Mass confusion of Citizenship Rules: Obama is Legit

reply to post by coven

I'm a Socialist Libertarian.

Oxymoron?



Mod Note: Political Baiting and Sniping on ATS – Please Review Link.


[edit on 12/1/2008 by Rockpuck]

[edit on 12/1/08 by niteboy82]

Based on information that has surfaced to date, I am fairly comfortable with the conclusion that John McCain is not and never was a natural born citizen as that term is used in the U.S. Constitution. That is not to say that McCain is not a citizen, or even that he was not a citizen at birth. Rather, it is to say that the geographic circumstances of his birth (outside any and all U.S. states, outside any and all U.S. territories) were not such as would bestow upon him Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status.

While I am not extremely comfortable with the conclusion that Barack Obama is not at this point a natural born citizen as that term is used in the U.S. Constitution, I am beginning to think that this is what the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately conclude based on a full set of facts, once those facts are discovered, pursuant to federal court orders compelling disclosure to that effect.

Barack Obama was born in Honolulu of married parents, of which his mother was a U.S. citizen, and his father was a subject of the United Kingdom by virtue of his Kenyan nationality. At this point, and at least temporarily, Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. Fast forward to when Barack Obama turns 18. He is now an adult, and remains a natural born citizen. By virtue of the fact that Kenya is no longer a colony of the UK, Barack is also a full-fledged citizen of Kenya. As a dual citizen of the U.S. and Kenya, Barack now has options which, as an adult, he is fully empowered to exercise. For example, now that he is an adult, he can formally renounce his Kenyan citizenship. Since he has not renounced U.S. citizenship he has held since birth, he is free and clear to run for president of the U.S. once he attains the age of 35.

But let's say he does nothing for the time being. He is an 18 year old adult holding dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya, just living his life. He enrolls in Occidental College as an out-of-state freshman, ostensibly of U.S. nationality and citizenship. Tiring of Occidental, he learns of opportunities available at Ivy League colleges and universities for foreign nationals to matriculate at a steep tuition discount, lower entrance requirements, or both. Possessing Kenyan citizenship, Obama thinks, hey, why not apply and see what happens. He fills out a Columbia application, indicates Kenyan citizenship, signs the application, and sends it to Columbia. Much to his surprise, he is accepted, and he matriculates at the age of 20 as part of Columbia's program for accommodating students of foreign nationality. By the time Barack Obama reaches age 21, he has failed to formally renounce U.S. citizenship. By operation of Kenyan law, he loses his Kenyan citizenship. Retaining his U.S. citizenship, Barack Obama finishes his degree at Columbia, and begins living the rest of his life.

IMHO, the Supreme Court will consider Barack Obama's personal behavior between the ages of 18 and 21 to be directly relevant to the question as to whether he presently possesses Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status. More particularly, they will be evaluating his actions during that time for any evidence of deliberate actions which are inconsistent with a desire on his part to preserve his Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status. They will be presented with the documentation comprising his Columbia application and find where he declared himself to be a Kenyan citizen for the purpose of gaining admission and/or obtaining a break on tuition. Based on this, they will conclude that Barack Obama forfeited or relinquished his previously-held Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status. This despite the fact that Barack Obama never gave up his U.S. citizenship proper.

reply to post by Maya00a


Even though you don't automatically become a US citizen by marriage, it's much easier to become one if you are married to a US citizen.

If I was not married to a US citizen, and applied for a green Card or whatever, I'd have a lot of red tape & prolly' still not get it.

Though if I am married to a US citizen (even one that has never before even set foot in the US herself), I can get a citizenship at the tip of a hat.

Yes, I have to apply for it, but it's much easier having a wife/husband of US citizenship.

But again, I would not want it. I am proud to be an Aussie & wouldn't leave my homeland or Vegemite for all the Pretzels & Doughnuts in America.

AU is still the lucky country and America is dying..lol I'm better off here.

Back on topic now though, Obama is a US citizen & there's nothing anyone can do bout it. He's the Pres... Legit, Fair & Square.

People should stop bashing the guy, he's done something no other black man has done in US History. I'm actually stoked for the guy. And even if it turned out he isn't a Citizen, I'd be even more stoked for the guy, cause that's just another amazing feat under his belt...lolol

I say cut the crap out already & let the guy get on with the job...!

I need to ask a question, in a way it is related to this thread.

For months and months now, evidence here on ATS, has pointed to the American Constitution having been revoked? or suspended way back when 1920's? 1930's 1940's?

Anyhow what I am saying is, if the Constitution has indeed been suspended, and has not been re-enacted, then surely the rules governing the right to be President only as a natural born Citizen does no longer apply?

