Posted on 05/21/2011 4:43:20 PM PDT by westcoastwillieg
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Dr. Herb Titus Says Most Important Question: Is Obama, Constitutionally Speaking, A “Natural Born” Citizen? Answer: No, He Is Not
(Excerpt) Read more at wn.com ...
If Obama was born in Hawaii, he’s a citizen, period. And the constraints on the age of his mother apply only to persons born outside the US. For those born in the US, there are no statutory age or time constraints regarding citizenship, so anyone born in the US where either parent is a US citizen has jus sanguinis citizenship, based both on the law of nations and on Congressional statute.
Stated Correctly. BUT, he was not born in HI.
If it were that simple he would have long ago produced proof. There is none, except what was "conjured". Probably from a late filing for a COLB made by grandma, which was never approved by the Dept of Health. No proof of where he was born.
If he was born outside the U.S. to the stated parents he would not be a U.S. Citizen at all. The Immigration Act of 1952 was the applicable law at the time of his birth. I can quote you the exact statute if you like.
And, the Constitution (not statues) state that a candidate for President MUST be a "natural born" U.S. Citizen. Which is not the same as a "native born" or simply a citizen. A "natural born" U.S. Citizen is born in the U.S. to parents (plural) who are citizens. Obozo's stated father was never a citizen, so he cannot be a "natural born" U.S. Citizen. The only way Obozo could be a "natural born" U.S. Citizen is if someone other than BHO, Sr. was his father. That is a possibility...
Yes, I know all that.
As of now, it would be easier to win the natural born citizen argument based on the fact his father was not a citizen than it would be to challenge Obama’s claimed place of birth. That could change, but I don’t think it’s likely.
And the courts will do everything in their power to avoid a “Constitutional Crisis,” or subject themselves to a charge of deciding the outcome of elections.
And getting the SCOTUS to evict Obama could well be a Pyrrhic vicory, because it would make him a martyr. It could easily ensure that only Democrats can get elected President for at least a generation. I really wish that weren’t so, but that’s how I see it.
The best outcome I can see is that Obama loses in 2012, and the SCOTUS rules afterwards that he never was President because he wasn’t a natural born citizen (for whatever reason.)
This sell out will not stand. The Commies totally control the Dem Party. The Left and their Muzzie allies intend to destroy the U.S. The Globalist RINO Pubbies are almost as bad. They want the U.S. to loose their sovereignty and force us into a global currency and government. They don't understand that you cannot simply make a deal with the Devil (Dems) and expect them to abide by the “deal”.
[Quote]
The only way Obozo could be a “natural born” U.S. Citizen is if someone other than BHO, Sr. was his father. That is a possibility...
[Unquote]
It may have been a possibility, if and only if, Barack Hussein Obama I and Stanley Ann Dunham Obama had not already legitimated the birth of the child as the son of Barack Hussein Obama I in various legal documents. Although the purported polygamous marriage may have been non-existant, illegal, contray to the laws of the State of Hawaii and/or the United States, or otherwise voided or voidable, the laws still provide for the child to be legitimated nonetheless. In the absence of a court decision ordering it otherwise, the purported father or Barack Hussein Obama I was the father of Barack Hussein Obama II due to the acknoledgments in writing by the purported parents. There is also a provision that a child is legally presumed to be the child of the husband and wife until and unless there are legal proceedings to establish a different paternity, even in a subsequently voided or annulled marrigae. See the following:
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs; 7 FAM 1130 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT; (CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007); (Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI).
7 FAM 1131 BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF ACQUISITION
7 FAM 1131.2 Prerequisites for Transmitting U.S. Citizenship; (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Since 1790, there have been two prerequisites for transmitting U.S.citizenship to children born abroad:
(1) At least one natural parent must have been a U.S. citizen when the child was born. The only exception is for a posthumous child.
(2) The U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically present in the United States for the time required by the law in effect when the child was born.
7 FAM 1131.4 Blood Relationship Essential
7 FAM 1131.4-1 Establishing Blood Relationship
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. The laws on acquisition of U.S. citizenship through a parent have always
contemplated the existence of a blood relationship between the child and
the parent(s) through whom citizenship is claimed. It is not enough that
the child is presumed to be the issue of the parents’ marriage by the laws
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 3 of 103
of the jurisdiction where the child was born. Absent a blood relationship
between the child and the parent on whose citizenship the child’s own
claim is based, U.S. citizenship is not acquired. The burden of proving a
claim to U.S. citizenship, including blood relationship and legal
relationship, where applicable, is on the person making such claim.
b. Applicants must meet different standards of proof of blood relationship
depending on the circumstances of their birth:
(1) The statutes do not specify a standard of proof for persons claiming
birth in wedlock to a U.S. citizen parent or out of wedlock to an
American mother. The Department’s regulations also do not
explicitly establish a standard of proof. The Department applies the
general standard of a preponderance of the evidence. This
standard means that the evidence of blood relationship is of greater
weight than the evidence to the contrary. It is credible and
convincing and best accords with reason and probability. It does
not depend on the volume of evidence presented.
(2) Section 309(a) INA, as amended on November 14, 1986, specifies
that the blood relationship of a child born out of wedlock to a U.S.
citizen father must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
This standard generally means that the evidence must produce a
firm belief in the truth of the facts asserted that is beyond a
preponderance but does not reach the certainty required for proof
beyond a reasonable doubt. There are no specific items of evidence
that must be presented. Blood tests are not required, but may be
submitted and can help resolve cases in which other available
evidence is insufficient to establish the relationship. For the
procedures for establishing legal relationship to or legitimation by a
citizen father once blood relationship has been proven, see 7 FAM
1133.4.
c. Children born in wedlock are generally presumed to be the issue of that
marriage. This presumption is not determinative in citizenship cases,
however, because an actual blood relationship to a U.S. citizen parent is
required. If doubt arises that the citizen “parent” is related by blood to
the child, the consular officer is expected to investigate carefully.
Circumstances that might give rise to such a doubt include:
(1) Conception or birth of a child when either of the alleged biological
parents was married to another.
(2) Naming on the birth certificate, as father and/or mother, person(s)
other than the alleged biological parents.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 4 of 103
(3) Evidence or indications that the child was conceived at a time when
the alleged father had no physical access to the mother.
d. If the child was conceived or born when the mother was married to
someone other than the man claiming paternity, a statement from the
man to whom the mother was married disavowing paternity, a divorce or
custody decree mentioning certain of her children but omitting or
specifically excluding the child in question, or credible statements from
neighbors or friends having knowledge of the circumstances leading up to
the birth may be required as evidence bearing on actual natural paternity.
e. Suggestions for developing cases that involve questionable blood
relationships are given in the following sections.
7 FAM 1131.5-2 General Guidance
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Parentage fraud issues must be handled sensitively. Necessary efforts to
enforce the citizenship laws may result in the Department being accused of
threatening the family unit and of jeopardizing the welfare of the child.
Cases of this kind often have public relations ramifications or give rise to
congressional interest. All such cases must be handled in a timely manner
with consideration for the family. Posts should provide information on visa
eligibility in cases where it has been proven that the child has no claim to
U.S. citizenship and the parents wish to take the child to the United States.
7 FAM 1131.5-3 Paternity Issues
(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)
a. Issues of False or Fraudulent Paternity Claims: Paternity fraud is a false
claim to citizenship filed on behalf of a child said to have been born to a
U.S. citizen father who is not, in fact, the biological father of the child.
Because a child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother generally
acquires U.S. citizenship through the mother, paternity fraud is usually an
issue only in cases where the claimed natural mother is an alien. In
some cases, the alleged father is convinced that he is the biological father
in which case the claim is properly considered false rather than
fraudulent. In other cases, he knows that he is not the father, and
conscious fraud is involved. The following factors may indicate the
possibility of paternity fraud:
(1) The child was conceived or born out of wedlock.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 6 of 103
(2) There is doubt that the child was conceived at a time when the
father had physical access to the mother.
(3) The mother admits, or there are other indications, that she had
physical relationships with other men around the time of
conception.
(4) The child allegedly was born prematurely, but its weight at birth
appears to indicate that it was a full-term baby.
(5) The physical characteristics of the child and of the alleged father do
not seem compatible.
(6) There are discrepancies in the birth records.
b. How to Resolve Doubts: To ascertain the true circumstances surrounding
the child’s conception and birth, the consular officer may wish to:
(1) Obtain available records showing periods of time when the alleged
father had physical access to the mother.
(2) Interview the parents separately to determine any differences in
their respective stories as to when and where the child was
conceived. Often, in separate interviews, one party will admit that
the American citizen is not the father.
(3) Interview neighbors and friends to determine the facts as
understood within the local community.
(4) Advise blood testing if the couple continues to pursue the claim
even though the facts as developed seem to disprove it The
propriety of requesting blood or DNA testing is discussed in 7 FAM
1100 Appendix A. If the post disapproves the application, forward
the case to the Department (CA/OCS) for review under cover of a
lookout request form (Form DS-1589, LOOKOUT) (see 7 FAM
1337.8).
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a naturalborn
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional
purposes.
7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Section 201(g) NA and section 301(g) INA (formerly section 301(a)(7) INA)
both specify that naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state
upon a person after birth.” Clearly, then, Americans who acquired their
citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens are not considered naturalized
citizens under either act.
