INS DOC FOUND: U.S. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE EAST AFRICAN-BORN CHILD OF U.S. CITIZEN IN 1961!

IMPLICATIVE DISCOVERY: A government document found buried in the online reference section of a Boston Public Library archive bolsters a growing mountain of evidentiary data against Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president. The document indicates that a consular officer issued a single certificate of statutory citizenship, within the time frame including August 4, 1961, to a child born to a U.S. citizen between July 1st and December 31st, 1961 in the Kenyan region of Africa. The record also reveals that the certificate was the only one issued for this specific type of arrival in the U.S. over a span of more than 18 months, among thousands from other parts of the world.

NEW YORK, NY – A recently discovered rare immigration record found by researchers working on behalf of an ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency reveals that an American consular officer issued a single Certificate of Citizenship to only one passenger arriving in the U.S. from the Kenyan region of Africa between July and December of 1961.

The record shows demographic and status classifications for a passenger who was explicitly recorded at the INS Arrival Inspection Station as an individual being born to a U.S. citizen parent arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st and December 31st, 1961.

This information and the dates of its documentation are disturbing given the rare nature of the issuance of certificates of citizenship for children who acquire their citizenship by birth to incoming U.S. citizens in this particular region of Africa.

These dates not only align with the alleged date of Obama’s birth on August 4, 1961, but also with evidence indicating that Ann Dunham departed from Hawaii beginning in February, 1961, shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama Sr.

Also supported by this data is the implication of an African trip by the absence of Dunham’s passport information which is known to have existed from the 1960s which was used in at least one occasion for her departure with Obama Jr. to Indonesia where the two lived with Lolo Soetoro, Dunham’s second husband. If Dunham had filed for a “renewal” of an old passport, rather than for a new passport in the mid 1960’s for the Indonesian trip, which would have been the common practice for the life of a passport, this would have been indicated on the missing application which would have been included with the series of documents released by an FOIA request in early 2010.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service published its annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1963, for the year of July 1st, 1961 ending on June 30th, 1962. According to information on page 99 of the report the only certificate of acquired citizenry issued based on the grounds of birth to a U.S. citizen abroad was coincidentally also issued in the same time frame during which Barack Obama’s alleged birth date occurred on August 4th, 1961.

http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/99/mode/1up

According to the INS, Certificates of Citizenship are issued upon arrival in the U.S. to those who have acquired statutory citizenship (not natural-born citizenship) by birth to at least one U.S. citizen parent within the previous year while that parent(s) was temporarily in another country. COC are notifications provided by the American Consulate Service, via the INS, to individuals born to at least one U.S. citizen abroad in order to provide interim citizen alien status while immigration status is processed and secured. COC are not issued to natural-born citizens or children born to non-U.S. citizen parents arriving in the U.S., nor are COC received through the same process as required for naturalized citizenship, according to the INS.

http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/14/mode/1up

- born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one parent with “alien” non-citizen status, or
- born in the U.S. to two alien parents who both naturalize after the child’s birth, or
- born abroad to a U.S. citizen who did not live in (or come to) the United States for a period of time prior to the child’s birth, or
- adopted and is permanently residing in the United States and can become a U.S. citizen by action of law on the date on which all of the following requirements have been met:
- The child was lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and
- Either parent was a United States citizen by birth or naturalization; and
- The child was still under 18 years of age; and
- The child was not married; and
- The child was the parent’s legitimate child or was legitimated by the parent before the child’s 16th birthday (Stepchildren or children born out of wedlock who were not legitimated before their 16th birthday do not derive United States citizenship through their parents.); and
- If adopted, the child met the requirements of section 101(b)(1)(E) or (F) and has had a full and final adoption; and
- The child was residing in the United States in the legal custody of the U.S. citizen parent (this includes joint custody)

As previously reported by Dr. Jerome Corsi of WND and other sources, the void of documented and testimonial evidence accounting for Ann Dunham’s presence in Hawaii between February and early August of 1961 implies that she had reasons to travel to Kenya shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama’s alleged father in February of 1961. According to the widely accepted but highly suspicious uncorroborated account of events, Dunham would have been at least three months pregnant at the time of the marriage. The only evidence accounting for Dunham’s presence after August 1961 is a transcript of registration to attend fall extension classes at the University of Washington, in Seattle, beginning in late August, 1961.

The previous year’s INS report shows that no other Certificates of Derived Citizenry by birth were issued to anyone arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st, 1960 and June 30th, 1961. During this time, the INS recorded 282 alien arrivals from Kenya by air, and three U.S. citizens.

The arrival of these Kenyan aliens is corroborated by the African American Students Foundation Report of Activities 1959-1961 which documents the arrival of the same number of students in the U.S. on September 7, 1960 from Nairobi, Kenya via the second sortie of the Airlift America Project, a project initiated in April 1959 by the AASF and former Kenyan Prime Minister, Tom Mboya, to bring African students from Nairobi to study in the U.S.

