Has Soetoro renounced his Indonesian citizenship?
Posted on 09/03/2009 4:01:00 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen
A study of citizenship and nationality case law, statutes, treatises, and other sources shows that one acquires allegiance and loyalty through citizenship. Obama has admitted that under the British Nationality Act 1948 when he was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and not a U.S. citizen and that he himself was a British subject/citizen by descent from his father. Therefore, what is clear and established by his own factual admissions is that Obama cannot satisfy the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for he was born with allegiance and loyalty not only to the United States (assuming he was born here) but to the same degree also to Great Britain.
(Excerpt) Read more at oilforimmigration.org ...
- Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Barry is proving the logic of the Constitution’s natural born citizen requirement.
I replied in an earlier post;
“Alert! Obama is a communist plant who is not a legal natural born citizen, who surrounded himself with communist advisors, who was trained and planted by the Soviet Union in order to destroy the United States.
Look the other way, nothing to see here, move along.”
So what? We know all that already!
Stop talking and do something about it!
What’s really evident is that he lacks the quality of being culturally American: witness this ridiculous plan to appear in schools—while maybe the Indonesian dictator came on radio into his classroom as a child, he lacks the “ear” or is culturally deaf to the fact that this doesn’t belong in America. A President OUGHT to be occupied with more important matters; however, a dictator is never too busy for another public appearance.
September 3, 2009 at 2:13 am Dr. Conspiracy, I see that you are of the opinion that Leo did not learn from what you call “Mario’s mistake.” First, you surely did not explain in your post what my mistake is. Second, I made no mistake. I want to make it clear that under Article II, the circumstances surrounding Obama’s birth is what controls, for a would-be President must be a “natural born Citizen.” That is a status that is established at birth and not later in life. Obama has conceded that at his birth, his father was not a U.S. citizen but rather a British subject/citizen. He has also conceded that he was born a British subject/citizen by descent from his father. It is inconceivable that the Framers would have constitutionally allowed after 1789 (when the Constitution was adopted) for a child to be born a British citizen and subject to the power of the British Crown to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new nation. Hence, the argument can end there. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to show that Obama also continues being a British citizen. Such a showing is important because it reveals why the Framers required that the President be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and not just a “Citizen.” It also shows why an Article II “natural born Citizen” is one that is born on U.S. soil to parents who are also U.S. citizens, for only under such birth circumstances can a future President possess the Constitutional assurance that he or she will not be subject to any foreign power and will not be conflicted with any other nation’s allegiances and loyalties. Now on the question of Obama’s current British citizenship status, you will recall that we debated and posted our positions on the question of whether Obama is still a British citizen today. In April 2009 (updated in July), I posted an article arguing that today Obama continues being a British citizen. You disagreed and posted your position on this blog. At that time, you did concede that at his birth in 1961, Obama became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). You also conceded that at no time in his life did Obama ever renounce his British citizenship. You also conceded that Obama automatically acquired Kenyan citizenship under Article 87, Section 1 of the 1963 Constitution of Kenya on December 12, 1963, the day that Kenya became independent from Great Britain. You stated that he kept that Kenyan citizenship until age 21 (which the Birthers.org web site over a week ago showed it should be 23.) You then said that since he automatically acquired Kenyan citizenship, he lost his CUKC by way of Sections 2 and 3 of the Kenya Independence Act 1963 (KIA 1963). You did recognize that the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981) repealed Sections 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963. You also recognized that by such repeal, the question is presented whether Obama regained his CUKC. To further correct you, under the BNA 1981, his citizenship status would no longer be called CUKC, but rather British Overseas Citizen (BOC). To prove that Obama did not regain his British citizenship, you cited Section 35 of the BNA 1981 and argued as follows: “35. Circumstances in which British subjects are to lose that status. A person who under this Act is a British subject otherwise than by virtue of section 31 shall cease to be such a subject if, in whatever circumstances and whether under this Act or otherwise, he acquires any other citizenship or nationality whatever. [Section 31 deals with citizens if Ireland.] You then concluded that Obama is not a citizen of Kenya nor of Britain.” Again to correct you, your reliance on Sec. 35 is mistaken, for on close analysis we can see that Section 35 of BNA 1981 does not apply to Obama. Section 35 makes reference to Section 31 which provides: “Section 31 Continuance as British subjects of certain former citizens of Eire. (1) A person is within this subsection if immediately before 1st January 1949 he was both a citizen of Eire and a British subject. (2) A person within subsection (1) who immediately before commencement was a British subject by virtue of section 2 of the 1948 Act (continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects) shall