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

A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers ^ | April 7, 2009 | Mario Apuzzo

[MHGinTN]

If Obammy is found ineligible, we would probably get McCain and Biden, since McCain got the most second place electoral votes for the office.

[MHGinTN]

When you've been a practicing immigration lawyer for twenty years, we might accept your characterization of him. You've dug deeply for data on immigration and legitimacy. The point is, we really have no legitimate documentation of whom was Barak Obama/aka Barry Soetoro’s father. The only acknowledgment we have is from a divorce decree issued to Stanley Ann in 1964 against Barak Obama, sr. and that material lacks a certified marriage cert or place of birth of the supposed child of the union.

[MHGinTN]

Drag your racist sh!t off of FR, asshat.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Obama is not a British citzen.

He was born with both US and British citizenship.

He gained Kenyan citizenship, per the Constitution of Kenya:

http://kenya.rcbowen.com/constitution/chap6.html

Because he gained Kenyan citizenship, he lost his British citizenship, per the Kenya Independence Act 1963:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1963/pdf/ukpga_19630054_en.pdf

None of these acts effected his US citizenship.

[Spaulding]

Thank you Art in Idaho. I couldn't have said it as well! But I do think it is important to keep answering that question as clearly as you have so that people will begin to understand that all the other issues, because we have have denied almost all documentation, are hearsay. They may be, and I would say probably are, “head fakes” (as someone on FR once called them).

John Jay couldn't have been more clear. All the issues around statutes are irrelevant.

Also worth noting to the gentleman married to a Japanese citizen that regardless of what one attorney may have told you, your children are not natural born citizens. The law is clear, and is not intended to be fair.

The requirement that a president be a natural born citizen was inserted as a change in an early draft of the constitution at the request of John Jay for our protection.

[chatter4]

It doesn’t matter where Obama was born. A “natural born citizen” must be born in the US, and BOTH of his parents must be US citizens. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, because his father was not a US citizen, he would be a dual citizen of the US and the UK. A natural born citizen, would never find himself subject to multiple nations.

[El Gato]

"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?"

No they would not. But British, French, German, it would not matter. Anyone whose parents, at the time of their birth, owed allegience to a foreign nation, is not a natural born citizen. If born in the US, or satisfy any number of other criteria, they may be a citizen, but not a natural born one.

[El Gato]

Isn’t Obama a citizen of Indonesia also? Didn’t his step-father relinquish Obama’s American citizenship in order for him to go to school there?

He may be, but a father, step or natural, cannot relinquish the citizenship of a child. Only the person involved can do that,and it's very difficult to do, if one is under 18. Not impossible, but difficult.

If he had been a natural born citizen before being adopted by Soetero, he still was one afterwords. But that is a VERY BIG "IF".

[RegulatorCountry]

That's it. So now what?

It means that Joseph Robinette Biden already is acting President, under a strict reading of the Constitution, as improbable as that sounds.

[RegulatorCountry]

No they would not. But British, French, German, it would not matter

There would be a special level of anger and approbation, at the very thought of a British citizen, holding the office of President. Remember, these men, the Founders, were under arrest orders by the British for their actions, they renounced their own British citizenship, and many of them suffered very real hardship, loss and even death because of it.

[El Gato]

Wouldn’t the fact that he is still a British citizen disqualify him from being President of the US?

Not by itself. Suppose for instance, that Britain had a law, as we once did, that someone who marries a British Subject becomes a British Subject, automatically. Suppose that someone who had done that, married a British subject, but had been a natural born citizen of the US, were to be elected? Would there be a problem with that? I don't think so.

But was does matter is how he came to have British Nationality. By being born of a British National, that is *Not* a US citizen (the actual country would not matter), father, he is not a natural born citizen.

[El Gato]

As for Barry Soetoro, according to what I read, he was an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim in Indonesia. In Indonesia, all other citizenships have to be renounced once you become a citizen. So even if he was a U.S. citizen and what I read is right (that he was an Indonesian citizen), he can't be a U.S. citizen from that alone. A parent cannot renounce the US citizenship of a child. And a child cannot renounce their own US citizenship, in most cases. The child would have to convince a US official that the renunciation was not coerced. Once the child turns 18, they can renounce it for themselves, or can commit one of a number of acts which would have the same effect.

That said, it's not just "citizenship" that is required to be eligible to the office of President. It's natural born citizenship. Since the only place in US law that matters is eligibility to the office of President, there is no case law, and no definition in the Constitution. The Courts will need to decide, but Barry can't be too confident of the outcome, otherwise he's throwing a bunch of money he could put to his 2012 campaign right down a legal rat hole, for nothing.

[MHGinTN]

In my opinion, he is spending all that money to fight disclosure of his past because if it comes out he will be shown a criminal fraud.

