WAS OBAMA ONCE AN INDONESIAN CITIZEN? HERE’S WHAT WE FOUND WHEN WE WENT THERE LOOKING

The Blaze ^ | November 5, 2012 | Charles C. Johnson

[little jeremiah]

IMHO the only hope is a mil. coup against the usurper.

[rxsid]

"you fail yourself one question

how did Sven see it......

the answer is in his writin’s"

I failed to ask myself no such question.

Sure it's possible Sven has seen it...if it exists. (note "possible" and "if").

Again...

Sven may have seen Barry's Certification of Naturalization. However, it's 100% meaningless for determining Barry's eligiblity to be the Commander in Chief because *no* court will order discovery on it. You know damn well it won't happen. So, seen it, didn't see it...doesn't matter. If it exists, it might as well not exist. Nobody will see it in a court of law. The only way it will be known outside of the gatekeepers and Barry...is if it's presented to the public via (presumably) illegally gotten means. I believe Sven has already stated he will not post it online, (assuming he could even get a copy of it).

So unless you know of someone else who can get a hold of this elusive alleged document(s) and is willing to post it online somewhere...it's only interesting for speculation and "what if" purposes here.

It's literally (like others), the Loch Ness Monster of documents for Barry.

[rxsid]

"The king of Thailand would undoubtedly a much better president that the steaming pile currently in the WH."

It amazes me how many people in this country, including so called conservatives, beleive that people like the King of Thailand are eligibile to be our President and Commander in Chief based only on having been born here (to a foreign father), completely ignoring their owed allegience to another country.

b.t.w. There are some similarities to Barry's story, with the King of Thailand...in that King Bhumibol Adulyadej's father, then Prince Mahidol Adulyadej, went to Harvard to study as a citizen (royalty, in fact) of a foreign country.

[rxsid]

"IMHO the only hope is a mil. coup against the usurper."

As terrible as that would be, for our country and our Constitution, that is probably the only way this Constitutional crisis would end. Ironically, one Constitutional crisis to remove another. However, I pray it never comes to that.

Our elected "representatives" have failed us, and will continue to fail us.
The courts have failed us, and will continue to fail us.
The media has failed us and will continue to fail us.

[WildHighlander57]

OK what I’ve found so far is at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/109065.PDF

Page 1 says parents or legal guardians cannot renounce or relinquish the nationality of their children or wards. References 7 FAM 1290 for guidance on loss of nationality and minors. (I will post this one separately).

Page 3 in section g says the expatriating act needs to be done overseas.

Page 5 in section (4) it says for guidance on documentation required for loss of nationality cases prior to 1984, consult the Ask-CS-L-Dom-Post@state.gov.

On pages 6 and 7 it talks about who approves the CLN.

Section b (1) at the top of page 6 says its the division chief in the office of American citizen services and Crisis Management (CA/OCS/ACS )
And in (3) (c) it says they have to go to yet another department in cases involving minors.

Section a on Page 7 says secretary of state has authority to determine whether a person not in the u.s. is a u.s.citizen

[WildHighlander57]

OK here’s the FAM 1290 link:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120538.pdf

CA/OCS/L is the Consular Affairs office of Overseas Citizens Services office of Legal affairs.
(Not sure what L/CA is )

Here’s the section about minors: note page 2 section i (1), (2).

Section 2 says “children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent” in regards to renouncing citizenship.

I will post the full text in the next post.

[little jeremiah]

Actually, we don’t need a mil. coup. The commie/Islamists already done DID a coup. What we need is the mil who take their oath to the Constitution seriously to restore our Constitutional Republic.