as from commencement be a British subject by virtue of this subsection. (3) If at any time after commencement a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who is within subsection (1) but is not a British subject by virtue of subsection (2) gives notice in writing to the Secretary of State claiming to remain a British subject on either or both of the following grounds, namely— (a) that he is or has been in Crown Service under the government of the United Kingdom; and (b) that he has associations by way of descent, residence or otherwise with the United Kingdom or with any [F90 British overseas territory] , he shall as from that time be a British subject by virtue of this subsection. (4) A person who is a British subject by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) shall be deemed to have remained a British subject from 1st January 1949 to the time when (whether already a British subject by virtue of the said section 2 or not) he became a British subject by virtue of that subsection.” Section 35 does not apply to Obama, who was not “under this Act . . . a British subject.” Obama was a CUKC under the BNA 1948 and under Section 26 of the BNA 1981 would become a British Overseas Citizen (BOC) and not a British subject. Not being a British subject in any way under BNA 1981 let alone otherwise than under Section 31, Section 35 simply does not apply to Obama. With Section 35 failing to remove any CUKC (and BOC) status from Obama, there is no other provision in the BNA 1981 that does so. Hence, the point that you failed to properly addresses is that Obama regained his CUKC and therefore his BOC under the BNA 1981 when Section 9 of the BNA 1981 repealed Sections 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963. You do not cite to any law or section of the BNA 1981 that is in effect that supports your statement that “the BNA 1981 revoked the original grant of CUKC status to Obama.” There being no such law in existence unless you can show me that one so exists, logically, if the BNA 1981 repealed the law that took CUKC away from Obama then he regains that which was taken away, otherwise what would be the purpose of British Parliament in 1981 repealing Section 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963? If he regained his CUKC through the BNA 1981, it would be at the moment the Act went into effect. At that moment, Obama would have been a citizen with CUKC immediately before commencement. Hence, Obama would then have BOC under BNA 1981. All he has to do is apply to the British Home Secretary and he will have his British Overseas Citizen status officially confirmed. Both the United Kingdom and the United States permit dual citizenship. Hence, assuming that he was born in the U.S., Obama today is a “citizen” of the United States (which is different from an Article II “natural born Citizen” of United States) and a citizen of Great Britain. He is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. At his birth, Obama inherited from his British father an allegiance and loyalty to the British Crown. Just like a naturalized citizen who cannot be President because he or she is born with a foreign allegiance and is therefore born subject to a foreign power, Obama was also born subject to a foreign power and cannot be President. Needless to say, dual allegiance in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military presents a host of allegiance and national security problems. We cannot ignore these problems by simply arguing that an ordinary citizen can live comfortably with dual nationality problems, for an ordinary citizen is not faced with the myriad national and international problems with which a President and Commander in Chief is confronted. How can we allow Obama to have access to top secret national security information being the citizen of a foreign nation? How can we expect him to lead us in foreign affairs, lead our nation in the military theater, and negotiate and sign treaties with foreign powers when he was born with natural allegiance to and is a citizen of Great Britain, which is a member of the European Union? Are we supposed to put our faith in our chief military leader in time of war if he has allegiance to a foreign power that could be our enemy in the war? Do you not see the conflict of interest? Another problem is that should Obama be physically present or otherwise within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, the United States could not give him diplomatic help otherwise than he would be entitled to as a head of state. The Founders simply would not have Constitutionally allowed an individual such as Obama, who has divided political and military allegiances and loyalties (both to Great Britain and Kenya) which create in him a conflict of interest and potential for international intrigues and military and diplomatic problems, all which puts into jeopardy American national security, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
In the back of my mine I keep thinking...Why weren’t these points being made before the election?
Has Soetoro renounced his Indonesian citizenship?
Why weren’t these points being made before the election?
They were !! People didn’t care. They were all wanting “hope and change”, now many are regretting how they placed their vote on this “hope and change”.
Buck, I beg to differ....I’ve been following this information since, well before Berg filed his lawsuit against Obama et al*....Other then Berg and the cases that charged the SoS of states and the editorial by Dr. E. VIerei, about what would happen if BO was qualified and took office, the legal research was rather narrow in scope, supporting flawed cases, before the election.
It was just this MAY that scholars REALLY started digging into all the facets, particularly the “Father is not an AMerican Citizen”. The students from UConn just found their information recently. General statements were made, general research was done previously but the indepth legal research has been in the last six months.
*Report of eye witness observation.