7 FAM 1133.4 Children Born Out of Wedlock On or
After December 24, 1952
7 FAM 1133.4-1 Section 309 INA (Old and New)
(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)
a. Effect of Amendments Section 309 was substantively amended effective
November 14, 1986 by the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 29 of 103
of 1986, Public Law 99-653 (Nov. 14, 1986)(INAA). As originally enacted
there were no specifically provided effective dates in the INAA for the 309
amendments. In 1988, however, Congress retroactively added effective
dates to the INAA as if they had been included in the INAA as originally
enacted. The effective dates for the amendments to section 309 were
included in a new section 23(e) of the INAA. As a result of the
amendments to section 309 INA, and the operation of INAA 23(e), there
are now three categories of persons for purposes of section 309 INA:
(1) Persons covered by “new” 309.
(2) Persons covered by “old” 309.
(3) Persons who may elect to have either old or new 309 apply. “Old”
309 is defined as section 309 as in effect prior to November 14,
1986, and “new” 309 as 309 as in effect thereafter.
b. Text of “new” 309 INA: SEC. 309. (a) The provisions of paragraphs (c),
(d), (e), and (g) of section 301, and of paragraph (2) of section 308, shall
apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if—
(1) A blood relationship between the person and the father is
established by clear and convincing evidence,
(2) The father had the nationality of the United States at the time of
the person’s birth,
(3) The father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide
financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of
18 years, and
(4) While the person is under the age of 18 years—
(a) The person is legitimated under the law of the person’s
residence or domicile, (or)
(b) The father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing
under oath, or
(c) The paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a
competent court.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in section 405, the provisions of
section 30l(g) shall apply to a child born out of wedlock on or
after January 13, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, as of
the date of birth, if the paternity of such child is established
at any time while such child is under the age of twenty-one
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 30 of 103
years by legitimation.
(e) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this
section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the
United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have
acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the
mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of
such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been
physically present in the United States or one of its outlying
possessions for a continuous period of one year.
c. Text of “old” Section 309 INA
(a) The provisions of paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (7) of section 301(a)
(now paragraphs(c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 301), and of
paragraph (2) of section 308, of this title shall apply as of the date
of birth to a child born out of wedlock on or after the effective date
of this Act, if the paternity of such child is established while such
child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 405, the provisions of
section 301(a)(7) (now section 301(g)) shall apply to a child born
out of wedlock on or after January 13, 1941, and prior to the
effective date of this Act, as of the date of birth, if the paternity of
such child is established before or after the effective date of this Act
and while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by
legitimation.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a
person born, on or after the effective date of this Act, outside the
United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at
birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the
nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth,
and if the mother had previously been physically present in the
United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous
period of one year.
7 FAM 1133.4-2 Birth Out of Wedlock to American Father
(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)
a. Applicable Law: Whether to Apply Old or New 309(a) INA
(1) “New” section 309(a) INA applies to all persons born on or after
November 14, 1986, its effective date, and, by virtue of section
23(e) of the INAA of 1986 (Public Law 99-653), to persons who had
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 31 of 103
not attained age 18 as of November 14, 1986, except those who
had previously been legitimated, to whom “old” section 309 applies.
(Persons born after November 14, 1968, had not attained the age
of 18 when the new 309 came into effect.)
(2) “Old” section 309(a) applies to persons who had attained age 18 as
of November 14, 1986 and to any persons whose paternity was
established by legitimation prior to that date. (Persons born on or
before November 14, 1968, had attained age 18 when the new 309
came into effect.)
(3) Either old or new 309(a) can be applied to persons who were at
least 15 but under the age of 18 on November 14, 1986. These
applicants may elect to have the old section 309(a) INA apply
instead of the new section 309(a) if that law is simpler for them or
more beneficial to them. (Persons born after November 14, 1968
but on or before November 14, 1971 are in this category.)
b. Establishing Citizenship Under “New” 309(a) INA. In adjudicating claims
of persons to whom new section 309(a) INA applies, consular officers
must adhere to the following guidance:
(1) Blood Relationship: The consular officer must be satisfied by clear
and convincing evidence that a blood relationship exists between the
applicant and the alleged U.S. citizen father. This evidence must produce in
the fact-finder a firm belief in the truth of the facts asserted, but does not
need to reach the level of certainty required for proof beyond a reasonable
doubt. No blood test or any other specific type of evidence is required by
the Act (see 7 FAM 1131.4 and 7 FAM 1100 Appendix A). Whether or not
evidence produced by an applicant meets the “clear and convincing”
standard is a question of fact which varies in each case. Consular officers
should keep the above in mind when requesting and reviewing evidence.
(2) Evidence of the Father’s Identity and Citizenship: The evidence
must show that the father was a U.S. citizen when the child was
born.
