Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
PS: gotta give you credit...
You “take a licking and keep on ticking,”
But don’t be a Palooka!
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/palooka.htm
STE=Q
I wouldn’t say that!
A lady “hooking” up with a man in “enemy” territory, LOL!!
That’s pretty cool and brave!!!
~~~~~
DITTO!
You extended yourself .. overboard .. I’m guessing
to give you some kind of acceptance and the relief
of a FReeper seeing the docs who would confirm them
here.
But .. in these days and political climate .. I would
NEVER do that. My advice: NO more.
Your personal birth cert info is YOUR business .. a
confidential treasure, like your SS card .. you guard
it.
Thankfully, ElSordo seems to be an upright, good guy,
and big kudos to him. He was apparently a doubter
who needed to see the proof.
But .. that was taking a big chance.
Most all of us here have always believed you totally.
You’ve been more than open here as you’ve chronicled
this chapter, did what you said you would, and then
showed it.
Put that package away, and quietly go thru the process
again to get certified copies. They’re a must, for any
passport, and for so many issues.
Years ago, I ordered 5 certified copies of mine, and
they’re in my filing cabinet. They can get misplaced,
and I wanted that security.
It’s YOUR business .. and your entitlement to get
copies of YOUR vital paperwork ... just a financial
transaction: you verify some vital info, pay the fee,
and you get the goods.
NO ONE one has the right to it or to see it, unless
an official govt requirement or potential employer or
for an authentic lawsuit discovery phase, if required.
And then, always request it back. Even the PO gives
it back for a passport.
And you don’t apologize or have to give a reason
for your request to DOH. YOU’RE ENTITLED
TO IT .. PERIOD. You simply order and pay for it
from the ‘public servants,’ whose job it is to
do that.
This is another example of the appalling lack of
professionalism, integrity and truth at HI DOH,
and how their paranoia rules, causing their
dysfunction, micromanagement and abuse of their
sworn duties to the citizens. Public servants -
PFFTTT!
Know your rights, girl! Hugs .. ;)
Which legislative, judicial or administrative body specifically denied a petition on the basis of this part of the statute or provided a counter-interpretation?? An appeal to obliviousness or inaction doesn't exactly address the point in question.
“If Obama did NOT do this and ACTED as a foreign national, then he had no claim to U.S. citizenship that could be protected.”
Wrong again. It takes a positive renunciation - swearing an oath in person, normally while outside the USA. Apart from that, there is conviction of treason, holding a policy-making level position in a foreign government and taking up arms against the US.
That is pretty much it. Period.
“It did NOT protect children from losing citizenship via adoption to a foreign national. The courts might intervene...”
The Supreme Court had already intervened in Perkins v Elg, many years before Obama was born. This isn’t open to dispute. You don’t get to make up facts.
“4. 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.”
Obama returned to the US at 10. He has never taken up residence outside the USA. He has not taken up arms against the USA, nor has he been convicted of treason by a US court. He has not renounced his US citizenship with a sworn oath and left the USA. That means he is still a US citizen. Nothing about Indonesia changes that in any way.
I note your tone and language is a bit harsh
and sharp today. Does losing the bet and
having to defend yourself to your friends
at DrCon’s have anything to do with this?
Why so hostile ?
“the brain dead fool posting above is so naive”
“The idiot posting above”
And here I was praising you for being an honorable
guy. I guess you just did an honorable thing. That’s
too bad.
Amendment:
doing the honorable thing was a
very good thing.
I’m just struck by the harsh tone.
Elg wasn’t adopted. There was also a treaty involved, which I pointed out earlier. The ‘principle’ you cited doesn’t deal with an adoptive parent who is returning to his home country. Also, such a parent is not ‘resuming’ a former allegiance because the parent in question did not have U.S. allegiance. In Elg, the parent DID have U.S. allegiance. Lolo Soetoro did not.
I’ve already pointed out earlier in this thread that the so-called ‘principle’ was NOT recognized in WKA; “neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States ...” This acknowledges that this court thinks that WKA’s parents could have done something to renounce their child’s allegiance.
If you go to the U.S. State Department website on Adoptions, it says, “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.” Indonesia is not a Convention country. As this is written, it would indicate that those children adopted from the United States to a non-Convention country do not necessarily retain U.S. citizenship; likely because the state department cannot protect U.S. citizenship in non-Convention countries.
Yes, Obama appears to have returned to live with his grandparents, but it may have been as Indonesian citizen, which we have to assume since the only documentation available for that time period says he was an Indonesian citizen and there’s no documentation to show that he gained or resumed U.S. citizenship. Feel free to find some.
God grief. Are you trying to say adoption gives a stronger tie than the child being yours by blood? The parents of Elg returned to Sweden, and her father swore an oath renouncing US citizenship. The mother had never formally become a US citizen.
What part of this statement do you not understand: “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.”
Obama’s mother remained a US citizen. Obama Jr could NOT lose his citizenship by any act of his parents. Period.
Edge, I think you nailed with that one. Bingo. I've seen a lot of State Department info and that's how I've always read it. And its clear from Obama's school record that he was at least at one time an Indonesian citizen. Red flag or should be to a reasonable person.
We have yet to ascertain if Obama was ever a US citizen.
Funny typo. Love it.
Are you trying to say adoption gives a stronger tie than the child being yours by blood?
No, I didn't make a comparison at all.
The parents of Elg returned to Sweden, and her father swore an oath renouncing US citizenship. The mother had never formally become a US citizen.
