Skip to comments.Revisiting Messina vs. USCIS (Is Obama NBC via "nunc pro tunc" adoption?)
Posted on 04/02/2011 12:19:28 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Maria Messina (nee Maria Rosanna DiDia) was born in Italy on July 5, 1983. Her mother was Laura DiDia. When Maria was born, Laura had been separated from her husband for ten months and Maria's father was someone other than Laura's husband. On July 14, 1983, Laura petitioned a local Italian judge to issue a passport to Maria to enable her to migrate to the United States with Stefano and Caterina, who had traveled from the United States to Italy for this purpose. In this petition, Laura stated that she was giving "permanent custody" to Stefano and Caterina who "have accepted the custody." On July 22, 1983, the judge issued the passport, finding "that the expatriation of the minor in the custody of Messrs. Messina is for her best interest". On August 2, 1983, Stefano and Caterina brought Maria to the United States on a visitor's visa. On June 26, 2002, the Family Division of Macomb Circuit Court issued an Order of Adoption indicating that Stefano and Caterina were the adoptive parents of Maria (19 years of age). On November 10, 2004, that court issued an Amended Order of Adoption Nunc Pro Tunc ordering that "the Order of Adoption dated June 26, 2002 is amended to indicate that the adoption was entered nunc pro tunc, retroactive to the minor's date of birth July 5, 1983."
(Excerpt) Read more at ilw.com ...
A nunc pro tunc (now for then) court order acts as a time traveling magic wand which enables the court to issue an order in the present which is legally deemed to take full effect in the past. The actual persons and events surrounding a birth are legally erased and replaced with the persons and events as described in the court order.
In Messina, the district court ruled that the USCIS was wrong to invalidate and disregard a state court issued retroactive nunc pro tunc adoption order in 2004 which deemed an adoption to have occurred with full effect and with different parents retroactive to the date of a childs birth in Italy in 1983!
This makes me wonder whether a Hawaii state court adoption might have had a nunc pro tunc clause establishing Lolo Soetoro as Barrys father retroactive to his date of birth. Perhaps Obama Sr. did not object to this adoption at the time, but then was subsequently invited by the Dunhams to reclaim Barry as his child when Barry was ten. Could this have been the mysterious family business BHO Sr. came back to HI to attend to, as referred to in Dreams (Ayers/Obama version of events)?
If Obama Sr was reclaiming Barry as his son at age ten by re-adopting him back from Soetoro, could an Hawaii state court have also ruled nunc pro tunc that Barry was born in Hawaii and thus legally erased any trace of ambiguity regarding birth location in the original HI vital records?
Intersting case....but we would still need Obama’s Long-Form BC to determine anything.
No one is sure that Barack Sr, Lolo Soetoro, or whoever else was the actual father at the time of birth
Does not matter. If Barak Sr is the father there is no way Barack Jr. Is a NBC.
This appears to be nothing more than someone trying to cloud the water of a very simple issue.
Obama is not a natural born citizen.
Sorry, Carp. That does not even touch the rational world.
The news media is part of the conspiracy of silence and non-transparency. They should be ashamed of themselves, they have failed to do a professional unbiased job. /s
BHO II has a Connecticut based SSN because the SSA application was filed by an American Refugee Organization based in Connecticut in the mid-70’s.
In the early 70’s, a Hawaii Family court ruled the Soetoro adoption annulled and a COLB created by the HI DoH to indicated BHO Sr was the paternal parent. There is no attestation by a Hospital Administrator or Delivery Doctor because the HI DoH is following a court order and not an affidavit of witnesses.
In the mid-70’s (at time of SSN application), BHO II was a U.S.A. native born Indonesian National legally residing in America as a refugee. He bacame a naturalized U.S. citizen in the early 80s.
If you know the following and think me impertinent, I apologize ahead of time. This information is important and many people are ignorant of its existence. Please be tolerant.
If BHO II was born in Hawaii, he is a native born citizen. It doesn’t matter if he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro or not, for his parents would not be able to take away his U.S. citizenship and as an adult he could assert that citizenship.
His father was legally BHO Sr., the father listed on his birth certificate. Mr. Obama, a foreign national, was a subject of Great Britain who registered his son as a British subject. This is fact acknowledged from BHO II.
Note: three types of citizenship are recognized by United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS): native born citizenship (born in the U.S. - jus solis); derived or acquired citizenship (through parents - jus sanguinis); or, naturalization.
Natural born citizenship is not a type of citizenship - it is only an eligibility requirement, per the U.S. Constitution, to serve as President of the United States. It is an amalgam of jus sanguinis and jus solis - born in the U.S. to citizen parents (both parents MUST be U.S. citizens).
Again, this is not a statutory type of citizenship, just an eligibility requirement. Lots of people are U.S. citizens but ineligible to be President.
Wow! How do you know that BHO II was naturalized in the early 1980s?
Still waiting for answers from you, Sven how could Obama have been a refugee? What reason? What proof do you have? Why would he go to an American refugee Organization in Connecticut? How did he work in Hawaii before that? What court did he naturalize in? (public record)If no proof I suggest you post your theory as just that a theory.