(3) Father’s Statement of Support
(a) A statement of financial support is required except when the
father is deceased. A father who refuses to sign a statement
of support prevents his child from acquiring U.S. citizenship.
A child who cannot present a written support agreement by
the father cannot be documented as a U.S. citizen unless it is
proven that the father is dead. This is true even if the father
cannot be located; unless dead, the father must be located
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 32 of 103
and comply with the requirements of section 309(a), as
amended, before the child’s 18th birthday.
(b) Since section 309(a) specifies that the father must agree in
writing to support the child, a local law obliging fathers to
support children born out of wedlock is not sufficient to meet
the requirement of that section.
(c) The affidavit in 7 FAM 1445 Exhibit 1445.5-3 contains a
statement of support which satisfies the requirements of new
section 309(a). The statement may be in any form, however,
as long as it complies with the following:
(i) It must include an agreement to provide financial
support;
(ii) It must specify that such support will continue
until the child’s 18th birthday;
(iii) It must be in writing;
(iv) It must be signed by the father under oath or
affirmation before a consular officer or before any
other U.S. or foreign official authorized to register
births or administer oaths; and
(v) It must be dated before the child’s 18th birthday.
It may be dated any time prior to that date,
including prior to November 14, 1986.
(d) The statement of support is not required when the father is
deceased. The applicant has the burden of proving the
father’s death, and should provide a death certificate or other
acceptable evidence of the father’s death.
(e) If the father signs a statement of support and subsequently
fails to support the child, the child’s U.S. citizenship is not
taken away. The Department has no authority to obtain
support payments from fathers or otherwise to enforce the
support agreement executed pursuant to section 309(a) INA.
This does not mean, however, that it could not be enforced by
the child against the father, or pursuant to laws administered
by other government entities.
(4) Evidence of Legitimation or Acknowledgement of Paternity: “New”
section 309(a) provides for three alternatives: legitimation under
the laws of the applicant’s residence or domicile; acknowledgement
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 33 of 103
of paternity under oath; and court adjudication of paternity (see
following paragraphs). Any of the three actions is sufficient, as long
as the action occurs while the applicant is under the age of 18.
(a) Legitimation
(i) “New” section 309(a) provides for legitimation by the
father as an alternative means of establishing legal
relationship. (Under “old” 309, it is/was the only
method authorized). If the applicant was legitimated
while under the age of eighteen, by affirmative act or by
operation of law under the child’s residence or domicile
on or after November 14, 1986, he or she need only
submit the statement of support discussed in 7 FAM
1133.4-2 b(3), unless such a statement was part of the
legitimating act and evidence to that effect is submitted.
(ii) Legitimation is the giving, to a child born out of wedlock,
the legal status of a child born in wedlock, who
traditionally has been called a “legitimate” child. Thus,
legitimacy is a legal status in which the rights and
obligations of a child born out of wedlock are identical to
those of a child born in wedlock. This status is generally
relevant primarily to the rights of the child vis-a-vis its
natural father. Many foreign countries may not use the
term “illegitimate”, but nonetheless recognize that a
child born in wedlock has greater rights than a child
born out of wedlock, for instance under local inheritance
laws. The out of wedlock child in such countries is not
legitimated within the meaning of new section 309(a).
(iii) “New” section 309(a) requires that legitimation occur
under the laws of the residence or domicile of the child,
not the father. (As discussed in the following sections,
under old 309, it may be the laws of the residence or
domicile of either the father or the child.)
(iv) Posts in countries where legitimation laws are unclear, unknown, or nonexistent
should obtain the father’s statement of support and
acknowledgement ( see 7 FAM 1445, Exhibit 1445.5-3) rather than expend
resources in attempting to determine whether legitimation occurred. If a
legal interpretation of a legitmation law is needed, posts should request the
Department’s (CA/OCS) assistance.
(v) Legitimation is best used to establish relationship only
in cases where the legitimating act has already taken
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 34 of 103
place and evidence is readily available. Do not
inconvenience applicants by requiring them to submit
extensive evidence of legitimation or expend resources
to research or interpret foreign legitimation laws.
Encourage the use of the simpler alternative of
acknowledgement of paternity discussed in 7 FAM
1133.4-2 b(4).
(vi) Posts must be satisfied in cases of previous legitimation
that the child was resident or domiciled in the country
where the legitimating act occurred. In most cases, a
child’s residence is the same as its domicile, and both
usually coincide with those of the parents. Posts should
question the applicant and parents regarding residence
and domicile in the same manner as for legitimation
under the original version of section 309(a) discussed in
7 FAM 1133.4-2 c.
(vii) Legitimation may occur by automatic operation of
law at birth, by some affirmative act of the father (for
instance, marrying the mother), or by court order.
