Replies

However, I’m sure BHO lost his citizenship in 1967 (as is Berg as you see if his filing footnote references)

Berg doesn't know how to read.

Berg only read as far as this:

Sec. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by--

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person

Berg completely overlooked the proviso that immediately followed:

Sec. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by--

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person; Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years or as the result if a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under the age of twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday

So tell me, how old was Obama when he went to Indonesia? Six? I believe that's under the age of twenty-one years. And how old was he when he returned to the United States and established permanent residence here? Ten? I believe that's under the age of twenty-five years.

If Berg actually read the statute, how could he have missed the proviso which clearly states that Obama could not have lost his US citizenship even if he were naturalized as a citizen of another country, or if his mother had become naturalized as a citizen of another country?

Did Berg even read the statute? Or, like virtually everything else in his lawsuit, did he just dredge it up off the Internet somewhere without performing the least bit of due diligence?

Is Berg little more than a quack attorney?

MM:”Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years or as the result if a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under the age of twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday.”

I am not so sure that this distinctly covers the case when someone is adopted by a native of the foreign country. The first part obviously does not apply (”result of the naturalization of a parent or parents”) because his adopted father - assuming he was adopted - was not naturalized. And the second condition is questionable as to whether it applies either (”result if a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person...by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent”). If BHO was adopted, there was no naturization applied for. He became a citizen by parentage. At least that is how I believe the US would handle an adoption of a foreign child and I assume this is the case for Indonesia as well.

I think the statute that you quote only applies to children of parents/guardians that become naturalized in a foreign country (are not native born) and desire their offspring to take on citizenship along with themselves.