The decision makes it sound like both parents were naturalized, "who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here." Obama's father was not naturalized, nor was his adoptive father. Because of this, we don't know if Obama was ever a U.S. citizen or not. It also doesn't address what happens in an adoption.
What part of this statement do you not understand:
I told you that the principle is disputed in WKA where it says parents can renounce the allegiance of a child. Second, this says that the child has to ELECT to retain U.S. citizenship. Obama resided here, but we don't know if he did so as a U.S. citizen or Indonesian citizen. That's why it would be helpful to see his passport and college records ... to see what citizenship he elected to exercise.
Obama’s mother remained a US citizen. Obama Jr could NOT lose his citizenship by any act of his parents. Period.
Wong Kim Ark and the State Department page on adoption says otherwise. Deal with it.
“Obama’s father was not naturalized, nor was his adoptive father. Because of this, we don’t know if Obama was ever a U.S. citizen or not.”
That is stupid. If the child of TWO ALIENS born in the US is a citizen (see WKA), then the child of an alien and a native is a citizen. Every read the 14th Amendment?
“I told you that the principle is disputed in WKA where it says parents can renounce the allegiance of a child.”
Perkins follows WKA. It leaves no doubt.
“Second, this says that the child has to ELECT to retain U.S. citizenship.”
State Department: “Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship...The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.”
Also, please show where the Sate Department and WKA say a child can lose their citizenship by the act of their parent.
The State Department says: “A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3. sign an oath of renunciation
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect.”
Also: “Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.”
You're ignoring that there's no LEGAL proof Obama was born in the U.S. and that Obama's father did NOT have a permanent domicil which Justice Gray included as a determining factor in WKA's citizenship.
Perkins follows WKA. It leaves no doubt.
Wrong. WKA says, and I quote AGAIN, "neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States." This leaves no doubt that Justice Gray presumed WKA's parents could renounce the allegiance of their child to the United States.
Also, please show where the Sate Department and WKA say a child can lose their citizenship by the act of their parent.
I already did. Re-read my previous posts if you don't understand. Also, you're quoting CURRENT statutes, not the ones in effect when Obama would have been adopted. The law was changed to be more protective of minors in 1986.
“You’re ignoring that there’s no LEGAL proof Obama was born in the U.S. and that Obama’s father did NOT have a permanent domicil which Justice Gray included as a determining factor in WKA’s citizenship.”
1 - You have no legal proof he was born elsewhere. Until it is offered, the fact that he has been able to enter the country repeatedly and lived as an American citizen without anyone questioning it until 2008 AND that Hawaii has claimed he was born there will control.
2 - WKA did not require permanent domicile. In fact, the statement of the case includes that the parents returned to China - permanently: “...they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China...”
Permanent domicile does not mean you must live there permanently. Notice, again, that WKA’s parents left the US and never returned. The parents of Elg likewise left America and never returned.
Part of the decision concludes, “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”
WKA did entertain that a parent could renounce citizenship for a child. Perkins v Elg did not. P v E was decided later, and becomes the controlling decision.
But you feel free to go on believing Obama is a citizen of Indonesia. But there is not a single person with standing who agrees. No state SecState, no state DA, no state legislature, no Congressman, no court - NO ONE.
What is it like to live in a world all your own, with no reference to others?
I note your tone and language is a bit harsh
and sharp today. Does losing the bet and
having to defend yourself to your friends
at DrCon’s have anything to do with this?
Why so hostile ?
“the brain dead fool posting above is so naive”
“The idiot posting above”
And here I was praising you for being an honorable
guy. I guess you just did an honorable thing. That’s
too bad.
Amendment:
doing the honorable thing was a
very good thing.
I’m just struck by the harsh tone.
We have yet to ascertain if Obama was ever a US citizen.
The only person that the Courts or the Congress needs ascertainment from has already provided it. That’s why in 72 attempts, no court has ruled Obama to be ineligible and that’s why there hasn’t even been one single member of Congress who has called for a congressional hearing on the subject.
Both the Republican Senatorial Caucus under Mitch McConnell and the House Republican Caucus under John Boehner have invited Barack Obama to address them at their caucus retreats in his official capacity as 44th President of the United States.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”—July 27, 2009
I think you missed the theme of my post, “professor.”
HINT: It’s in the first paragraph, as follows:
“Let me get this straight:
“Anti-Birthers actually believe that the freckin’(sitting) President of the United States couldn’t get his own “vault” “long form” birth certificate from Hawaii?!!”
The whole point is that anti-birthers are gullible and naive — and YOU certainly were, weren’t you?
Almost every paragraph drives that point home.
At the end I wrap it all up, as follows:
“I can understand differences of opinion as to the definition of “Natural Born Citizen,” — and other constitutional “controversies,” — but that the most powerful man in the world can’t take possession of his own “long form” Birth Certificate because “Hawaii no longer makes them available” is beyond absurd!”
Of course “WE” all now KNOW — because of Danae — that ANYONE can get their “long form” Birth Certificate.
Now please tell us why we should “go to a judge and get a subpoena” when it’s so much more fun to watch the HUSTLER — and his marry band of fools — play, hide the long form!
Have a nice day, “professor”!
STE=Q
Here's a pdf scan of the original bill as passed in 1952. The section on Loss of Nationality begins on page 105 or 107, depending if you're looking at the numbers printed on the top or stamped on the bottom.
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.