Although the legitimation status goes back to birth, it is
the date of the legitimating act which must be
considered in a citizenship claim.
(b) Acknowledgement of Paternity
(i) Acknowledgement of paternity is the simplest means of
establishing legal relationship under the new 309(a) and
should be used in most cases. It may have occurred
either before or after November 14, 1986, as long as it
was done while the child was under age 18.
(ii) Acknowledgement may be made under oath or
affirmation in any form before a consular officer or other
official authorized to administer oaths. An
acknowledgement made by the father on the child’s
birth certificate or otherwise under foreign procedures is
acceptable if it was under oath or affirmation.
(iii) Fathers of applicants not already legitimated,
acknowledged, or subject to court decrees of paternity
may execute an acknowledgement and the statement of
support in the same instrument for the sake of
simplicity, provided the applicant is under 18 at the time
the joint document is signed. The affidavit of parentage
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 35 of 103
in 7 FAM 1445 Exhibit 1445.5-3 may be used for this
purpose.
(c) Court Adjudication of Paternity
(i) Establishment of legal relationship by the alternative of
court adjudication of paternity will be extremely rare. It
need not be pursued unless the father is unable or
unwilling to acknowledge the child.
(ii) Such adjudication must have occurred before the child
reached age 18. It is irrelevant whether it was before or
after November 14, 1986.
(iii) Fathers of applicants who are already the subject of
such adjudications need only submit the statement of
support (unless it was previously presented in the court
proceeding and evidence to that effect is submitted).
Consular officers should presume that the court had
jurisdiction over the case. Consuls should keep in mind
that court paternity decrees only establish a legal
relationship, not a blood relationship. Individuals
presenting paternity decrees must still present evidence
of a blood relationship as required by Section 309(a). If
there is evidence which draws into question a court’s
findings, the post should not accept the court order as
establishing a legal relationship (paternity) between the
father and child without consulting the Department
(CA/OCS).
(5) Father’s physical presence in the United States: If the applicant
was born prior to November 14, 1986, the U.S. citizen father is
subject to the original requirements of section 30l(g) INA to
transmit citizenship to the applicant. Thus, he must show that he
was physically present in the United States for 10 years, at least 5
of which were after reaching the age of 14, prior to the birth of the
applicant. For applicants born on or after November 14, 1986, the
most recent physical presence requirements of section 301(g)
apply. In this instance, the U.S. citizen father must show that,
prior to the birth of the applicant, he was physically present in the
United States for 5 years, at least two of which were after reaching
the age of 14.
c. Establishing Citizenship Under “Old” Section 309(a) INA: When
adjudicating cases under old section 309(a) INA, consular officers must
adhere to the following guidance:
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 36 of 103
(1) Blood Relationship: The consular officer must be satisfied that a
blood relationship exists between the child and the U.S. citizen
father. Absent such a relationship, the child of an alien mother
cannot acquire U.S. nationality at birth (see 7 FAM 1131.4).
(2) Legitimation: Law of Residence and Domicile
(a) Under Old 309(a), the place for legitimation was not specified.
Old 309(a) was applied to permit legitimation to take place
pursuant to laws of the U.S. or foreign residence or domicile
of the father or child (see 7 FAM 1133 Exhibit 1133.4-2 for
various State legitimation laws). The consular officer should
learn which foreign countries or States of the United States
qualify as either the father’s residence or domicile or the
child’s residence or domicile for purposes of establishing
legitimation.
(b) The Immigration and Nationality Act defines “residence” as
the place of general abode of a person; his principal, actual
dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent. Under this
definition, a military base where a person is stationed, even
for a short period of time such as a training assignment at an
appropriate place, can be considered a residence and the laws
of the state or country where the base is located can be
considered for legitimation purposes.
(c) “Domicile” is generally defined as the place of a person’s true,
fixed, and permanent home or ties, and to which whenever
absent, the person intends to return.
(d) In attempting to determine residence or domicile, the
consular officer may ask such questions as: Where did you
own property? Where did you pay taxes? Where were you
registered to vote? Where have you had bank accounts?
What State issued you a driver’s license or other license?
What ties do you have to the place of residence or domicile?
(3) Legitimation: Marriages: The consular officer should ask whether
the child’s father and mother have ever been married to each other.
A valid intermarriage of a child’s natural parents subsequent to a
child’s birth serves to legitimate a child in most jurisdictions. The
validity of a marriage is governed by the law of the place where it
was performed and may be a determining issue in a child’s claim to
citizenship under section 309(a). A marriage that is void or
voidable may also serve to legitimate a child in some
circumstances, particularly if the child was born after the marriage.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 37 of 103
(a) Valid marriages: See 7 FAM 1133 Exhibit 1133.4-2 for a list
of the states in which a subsequent marriage of the parents
will serve to legitimate a child. If the laws of the state or the
country where the father or the child resided or were
domiciled provide for legitimation by subsequent marriage,
those laws may be applied if there was a valid marriage of the
parents while the child was under 21. In general, the place of
marriage and the place of residence or domicile must be the
same. There are exceptions to this general rule, however,
and a post may find it necessary to submit questions of this
nature to the Department (CA/OCS).