The Messina case points to the possibility that a state court may us its nunc pro tunc power to TOTALLY SUBSTITUTE US citizen parents retroactively for a foreign born child who has natural foreign citizen parents. The adopted child could (if Messina is tested and upheld) become a de facto and de jure NBC, just as it becomes the de facto and de jure child of the adoptive parents.
9th Circuit Court to hear eligibility questions
The State Department Has Always Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.
...the State Dept. (and constitutionalist birthers) can't pick and chose which parts of the 1948 BNA to accept and which to reject. That is up to the UK.
I am assuming that the UK will enforce the entire 1948 BNA including the part where it says that illegitimate children of UK subjects are explicitly NOT automatically UK subjects.
If BHO Sr. was a bigamist under UK colonial Kenyan law (Marriage Act of 1902, IIRC) which recognizes tribal marriages and forbids bigamy even for Muslims, then BHO Sr.’s Hawaii marriage is bigamous, BHO II is illegitimate and BHO II has only the unitary US nationality of his legally single US citizen mother and is not a dual citizen.
IOW, BHO II cannot be a dual citizen if the BNA of 1948 explicitly excludes him from being a UK subject due to being illegitimate.
While Bingham says “soil” and “parents” (plural) the express purpose of that requirement was to preclude dual citizenship and dual loyalty. But under US law at the time of the founders and going forward, IIRC, an illegitimate child has only the nationality of the single mother so there is no possibility of dual national claims to such a child. So if the State Dept. is to respect UK law it must look to the UK to ultimately decide whether or not Obama was a UK subject at birth.
Having to rely, ultimately, on a ruling from the UK (recognizing and abiding by foreign law) to determine whether Obama is an ineligible dual citizen is what makes this avenue of disqualifying Obama problematic for me.
Exposing 1961 vital records that point to a foreign soil birth is much cleaner and doesn't rely on UK courts/UK Government determination, IMO.
125 posted on Thursday, March 31, 2011 3:18:46 PM by Seizethecarp
Wow! How do you know that BHO II was naturalized in the early 1980s?
Check out # 8 and # 9.
P.S. On the previous ping, I meant # 130, not # 30.
Someone seems to be trying to get around the NBC issue by using judicial gymnastics!
Your #9 sets out the bottom line for the citizenship issue.
And, it is clear enough as a matter of historical record that I think the USSC would agree.
Your point that BHO went to the trouble of registering his son as a Brit - further deflates any argument that someone else is named father on the BC.
Exactly. As well as all the amendments traced back to the original. It doesn't matter if he was born in the Lincoln Bedroom, was adopted by Lolo/Senior/Pops/whomever, or was native or naturalized or hatched. He still needed to have been at least 35, be NBC (two US citizen parents and born in US) and a permenant US resident for 14 years.
I have yet to see any proof of any of the three requirements. We were privy to Reagan's colon surgery, Bush's minute by minute attendance for National Guard duty, and every sensational tidbit of BJ's sexual exploits, but as a voter and taxpayer I know NOTHING of the qualifications or eligibility of this usurper in MY White House.
I have seen no evidence of BHO Sr. registering BHO II as a British subject.
If Messina is upheld, a state court may have been able to use its magic wand, time machine, nunc pro tunc power to declare BHO II to have been born in Hawaii to at least one US citizen parent. If the marriage was bigamous under UK law (BNA 1948), Obama would not have UK citizenship at birth, and would have had unitary US citizenship at birth, not dual citizenship, but only discovery can reveal details necessary to provide SCOTUS with the evidence to make a ruling, IMO.
Congress already tried the adopt a foreign baby and call it a natural born citizen. Didn't take:
Sen. Nickles (OK) along with Landrieu (LA) and Inhofe (OK) brought forward S. 2128 in 2004, a bill to define the term natural born Citizen as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.
Sen. Nickles, in his speech when introducing the S. 2128, announced that:
There is obviously a need for clarification. In the absence of a judicial interpretation, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. We should not wait for an election to be challenged and the courts to decide what natural born means.
And then concludes by stating:
This bill ensures that children born abroad to or adopted by American parents have claim to the full meaning of the American dream they can also have the freedom to choose to run for president.
I was taken aback by Nickles proclamation that Congress had never defined natural born citizen. Had he just gone to the congressional records from 1866, when the 14th Amendment was drafted and subsequently ratified, he would have found this from Rep. John A. Bingham:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen
And yet again repeating myself, we know that the term natural born citizen exists exclusively in one place in the Constitution itself. Article II, Section I, Clause V:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Sen. Inhofe made note of the repealed Immigration & Naturalization Act of 1790 as some sort of fact that Congress had defined what natural born meant, as if it has always pertained to naturalized citizens or citizens by statute, and uses the argument that in the absence of any judicial interpretation, Congress, per the 1790 Act, has the authority to make such interpretation. And let it be noted, Inhofe per his speech, is the grandfather of an internationally adopted child, thus did not have pure intentions when signing onto this bill.
Using the same logic of the Messina ruling (yes, flawed in my view) this Italian born person, who was about to be deported at age 19 as a non-citizen, could also be NBC due to the nunc pro tunc ruling that at birth in Italy she had two US citizen parents.
So the Senate might well to consider her eligible to run for US president.
None of these NBC legal theories have been tested for adoption situations.
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.