[WildHighlander57]

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7―Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1290 Page 1 of 12 7 FAM 1290 MINORS, INCOMPETENTS, PRISONERS, PLEA BARGAINS, CULTS AND OTHER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES (CT:CON-407; 06-29-2012) (Office of Origin: CA/OCS/L) 7 FAM 1291 INTRODUCTION (CT:CON-285; 03-06-2009) This subchapter addresses somewhat unusual questions that arise regarding loss of nationality. These are situations that consular officers should bring to the attention of the Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services (CA/OCS) to obtain specific guidance not provided in 7 FAM 1200. 7 FAM 1292 LOSS OF NATIONALITY AND MINORS (CT:CON-407; 06-29-2012) a. Occasionally, CA/OCS or a post abroad will receive an inquiry from the parent of a child born in the United States who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth protesting the “involuntary” acquisition of U.S. citizenship. b. Jus soli (the law of the soil) is a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes. The 14th Amendment states, in part, that: All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. c. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based and, in particular, the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. d. Children born in the United States to diplomats accredited to the United States are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and do not acquire U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment or the laws derived from it (see 7 FAM 1111 d (3) and 7 FAM 1100 Appendix J (Under Development)). e. Parents or guardians cannot renounce or relinquish the U.S. citizenship of U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7―Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1290 Page 2 of 12 a child who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth. f. A minor who was naturalized through naturalization of parent prior to the Nationality Act of 1940 did not lose citizenship unless voluntary transfer of allegiance by the minor was shown. Any such finding of loss of nationality under the Act of 1907 would now be subject to administrative review in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Afroyim v. Rusk and Vance v. Terrazas. (See 7 FAM 1230.) g. Age limitations in the INA: INA 349(a)(1), INA 349(a)(2) and INA 349(a)(4) contain specific provisions limiting their applicability to a person “having attained the age of eighteen years.” No finding of loss of nationality may be made for these acts committed by a person under the age of eighteen. h. Child soldiers: INA 349(a)(3) does not include a reference to age. If a case comes to a consular officer’s attention of a “child soldier” serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States, the post should immediately bring the matter to the attention of CA/OCS/L (Ask-OCS-L-Dom-Post@state.gov) which will confer with the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Consular Affairs (L/CA) and provide the post with specific guidance on how to proceed. The post should include the name of the child, date and place of birth, proof of U.S. citizenship and information available regarding the foreign military service. The e-mail alert should be followed by a formal cable report. (See also 7 FAM 1270.) NOTE: INA 351(b) (8 U.S.C. 1483) provides that a national who within six months after attaining the age of eighteen years asserts his claim to U.S. nationality, in such manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe, shall not be deemed to have lost United States nationality by the commission, prior to his eighteenth birthday, of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (3) and (5) of Section 349(a) of this title.” i. Renunciation of U.S. citizenship and minors: (1) Consult CA/OCS/ACS: Whenever you receive a request to renounce from a minor you immediately must contact CA/OCS/ACS. CA/OCS/ACS will not approve a Certificate of Loss of U.S. Nationality (CLN) for a minor without the concurrence of CA/OCS/L, and appropriate consultation with L/CA; (2) Voluntariness and intent: Minors who seek to renounce citizenship often do so at the behest of or under pressure from one or more parent. If such pressure is so overwhelming as to negate the free will of the minor, it cannot be said that the statutory act of expatriation was committed voluntarily. The younger the minor is U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7―Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1290 Page 3 of 12 at the time of renunciation, the more influence the parent is assumed to have. Even in the absence of any evidence of parental inducements or pressure, you and CA must make a judgment whether the individual minor manifested the requisite maturity to appreciate the irrevocable nature of expatriation. Absent that maturity, it cannot be said that the individual acted voluntarily. Moreover, it must be determined if the minor lacked intent, because he or she did fully understand what he or she was doing. Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent; (3) Interviewing a minor: When conducting the initial interview with a minor and during the renunciation procedure, you should have at least one other person present. The parents and guardians should not be present. As noted, the interview should take place in the presence of the consular officer and a witness, preferably another consular officer, another Foreign Service officer (nonconsular) or locally employed staff (LE staff). You should also explain that upon reaching the age of 18, the minor has a six-month opportunity to reclaim U.S. nationality. See 7 FAM Exhibit 1292, A Sample Letter to Accompany CLN for Minor Renunciants, which should be provided to minor renunciants together with an approved CLN; (4) Consular officer’s opinion: You should fully document every interaction with the minor and explain in your consular officer’s opinion the reasons you believe that the minor is, or is not, mature enough and sufficiently knowing to renounce.