(b) Voidable and Void Marriages
(i) A marriage that did not conform to the laws of the
country or state in which it was performed may be a
void marriage, but only after declared so by an
appropriate authority, usually a court in the jurisdiction
where the marriage occurred. Prior to such judicial
declaration, the marriage may be considered voidable.
A voidable marriage is considered valid for all purposes
unless and until annulled or voided by the court. Even
after a marriage is voided, there is every likelihood that
the children’s status will not be affected. Every state in
the United States, for example, considers children of a
void marriage to be legitimate (see 7 FAM 1133 Exhibit
1133.4-2, Part II).
(ii) Posts should have available a copy of the consular
district’s local laws on marriage and legitimation. If for
any reason a marriage does not appear to have been
valid and legitimation is a determining factor in the
citizenship claim, consular officer’s may need to consult
local law, if a U.S. domicile cannot be identified, to
determine if children born of a void marriage are
considered legitimate. If they would not be considered
legitimate, the consular officer must determine that the
marriage was, in fact, declared void by an appropriate
authority before denying the claim. A post that is
considering a case involving legitimation in a third
country may seek information on the laws of that
country from the embassy of that country or from the
U.S. embassy in that country.
(iii) A law that declares legitimate a child born during a void
marriage presumes that the marriage ceremony took
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 38 of 103
place before the child’s birth unless the law specifically
mentions children born before the marriage. Cases that
involve void marriages that occurred after a child’s birth
should be referred to the Department (CA/OCS).
(c) Absence of a Marriage
(i) If no marriage has occurred between the child’s U.S.
citizen father and the child’s natural mother, the
consular officer, after determining the appropriate
domicile or residence, should consult the applicable U.S.
or foreign laws to learn whether the child was
legitimated by other means. In most countries or States
where legitimation is possible without subsequent
intermarriage of the biological parents, certain
conditions must be met (such as formal
acknowledgment of the child by the father, acceptance
into the father’s household, consent of the father’s wife).
For a summary of U.S. laws on legitimation without
marriage, see 7 FAM 1133 Exhibit 1133.4-2, Part III.
(ii) Some states and countries grant all children equal
rights, regardless of the parent’s marital status. In such
cases, the child may be considered to have established
paternity by legitimation under old 309(a) if the blood
relationship between the father and child was
established before the child’s 21st birthday, and the law
concerning the equality of all children was in effect
before the child’s 21st birthday.
(iii) Some states and countries do not provide any specific
way for fathers to legitimate their children. Persons
born out of wedlock who had to rely on the legitimation
laws of those places could not acquire U.S. citizenship
through their fathers if they were age 18 prior to the
1986 amendment of section 309(a) INA.
(4) Legitimation: Adoption by Biological Father
(a) If a father adopts his biological child while the child is under
age 21, the Department regards the child as legitimated for
purposes of old 309(a) regardless of the law of the father or
child’s residence or domicile.
(b) Before any documents are issued, cases that involve adoption
by the biological parent should be referred to the Department
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 39 of 103
(CA/OCS) by telegram or memorandum requesting advisory
opinion.
(5) Father’s Physical Presence in the United States: An applicant
acquiring citizenship under the old 309(a) must show that his or her
father was physically present in the United States for 10 years, at
least 5 of which were after the age of 14, prior to the birth of the
applicant.
7 FAM 1133.4-3 Birth Out of Wedlock to American Mother
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. Claims Under Section 309(c) INA: A child born abroad out of wedlock on
or after December 24, 1952, to a U.S. citizen mother acquires U.S.
citizenship if the mother was physically present continuously for 1 year in
the United States or its outlying possessions at any time prior to the
child’s birth. This did not change under any of the amendments to
Section 309 INA. Thus a woman who had spent only a very short time
every year outside the United States would be unable to transmit
citizenship under section 309(c) INA even though she might have
qualified to transmit U.S. citizenship under section 301(g) INA if she had
been married to the father of the child. The 1966 amendment to section
301 INA allowing members of the U.S. armed forces, employees of the
U.S. Government and certain international organizations, and their
dependents to count certain periods outside the United States as U.S.
physical presence does not apply to section 309(c) INA. For this reason,
the mother of a child born out of wedlock cannot use time spent abroad
as a military dependent, for example, to satisfy all or part of the
requirement of continuous physical presence in the United States for 1
year. Subsequent legitimation or the establishment of a legal relationship
between an alien father and a person who acquired U.S. citizenship at
birth under section 309(c) does not alter that person’s citizenship.