1. It was not and is not in Hillary's interest to lose the black vote.
2. John McCain was also ineligible, so raising this issue was his destruction as well.
Your congresspeople are to blame for not enforcing the following passage from the twentieth amendment, section three:
”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Will each state’s Sec of State challenge Barry and the DNC when they apply for balloting in 2012? Did Barry and the DNC prevaricate on his 2008 applications when he (they) stated he was qualified? Did any congressman attempt to stand up and challenge the Electoral College final action under the gavel of VP Cheney? (All questions rhetorical, no, yes, and yes.)
Oh, I didn't realize that, please elaborate.
Barry Dunham-Soetoro, Pres_ent, no ID, of the United States
My theory on McCANE is so many Republican crossed over to get rid of Hillary that they didn't vet their own....Thank you Rush...It became an election of who not to elect instead of who is the best candidate.
In Indiana I have several friends who didn't particularly want McCane and thought there is no way that Obama would ever carry the state so they'd just go ahead a vote a “protest vote”.....some protest.
More emphasis should be put on congress lack of action. No laws have yet been passed designating who is responsible for vetting candidates. Some of the first cases were against State SoS, THE SCOTUS did the correct thing,by tabling the cases, because no where in their job description does it say the SOS of the state must vet the candidate, just collect the paperwork.
Problem is BO found the loopholes and are using them just as MO was reported to have said in the African Interview...that just didn't ever appear.
Alinsky’ rule says to use their own laws against them and that's exactly what the SBO did. (that's not a typo Senator B Obama....or Senator, Obama Barak (no “C” at the time)
I think you are on to the real issue. Did Barry Soetoro actually become an Indonesian citizen, and if he did, did this require him to renounce his U.S. Citizenship?
If he did both of these things, then I would think he would have to be naturalized to regain his citizenship, making him clearly not a natural born citizen, and perhaps even an illegal alien (if papers were not filed).
I think the “his father was a subject of the UK” argument holds no water. The immigration and naturalization laws of other nations are not relevant to ours. If our laws say you are a U.S. citizen by birth, it doesn’t matter what claims other nations might assert.
Suppose the UK had a law that if one of your great, great grandparents was born in the UK, you were considered a subject of the UK. Would a man born in US, whose family all came over on the Mayflower and fought in the Revolution, except for one, great, great grandparent, who was born in London, would that man not be a natural born citizen?
Soetoro-Obama was never effectively under the authority of the UK. Assuming he actually was born in Hawaii, he was a U.S. Citizen. Could the UK or Kenya force him to pay taxes? Could he have been drafted into military service by the UK or Kenya? Would our government have turned him over to the UK or Kenya for failing to pay those taxes or report for military service? Of course not.
That said, I do think Obama-Soetoro’s presidency violates the spirit of the natural born citizen clause. His father a foreigner who lived here briefly and never became a citizen. He adopted by another foreign national and took that foreign national’s last name and lived with him in a foreign country (that is not particularly friendly to us) for about 5 years, during his formative years.
The American people should have rejected such a candidate, due to his insufficient ties and loyalty to our nation. But, technically, (assuming he was really born in Hawaii and never renounced his citizenship) he is a natural born citizen, IMHO.
Regardless, if Obama was born in Hawaii then Indonesian citizenship, if he actually had it, would not impact his U.S. citizenship.
I'm convinced that the democrats helped McCANE get the nomination...and McCane was compliant.
Based on your analysis, what was his nationality at birth?
Its frightening to comprehend that of all of the accountable real evidence of not one or two but much more than any single reason this idiot trying to be a leader of America that there is no one strong enough to challenge him, I’m sure the FBI, CIA DOJ or any other branch of the government is fully aware of this impostor and yet they continue to let him rant and rave his Marxist anti-American rhetoric.
There is no promising future with him in office, there is lessening hope and decreasing confidence in any Federal influence, people will passively protest in any way they can to show their utter disdain at the government, by allowing this usurper to remain in office its creating a divided America and very very soon there will be retaliation.
Parents will be theatened with removal from homes if they fail to comply with mandates that children must follow as set forth by Obama’s guidelines.
Obama will look ahead to creating followers of the future by removing obstacles now, mark my words there will be plans to remove Americas children from their families, be it in the name of health concerns, retaliations against right wing families or just for the pure fun of it to get neighbors to shoot each other up.
There are a lot of Muslims just eagerly anticipating to move into a deserted crushed America, to move into our homes, to drive our vehicles.
Obama is a Muslim, Islam will invade a country like rectal cancer.
“Based on your analysis, what was his nationality at birth?”
Since he was born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Republic of Panama, he is a Panamanian.
He is also a U.S. citizen because of his parents’ nationality. He is a dual citizen.
Actually, since he was born in the Republic of Panama, he can run for president of Panama with no problem except he would be laughed out of the country. No one here would want him.
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.