Do the rules apply anymore? are the rules regarding Presidential candidates suspended also?

Because if it is true that the Constitution was suspended, then surely the law has to be different until it is put back into the law of the USA.

I wish all this would just go away, the man won fair and square, but as you can see some in the American political system seem to willing to stop at nothing to destroy the wishes of the American people, those are the same people who have placed the US economy on self destruct.

So what is best? I guess one way or another, by the end of today America should know its future, is today the beginning of the end or the beginning of a new America.

Nice try....however the U.S. Constitution clearly states that in order to be presidnet of the united states you "must be born on US Soil" or "both parents need to be U.S. Cititzens at the time of the birth of the individual in question.

In the case of McCain it would be a moot point, he could be born on the moon and still qualify because at the time of his birth both parents were American Citizens. Now, if Obama is in fact born in Kenya as some believe then he cannot be President of the United States of America....his father was a Kenyan not a U.S. Citizen.

There are no loopholes in this.

Please read the constitution before you try to post something to show your ignorance.

AT LAST!!!

Nice to see a post that makes sense every once in a while.

So many people are SO DESPERATE for this black man not to rule it's really beginning to devalue this whole website (I'm fine where I am, thanks!) and make a mockery of the topics it intends on supporting.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by coven

 

I'm a Socialist Libertarian.

Oxymoron?

Libertarian Socialsm - Def: Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aim to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.

No, YOUR reply is something you steadily jumped the gun on, so to speak.

Before you say "Thats the other way round", "Socialist-Libertarian" is used by Noam Chomsky.

Look him up!!

....oxyMORON anybody???

Staff Edit - Removed baiting in quotes.

[edit on 12/1/08 by niteboy82]

reply to post by coven


You know, if you check the other threads on this subject you will see that I have posted this same exact thing. Over and over I and others have tried to calmly state this as fact but there were those that continued to ignore the laws involved. Thank you for bringing this to light again.

Yet I'm sure there will be those that will continue to ignore the facts and keep getting the public worked up over nothing.

GREAT POST, you cleared that rumor up!

Its my understanding that Hawaii has rules of its own allowing a person to claim birth in Hawaii, even it actually born elsewhere, as long as certain conditions are met. to wit:

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

Since Hawaii issues “Certificates of Live Birth” to children not born in Hawaii and “Birth Certificates” to children who are born in Hawaii, the only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama’s original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him.

however I also found this:

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;

If she gave birth to Obama at 16, and spent at least 5 years in the States, (2 after the age of 14) then she is a citizen, and so is her child, apparently, regardless of where he/she was born or the status of his/her legitimacy...If I understand this correctly...

First let me say that I did not vote for Obama, so I hope people do not see a pro-Obama bias in this post, as I'm neither for him nor opposed to him thus far.

With that said, if the constitution states, "natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States," (emphasis added) then isn't it even more moot than just not defining what "natural born" means? Since it says, "or a Citizen of the United States," making a distinction between "natural born citizen" and the latter, doesn't that eliminate the necessity of being a "natural born citizen" regardless?

I know that the SCOTUS has never ruled on this, but it would seem to me (and I could be wrong) that it is referring to citizenship in general, and if citizenship is defined as enumerated under the law, then does not Obama definitely qualify as the latter even if it should be proved that he does not quality as the former? Clarification would be appreciated.

Originally posted by bohica8161
Nice try....however the U.S. Constitution clearly states that in order to be presidnet of the united states you "must be born on US Soil" or "both parents need to be U.S. Cititzens at the time of the birth of the individual in question".

I would really appreciate you showing just where in the constitution you saw those words written. Or should I ask you in which contitution you saw them, as they are certainly not in the Constitution of the United States.

Sounds like a bunch of Desperate right wing nut cases, looking for something that does not exist. Obama won and its time to get over it.

reply to post by coven


great post coven... but i ask you this...

Reguardless of where Obama was born, when he was adopted by his mothers second husband, he lost his US Natural Born Citizenship

so, when he came back the the states after this, he would have had to go thru imigration to become a citizen.

If he did not, it is very possible that Barrack Obama could indeed be an illigal alien in this country...


This issue of him going to school in the Far East, under the Name, Barry Soetoro, SUPER-CEDES ANY QUESTIONS about:
His possible birth in Kenya
His mothers underage birth at the time
Falseified documents
and the countless other questions surrounding him

akadevine

example. Arnold Schwarzenegger = citizen and Governor of CA --CAN NOT become president as he was not born on American soil, to American parents, so he can not be President. The Constitution is pretty clear in that is does not allow for anyone born outside the USA to be allowed to be commander in chief of the USA.

