You’ve bought into theories published by sources interested in muddying the water and not enlightening the situation.
For example, the current administration proudly trumpets its policy guidance against the issuance of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality to minors. The fact is this policy is contrary to the policy of SoS Dean Rusk.
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.
Obama had the opportunity to recover his U.S. Citizenship, but he chose not to. With the opportunity to recapture his U.S. Citizenship and natural born citizenship status past him, Obama chose to participate in the naturalization process when he was in his early 20’s. He naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983.
All of these facts can be verified by examining his naturalization file at USCIS. Obama can fill out a one-page form and pay a small fee to make this file public, but chooses not to. Your anger is misdirected at me. Obama is lying to you. I’m telling you the truth.
why do you guess he chose NOT to recapture his citizenship ?
bttt
Sven....did you ever find when and how he changed his name
PoAre you basing your information on post #18, or do you have other documents that you can scan in (in ONE layer ;) ) and POST here?
Please post em if you’ve got em :)
......” Obama had the opportunity to recover his U.S. Citizenship, but he chose not to. With the opportunity to recapture his U.S. Citizenship and natural born citizenship status past him, Obama chose to participate in the naturalization process when he was in his early 20’s. He naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983.
All of these facts can be verified by examining his naturalization file at USCIS. Obama can fill out a one-page form and pay a small fee to make this file public, but chooses not to. Your anger is misdirected at me. Obama is lying to you. I’m telling you the truth.”
If i amwere not mistaken, This file cannot be obtained unless
A) the named person gives permission
or
B) there is a subpeona issued for it
Since a) is highly unlikely, then b) remains a possibility.
Unless somebody that works in the Records department at USCIS...
Peeked.
Post em if you’ve got em :)
Show the whole world you are correct.
“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]