications established by the POTUS. Members of Congress do not need clearance to view classified materials (although staffers do, and there are some minimal House and Senate rules regarding the handling of classified materials).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
April 17, 1995

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Sec. 1.4. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; or

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c), below.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
March 25, 2003

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292

FURTHER AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958, AS AMENDED,
CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

“Legitimate or Illigitimate” was in the quotation was in the Apuzzo quotation:

Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.

“It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .

Apuzzo and Kerchner have not been self-promoters, though I think they may not have realized how important it might be for an expanded public to be included in the dialog, and have since paid for some Washington Times ads, and asked for some help, since all of their efforts are out-of-pocket. Few are aware that their lawsuit, which covers most of the issues discussed here, and some not discussed at all, are being deliberated in New Jersey District Court. The deliberations began on August 3rd. All of the issues addressed here are in the pleadings which you can read on line. This, or some subsequent lawsuit may be the only way, short of revolution, to slow this attack on our legal foundations. People are learning the difference between Democrats and the extreme left. Those trying to be accomodating have become Lenin's "useful idiots".
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

You can wait until 2010 and see how good a job Acorn and the more than 200 hard-left activist organizations, including Acorn, can do to fix the elections. It is obvious to many of us that Obama lacks the allegiance to our founder's principles that we trust. There are many natural born citizens who also lack that allegiance, but the left ran this guy - the British citizen. The more the publich understands the truth of this the more likely some judge will be willing to allow the examination of the merits of the case. We don't have to await validation of a document for which supporting documentation is probably being suppressed by John Brennen, former CIA conterterroism administrator, and CEO of the company which employed Lt. Harris, the contractor who cauterized Obama’s State Department passport records, and was subsequently shot in the head while parked in front of a church.

The fact of Obama’s father's and thus Obama Jr.’s British citizenship is sufficient. Our Constitution absolutely forbids dual citizenship for presidential eligibility. For purposes of British citizenship, legitimacy is not required. A father is a father, whether or not he marries the mother.

There is no case law determining the meaning of the term in the Constitution, apparently because that was deemed unnecessary, due to the meaning being evident in the writing.

I'm sure the founders knew what they meant, and that even moderately well read members of the public knew as well.

There is no case law, because there haven't been any cases. Remember we are talking about the meaning of a Constitutional term, "natural born citizen", which appears in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 and nowhere else in the Constitution including it's various amendments. Any "case" construing that meaning, would by necessity involve the candidacy or election of a person whose status as a "natural born citizen" was questioned. We now have such a controversy. Now if we can just get a court rule on the issue and the evidence, even if it needs to order it produced, rather than on issues of "standing".

Thanks for the reminder, but you’re preaching to the choir, lol.

Remember, I’m the “kook” who insisted that the Constitution alone determined natural born citizenship, with the Congress enumerated to naturalization only, to the shrill dismay of the good gentleman from Kansas with whom you also had a somewhat less bombastic exchange, last week.

If that makes me a “kook,” I guess I’m still a kook, since that’s the way our Constitution works, and that’s the way the power enumerated to Congress works.

I’ve been trying, with limited success, to drive home the point that the term is not a mystery, that there has been no automatic need for statutory law to define it, and that in fact statutory law cannot define it. Natural born citizen being a “term of art,” “evident in the writing,” and etcetera.

I doubt we’ll ever know the truth. Just like Area 51...it’s all secret.

Area may be secret, but lots of folks know what's there, or at least some of what's there.

I happen to have been assigned to the organization that once ran "Project Blue Book", although I never made it to the hanger, which did belong to them, where the remains of the aliens were said to be kept. Of course there was a sign on the bulletin board that they'd been moved, to the basement of the HQ building.

The building is built on a slab foundation.

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.