Here we go again...
hold on tight GigglyPuff;
Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition
Under Jus Soli, the following is written “The Supreme Court’s first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court held, mean “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.” Most Indians could not meet the test. “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102.
It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the ‘Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.
The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.
The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction is a requirement. Not partial, not to some degree, not to anything but complete, undivided, not contested, not polluted.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Yep there you go again.
“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
____________________________________________________________
You might find this post by “Beckwith” of interest, as follows:
re: “His Kenyan citizen lapsed when he turned 21...”
It did not.
The (factcheck) report is not accurate as to Obama’s historical British Subject status in that the implication exists that British subject status was lost along with British citizenship back in 1963.
The proof of this exists in the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) which states in Section 2(1):
2.(1) On and after the appointed day, the British Nationality Acts 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if-
(a) in section 1(3) of the said Act of 1948 (which provides for persons to be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens by virtue of citizenship of certain countries) there were added at the end the words “ and Kenya “ ;
Now we must look at the British Nationality Act of 1948, Section 1:
1.-(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.
(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression British subject and the expression Commonwealth citizen, shall have the same meaning.
(3) The following are the countries herein before referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.
According to the KIA, the words — and Kenya — are added to subsection (3) making all Kenyan citizens also British Subjects upon “the appointed day”, December 12, 1963.
First, Obama herein before could not have lost his Kenyan Citizenship on August 4, 1982. This means his foreign nationality issues were not only governed by the Kenyan Constitution, but — as of January 1, 1983 — he was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1981.
AND SO OBAMA WAS A BRITISH COMMONWEALTH CITIZEN AFTER THE BNA OF 1981 took effect Jan 1 1983, AND SO HE STILL IS, since he was not only governed by KIA63.
The obfuscation tactic is to make it seem as if his citizenship vanished, but it did not. Obama is STILL a British Citizen.
117 posted on Monday, January 11, 2010 2:45:31 PM by Beckwith (A “natural born citizen” — two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
STE=Q