Posted on 08/16/2009 5:10:06 PM PDT by Vincent Jappi
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.
The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:
"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:
"97. Dual citizenship
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."
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. . . .
Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality."
British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.
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 ####
No law passed by Congress can define the term, but it's also important to recognize that the Constitution assumes we should know what it means. That "we" don't will mean that eventually a Court will have to decide what it meant in 1787.
That’s hilarious!
Maybe 0bama’s BC is ‘in the basement’ then? HAHAHHAH!!!
I don’t know what everyone else thinks, but McCain’s not quite conservative enough for me. He DID vote for TARP (stimulus 1—WAY back last year)...and ticked me off, too. And I honestly think he picked on Sarah Palin...just my opinion. I think he’d roll over and do whatever asked for, because he’s a politician. I’d rather see someone with guts go in there, instead of McCain (who IS considered to be a ‘natural born’ citizen according to the constitution. 0Bambi even voted for that.).
But hey...if I ruled the world, it would be a nicer place...OR ELSE. BWAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!
I know...I’m beating a dead horse here. But I don’t want to be beaten up. Here’s why McCain is a natural born citizen (from http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html)—see the third ‘starred’ thing below. I think the fourth starred thing changed at some point, because I think it used to read ‘10 years, 5 years after the age of 14.’ But don’t quote me on that.
“If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.”
All I can say is I’m glad I’m not the one who has to decipher this stuff. My brain’s ready to explode or implode.
The RATs brought up the concept of McCains NBC status probably to do their normal thing, accusing others of what they are doing. Muddying the playing field.
That's all.
Oh man. I’m so gullible. You got me and I fell for it! You’re SO RIGHT!
I’m hanging my head in shame, but laughing at the same time. Thanks! You made my night. HA!
Just work with me...OK?
Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.
Are you getting that quote from Apuzzo’s site? Why don’t you actually go find out if that was actually THE LAW.
HINT, NO.
HINT, how many times have you seen language presented in a bill THAT WAS NEVER PASSED IN THE US????
An immigration lawyer who has practiced for 20 years should know better. I suspect you got that from Apuzzo’s site .
And yes, legitimacy was REQUIRED back then depending on the circumstances.
Read the law for yourself instead of regurgitating incorrect info from someone with an agenda.
Not a problem at all—and don’t be sorry. I laugh at myself all the time—sometimes I’m so dense, and it’s fine because it makes life interesting. I’m not upset in the least...I’m actually laughing about it!
I can see someone falling for it, though. But you’re right. The lefties tried to force that point.
Here’s what really upsets me, though. My daughter has a facebook page and her so-called friends are trying to convince her that McCain isn’t a natural born citizen. So I researched a lot of the background of 0bama and the requirements, and found out tons of things about the constitution. I emailed her an entire reply starting with ‘have you READ the constitution’ and was so proud of myself. She refused to post it, playing a dumb blonde instead (she’s a redhead and they were cute boys...go figure).
I wish I knew how to fight the left better. I’m a novice compared to most freepers...but I’m learning! At least I know there’s a lot to the BC that will probably never be told.
Anyway, thank you so much for posting. I really do enjoy laughing.
There is another hitch to that argument under a law later passed that is relevant because Ann was domiciled in the US.
Married in a country that allowed polygamy but one party domiciled in a country that did not allow polygamy - marriage void if before 1971
OMG..who came on here claiming Apuzzo had 20 years immigration experience like he was an expert in the field???
ROFLMAO
http://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer/mario-apuzzo-1050467
http://www.martindale.com/Mario-Apuzzo/1094894-lawyer.htm
However, since he does do matrimonial law he should know that a Bigamist marriage is Void Ab Initio
Btw, for those that don’t know...Martindale-Hubbell does have an IMMIGRATION LAW choice in the areas of practice.
Apuzzo does not have immigration law on either of those profiles.
A bigamist marriage wouldn’t have been void if it were conducted Kenya, where you could get bigmaist “customary marriage” licenses.
