Posted on 04/27/2010 7:07:50 AM PDT by Menehune56
I cannot think of any other subject in recent American history that has been so mired in controversy, so factually misrepresented, mischaracterized and so misunderstood than the matter of the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to hold the office of President of the United States. Despite its importance, the topic has been summarily dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theorists by many, while others insist that the question of OBAMA’s citizenship has been “asked and answered.” But has it really been answered, and if not, why not?
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
The courts have made this declaration, and the law was modified in 1986 in accordance, however the law in place at the time Obama was in Indonesia did not specifically prevent a minor from renouncing his own citizenship.
From Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952: "A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality -
"(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 of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under 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: And provided further That a person who shall have lost nationality prior to January 1, 1948, through the naturalization in a foreign state of a parent or parents, may, within one year from the effective date of this Act, apply for a visa and for admission to the United States as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of section 101 (a) (27)(E); or
"(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof;"
This was amended in 1986 to say: "or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years" in part 1 and "after having attained the age of eighteen years" in part 2. So, when Obama would have been in Indonesia, U.S. law didn't not specifically prevent him from renouncing his citizenship, and it only prevented his loss of citizenship if his parents naturalized. Keep in mind, that Lolo Soetoro did not need to naturalize and in Indonesia, citizenship by adoption is considered the same as citizenship at birth (not naturalization). At a state department site on intercountry adoption it notes for outgoing adoptions to Hague convention countries, that children retain their U.S. citizenship. Indonesia is not one of the countries (and did not recognize dual citizenship), so there's a question as to whether U.S. citizenship is retained.
"A child being adopted from the United States to another Convention country retains his/her U.S. citizenship. He or she may also acquire the citizenship of the prospective adoptive parents depending on the citizenship status of the parents and the laws of the other Convention country.
The Foreign Affairs Manual has some great information in it.
Check out this link for information on a minor renouncing his citizenship ...
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120538.pdf
Be sure and look at page 10, 7 FAM EXHIBIT 1292, A SAMPLE LETTER TO ACCOMPANY CLN FOR MINOR RENUNCIANTS
You assume he formally renounced his US citizenship (before the age of 10!). Not very likely, is it?
Nor have you proof he became an Indonesian citizen. Nor would the Supreme Court uphold the idea that a child 10 years or less could effectively renounce his citizenship in the USA.
Further, you have no proof he returned to the US at the age of 10 as an Indonesian with an Indonesian passport. Even if he had, by living in the US from age 10 on, he would have reclaimed his US citizenship - see the case in the thread I posted to you...
Indonesia is non-Hague Convention country.
Indonesia was ruled as a dictatorship when Barry was living there. He absolutely would not have been allowed to become an Indonesian National if he had not renounced his US citizenship first.
He could have recovered his US citizenship at any time before he reached the age of 18 years and 6 months, but he would not have been able to attend college as a foreign national if he had done that.
The law in 1961 was such that if the mother had spent 5 yeras in the US after the age of 14, US citizenship would be automatic upon a child born out of the country if she was married to a foreigner.
She would have had to be 19 for him to automatically become a US citizen, if born in Kenya.
And that would have been a citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen.
The proof is in his Indonesian school record where is identified as an Indonesian national.
Additional evidence is derived from the fact that as an Indonesian refugee, Barry had a sponsor control his legal paperwork. Thus, the reason he has a Connecticut return address on his SSN application. Legal Aliens can apply for a SSN card.
Barry would have had his US passport canceled when he renounced his citizenship, so he returned to the US as an Indonesian refugee.
You, and no one else, has any proof he didn’t.
Plus, just because proof is not offered on this thread, doesn’t mean someone somewhere doens’t have proof.
0bama’s team probably was not able to scrub all evidence when they messed around in the passport office, whatever it’s called. State department. And of course one of the breakers-in was shot to death the day before he was to testify.
So the 0-team is taking the removal or scrubbing or hiding of evidence of his passport/s quite seriously.
What’s interesting is the myth about how old Obama was when he would have become Barry Soetoro. The ‘official’ story is that SAD married Lolo in 1967, when Obama would have been 6 years old and too old to become an automatic Indonesian citizen by adoption. But, if you look around, some stories say earlier, such as in 1965, when Obama would have been 3 or 4 and definitely young enough for Indonesian citizenship by Indonesian law. IOW, it looks like the official story was changed to suggest this couldn’t have happened.
Yes, that’s it. I couldn’t remember what it was. It was something funky like you just mentioned. In other words, she was not 19 and her husband was not a citizen. So that is why the question remains if he was born outside the country or not. Hence the Hawaii birth certificate issue.
The founding fathers used this definition in the meaning of Natural Born Citizen: CHILDREN OF CITIZENS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN. The founding fathers were worried that after a long war for independence that the British might still try to influence the country though it’s citizens. This is the reason for Article 2 of the Constitution . The founding fathers felt that if BOTH parents were citizens at the time of a child’s birth it would limit the foreign influence. A child born in the U.S. to one parent is a naturlized citizen , not a Natural Born citizen. Natural Born Citizenship require full alligiance(both parents) to the U.S. at birth. The Supreme Court has defined Natural Born citizenship as being born to PARENTS who were U.S. CITIZENS. obama is a native born citizen (if he was born in Hawaii ?) and is not eligible to be president,therefor he is not and never can be the LEGAL President of the UNITED STATES
BTTT.
Proof he didn’t?
Let’s see - his Mom filed for divorce in Hawaii. I doubt she would be able to file for divorce in Hawaii if she & her husband were born foreign citizens.
Further, Barry returned to the US permanently at the age of 10. Even if he had done so on an Indonesian passport, by living here since then, he has claimed what country he wishes to be a citizen of - and that would be the USA. He could NOT lose his US citizenship (if he was born in Hawaii) by living in Indonesia for 4 years, nor by applying for citizenship there (no evidence), nor by filing paperwork no one has seen renouncing his citizenship at the age of 6!
Perkins V Elg. Elg was born in the US, was taken to Sweden at the age of 4, by treaty became a Swedish citizen 2 years later, and didn’t make any attempt to return until just prior to her 21st birthday - and the Court ruled she was still a citizen.
“The founding fathers used this definition in the meaning of Natural Born Citizen: CHILDREN OF CITIZENS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN.”
Factually incorrect.
Your “arguments” have been disproved countless times.
Snicker.
1 School records are not proof of anything.
2 Even if he HAD become an Indonesian citizen, he could return as a US citizen because you cannot lose your US citizenship as a minor. So as long as he returned with the intent to live in the USA prior to 21, his US citizenship by birth would be in effect.
Now....what proof do you have that Barry returned as an Indonesian refugee?
Your arguments have been shot down in court every time they have been raised. At some point, birthers need to ask themselves WHY.
If you read what Sven posted above, you would see that it was indeed possible for a minor to renounce his US citizenship.
Are you blind? Or just don’t bother to read anyone else’s comments?
You’re so freaking transparent it’s nauseating.
No court has shot down any arguements. They only refused to here the cases for lack of standing.
Yes, a minor can renounce US citizenship. However, it is MEANINGLESS unless the child continues to live in the foreign country thru maturity, without an attempt to return to the USA.
“And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.
Second. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. [Footnote 2]”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
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.