|
Barry’s mom COULD have applied to become a UK citizen Not a citizen, a British subject, as that's how British nationality law was until 1982. HOWEVER, it's a moot point. AGAIN, since you like quoting US v. Ark, does it say to apply TODAY'S citizenship laws OR references used at the time the Constitution was written by the Framers? “In particular, the Court noted the Constitution's requirement that the President be a “natural-born citizen,” |
“Not a citizen, a British subject, as that’s how British nationality law was until 1982.”
If Obama’s parents had desired, or if Obama desired, he could have applied to the British government and, as a child of a British citizen, he would have been registered as a British citizen. This is similar to my sister, who was born in Germany while my parents were stationed there in the 50s. If my Mom had been German (she wasn’t), and if she had divorced my Dad (she didn’t) and remained in Germany and raised my sister there, my sister would have been a German.
This is pretty thin stuff for overturning a national election! And if a lawyer argued that Obama’s loyalty was divided between the USA & the UK, he would be laughed out of court. NO ONE believes Obama has any loyalty to the UK!
You also write, “AGAIN, since you like quoting US v. Ark...”
Actually, I have NEVER quoted whatever case you are citing - but that would interfere with your preprogrammed talking points!
Red Steel wrote: “Here’s a fact. Obama received British citizenship at birth and became a Kenyan citizen a couple of years later.”
Horseshit. Kindly show me Obama’s British or Kenyan passport or citizenship papers. You want a court to overturn a national election because Obama REALLY FEELS BRITISH!
Obama has a screwed up mind, but anyone who claims he has a foreign allegiance to the UK is insane. Likewise, while he has some mild fondness for Kenya, he lets his half-brother live in a slum there. No, Obama doesn’t think of himself as a subject of Kenya!
El Gato writes, “The supposed foreign birth was a red herring, and distracted the public, the reporters and even the opposition, from examining his father’s citizenship status.”
You cannot have one without the other. If anyone had cared about his father’s status, they would have been alerted to the possible conflict by the concerns about Arthur’s birth. But no one cared.
It was also a point made in a case presented to the Supreme Court in Dec 2008...I think you will remember how quickly Obama’s election was overturned then!
Candor7 writes “You select facts and therefore you have NONE. Get lost , idiot.”
You can’t find much stronger reasoning than that!
MestaMachine complains that I said that “ANYONE who was a citizen at the time of Adoption (“No person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...”) could become President...”, and calls it “That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever seen on any thread on this issue whether you agree or disagree with anything else ever said on any of them.”
Sorry, but it is true. If a court looks at the meaning of natural born citizen, they will conclude born in America suffices. In part because anyone who was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted was allowed to be President, regardless of where he was born. If that was true - and it was, read the Constitution - then it is hard to argue that someone should be removed from office because his father wasn’t born in the USA, or a US citizen. If at one time a person born abroad could be President, then being born naturally in the US with a father who wasn’t a citizen is probably OK too.
You will note that many cases have been brought, and none have gone anywhere. The LTC in this thread has no case!
I also find it a bit odd to see someone who joined FR in 2008 calling me an impostor. As impostors go, I’ve been around a long time - Aug 1998, with over 11,000 comments.