Posted on 08/30/2011 5:13:00 AM PDT by tutstar
Evidence continues to mount that President Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, raising concerns over his presidential eligibility.
Obama’s American mother, Ann Dunham, separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when the president was 2 years old. Dunham and Obama Sr. are reported to have later divorced.
In Hawaii, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, in 1965 and moved to Indonesia in October 1967.
Divorce documents filed in Hawaii on Aug. 20, 1980, refer to Obama as the “child” of both Soetoro and Dunham, indicating a possible adoption in the U.S.
The divorce records state: “The parties have 1 child(ren) below age 18 and 1 child(ren) above 18 but still dependent on the parties for education.”
(Excerpt) Read more at kleinonline.wnd.com ...
It’s been covered on these threads a million times at last. You won’t have to look far for the answer, if you want it.
Let me ask you ask you something. Would you like to know if Obama applied to Occidental as an American or a foreigner? Or would you be perfectly fine with him applying as a foreigner, if he did?
Sven makes this stuff up and tries to see who he can get to believe it. It has been interesting to watch his claims morph over time to grow more complex and detailed. But never, not once, has Sven posted anything to support them.
Try asking Sven for anything, anything at all, to support his fanciful tales. You'll never see a whit of proof or support.
I am familiar with a claim by Rawle, but I don't know of one from Kent. If you post it, and It supports your position, I will add it to my list of Historical references in support of the jus soli interpretation.
I am also familiar with this:
1922 US Assist Solicitor General, Richard W. Flournoy, citing ATT’Y General Black.
"Attorney-General Black, whose opinion of July 4, 1859, concerning the case of Christian Ernst, a naturalized American citizen of Hanoverian origin who was arrested upon his return to Hanover, has become a classic on this subject. It seems worth while to quote from this notable opinion:"
“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”
True no one can PERMANTLY renounce your US citizenship for you. However, the US is a signatory to the Hague convention on international adoptions. When a US national is adopted in another country, the citizenship conventions of the adopting country, to include the renunciation of US citizenship is recognized to further the adoption inh the host country if that is required for citizenship. When the minor attains the age of 18, they are required to swear an oath of allegiance before the appropriate US State Dept official. At that point they are NATURALIZED citizens with NO natural born status. There is no evidence that Obama did that and if thatbis so he MAY be an illegal alien.
No, the law states that if a child under 5 is adopted then he or she is granted citizenship. Obama would have been 6 when he and his mother moved to Indonesia and when any such adoption could have taken place. Link
If the commonly repeated meme (that Adoption is automatic for children under five) then it was no trouble at all for Lolo.
We're talking about adoption in U.S. courts, not Indonesian. Only that would cause U.S. records to be sealed and a new birth certificate issued.
To gain legal guardianship and undo any damage caused by him being a naturalized Indonesian citizen.
I think your stretching a bit there.
The Jay treaty recognizing dual citizenship for Brits is still in effect. Obama was born a Brit by virtue of the British Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1948 applying to his father’s citizenship status in the Commonwealth.
That may be true but it doesn’t matter. No one will do anything about it.
Fortunately for America, I had no interest in traveling to a canton so isolated you have to go through France to get there and signing up with folks who have a world class reputation for being UNFRIENDLY.
Beacause Michelle Obama said so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx3-MGHFXkc
She says both her and Barack had student loans. She says so 5:09 into the video at the link above. Of course, she might be lying.
“Isn’t that information private?”
No, It is not. For “normal” people it is reported on your credit report. See link below.
http://www.smartcredit.com/blog/2011/05/02/how-do-student-loans-impact-my-credit-reports-and-scores/
“Can you get his credit reports?”
No. I would not even try. The last people that tried to access his student loan information are still being prosecuted by the Holder Justice Department.
You supplied nothing which I regarded with any credibility.
I noticed you liked to decide that any reference contradicting your position "wasn't credible," "was wrongly decided," or the author "was a silly bastard," or simply didn't understand the issue as well as you did. You've already put the following in that category:
I'm not a Founder, and it's now almost 250 years later, so it's hard to answer. I do think the Founders tended to emphasize the person, not the parents. I remind you of James Madison:
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
If it actually happened it would mean BHO engaged in fraud or some undetermined type. But no one has presented even a whit of actual evidence that it actually happened. Just wild speculation that it might have happened.
You never did tell me if you approved of the media rape of Sarah Palin.
I anwswered you. You just don’t like the answer.
I’m asking what YOU would do as a Founder. Would you write POTUS requirements that specifically included or excluded non-citizen enemies of the USA as fathers of future presidents?
I’ve seen the question answered more times than I can count. Why are you asking me to answer a question that’s already been answered so many times? Jamese777 used to do that. No matter how many times a question had been answered, he just kept asking it. I never saw the value, from a conservative perspective, of that approach.
You are free to change the subject from Obama to Palin. That does not obligate me to change subjects along with you.
The list of none subject-changing questions you haven’t answered grows. Would you like to know definitively if Obama applied as a foreigner to college or not? If he did, the worst/most you can say about it is that you suspect him of fraud?
Now you’re mud-slinging wild accusations. I did ask you a very specific question. You did not answer it. There’s no need to make false accusations against me. It would be easier to simply answer the question I asked.
The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli;and then goes on to expand the definition of natural born to extend to those born abroad to English citizens. Much like our 1790 Naturalization act did. It does not say that jus soli doesn't apply. ( and of course, it is about Britain, which you haven't wanted to see for material that contradicts your point...)
Please show me where in the Constitution that distinction is set down.
Sorry, I let the answer to your question slide. I'd be interested to know about BHO’s time at Occidental, sure. But that doesn't give me the right to root around in his records hoping to maybe find something damaging any more than the media has the right to root around in Palin’s.
To be honest, I'm more interested in a President's (or candidate's) values than in their grades.
Sheesh. Go argue with the State Department.
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.
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.