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 ####

Never underestimate the power of high-powered attorneys, to dazzle with bs. The people as a whole do not grasp the primacy of the Constitution over statutory law. The vast majority of our Congress appear not to grasp this, either; otherwise, that stone-cold stupid Senate Resolution 511 would never have seen the light of day.

Many in positions of power in our government are actively trying to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement. There have been at least five since the year 2000 alone. But, you have even co-sponsors of these bills to alter or remove the requirement, professing not to have studied the matter, when asked specifically about Obama’s eligibility. I’m referring specifically to Jim Inhofe, a Republican. There was an article posted to FR regarding this, within the past few days.

This thing crosses party lines, and so only political pressure is going to blow these people out of complacency, that we’ll settle back into blissful ignorance, and then the Presidency can be quietly opened up to the world.

Unfortunately US law ignores double citizenship. So the law making someone born on US soil a US citizen would apply.
On the other hand, Art II Sec.1 § 5 of the 1787 Constitution is about allegiances, and the Framers would have certainly regarded a natural-born BRITISH SUBJECT as the very VERY of person they wanted to keep away from the post of Commander-in-chief.
As a matter of fact they had little else in mind when they penned that clause.

It hasn’t, unfortunately.
On the other hand, when the Gray Communist declared under oath that he was a “natural-born citizen” to apply at the Arizona (?) primaries, he could only know how unlikely he actually was to be one.
That makes him a felon, no matter what stands on his real Birth Certificate.

That depends upon the reading. The punctuation and the two references to doubt, to me, says that a natural born citizen is never in doubt, and that such status was known to mean two citizen parents and born in the United States. This reading indicates a rejection of other possibilities.

From page 2 of the Kenya Independence Act as linked below:

“(2) Save as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.”

The provision was altered in 1981 by the British Nationality Act of 1981, but those changes would not have affected Obama.

Maybe this case with Orly Taitz will open up Obama’s hidden records-

“................. at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:

1. There will be a trial. 2. It will be heard on the merits. 3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues. 4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority. 5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC. 6. Judge stated that if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.”

You don’t have to accept my characterization of him. You have to accept what you can see with your own two eyes when it comes to the law.

Using the facts that he is using....he is basing his whole analysis on the fact that Sr was his father..

He is wrong unless he can prove Sr was domiciled in Hawaii..and even that is a stretch given the way the law was worded since that particular law that Rolling Stone brought up is talking about SUBSEQUENT marriage..and specifically states “and not otherwise.”...and presumably is referencing a VALID marriage. I would have to see case law .

And if you are going to hold him on a higher standard because he has been practicing immigration law for decades..then you have to wonder what else he is ignoring to further his agenda...because surely someone who has been practicing for 20 years would KNOW about the importance of legitimacy..both in the UK law and the US law.

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.

They have to go live with the grandparents.

The Luo can go have sex with various girls as long as they don’t penetrate. I guess they have to marry the girl if they do that.

I have seen reported that in order to go to Indonesian schools that one must become a citizen of Indonesia, and by law give up other citzenships. If Obama (or step dad) renounces his citzenship in Indonesia, he may not be a citzen or a natual born citzen?

There are many facets to this issue.

Quote from Obama: “Issues are never simple. One thing I am proud of is that only rarely will you see me simplify the issue.”

You don’t have to accept my characterization of him. You have to accept what you can see with your own two eyes when it comes to the law.

All I've seen with my own two eyes, as far as facts in evidence in the United States, is a divorce decree between Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barak Hussein Obama, Sr. Every understanding of the meaning, of the Constitutional term "natural born citizen," deals with "parents" only. Marriage is not mentioned.

You're going out on a limb, tangentially, assuming that the British would use their Nationality Act to render a child born nearly 50 years ago, a bastard, on the basis of a customary, tribal marriage that thus far has no legal record evidenced. It's not as if anyone is making a spurious claim of British citizenship, here. Obama is at pains to avoid it.

And, British citizenship for Obama, Jr. is not the central problem for him; British citizenship for Obama, Sr. is the central problem for him, because that makes his father an alien.

Apuzzo is arguing that Obama is a British Citizen.

Why don’t you scroll down and read what it means to be a father according to British law.

http://ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nichapter37/ch37annexc?view=Binary

IF you want to make the claim that Sr was NEVER married to Kezia- which I think is ridiculous...then go ahead and do so..but don’t pretend that UK citizenship law didn’t address Bigamist marriages. It did because they knew this was practiced in some of their colonies.

They had different classes of citizens and their law is quite complicated.

But one thing is for certain, the parents HAD TO BE MARRIED.

Here is more discussion of this

http://wapedia.mobi/en/History_of_British_nationality_law#3

To ignore the fact that a bigamous marriage has an effect on the analysis borders on malpractice.

The effect upon US natural born citizen status is the only issue that matters. Everything else is tangential. Obama has admitted, upon information and belief, that he was a citizen of Kenya, and the only way that is true, is that he was born a British citizen. His father, it cannot be argued, was definitely a British citizen, and this is the central problem, an alien father.

Again, his father was an alien. That is the problem.

Marriage, the lack of it, or the excess of it is not the problem. Even if it were, there was a legally recognized marriage in the US, as demonstrated by the divorce decree being granted.

You will not see a divorce undone, and a marriage essentially annulled after the fact, in order to make a child a bastard. Even if this bizarre extreme were to be pursued, you do not have legal proof of any customary, tribal marriage in Kenya. And so, you will not see a foreign government intervene, to strip their citizenship from a foreign head of state, in order to make him a bastard, either.

What is actionable, and what is fantasy or speculation, has been the problem on FR and elsewhere, with pinning this whole thing down. I’ve participated myself on occasion, but am trying mightily to put a stop to it now.

I have something for you to think about.
http://ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nichapter37/ch37annexc?view=Binary

Read the bottom of this chart.

Legitimate or Legitimated.

The section of the 1948 law that you referenced to me used the word legitimated. This means...illegitimate at birth but legitimated through subsequent marriage.

So does that section even apply..since the marriage was void at inception and there never was a subsequent marriage?

If you were already illegitimate at time of the bigamist marriage in Hawaii...would that law operate to legitimize you?

But this concept is not even relevant because the supposed marriage was before he was born.

It is a complicated matter and one that every attorney latching onto clients had better be familiar with before representing to their prospective client that Obama was or still is a UK citizen.

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.