Divorce Papers Found-Obama Sr./ Ann Dunham says Obama Jr. born in Kenya

The US does not recognize dual citizenship. They do not care. See source below.

Originally posted by redhatty
And yet, I still respectfully disagree.

Yeah, I know. Same here.

Originally posted by redhatty
Of course it would be nice to have a judicial decision to finally put the question to rest.

That's not necessary, It's all explained in Naturalization law.

My argument is that Naturalization is a legal process. You don't magically "become" naturalized by turning 18 or 21. It's not something that just happens. There are forms, tests, an oath.

The Naturalization Process

Naturalization is the legal process through which a foreign citizen or national can become a U.S. citizen.

Obama was a US citizen at birth, therefore did not need to "become" a US citizen. Further:

In order to be naturalized, an applicant must first be qualified to apply for citizenship. Then, he or she must complete an application, attend an interview, and pass an English and a civics test. Upon successful completion of these steps, the applicant takes an oath of loyalty, and becomes a citizen.

It's for people who do not hold US citizenship.

Nat uralization Requirements

U.S. citizenship is conferred after the oath of allegiance is taken.
...
Successfully naturalizing in the United States requires a thorough understanding of the steps involved, and careful preparation at each stage.

With all due respect, you're making up this scenario in which someone who is born in the US somehow "becomes" naturalized without taking an oath.

Dual Citizenship

The United States does not formally recognize dual citizenship. However, it also does not taken any stand against it, either legally or politically.

Naturalization FAQs

A person may become a U.S. citizen (1) by birth or (2) through naturalization.
...
If you are not a U.S. citizen by birth or did not acquire U.S. citizenship automatically after birth, you may still be eligible to become a citizen through the normal naturalization process. People who are 18 years and older use the "Application for Naturalization" (Form N-400) to become naturalized. Persons who acquired citizenship from parent(s) while under 18 years of age use the "Application for a Certificate of Citizenship" (Form N-600) to document their naturalization.
...
A child who is born in the United States, or born abroad to a U.S. citizen(s) who lived in (or came to) the United States for a period of time prior to the child's birth, is considered a U.S. citizen at birth.

Originally posted by redhatty
1) according Constitution there are 2 groups of US citizens: NBC and Naturalized Citizens.
"United States Constitution Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...";

One more thing. According to the above, All persons born in the US or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States...

So, Obama (like all other US citizens) was either BORN in the US or NATURALIZED in the US.

For your argument to hold water, he would have to NOT have been born in the US. For a person cannot be both born in the US and Naturalized in the US.

Dunham was a US citizen, but too young to confer citizenship on her Kenyan born child. She was not yet 18. In any case, Kenyan born is not "American born" an explicit stipulation of the Constitution.
BHO has spent millions to NOT SHOW his birth certificate. Why doesn't he just address the problem? Say--well, I don't know where it is. He ignores it as he ignored the Constitution. He is a fraud, deliberate and premeditated. The Press and Media have acted illegally as his personal agents, Mommy, Daddy and lawyer.
Somebody asked why all this is being "fabricated" all of the sudden, just because the losers are sore. Such a question is foolish or disingenuous. The birth certificate issues has been around for many months, debated by legal practitioners and lay people. BTW, Obama mysteriously closed all his university records as well. Supposedly he edited The Harvard Law Review, yet never wrote anything that has come down.
This person has FRAUD writ large you can't see the word for the letters.
Yes, he'll be "sworn" in and I'll laugh at his "oath" if i happen to catch it. But he will be an illegal president. All of this will eventually come out and he will go down in history as an absurd affront to the Constitution. Really--he's a coup, orchestrated by interests and persons far larger than he. He's there because he's "black" and can't be moved without creating civil unrest.
As for why the Republicans didn't make an issue out of it... i suspect fear of "civil unrest" had something to do with it, but Mccain seems to have thrown the elections. One thing you must understand--and I'm surprised that people on this forum sometimes don't--is that there is no essential difference between the parties. They are both run by similar, sometimes competing interests, who have their alternative scenarios and Plan Bs in place in case things don't work out.
Best thing to do with this illegal alien, who crawled out of the Chicago cess pool until he crawls back in, is just ride it out. He's probably not even the worst thing we'll have to worry about. He doesn't have the finesse, or expertise to run anything. He is way over his head. We have no writings from him, no evidence of any intellectual ability except telescripted mind-control speeches scripted by ex-Clintonites.
Obama is one long, professional lie. That's all you need to keep in mind.

