Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Greenperson

101(b)(1)(B) a stepchild, whether or not born out of wedlock, provided the child had not reached the age of eighteen years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred;

http://www.visaportal.com/page.asp?page_id=139


474 posted on 08/02/2010 10:22:25 AM PDT by MissTickly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies ]


To: MissTickly; Greenperson

See also post # 316!!!


477 posted on 08/02/2010 11:17:14 AM PDT by danamco (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies ]

To: MissTickly

Thanks. What’s odd is that the person requested them to find out whether SAD’s son is the “applicant’s child” under that section. Not stepchild. Child. The part about “whether or not born out of wedlock” is interesting.

I assume they asked about “child” because Lolo stated that the child will come to Indonesia with her and if it’s his biological child, maybe they can get the hardship exception based upon that.

So was this bureaucrat asking whether the child was Lolo’s biological child, although born while she was married to someone else? Under what other condition would he NOT be Lolo’s stepchild? They already knew SAD and Lolo were married, so any child she had would be his stepchild, unless the child was REALLY Lolo’s child.

So on a technicality, perhaps, his biological son is classified as his stepson, because the child was born while the wife was married to someone else?

Could this be what was so embarrassing that it had to be sanitized from Obama’s passport files and redacted from Lolo’s files, because it would violate Obama’s privacy and serve no public purpose, in their opinion?

That perhaps he was born in Hawaii but not to the father he claims?

However, for natural born citizenship, it matters not whether his true father was Lolo or BHO Sr., because neither was a US citizen. So I think the truth does serve the public’s interest.

They have to be talking about Obama’s privacy interests because Lolo and SAD are deceased. They have no privacy to protect anymore.

Here’s the other section of the law they reference:
http://www.visalaw.com/IMG/212e.pdf


478 posted on 08/02/2010 11:17:57 AM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson