Replies

I am not prepared to “declare” Obama to NOT be NBC without a SCOTUS ruling which would require full release of records and discovery in the US, Kenya and UK and UK rulings in advance on whether Obama was a UK subject at birth, IMO.

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

Per Leo:

“The State Department Has ‘Always’ Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.”

Yes, but...

...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