Ha-Ha! I told you so you ignorant fools, every time you make your claims and then every time you have absolutely no evidence to back them up. You are all a bunch of liars, go troll some other forum because we don't need your nonsense.

Originally posted by DraconianKing
Ha-Ha! I told you so you ignorant fools, every time you make your claims and then every time you have absolutely no evidence to back them up. You are all a bunch of liars, go troll some other forum because we don't need your nonsense.

Ditto, go watch Fox News or lust after Palin, kiss Roves butt, be as stupid as you want to be, its over, hello!

Obama won, fair and square!

reply to post by DraconianKing


No, no, no. Here's what they do:

They will continue to sit here and argue a dead topic until another blog posts up more crap. Then they'll come here, post it, and talk about that useless piece of garbage for another week or so until the next piece gets put out.

It's a vicious cycle of false news and dumb people.

[edit on 1/4/2009 by Irish M1ck]

You know, this Obama plan was well thought out. Throw 2 billion at his ad campaign, get 50% of the US electorate "on-side" and the let the conspiracy purveyors at him. I hope you see what is happening...

If Obama gets into office, 50% of the people will be pissed off. New laws, raped constitution, possible revolution and of course martial law under Obama. NWO moves forward fast to create the NAU and the plastic coffins, rail cars and interment sites are all ready.

If Obama is found to be ineligible, 50% of the people will be pissed off. New laws, raped constitution, possible revolution and of course martial law under Bush (constitutional crisis). NWO moves forward fast to create the NAU and the plastic coffins, rail cars and interment sites are all ready.

Either way, we're pooched! This appears to be an "inconvenient truth?" It might be more productive to look at a solution to this two pronged attack, rather than worry about the mechanics of political manipulation.

Originally posted by redhatty . . .
Funny, back in 1874, it is clear that SCOTUS understood exactly what constituted a natural born citizen...

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
Minor v. Happersett (1874)

And this case wasn't even about citizenship, but the right to vote!

It's interesting that you quote from an ancient case which found that the constitution did not give women the right to vote.

The status of women was very different in those days. The intensely patriarchal nature of society, and the tendency to regard women as adjuncts to their men, led to citizenship being passed through the male line. There was no question of citizenship being passed on by just one parent, because single parenthood was not generally admitted to, and any woman married to a citizen of the United States, most likely including those in common law relationships, was deemed to also be a citizen of the US.

These days such an approach is considered discriminatory. Just as it is unthinkable now to deny women the right to vote, it is also unthinkable to deny women the right to automatically convey American citizenship to their children in any situation in which a man can pass on citizenship.

The reverse it also true. It has been found that men must have any right to pass on citizenship that is given to women. The main difference is that it is assumed that a single mother will raise and provide for her child. As this is less likely for a single father he must take steps to prove he is taking responsibility for his child, rather than just sowing wild oats.

To summarise:
American citizenship used to be inherited paternally and the wife was a citizen also if her husband was.
As American society has matured such gender discrimination has become illegal.
These days all who are born in, "and subject to the jurisdiction of," the US are born American citizens.




Redhatty, you appear to be saying that a person with dual citizenship in not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and this shows a misunderstanding of the terminology.

Jurisdiction = law

A child born in the US to a diplomat or a high ranking foreign official, by international and reciprocal courtesy, is not expected to be subject to US law.

All of the children born in the US are citizens, and subject to the laws of the US, even if they acquire a dozen other citizenships at birth as well. As such they grow up with a responsibility to obey the laws, pay taxes and serve America in times of need.

You can be a citizen of another country, vote in that countries elections, and even do military service in that country (unless it is at war with America,) and, provided you still see yourself as an American citizen, you still are one.
US law relating to dual citizenship:


In regard to her acceptance of all her children, and her reluctance to disenfranchise them unless absolutely necessary, you could say America is the great mother.



Natural Born

To understand the implications in this concept, and the evolution of its application, one must understand the changes in society, as referred to above.

Natural Born was never defined, because it simply meant born a citizen.
Such a concept was too simple and too much taken for granted to need definition. You can see proof of this in the many instances of Natural Born citizenship being contrasted with naturalised citizenship.