I am pretty sure if illigal aliens came into the USA, and had their kids here, that THOSE kids could be president under current insane US law...




IMHO, the best case the Obama can make, is that he was born in Hawaii, and when he moved to the Far East with Stanly's second husband, he was an illigal alien there, and would be an criminal in THAT country...

And that his American ID was still clean...

That way he would just be an international criminal, that would be another countries responsiblity, rather then an illigal alien, from a foriegn nation in the USA...

Originally posted by Evisscerator
I love it when folks won't post the entire source document, cut and paste sections that bolster their opinion rather than fact:

Would you care to point out exactly what I left out that would contradict my premise?

Originally posted by Nessosin
I've always been under the impression that "natural-born citizen" just means that you're automatically a citizen when you're born. IE your parents are citizens, or you're born on US soil. If either of his parents are American then I don't see how there is any debate about it.

If a child is born in the US, and even if both his parents are not US citizens, the child is a US citizen at birth.

Is this child a "natural born" citizen too? Or "natural born" citizen doesn't apply in this case because his parents aren't US citizens? Since "natural born" was never defined, people can only interpret what it means.

Originally posted by phinubian
I remember a few months ago during the election, NPR had a segment on discussing this, they also mentioned McCain also and they brought up something relative the military which by proxy meant he was born as a citizen in a territory considered to be U.S. sanctioned, a base possibly.

From the Foreign Affairs Manual:

Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

Section 303 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1403):

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

John McCain's US citizenship was declared by legislation. He is not a "natural born" citizen, as the 14th Amendement didn't apply to him.

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
In that case it should be easy enough to provide proof of citizenship. So I guess the big question is, why is he avoiding it like the plague.

Obama has not been asked, legally, by anyone to present evidence of his citizenship. Leo Donofrio, who has a lawsuit pertaining to this matter, acknowledges this on his Application to the Supreme Court:

As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama's birth certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point out that Senator Obama has not been presented with a genuine legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility to submit or to bend his integrity. And for that, he certainly deserves respect.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by danx]

Originally posted by TKainZero
great post coven... but i ask you this...

Reguardless of where Obama was born, when he was adopted by his mothers second husband, he lost his US Natural Born Citizenship.

You cannot void someone's citizenship unless he or she relinquishes it. To do this, the person has to do so on his or hers own application, and has to be at least 18 years of age.

This was not the case with Obama. Assuming Obama was a US citizen at that time, he couldn't have lost his US citizenship, much less through the actions of his mother or stepfather.

Moreover, US law allows multiple citizenship. Even Obama received Indonesian nationality or citizenship at the time, it wouldn't change the fact that he was also (and still) a US citizen.

This issue of him going to school in the Far East, under the Name, Barry Soetoro, SUPER-CEDES ANY QUESTIONS about:
His possible birth in Kenya
His mothers underage birth at the time
Falseified documents
and the countless other questions surrounding him

Isn't it interesting, that in those school documents, even though apparently some of the information was changed (perhaps to facilitate his admission to the school?), Honolulu Hawaii was still listed as his birth place?

And if anyone falsified documents, at the time, it was either his mother or stepfather (or both), in Indonesia - not in the US.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
With that said, if the constitution states, "natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States," (emphasis added) then isn't it even more moot than just not defining what "natural born" means? Since it says, "or a Citizen of the United States," making a distinction between "natural born citizen" and the latter, doesn't that eliminate the necessity of being a "natural born citizen" regardless?

It says "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

The "or citizen" part is regarding people who hadn't been born in the US, but were much involved in politics. You have to remember that some of the Founding Fathers were born in Europe, and others were born in "United States" when it was "British America".

Rules, statutes, acts, et al, are not the Law of the Land. Only the Constitution is. Nothing, not even a vote of the people can over take the Constitution. The requirements of the President are clear and there is no question, Obamah has not shown the people he is a Constitutionaly acceptable nor electable Natural Citizen of the States United.

Originally posted by irishgrl
however I also found this:

(g) (...) totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

If she gave birth to Obama at 16, and spent at least 5 years in the States, (2 after the age of 14) then she is a citizen, and so is her child, apparently, regardless of where he/she was born or the status of his/her legitimacy...If I understand this correctly...

That is the current legislation. You are quoting from the legislation as it is currently, which has been amended many times after Obama's birth.

At the time of his birth, however, it said "at least 5 of which were after attaining the age of 14".