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 ####

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

. 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.