Obama Born in Kenya? (New Information) [Update]

Texasdarlin Blog ^ | Oct. 11, 2008 | Texasdarlin/Judan Benjamin

[Campion]

IF Obama is not eligible, then John is not, what with Johns' being born in the Canal Zone and all.....

Sorry, but the law in effect at the time very clearly states that children born in the Canal Zone to parents who were there on US Government business were natural-born American citizens.

[TypeZoNegative]

They would, but they wouldn’t want to rock the boat so to say. We have to start rocking this boat if we don’t want the empty suit Obama and the constitution burning Biden to be in charge of this country.

Also remember this too.... If we let Obama become elected, he will have the Patriot Act in his corner. Imagine a LEFT WINGER with the Patriot Act’s power. There will be no more freerepublic.com.

[SeaHawkFan]

Two United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot.

U.S District Court decisions don't mean squat if not upheld on appeal.

[Kevmo]

Thanks for the ping.

I’ll be loading this up onto the Intrade forum.

When the story breaks and they all start whining, I’ll point to that thread and say, “hey, I tried to warn you.”

[ASOC]

Too true - but to date, nobody has bothered to appeal....so here we are, law of the land and all that.

[justiceseeker93]

You’re wrong because you are not quoting the relevant statute which would pertain to Obama’s particular circumstances. I believe that the US citizen parent - in this case the mother - would have had to reside in the US for at least two years after age 18 in order to transfer citizenship at birth to the child born abroad. Obama’s mother was less than 20 at the time of his birth, so Obama couldn’t sneak in under that provision.

[Genoa]

“Hannity and others in talk radio will report this but they need verified proof.”

Hmmmm. . . . I wonder what Corsi was doing in the UK. Last Wednesday, he was talking to Hannity on the radio, and said he would be flying back to the US Saturday (today). I wondered at the time, “Why the delay in the UK?” Now I realize: The pre-independence records from Kenya were returned to London to be archived in 1963, I think it was? Could Corsi have been doing a little genealogical research??

[justiceseeker93]

Now this Philadelphia judge who appointed him?

Interesting and important question which can definitely be answered - most easily by contacting Berg. The judge for particular case is (by custom) chosen by random lot from all the judges sitting in the district court in which the case is filed.

[Reily]

Someone posted earlier that the judge was a Clinton appointee.

[ASOC]

Actually - no. SOme fine print here.

Loss of citizenship (INA § 349, 8 USC § 1481)

Section 349 of the INA [8 USC § 1481] specifies several conditions under which US citizenship may be lost. These include:

becoming a naturalized citizen of another country, or declaring allegiance to another country, after reaching age 18;

serving as an officer in a foreign country's military service, or serving in the armed forces of a country which is engaged in hostilities against the US;

working for a foreign government (e.g., in political office or as a civil servant);

formally renouncing one's US citizenship before duly authorized US officials; or

committing treason against, or attempting or conspiring to overthrow the government of, the US.

The primary effect of recent developments in the US regarding dual citizenship has been to add the requirement that loss of citizenship can only result when the person in question intended to give up his citizenship.

At one time, the mere performance of the above (or certain other) acts was enough to cause loss of US citizenship; however, the Supreme Court overturned this concept in the Afroyim and Terrazas cases, and Congress amended the law in 1986 to require that loss of citizenship would result only when a potentially "expatriating" (citizenship-losing) action was performed voluntarily and "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality".

On 16 April 1990, the State Department adopted a new policy on dual citizenship, under which US citizens who perform one of the potentially expatriating acts listed above are normally presumed not to have done so with intent to give up US citizenship.

Thus, the overwhelming majority of loss-of-citizenship cases nowadays will involve people who have explicitly indicated to US consular officials that they want to give up their US citizenship.

As a minor child the Zero had no say, and did not (near as as I can find) explicitaly renounce before officals and all that.

Your turn.

[MHGinTN]

“2d Session S. RES. 511: Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.: In the Senate of the United States.” was Sponsored by Senator McCaskill and co-sponsored by Senators Leahy, Obama, Coburn, Clinton and Webb. Why? Why were Democratic Senators trying to pass a Resolution making Senator McCain undoubtedly Legally Eligible when this issue had already been cleared up in 2000 and again in 2004? And why did Senators McCaskill and Obama reportedly insert the following Clause?
“Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President;”

So the Commie Democrats now believe they have the uniltaeral power to cancel the Constitution. Figures, commie bastards.

[ASOC]

Two years, after age 14 and 5 years total US residence.

8 USC, and all that stuff.

Look, rather than just guess “or just know”

here is a link to several relevant laws.

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html

interesting reading on a cold (for me anyway) Winter night.... This thread has forced me to read and learn more about citizenship law - I appreciate folks bringing up points for me to research.
(Wife is out shopping and nothing is on the tube, so some good fun and learning all around - eh?)

[TypeZoNegative]

“At one time, the mere performance of the above (or certain other) acts was enough to cause loss of US citizenship; however, the Supreme Court overturned this concept in the Afroyim and Terrazas cases, and Congress amended the law in 1986 to require that loss of citizenship would result only when a potentially “expatriating” (citizenship-losing) action was performed voluntarily and “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality”. “

Is that law retroactive? If so, he’s a citizen. If not, he’s going to have to go back to Indonesia.

[justiceseeker93]

If you become a naturalized citizen of any other nation, you automatically lose your American citizenship.

This is not true for several foreign countries, for which one can maintain a dual citizenship with the US. However, Indonesia is not one of them, so Obama would have lost any American citizenship he may have had when he became an Indonesian citizen. His becoming an Indonesian citizen would have negated any natural born US citizenship he may have enjoyed at birth, thus making him ineligible for president even if he were born in Hawaii, which seems doubtful.

[ASOC]

it is the “after 18’ part that is the killer so as to speak.....

[justiceseeker93]

Is that law retroactive?

The Constitution bans ex post facto laws (Article I, Section 9), although I'm aware that Congress has gotten away with violating this provision in the taxation area, for one.

[Dark Knight]

IIRC the “reside” clause had to be for five years after the age of eighteen. IIRC she was not the required twentythree.

That’s why Berg’s lawsuit is still alive.

DK

[ASOC]

See my posts, #174 esp.

[justiceseeker93]

US District Court decisions don't mean squat if not upheld on appeal.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The district judge has a lot of leeway in general. The general principle is that District Court decisions are less binding than Circuit court decisions, which are less binding than SCOTUS decisions. But even the SCOTUS rejects its own precedents every so often.