Originally in America, as stated in your quoted court case, you were considered to be born a citizen if you were born in America to two citizen parents. This has led to the misunderstanding that Natural Born meant being born in America to two a citizen parents. However that was not the meaning, that was merely the situation at the time. The meaning was simply that you were born a citizen, as opposed to being naturalised one.

These days a baby is a US citizen at birth if one or two Aussie parents visit the US for a week, have the baby there and dump it on you, catching the next flight home. Being a citizen at birth means the baby is a Natural Born citizen, and may one day grow up to be president.

Originally posted by Kailassa
Natural Born was never defined, because it simply meant born a citizen.
Such a concept was too simple and too much taken for granted to need definition.

And this reminds me of something. Definitions. It seems that "natural-born citizen" is a very simple concept, and only becomes difficult when people want to "define" it in order to exclude someone they don't like.

Take for example, the "definition of marriage". It's always been such a simple concept, but recently, there's a group who wish to exclude other people from participating in it and all of a sudden, there's a "definition" that is at stake! There was never a global "definition" (each couple defined their own marriage) until the wish to exclude came along. Now, all of a sudden, it's strictly defined and excludes a group. It used to exclude black people, too.

Same with natural-born citizen. It's grasping at straws to an extreme degree to suggest that a person born in the US and a US citizen at birth is not a "natural-born citizen". It's absolutely ludicrous. All these machinations to somehow wiggle around Barack Obama's nationality, attempting to make him ineligible are ridiculous and transparent.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by eaganthorn


It is not a question of 'liking or disliking' an individual. It is a quesiton of truth, justice and the American Way.

First of all.. Obama was a best a B- Student in High School. (note records/grades are sealed.) He admits doing drugs in High School as well. He manages to get accepted at Occidental College. (Again no admission records, no grades, no test scores, no information available... all information is sealed.) He somehow manages to get accepted into Columbia College. (Again no admisssion records, no grades.) WE know that he works for ACORN prior to going to Harvard. (We only know that he graduated in the top 10 % of that years class. Obviously he had worked had to achieve that status.. but again there is no written documentation on HOW he got into Harvard in the first place.)

In further research, you see him completing his Selective Service Registration in CHICAGO. And it Appears that this may be questionable as to the date completed and signed.

Then there continues to be the question surrounding his Birth Certificate, his Certificate of Life Birth that he shows on his website.. may or may not be a true document... SOME PROFESSIONALS say it is an altered document as well.

We know nothing about OBAMA except what he tells us in his books. The Kenyan Government has placed all contact with his extended family there off limits. The Indonesian Government as done the same with any contacts with individuals that may have known OBAMA there as well.

As a former Officer in the United States Army... I do not want a Commander-in-Chief THAT I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT.

You see I firmly believe that Mr. Obama is hiding something.. anyone that spends almost 700,000 Dollars of donations on defending his lack of a birth certificate has something to hide.

In addition, anyone that can spend 670 MILLION dollars to buy the PRESIDENCY of the United States... just because he can... I would question WHY he feels that he can spend and continue to spend. There is and has not been any accounting for who donated and where the money was spent.

BH, let me ask you a question I don't recall ever seeing anyone ask you as it will provide alot of answers I think some of us have pondered over. Hypothetically speaking, if it was brought out and admitted to by Obama that he wasn't born inside the borders of the US and held Kenyan citizenship, thus placing him in conflict with the natural born citizen no dual citizenship requirements of the US Constitution for eligibillity to be president, would you support letting that rule slide or would you support the Constitution and insist that he not be seated as president? Hypothically speaking, of course.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I don't recall ever seeing anyone ask you

I don't think anyone has ever asked me, but I volunteered my thoughts on that in another thread:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
IF Obama was born in Kenya while his mother was traveling there and
IF they arrived back home and applied for and received a Hawaiian birth certificate and
IF the SCOTUS rules that Obama is a "natural-born citizen" (as they did for McCain)...

I will abide by their ruling. Simply because I don't think the framers of the Constitution meant to exclude people from the presidency simply because their parents used the bad judgment to travel abroad close to the time of delivery.

Now, if Stanley Ann Dunham moved to Kenya with Obama Sr. and while they resided there Obama Jr. was born, and some time later moved back to the States, I would definitely be against him becoming president, because I think that IS what the framers had in mind.