For the purposes of UK Citizenship law....it would be void if before 1971.
Of course, there is a question of how would they treat the child of said marriage if he was eligible prior to the law being passed.
Keep in mind that the law was being discussed under the LEGITIMACY issue .
http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/legitimacy?view=Binary
UK’s citizenship law is really very complicated.
I thought so, but then again I was in the building at the time. IIRC, it was in the part of the building that you had to go past an armed guard to enter, or leave. The guard was not allowed into the area you understand, but if you didn't have the proper credentials and pushed on in anyway, he could shoot you and call someone with access to come haul your carcass away.
I am afraid this is empty, verbal talk, from people still unfamiliar with international law.
British law, not the Kenyan Constitution, determines who is or isn’t a British citizen: that is a consquence of British sovereignty (and I think the article I posted says something about that).
Where do you think the article in this thread came from? It is part of the Apuzzo lawsuit, and was written last April.
Your hints aren’t particularly relevent. The reference is to British Law, not US law. I would hope it wasn’t passed in the U.S.
My reading of Apuzzo indicates that he is very careful. I do read the original laws, when they are available, and the 1948 British Nationality Act is readily available.
Of course Apuzzo “has an agenda.” He has been more clear than most about what it is. I have no idea what your agenda is. Apuzzo has the best-formed lawsuit addressing constitutional issues around both Obama’s eligibility, and the failures of our representatives to investigate that eligibility as required both by law, and The Constitution.
If you have any constructive thoughts it would be in your interest, and everyone’s interest, to make them public, because that might help Apuzzo consider all possible objections to his pleadings. He has asked for, and responded to a number of thoughtful constructive criticisms of his legal arguments. You can read the pleadings and the response by the defense by going to the Apuzzo site.
There seems, in addition to deliberate attempts to confuse the legal issues, a childish battle of egos about whose approach will be most effective in protecting our liberties from a president whose allegiances are suspect, and who appears to be attempting undermine our republic. People chose approaches based upon their talents and resources. I hope one of the approaches opens the door to discovery.
Orly Taitz is a marketeer, with boundless energy. That is what she does best. Her agenda, to me, is perfectly clear. Donofrio is a bright guy who claims to have forsaken our institutions, and I can’t blame him, but don’t share his pessimism. (And for someone who has forsaken our institutions, he is still taking the time to do legal research, which makes him very valuable) Worldnet is a newspaper; if they keep people concerned using their tabloid approach, more power to them. I trust they know best what sorts of headlines will cause their site to attract “hits”. I find many of the issues they have raised interesting, but not grounds for a lawsuit, and that is probably the only way WND assertions can be proved. My inclination is to read Supreme Court cases, the Federalist Papers, de Vattel and Leibniz - not nearly as exciting, but my concerns are for national defense.
From what I’ve seen, your interest in timelines is often interesting, and, who knows, may open some verifiable datum which could be useful to the process of legal discovery. Why belittle any approach?
Where do you think the article in this thread came from? It is part of the Apuzzo lawsuit, and was written last April.
Your hints aren’t particularly relevent. The reference is to British Law, not US law. I would hope it wasn’t passed in the U.S.
My reading of Apuzzo indicates that he is very careful. I do read the original laws, when they are available, and the 1948 British Nationality Act is readily available.
Of course Apuzzo “has an agenda.” He has been more clear than most about what it is. I have no idea what your agenda is. Apuzzo has the best-formed lawsuit addressing constitutional issues around both Obama’s eligibility, and the failures of our representatives to investigate that eligibility as required both by law, and The Constitution.
If you have any constructive thoughts it would be in your interest, and everyone’s interest, to make them public, because that might help Apuzzo consider all possible objections to his pleadings. He has asked for, and responded to a number of thoughtful constructive criticisms of his legal arguments. You can read the pleadings and the response by the defense by going to the Apuzzo site.
There seems, in addition to deliberate attempts to confuse the legal issues, a childish battle of egos about whose approach will be most effective in protecting our liberties from a president whose allegiances are suspect, and who appears to be attempting undermine our republic. People chose approaches based upon their talents and resources. I hope one of the approaches opens the door to discovery.
Orly Taitz is a marketeer, with boundless energy. That is what she does best. Her agenda, to me, is perfectly clear. Donofrio is a bright guy who claims to have forsaken our institutions, and I can’t blame him, but don’t share his pessimism. (And for someone who has forsaken our institutions, he is still taking the time to do legal research, which makes him very valuable) Worldnet is a newspaper; if they keep people concerned using their tabloid approach, more power to them. I trust they know best what sorts of headlines will cause their site to attract “hits”. I find many of the issues they have raised interesting, but not grounds for a lawsuit, and that is probably the only way WND assertions can be proved. My inclination is to read Supreme Court cases, the Federalist Papers, de Vattel and Leibniz - not nearly as exciting, but my concerns are for national defense.
From what I’ve seen, your interest in timelines is often interesting, and, who knows, may open some verifiable datum which could be useful to the process of legal discovery. Why belittle any approach?
Don’t you see bills proposed ALL THE TIME in the US that don’t get passed? Do you think the same thing happens in the UK.
If you actually read the laws, how can you possibly make the claim that Legitimacy doesn’t matter in UK citizenship law.
Do you understand this discussion OF LEGITIMACY comes from the UK Border Agency???
http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/legitimacy?view=Binary
Read this synopsis for another look at the importance of LEGITIMACY
http://mirror.ein.org.uk/jcwi/members/full.shtml?x=237763
Here is the actual debate - find the quote
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1958/jun/27/children-bill-lords
It isn’t there.
The quote is in another debate. You can’t even give me the right citation. The quote has no bearing on Apuzzo’s thesis because Obama was not born in a UK colony. At least not that we know of.
Let me be clear. The issue is when BORN IN THE US....The issue is different if born in the Kenya. Apuzzo is making the argument, is he not, that Obama is a UK citizen as the facts stand today - with him being born in Hawaii.
You threw out a quote from a 1963 debate that had no bearing on the discussion and gave a citation that doesn’t even discuss the law. In skimming your post, I made the mistake of thinking you were posting a law that pertained to his birth in the US. That law is not applicable at this point since Obama was not born in Kenya as the facts stand at this time. I only researched laws at it pertains to birth in the US..not Kenya. So I don’t know if your thesis about legitimacy is correct if born in Kenya to a VOID marriage.
The UK law is incredibly complex with many layers and many types of classes..British subjects, British Citizens, etc.
Here is a debate about how an illegitimate child HAS NO FATHER in the eyes of the law. This shows their mindset.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1944/jul/27/illegitimate-children-nationality
I went back to see who made the claim that Apuzzo spend twenty years practicing immigration law as an immigration lawyer.
IT WAS YOU.
Why is he not listed as an immigration lawyer with Martindale-Hubbel or on Justia.com ??? Is it because he might have an ethics problem if he made that claim ????
Give me some cases that he has filed in his 20 years of practice as an immigration lawer.
The bottom line is that their VOID marriage is very relevant and anyone refusing to acknowledge that is bordering on malpractice.
Because the law is so complex, there may be something in it that would make him a UK citizen anyway..such as what Rolling Stone pointed out. However, that clause was about Legitimated children through Subsequent marriage -which technically doesn’t apply in this case and even if it did..Sr wasn’t domiciled in Hawaii.
I think it is bad news when posters on this site refuse to address the issue of the VOID marriage...
btw, in case your buddy doesn’t know it...a marriage that was Void Ab Initio can be attacked collaterally even after the parties are dead.
IMO, the lawyers should not be ignoring the law and pretending it doesn’t exist. If I was their client and they roped me into a lawsuit that jeopardized my career and my family..I would be pissed if they didn’t tell me about this issue and how they planned to counter it.
They should be laying out an:
If not this..then this...scenario...not just completely ignoring. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t know a thing about it because they didn’t do adequate research.
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.