b. Claims under Old 309(a): Prior to the November 14, 1986, amendments
to section 309(a), section 309(a) did not apply exclusively to the out of
wedlock children of U.S. citizen fathers, but could also be applied to the
out of wedlock children of U.S. citizen mothers. As a result, a person
born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother who could not transmit
citizenship under section 309(c) because she had not been physically
present in the United States or outlying possessions for the continuous 1-
year period may claim citizenship under old 309(a). As discussed
previously, under old 309(a) the child’s paternity must have been
established by legitimation before the child’s 21st birthday. If this
condition is met, old 309(a) permits acquisition through section 301(g)
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 40 of 103
(formerly 301(a)(7)), which requires that the citizen parent (mother or
father), before the child’s birth, have amassed the 10 years of U.S.
physical presence, including 5 after age 14. Persons born out of wedlock
to alien fathers and U.S. citizen mothers on or after November 14, 1986
cannot claim citizenship under 309(a) because new 309(a) requires that
the father have been a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth.
c. Retention requirements: The retention requirements of former section
301(b) INA did not apply to children who acquired U.S. citizenship under
section 309(c) INA by birth out of wedlock to American mothers.
II. IS ISSUE OF A VOID MARRIAGE LEGITIMATE?
12. HAWAII – Yes. Section 580-27 of Hawaii Revised Statutes. (1991)
48. WASHINGTON - Yes. Section 26.26.030 and 26.26.040. (1992)
III. CAN A CHILD BE LEGITIMATED IN A MANNER NOT INVOLVING THE
INTERMARRIAGE OF THE NATURAL PARENTS?
12. HAWAII - Yes, if father and mother acknowledges paternity in
writing. Sections 584-2 and 338-21(a)(2) of Hawaii Revised
Statutes. (1991)
48. WASHINGTON - Yes, if while the child is a minor, the father
receives the child into his home openly holds out the child as his
own. Section 26.26.040(d) of Revised Code of Washington. (1992)
Ouch! That gave me a headache.
The enactment of the Immigration Act of 1952 made this issue very complicated.
I cannot imagine a court procedure that would remove citizenship from Obozo, but if he was not born in the U.S. (and I do not believe he was), legally he is not a U.S. citizen.
It his clear that the Dunham family has been gaming the law on this and other subjects all of Obozo’s life. You can see why he has total disregard to U.S. law. (and for a time he had a law license).
What a mess.
What is really ironic is the way in which Stanley Ann may have had an opportunity to confer her own U.S. citizenship and a natural born U.S. citizenship to her son by getting pregnant three or four months later, having the child out of wedlock, and without legitimating the child with any purported father. Of course, that was exactly contrary to her original goals, which creates the ultimate irony given today's circumstances.
Although a birthplace for Barack II in Hawaii, Washington, or elsewhere in the United States cannot yet be excluded, neither can a birthplace at the Coastline Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya; a maternity ward in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; or another foreign nation. What can be excluded, however, is what appears to be fraudulent Hawaiian birth certificates, Selective Service Registration card, Social Security account numbers, Illinois property records, Federal 1040 income tax returns, and Illinois income tax returns.
You also have to wonder whether or not it was possible that Barack and his staff used political campaign funds in violation of campaign funding and disclosure laws to exile Vera Baker and a suspected illegitimate daughter, Renee L. Abena Obama, to the island of Martinique in the Caribbean after Michelle Obama discovered their adulterous affair?
Then there are the two affairs in which Barack Hussein Obama II and Michelle Obama were compelled by the Illinois Supreme Court to surrender their Illinois licenses to practice law only a few years after receiving and using them.
Had not heard of Renee L. Abena Obama.
Quick bit of searching made me hesitant about the subject. Some “real” tin-foil hat folks are beating this drum. Could be to confuse the issue, but when the “illuminati” is mentioned and Prison Planet is mentioned; my skeptic alarm starts going off.
Back on track. There must be a record and it appears from the record that the child died very young. (or was vanished as to the law)
We are dealing with known criminals who happen to reside at 1600 Penn. Ave. What a mess indeed.
But you are correct.
1. we do not know who his father was.
2. we do not know where he was born.
3. we do know that his entire life is a fabrication.
4. we do know that he hates the United States and the free world.
The question that begs to be answered is what fools put this “post turtle” where he is?
“Then there are the two affairs in which Barack Hussein Obama II and Michelle Obama were compelled by the Illinois Supreme Court to surrender their Illinois licenses to practice law only a few years after receiving and using them.”