Additionally, if he knew he was born in Kenya and has been lying all this time, I definitely do NOT want him as president under any circumstances.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I concur, for the record. Fortunately, as of yet, there appears to be nothing of any merit to suggest that.

[edit on 1/5/2009 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Alright, I respect that. To be honest (and mind you, I intensely dislike/distrust Obama, so this admission is not easy), I don't believe the framers intended the law to prevent people who were born outside this country's borders purely due to traveling for visiting or business purposes to be prevented from holding the highest office. Obviously, two centuries ago traveling outside the country was an entirely different ball game than it is now. Only in the past 50 years can an American wake up and have an early breakfast in Los Angeles, lunch in the Caribean, and a midnight snack in London. So if it came out that he was born outside the US only because his parents were visiting his grandparents or whatever, then I'd be open to a review of the definition of the law and an examination of it's original intent. (I have a similiar situation, though not to such a severe degree as we're hypothetically talking about here. My parents were visiting my grandparents in Wisconsin when I was born. Thus I was born in Wisconsin, but my social security number is from New Mexico because I was concieved in and lived all but the first week (and last 8 years)of my life in New Mexico.)

Just something I want to ask you now.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
thus placing him in conflict with the natural born citizen no dual citizenship requirements of the US Constitution for eligibillity to be president,

Where, in the Constitution does it mention a "no dual citizenship requirement" for presidential eligibility? The US does not recognize dual citizenship. The only citizenship requirement is that the person is born in this country.

See Source Here

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Obviously, two centuries ago traveling outside the country was an entirely different ball game than it is now.

That is such an important point!

Where's my copy of the "Official Kenyan Birth Certificate", come on guys, take the tin foil off and find it for me, than I am on your side, otherwise this is just another (HOAX) thread!

PS - I 've been waiting and waiting for your information, by the way while your looking for the Birth Certificate see if you can find Obama's mother, father and their new born sons passports, oh and the Kenyan Hospital records, oh oh also their airplane tickets and hotel stays, there has to be a massive amount of evidence to prove his birth in Kenya other than hearsay!

[edit on 1/5/09 by mel1962]

reply to post by mel1962


Oh, come on now! Are you telling me, "OMG OBAMA HASN'T SHOWN ME HIS VAULTED BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE PERMISSION TO ACCESS OR SHOW ME" isn't going to work anymore?

Bummer.

Please, God.

Let this idiotic thread die.


[edit on 5-1-2009 by astron1000]

Well, if the "stuff" hits the fan in Gaza, and Iran runs to Gaza's aid, and pulls us into the fight, and Russia gets involved, then Bush might not be leaving anything behind, for January 20th will be just another day, Bush will remain in Power, and Obama will go back to Chicago.

I may be wrong, but personally, I believe that some really serious stuff is going to go down between now and January 20th. Just my opinion, and gut feeling. I am a news junkie, follow world events very closely, and a major storm is developing, and it does not look good!

~ Lonelypoet

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
First of all.. Obama was a best a B- Student in High School.

And you know this.... How?

(note records/grades are sealed.)

So are yours, to anyone but YOU. That's the Law. Part of that "truth, justice and the American Way" thing you stated at the beginning of your post--it's done for the protection of the individual from those who might use such information in some unsavory way.

And if the records are "sealed" as you say, how do you know he was only a B-student?

He admits doing drugs in High School as well.

At least he admitted it. I'm still waiting for someone to justify Bush's coc aine arrest that was expunged from his record thanks to Daddy's connections (AND his drunk driving arrest, AND his going AWOL, etc. etc.).

He manages to get accepted at Occidental College. (Again no admission records, no grades, no test scores, no information available... all information is sealed.)

Again, sealed for his protection. Yours are too. The only way to get that info is if the individual releases it voluntarily. Obama has no need to do so.

He somehow manages to get accepted into Columbia College. (Again no admisssion records, no grades.)

Again, NOT a matter of Public Record.

WE know that he works for ACORN prior to going to Harvard.

So? How does this somehow "taint" Obama?

(We only know that he graduated in the top 10 % of that years class. Obviously he had worked had to achieve that status.. but again there is no written documentation on HOW he got into Harvard in the first place.)

So what? We know Bush got into Yale on a "Legacy Appointment". Obviously Obama did not get into Harvard the same way, since his daddy and grand-daddy didn't go there. The most reasonable answer is that he worked his butt off and was admitted the "hard way". Why do you care so much about the details?