Of the 2397 arrivals from Africa who were originally classified by the INS as “Aliens” between July 1, 1961 and June 30, 1962, only one was from Kenya. INS procedures dictate that arrivals under the age of 18 not possessing a U.S. passport are issued “alien” status until the alleged parents of the child are officially issued a Certificate of Citizenry. The Certificate of Citizenry can then be used in conjunction with state birth registration procedures to acquire a birth certificate for the child.

A COC is also considered a primary form of identification by the State of Hawaii in 1961 to prove a foreign born infant’s residency in the U.S. prompting the issuance of a standard Certificate of Live Birth under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 which would then allocate the location of the birth to the mother’s residence.

Corroborating data from passenger arrivals of flights entering the U.S. between July 1st, 1961 and June 30th, 1962 indicates this one individual may have been originally classified as an alien upon arrival prior to application for derivative citizenship. The INS report shows there was only one individual who was originally classified by the INS as an alien arriving by air from Kenya. This individual was possibly inspected by INS officers in Hawaii upon arrival at the INS station located within Honolulu International Airport sometime in early August of 1961.

Unfortunately, the report does not give data supporting that this individual was accompanied by a U.S. citizen parent. This may be explained by the disparity of time between being classified as an “alien” in the interim until a COAC was granted and the collection of data for this report’s date of publication.

According to the INS report data, a voluntary birth to a U.S. resident in Africa in 1961, away from the quality of care offered at U.S. hospitals was extremely rare with only eight such cases in more than two years. The rarity of this event would leave an easily referenced recording of the birth abroad. Hawaiian law also specifies that documentation used to issue birth certificates by the Hawaiian Health Department includes certificates of citizenship issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service upon arrival of children born to U.S. citizens abroad.

One has to believe that these two officials were motivated enough to jeopardize their jobs, their careers, their reputations.

And in order for you to believe that, you are assuming someone would take them with going to their superiors. Who would their superiors be? The courts won't/aren't allowed/don't even want to take it on.

You keep bringing up conspiracy, that's a key right there. It's not but is/could be out and out fraudulent. You, for reasons one could suspect, want to keep it in the conspiracy column.

If there was such a conspiracy, it cannot hold for very long. Even the Mafia turns on itself time after time.

Besides being wrong, there you go, again, with your 'conspiracy' mantra. Ever hear of family secrets going to the grave? Ever hear of Gotti? Ever hear 'if I tell you, I have to kill you.' So your 'time after time' is bogus as is your 'conspiracy' mantra.

And then if secrets where revealed, and perhaps they have been - you'd be saying it's 'conspiracy hearsay'. Right now you are in a 'lets drop it and wait for a secret to come out' stance. You don't play the game good.

IMO, I think the pix you insert in your posts is a conspiracy. But I'm not taken in by it.

'The British are coming, the British are coming'! "That's a conspiracy, I see no one coming, except the nut on a horse". God Bless the Patriots.

I would like to respond one more time to allegation that I am "naïve."

I'm not saying you are 'native' - far from it! Although, it might be a better option. But pride and all that jazz.

But the birth certificate would still indicate the actual place of his birth.

The Daily Pen articles have confused the issues of what the CDC does internally and what the state Depts of Health do. For instance, the claim that the “Place of Birth” on the birth certificate is listed as wherever the mother’s residence is. The birth certificates have a place for both mother’s residence and the location of the child’s birth. If not then you could end up with somebody having a BC from Kapiolani Hospital that supposedly happened in Lincoln, Nebraska (and there is no Kapiolani Hospital in Lincoln, NE).

The CDC in 1961 (according to their own records) received microfilms of the actual BC’s from all but 2 (IIRC) states. Those BC’s were prepared according to the states’ standards - most of the states, however, including all the items that the CDC recommended - which includes both the place of birth and questions about the mother’s residency (actual address and whether it was on a farm or plantation, for instance). The state health depts did not code anything. They just accepted the records from the registrars. They had nothing to do with the CDC’s internal codes, processing, or anything else.

When the CDC got the BC’s THEY (the CDC) coded the information using their own internal coding system. Because they wanted to tabulate (make tables) out of the data, they put both the birth place and the mother’s residency into different codes for use in their tables. Some of their tables sorted information by birth location and some sorted by the residence of the mother. Because they processed info from all over the country and figured that where the mother was living was where the child and mother would normally be living, most of their tables eventually sorted by mother’s residence. That’s because the health tracking the CDC was interested in doing was an issue totally separate from citizenship issues, etc. To track ongoing health issues, the important issue was where mother and child were LIVING, not where the child was born.

The Daily Pen has had repeated articles where it is claimed that the CDC’s internal codes govern how the state health departments actually made out their birth certificates - even to the point of saying that the BC’s would say that a BIRTH LOCATION was in Nebraska even if it was a Kapiolani BC. That is just absurd.

We can look at the processing manual for current BC’s to see the criteria for determining the County of Birth, etc, and it has nothing to do with the RESIDENCY of the mother.

This article is claiming that if a US citizen whose residence was Hawaii had her baby in Kenya, she could get a certificate of US citizenship for her child and then use that certificate to get Hawaii to issue a birth certificate saying that the child was actually born at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu because she’s a resident of Hawaii. The claim rests on the idea that Hawaii BC’s use mother’s residence to determine the location of the birth - which is mixing up the CDC’s job and internal protocols with the HDOH’s job and protocols.

If what the Daily Pen claims was actually the case there would be no need for Obama to forge anything.

I’ve been frustrated by The Daily Pen articles because they make conclusions that are not supported by the actual documents/records. This article is one example, but others have been similar.

For instance, the claim that the order of the birth announcements in the newspaper tells us what BC# was given. Anybody who’s analyzed the birth announcements knows that cannot be true because some births were announced in one paper 3 weeks before they were announced in the other paper. Some never were announced in the paper (like Virginia Sunahara). And some were announced in only one of the papers (the Nordyke twins).

Another example: that the BC’s were collected for a while and then sorted by location before being numbered. That’s the theory of John Woodman to try to explain away the BC# discrepancies and it dovetails with what The Daily Pen is claiming. Trouble is that Janice Okubo has said in a UIPA response that the HDOH almost always numbered BC’s the day the local registrar received them “date filed”, because most BC’s were from Oahu. Only on the outlying islands were BC’s collected for a month and then mailed to the HDOH for numbering. And that is what the law says was supposed to happen. Oahu registrars were to collect BC’s for a week and then submit them to the HDOH. So what The Daily Pen is saying contradicts what the HDOH has said. Which wouldn’t necessarily make them wrong, since the HDOh has been known to lie. But it turns out that the BC’s announced in the newspapers don’t fit the geographic numbering scheme proposed by Woodman or The Daily Pen.

Ultimately we’re not going to know what happened until we are able to audit the records and find out when (if ever) the HDOH has told us the truth about the records they have for Obama. Were Ann and Sr married? We don’t know. Was Obama a US citizen because he was born to a single Ann in Kenya or somewhere else? We don’t know. Was Obama reported by Madelyn Dunham as being born in Hawaii? We don’t know.

But what we can reasonably surmise is that there is a problem with Obama’s birth record, because if there wasn’t we wouldn’t be seeing the forgeries and the law-breaking by even government agencies.

I can’t see the embedded documents in this report well enough to know if they say that there was one person born in Kenya who was certified as a US citizen because he/she was born to a US citizen between July 1, 1961 and Aug 30, 1962. If there was and Ann was not even claiming to be married to Sr at that time, then Obama Jr could be the person referred to. But that would not get him a legitimate BC from Hawaii saying that he was born at Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii.

It’s been said that the 1980-ish law that allowed HI BC’s to be created for any child whose parents were HI residents for a year before the birth existed before that law was passed, by virtue of the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth option. But COHB’s had to be registered a year or more after the birth and had a totally different form and numbering to them. If a person had a COHB from 1961 and wanted to be able to get any printout from Hawaii they would have to surrender their COHB and convert their birth record to a LATE birth certificate. The BC# would have an L in front of it, the form itself would be different than a standard BC, and any printout (CertificaTION of Live Birth) would have DELAYED stamped on it. It would also not be prima facie evidence in a court of law.

Articles at The Daily Pen have claimed that the LOCATION OF BIRTH field on Hawaii birth certificates was based on the residency of the mother. As far as I can tell this is not true. Residency of the mother was used by the CDC to sort and calculate their statistics but that was all done internally by the CDC and had no impact on how the hospitals and/or HDOH filled in the data on the actual BC’s.

As far as I know there are no rules or laws in Hawaii that allow someone born in a different state or country to get a BC that falsely lists the place of birth as Hawaii. Not even for foreign-born children who are adopted in the US. Through lying and/or HDOH corruption this could happen, but not legally. For instance, late birth certificates including Certificates of Hawaiian Birth could be issued if the Lt Gov (?) was “convinced” by the evidence presented, so a corrupt official had the discretion to create BC’s at will. But those late BC’s have to be marked as DELAYED, the COHB’s are a different form and COLB’s can’t be made from them, and neither are prima facie evidence.

Later on, in 1982, a law was added to allow those born outside the state to get a HI BC if their parents while living outside the state had actually declared HI to be their residence for at least a year before the birth. Nowhere does it say that “Hawaii BC” means a BC saying that Hawaii was the birthplace. But having that provision makes a way for corrupt officials to accept lies about a birthplace, depending on the documentation that was or wasn’t required to prove the claim for the birth place.

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.