Untrue.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp
The “tinfoil” brigade caught onto it sometime later. It made me wonder if it was perhaps some kind of disinformation effort to hide the inconvenient truth in plain sight. I do not know and have no opinion on the accuracy, if any, of any suspected connections between the baby girl and Barack; but the suspected Vera Baker affair does appear very very suspicious with what little is known. You have to ask why was this campaign fund raiser so suddenly jerked out of the Washington D.C. fund raising cornucopia and seemingly exiled to Martinique of all places? It is also extremely strange for a Chicago organization to compensate this person for such incompatible work in the Caribbean?
Perhaps it is all innocent. After all of the other Democrats hiding their affairs and engaging in the most bizarre cover ups, not to mention Schwarzenegger, the possibility of campaign fund violations should not be so carelessly dismissed out of hand.
Previous actions would indicate that it is not.
As for the credibility of the denials, it is virtually impossible to get the State of Illinois and the Illinois State Supreme court to outright disbar any attorney-at-law, no matter how heinous their crimes. Instead, they order the attorney to give up their license under threat of actually doing something more forceful, if tghe attorney is too dense to take the hint. When we looked at the Illinois State Supreme court Website in 2007-2008, you could see where the court ordered Michelle to in effect surrender her law license. While the details are complicated and intentionally vague and secretive to avoid embarassing the attorney being punished, it is in effect a form of disbarment, because the attorney cannot practice law. The rules also provide for an application for reinstatement, but the reality is the court will not approve any such requests for certain applicants punished for serious crimes. Thusly, appearances and plausible deniability are used to hide the ugly fact that the attorney committed serious crimes.
Anyone interested in the truth can find the truth independently by using the Internet search engines to look for Illinois attorneys accused of felonies and/or forced to stop practicing law. Some examples to be found are attorneys who committed murder, rape, and pedophilia. When you look up their Illinois State Supreme Court records for the status of their law licenses, you find the same types of carefully vague references to their law licenses being “voluntarily” surrendered. So, Snopes is actually putting the Obamas into the same category of attorneys who lost their law licenses as child rapists and murderers or attorneys who embezzled their clients’ damage awards.
Ninth hole?
Yep. But a little past that.
“While the details are complicated and intentionally vague and secretive to avoid” me having to post evidence to support my wild, conspiracy ideas.
Ok, got it.
Sorry to be so rough about it, but Snopes is tantamount to a Stalineque propaganda organ.
OK, how about:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/Obama-Law-License.htm
or even the birthers favorite....
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105998
Since there is little means by which the public can be informed about the confidential provisions of these proceedings, there is little means to differentiate between a voluntary inactive status due to disciplinary proceedings versus voluntary inactive status due to nondisciplinary proceedings. For an attorney subjected to disciplinary proceedings, the offer of a voluntary inactive status under Rule 770 provided plausible deniability on future professional resumes, except among people familiar with the ins and outs of these types of proceedings.
ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of May 20, 2011 at 9:00:00 AM: Full Licensed Name: Michelle Obama Full Former name(s): Michelle Lavaughn Robinson Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: May 12, 1989 Registered Business Address: Not available online Registered Business Phone: Not available online Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status. ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of May 20, 2011 at 9:00:00 AM:
Full Licensed Name: Donald Wayne Garlinger
Full Former name(s): None
Date of Admission as Lawyer
by Illinois Supreme Court: November 15, 1962
Registered Business Address: Not available online
Registered Business Phone: Not available online
Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law
Malpractice Insurance:
(Current as of date of registration;
consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is retired.
ARDC Lawyer Search Results from the ARDC database last updated as of May 20, 2011 at 9:00:00 AM: for the following terms: Last Name: Demasi, First Name: Anthony, status: All, Country: all Name Date Admitted City State Authorized to Practice?
Anthony A. Demasi June 12, 2001 Chicago IL No
Pedophile Lawyer Suspended for 3 Years. Wed, Dec 31, 2008
http://www.jdjournal.com/2008/12/31/pedophile-lawyer-suspended-for-3-years/
http://www.marketwatch.com/Community/groups/us-politics/topics/michelle-obama-disbarred-il-supreme
Disbarred Illinois plaintiff's attorney subject of child sexual assault complaint
5/19/2006 10:35 AM By Ann Knef
http://www.wvrecord.com/news/179243-disbarred-illinois-plaintiffs-attorney-subject-of-child-sexual-assault-complaint
ARDC Policies and Procedures
Attorney Discipline
If an attorney is found to have violated the Illinois Rules of Professional responsibility, discipline will be imposed. The types of discipline are set forth in Ill. S. Ct. Rule 770 and include: reprimand by the court, the Review Board or a hearing panel, censure, probation, suspension for a specified time, suspension until further order of the court, disbarment on consent or disbarment.
http://www.apexcle.com/pages/ARDCPolicies
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.