In further research, you see him completing his Selective Service Registration in CHICAGO. And it Appears that this may be questionable as to the date completed and signed.

"Questionable" according to whom?

Then there continues to be the question surrounding his Birth Certificate, his Certificate of Life Birth that he shows on his website.. may or may not be a true document... SOME PROFESSIONALS say it is an altered document as well.

Give me a complete list of these "professionals" and I'll bet if you dig into their backgrounds, you'll find they all in some way connect back to the RNC.

We know nothing about OBAMA except what he tells us in his books.

Only if you haven't been paying attention.

The Kenyan Government has placed all contact with his extended family there off limits. The Indonesian Government as done the same with any contacts with individuals that may have known OBAMA there as well.

Ummmm....... Maybe because there's a huge influx of paranoid conspiracy freaks beating on their doors like a bunch of drunks on a stripper's doorstep at 5am, and they've taken (reasonable IMO) precautions to protect those individuals from said freaks?

As a former Officer in the United States Army... I do not want a Commander-in-Chief THAT I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT.

So how comfortable have you been with a CIC who went AWOL during Vietnam (from a unit he only got into in the first place because of Daddy's connections, a unit guaranteed never to see any kind of action beyond booze, drugs, hookers and the occasional operation of obsolete hardware--and he couldn't even hack that), wasted millions of dollars worth of family and friends' money on failed business ventures, has had every "mistake" prior to his pResidency covered up by his family, (at best) allowed terrorists to strike on 9/11 despite repeated warnings (at worst being involved in a false-flag op to bend the public to "his" will), lied about WMD and Saddam's connections to 9/11 to get us into a needless war in Iraq that has claimed 4,221 American lives (for NOTHING!!!!!!!!!), AND ordered US troops to violate the Geneva Conventions re: the humane treatment of prisoners?

You like working for a War Criminal, Mr. Military Officer?

After the huge flaming fiasco that is the Bush pResidency, I can only imagine that a man who wants to end war and seek peace should be the Soldier's Best Friend. Unless said soldiers are suicidal.

You see I firmly believe that Mr. Obama is hiding something.. anyone that spends almost 700,000 Dollars of donations on defending his lack of a birth certificate has something to hide.

Again with six-to seven-figure dollar amounts re: Obama "trying to hide something".

How many times? How many G**D*** times do I have to ask for some kind of proof of this before one of you anti-Obama nuts actually backs up your statements with evidence?!?!?!?

In addition, anyone that can spend 670 MILLION dollars to buy the PRESIDENCY of the United States... just because he can... I would question WHY he feels that he can spend and continue to spend.

Like McCain wouldn't have if he'd had the money. Elections, unfortunately, are an expensive undertaking. And he's not spending it "just because he can"; technically once a campaign is over all that money is his to do with as he pleases. What did Bush do with his leftovers?

What is it about the money that bothers you? That he has it, or that most of it was given to him directly by We the People instead of the Corporate Special Interest of the Week?

There is and has not been any accounting for who donated and where the money was spent.

Again, the vast majority of the money was provided by millions of individuals whose donations were less than the amount that requires them to be identified. A million people can donate $100 each and there's no identification requirement. And where is it being spent now? A good portion of it is paying for media time and Web sites so he can drum up public support for his initiatives, at the same time he's informing the American people about his plan to return this once-great nation to prosperity. Why do you have a problem with that?

If you don't like that, or you have a problem with the amount of money being spent on political campaigns, I suggest you take it up with your Congressmen and support publicly-funded elections (with the added value of eliminating pay-for-play special interest pandering and ending corporate influence over elected officials). Or is that idea too "liberal" for you?

Shocked, shocked I am to still hear these crazy accusations. It's like you honestly believe Obama was grown from some kind of "pod" and "groomed" throughout his life by some shadowy power just so he could take over the Presidential "hot seat" and run this country into the ground.

Oh wait, Bush already proved all that is possible, didn't he? Except Obama didn't have the benefits of a powerful family legacy built on Nazi treasure and Saudi oil money (and maybe a few of Dad's old CIA/MIC buddies and their influence) to get him where he is today. And let's face it, economically speaking, for most Americans things can't get much worse.

[edit on 1/6/2009 by The Nighthawk]