[Seizethecarp]

Per SvenMagnussen:

“Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio could go to Maricopa County resident Janet Napolitano’s home with a search warrant. Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and custodian of immigration records.”

This statement demonstrates a woeful lack of understanding of constitutional rights, criminal procedure and administrative law. No judge would ever issue such a warrant to a Sheriff for a search of the DHS Secretary’s home (or anyone’s) for records that would be in violation of Obama’s personal privacy and that aren’t even Napolitano’s home!

This statement alone should call into question any reliance on anything SvenMagnussen has ever posted, especially his/her statement: “let me just say you will have to trust me” in comment 41.

[WildHighlander57]

See my replies with the FAM document excerpts.

Renunciation cannot be done by parents/guardians on behalf of children/wards

children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity to renounce citizenship.

O was only 7 years old in 1968.

[WildHighlander57]

You, dear sir/ma’am, have hit the bullseye!

Why indeed would nappolitano keep USCIS documents at her home office?

[Seizethecarp]

“If a person included or to be included in the passport or documentation has, since acquiring US citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state; taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state ... the portion which applies should be struck out.”

“REMOVED: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (SOEBARKAH).”

This comment by Fred Nerks invites the false conclusion that BHO (Soebarkah) was “REMOVED” consistent with the instructions quoted above.

While BHO (Soebarkah) was removed from SADOS’s passport, there is no proof that it was due to any of the disqualifiers in the quote above.

In fact the instruction above told SADOS to strike out any terms (draw a line through any terms) that would disqualify herself or Barry from being on the passport or require attachment of an explanation.

SADOS did not strike out anything before she signed the sworn statement. Therefore, she was affirming that neither she nor Barry had “since acquiring US citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state; taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state...”

What Fred Nerks has posted is SADOS’s sworn statement that Barry had NOT been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state” or she would have been required to strike (draw and line through) that text before swearing to it.

Those of us who have signed lots of legal documents have been through this. You strike out (draw a line through) any text that you are not agreeing to when you sign a sworn document whether in real estate, divorce agreements, negotiated settlements, to name a few where I have done this.

There is no instruction to go to another page and list the name of a person who is disqualified and strike lines through the name. The instructions say "the portion which applies should be struck out"...the PORTION of text, not the name.

[Seizethecarp]

“In the late 60’s, SoS Rusk issued Certificates of Loss of Nationality to minors. Some sued in U.S. Federal Court to recapture their U.S. Citizenship and most did not fight it. Of those that did not fight it, they were notified of their right to recapture their U.S. Citizenship until 6 months after their 18th birthday.”

Actually, in 1967 Rush lost a case, Afroyim v. Rusk, in which SCOTUS ruled: “Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof.”

Clearly no “Certificates of Loss of Nationality to minors” could be issued by Rusk under a statute passed by Congress in 1968 at the time SvenMagnussen claims, which is after this decision.

Neither does Indonesia have the right to expatriate a US citizen with their law.

In the Elg case SCOTUS had already ruled that parents can’t expatriate and cancel the NBC status of a child, such as taking a child to Indonesia to be adopted and naturalized. Elg was not required to naturalize on her return to the US after she had been taken out of the US and naturalized in Scandinavia.

See:

Afroyim v. Rusk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court ruled in Afroyim’s favor in a 5-4 decision issued on May 29, 1967. The opinion of the Court—written by Associate Justice Hugo Black, and joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Jr., and Abe Fortas—was grounded in a revival of Warren’s dissent nine years earlier in Perez.[39][40][41] The new ruling held that “Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof.”[42] Specifically repudiating the precedent set in Perez,[43][44] the majority of the justices rejected the claim that Congress had any power to revoke citizenship[45] and said that “no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty”.[33] Instead, the justices held that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution defined “a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it” and which, once acquired, “was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.”[46][47]

