LOL the Son is still the son of the father, and even Obama admits, the laws of Britain governed his birth. Thats on FactCheck right?
I don’t care what FactCheck said or what any of these lawyers have said that bring cases up to the Supreme Court claiming Obama is a British Citizen IF you want to make that argument you better damn well show the exception to the law about out of wedlock births.
Got one?? NO, you don’t. I haven’t seen one an exception. HAVE YOU????
No British citizenship if born on US soil unless Ann went to Kenya and got married..and even then there will be questions as to the legality of the marriage because of the customary versus statutory marriage laws.
Anyone who doesn’t address these issues shows they haven’t done proper research or is intentionally ignoring the law to fit an agenda. Something the Dems are quite good at..you should want to do better than that.
As for the argument that she should have gotten an annulment...doesn’t matter. Marriage was void not voidable. There is a great reason for her to have gotten a divorce instead of an annulment.
She would have had to have claimed one or both parties lied when they got the marriage certificate -which would have screwed up Obama’s plans. Her first divorce decree was very important as shown in the documents surrounding Lolo’s immigration.
How ironic that Ann claimed in a passport application that she got married to Lolo before she was even divorced from Obama. Lolo couldn’t even remember his own wedding date when asked about it.
Marriages of convenience to suit a cover story.
“LOL the Son is still the son of the father, and even Obama admits, the laws of Britain governed his birth.”
You continue a pattern of refusing to acknowledge the law to suit your agenda.
READ THE LAW THAT APPLIED TO OBAMA
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
ESPECIALLY THIS :
(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.
If you cannot comprehend what that means..it means that a child must be legitimate but Section 23 adds a supplement to what it means to be legitimate.
To wit:
23.—(1) A person born out of wedlock and legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents shall, as from the date of the marriage or of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, be treated, for the purpose of determining whether he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or was a British subject immediately before the commencement of this Act, as if he had been born legitimate.
(2) A person shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents if by the law of the place in which his father was domiciled at the time of the marriage the marriage operated immediately or subsequently to legitimate him, and not otherwise