[El Gato]

. I have the birth certificates to prove they were born in the states to me and that is all that is required to be a Natural Born Citizen. I have confirmed with legal authority that my interpretations are correct.

What legal authority? There is no case law on the matter. This is not surprising, since the only time the difference, if any, between native born, like your daughters, and natural born (a subset of native born) matters is for eligibility to the office of President.

[RegulatorCountry]

Since the only place in US law that matters is eligibility to the office of President, there is no case law

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.

But, there is at least one Supreme Court decision, providing an example of natural born citizenship itself being determined, Perkins v. Elg. Miss Elg was found to be a natural born citizen. She was born in a State of the United States, and she was born to two citizen parents, no matter what anyone claims. Derivative citizenship was the law, from 1907, so her mother was a naturalized citizen, as was her father.

And then, we have various dicta, from Minor v. Happersett, etcetera, which again confirms that the meaning was construed as evident in the writing, that two citizen parents and birth in the United States, were required.

[El Gato]

There would be a special level of anger and approbation, at the very thought of a British citizen, holding the office of President. Remember, these men, the Founders, were under arrest orders by the British for their actions, they renounced their own British citizenship, and many of them suffered very real hardship, loss and even death because of it.

All that is true, but irrelevant at this distance from the time, since they did not specify only those not natural born citizens due to some British connection.

Since then we have fought 5 wars alongside our British allies. WW-I, WW-II, Korean War, Desert Storm, and the Current war in Iraq in Afghanistan (6 wars if you count those as two, but I do not, the enemy is radical Islam in both theaters of a single war) We also fought more or less at their side in China, during the Boxer Rebellion.

We have no allies of longer standing, except the French I suppose.

[Art in Idaho]

I have yet to hear someone give a rational legal argument to the following statements:

1. Obama admits he was a British citizen at birth on his website.

2. Anne Dunham had not sufficient residency in the U.S. and wasn't of sufficient age to confer U.S. citizenship on Barack at his birth in 1961.

3. If he was, in fact, born in Hawaii in 1961, he was a British citizen only, and only under British jurisdiction as a visitor to Hawaii.

4. In 1961 the U.S. did not permit dual citizenship. So even had his mother been of sufficient age and U.S. residency, he could not have gained U.S. citizenship by a Hawaiian birth through her. His Certificate of Live Birth could not grant citizenship to a British national.

5. As with any parents who are foreign nationals giving birth in the U.S., and "not under the juridiction thereof", Obama would have to return to the U.S. and undergo the naturalization process, and sign a written citizenship oath to gain U.S. citizenship for the first time. This is exactly what happens to the children of foreign tourists whose children claim citizenship under the 14th Amendment birthright. Citizenship under these circu mstances does not consti tute being "natural born".

Therefore, Obama was never a U.S. citizen as a minor, could only become one by naturalization, and if he has not done so, he is an illegal alien like his half-aunt from Kenya.

So there you have it. Case closed. . or not?

[RegulatorCountry]

It goes to understanding the mindset of the men who wrote the Constitution, and it adds an exclamation point upon the entire matter of Obama’s ineligibility, though. Making it real, with real people who suffered real consequences, brings things more fully into focus, for people who aren’t really concerned enough, or perhaps not equipped enough by our woeful educational system, to grasp the distinctions that we’re trying to make, here.

This will be won in the court of popular opinion, before we’re ever able to sway these entrenched members of the political class. That’s why historical context is, and will be, important.

[El Gato]

But, there is at least one Supreme Court decision, providing an example of natural born citizenship itself being determined, Perkins v. Elg. Miss Elg was found to be a natural born citizen. She was born in a State of the United States, and she was born to two citizen parents, no matter what anyone claims. Derivative citizenship was the law, from 1907, so her mother was a naturalized citizen, as was her father.

I'm aware of Elg, and certainly it's an argument in favor of the notion that two US Citizen parents, along with birth in US territory are both requirements. However, just because A and B implies C doesn't meant that A alone or A and D do not also imply C. Stated another way, just because someone born in the US of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen, does not prove that just one parent would not have been enough, or just birth to two citizens, regardless of place of birth. It also doesn't prove that any of those other cases do produce a natural born citizen. I think they don't, but it's not up to me alone. It's a matter for the Courts. They need to quit ducking the issue.

[El Gato]

2. Anne Dunham had not sufficient residency in the U.S. and wasn't of sufficient age to confer U.S. citizenship on Barack at his birth in 1961.

That statement only applies to births outside the US. Look it up, 8 USC 1401 g

Check the notes for changes since '61. But in any event, that law was passed under Congress power to provide a Uniform Rule of Naturalization. No such law can define "natural born citizen", and that one, like all laws since 1795 have not attempted to do so.