The Court found support for its position in the history of the proposed Titles of Nobility Amendment, which had sought to revoke the citizenship of any U.S. citizen who accepted a gift or honor from a foreign government (but which was never ratified by the states and never became part of the Constitution).[15] The fact that this 1810 proposal was framed as a constitutional amendment, rather than an ordinary act of Congress, was seen by the majority as showing that, even before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress did not believe that it had the power to strip U.S. citizenship from anyone.[48] The Court further noted that a proposed 1818 act of Congress would have provided a means of voluntary relinquishment of citizenship, but opponents had argued at the time that Congress had no authority to provide for expatriation.[49]

In their efforts to deal only with the foreign voting question at the heart of Perez v. Brownell, Afroyim and his ACLU advocates had studiously avoided any direct challenge to the idea that divided allegiance resulting from foreign naturalization might validly lead to loss of U.S. citizenship. Nevertheless, the Court’s Afroyim ruling went beyond even Warren’s restrained dissent from the Perez decision—holding instead that “The very nature of our government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.”[50][51]

[WildHighlander57]

Excellent analysis!

OK, now to do a research (with references ;) ) on under what circumstances would a parent or guardian lineout a minor child on the passport app.

[bluecat6]

"O was only 7 years old in 1968." And he was only 4 when his mother married an Indoensian citizen in March 1965 and only 5 when she MUST become an Indonesian citizen by law. How does a 5 year old whose family are citizens of one country not become a citizen of the same country? How?

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b4ec8.html

Article 7.

(2)With the exception as mentioned in para 1 the foreign woman who marries a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia also acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia one year after the marriage has been contracted , if within that one year her husband does not make a statement as to release his citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia.

Since Lolo did not renounce his citizenship SAD, in the eyes of Indonesia, became an Indonesian citizen in March 1966. This is automatic.

Another link that shows that this is an automatic action.

http://www.expat.or.id/info/familylaw.html

"If the foreign wife has not made such declaration to opt, she will nevertheless acquire Indonesian nationality after the first year of marriage, provided that the Indonesian husband has not in the meantime renounced his nationality. "

So how does the entire family become Indonesian citizens but the child not? It fails every logic test.

In all likelihood Obama was a legal, 100% Indonesian citizen - until 1971.

[bluecat6]

And most people have no idea how strikeouts work. Legal minds do but the average person has not a clue. SAD was not a lawyer.

[WildHighlander57]

“You wrote:

“Actually, in 1967 Rush lost a case, Afroyim v. Rusk, in which SCOTUS ruled: “Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof.”

Clearly no “Certificates of Loss of Nationality to minors” could be issued by Rusk under a statute passed by Congress in 1968 at the time SvenMagnussen claims, which is after this decision.”

Another good find!

Besides, 0 was only 7 years old in 1968 so too young to relinquish on his own (needed to be 16), and mom or guardian couldn’t do it for him.

[WildHighlander57]

What does Indonesian law say about the children of the foreign lady?

[bluecat6]

Can anyone explain why Obama Senior was needed in 1971?

How does a child immigrate from one country to another - without his parents doing so?

In 1971 Obama II immigrated from Indonesia to the US. That is a fact. How? How? How?

His mother did not immigrate back at the time. His step/adoptive father was not a citizen. Who was his guardian? How did he terminate his Indonesian ties?

As an alien father reclaiming his son Obama Senior could do that.

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b4ec8.html

“Article 17.

The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia is lost because of:

...
c.being recognized by an alien as his/her child if the person concerned has not reached the age of 18 and is not married yet and does not become stateless with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia;”

Obama senior provide a conduit to terminate Indonesian citizenship. To do this birth records would have be presented. They would have to match the likely faux divorce of 1964. Since this was probably ‘in the best interest of the child’ the state probably helped to ‘clean up the records’ in 1971. This is when documents were likely recreated and altered - at least the first time.

The events that lead to the immigration of Obama II from Indonesia to the US need to be answered once and for all. This event and its associated records should clear up a lot.

Ignore this fact and the tail chasing continues.

[WildHighlander57]

And what does u.s. law say about people that go to other countries and fill out citizenship apps or automatically become citizens of that country?

Probably it lets them do it, see the FAM posts I put up.

But the FAM documents don’t allow change of citizenship if child is younger than 16.

So I guess whatever citizenship 0 originally had, he kept.

And maybe also somehow got Indonesian along the way.