[AmericanVictory]

It does not matter whether our courts are or are not bound by Indonesian law because in the 1960’s our own law did not allow dual citizenship.

If the One became an Indonesian citizen at that time his U. S.
citizenship would have been lost.

[BuckeyeTexan]

You asked N-S to cite the Indonesian law that allowed Obama to have dual citizenship. I suggested that Indonesian law isn’t binding on our courts therefore it is irrelevant what Indonesian law requires.

You then tell me that it is irrelevant whether or not Indonesian law is binding on us because our own law prevented dual citizenship. I’m scratching my head wondering why you asked N-S to cite Indonesian law if you think it’s irrelevant?

[Lurking Libertarian]

It does not matter whether our courts are or are not bound by Indonesian law because in the 1960’s our own law did not allow dual citizenship. If the One became an Indonesian citizen at that time his U. S. citizenship would have been lost.

Under the 14th Amendment, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a natural-born citizen. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Afroyim v. Rusk, a U.S. citizen does not lose his citizenship by becoming a dual citizen of another country, unless he also voluntarily renounces his U.S. citizenship.