Under Seal: Document Expert Identifies Obama Birth Certificate Forger; Says Media Executives Invol

reply to post by WarminIndy


(Facepalm)
He. Was. Born. In HAWAII!!!! It's not under dispute! The only place it's under dispute is in the minds of birthers, who are getting increasingly desperate. Which reminds me, has Orly Taitz come up with more drivel recently?

Xcalibur254
reply to post by PRS395

 

Please provide the proof that he was in eligible to run for President. The fact that his mother was a US citizen alone makes him a natural born citizen.

What you fail to see is that at the time of his birth, according to the law, she was no longer an American citizen. She had become a citizen of Kenya through the marriage under Muslim law. I think you need to read about citizenship laws in other countries.

She gave up her rights to become a Kenyan citizen at the time her marriage was recognized in Kenya, but not the United States.

If Kenyan law dictates that through marriage, as it is under Muslim law, then she was a Kenyan citizen, no longer a US citizen. So when he was born, his parents were Kenyan citizens.

WarminIndy
What you fail to see is that at the time of his birth, according to the law, she was no longer an American citizen.

Please show the exact US law where that is stated....

She had become a citizen of Kenya through the marriage under Muslim law.

Please state the exact US law where that is stated....

I think you need to read about citizenship laws in other countries.

I think you need to do that!

If Kenyan law dictates that through marriage, as it is under Muslim law, then she was a Kenyan citizen, no longer a US citizen.

Please state that exact kenyan law....

So when he was born, his parents were Kenyan citizens.

Wrong again, his mother was a US citizen - when did she give up her US citizenship?

reply to post by hellobruce


Again, utter fail.

My original comment, on page 1, was regarding the fact that he is claiming to know WHO ACTUALLY FORGED THE DOCUMENT. NOT about believe the rest of this.

Thank you and please play again.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Let's inject a little rationality into this thread. Here's something with cites attached - voila

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

(Facepalm)
He. Was. Born. In HAWAII!!!! It's not under dispute! The only place it's under dispute is in the minds of birthers, who are getting increasingly desperate. Which reminds me, has Orly Taitz come up with more drivel recently?

It doesn't matter, according to the law at the time, and if the law was never changed, his mother was a Kenyan citizen according to Kenyan law at the time of his birth.

Does it make him then a citizen or natural born citizen? He may have been born here, that doesn't necessarily make him a citizen, what it does make him is born in the United States. As far as I know, his mother's legal status as a citizen is up in the air. But just because he was born here, didn't necessarily make him a citizen. When a foreign couple have a baby here and then go back to their country, that child's nationality is determined by the status of his parents. Since Vietnamese babies born of American fathers are not considered Americans, neither are babies born of citizens of other countries who then go back. Obama Sr. went back to Kenya, Stanley then went to Indonesia.

Barack Jr. was a citizen of Kenya, by virtue of Kenyan law, a citizen of Indonesia, by virtue of Indonesian law, and now a citizen of the United States. As he didn't seem to be legally adopted by his grandparents, then he would have only become a citizen through marriage to Michelle.

There is a difference in natural born to American citizens and natural born to citizens from elsewhere. Being natural born to citizens of other countries then they needed to remain here for his citizenship status, and since neither remained here, he was therefore not an American citizen by birth.

chiefsmom
Again, utter fail.

Yes, you and birthers certainly have!

My original comment, on page 1, was regarding the fact that he is claiming to know WHO ACTUALLY FORGED THE DOCUMENT.

As Obama's birth certificates were not forged, what are you blathering about?

Xcalibur254
reply to post by beezzer

 

The courts have been pretty clear that if you have birthright citizenship you have natural born citizenship. Birthright citizenship is defined in 8 USC § 1401 which includes this section:

(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

This is the law after November 13, 1986. From 1952 to 1986, it required 10 years residing in the U.S. at least five after the age of 16. So if Obama had been born outside the United States in 1961, he wouldn't qualify. Because his mother was only 18 at his birth. So although she had resided in the U.S. for ten years, five weren't after attaining the age of 16. Only two.

I'm not on the side of the so-called "birthers". But let's get our facts correct.

WarminIndy
he was therefore not an American citizen by birth.

So when the US court declared Obama was a natural born US citizen they got it wrong, and some anon birther on the internet is correct......

reply to post by WarminIndy


Round objects. Sorry, but that's total bollocks. Please see my post above - and my cite.

Moresby
So if Obama had been born outside the United States in 1961, he wouldn't qualify.

Except Obama was born in Hawaii....

reply to post by hellobruce


According to immigration laws and the laws of Kenya and Muslim law, she gave up her rights when she married Obama Sr.

That's what you people aren't understanding.

Happily, Congress was at work and on September 22, 1922, passed the Married Women's Act, also known as the Cable Act. This 1922 law finally gave each woman a nationality of her own. No marriage since that date has granted U.S. citizenship to any alien woman nor taken it from any U.S.-born women who married an alien eligible to naturalization.(11) Under the new law women became eligible to naturalize on (almost) the same terms as men. The only difference concerned those women whose husbands had already naturalized. If her husband was a citizen, the wife did not need to file a declaration of intention. She could initiate naturalization proceedings with a petition alone (one-paper naturalization). A woman whose husband remained an alien had to start at the beginning, with a declaration of intention. It is important to note that women who lost citizenship by marriage and regained it under Cable Act naturalization provisions could file in any naturalization court--regardless of her residence.(12)

Obama Sr. was never naturalized, so according to US law, she was a Kenyan citizen. She then, according to the law, then had to start over. This is the way the law read in those days.

It was not until 1929 that women who gained citizenship through their husband's naturalization after marriage could obtain a "Certificate of Derivative Citizenship" from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). And it was not until 1940 that INS could issue certificates to women who gained citizenship by marriage to a man already a citizen.(17) While not in themselves proof of citizenship for legal purposes, proof of marriage to a U.S. citizen occurring prior to September 22, 1922, and proof of the husband's U.S. citizenship, remain as the foundation for legally documenting a foreign-born woman's citizenship.(18)

As he never became a naturalized citizen, she had become a Kenyan citizen according to Kenyan law, she gave up her rights as an American citizen according to the Cable Act. The Cable Act was repealed in 1936, but the Naturalization law was geared toward redeclaring intent, and since she then moved on to Indonesia, she therefore was no longer a US citizen.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Another country's laws do not dictate our own laws. If they did what's to stop a country like North Korea from claiming that every US citizen was no longer a US citizen but a citizen of North Korea. The only way she could have renounced her citizenship is if she did so under US law, which means there would be paperwork. However, even if she did renounce her citizenship Obama would still be a natural born citizen because he was born on US soil. Just look at the case I mentioned above, Perkins v. Elg , if you don't believe me. In that case Elg was born on US soil to two Swedish nationals. She then spent her life growing up in Sweden. In the decision it was stated that since she was born on US soil, not only is she a US citizen but she would even be eligible to run for President.

hellobruce

WarminIndy
he was therefore not an American citizen by birth.

So when the US court declared Obama was a natural born US citizen they got it wrong, and some anon birther on the internet is correct......

I am only going on what the law said at the time of his birth. You can't change the facts of the law in 1964, you have to accept that it was what it was.

WarminIndy
According to immigration laws and the laws of Kenya and Muslim law, she gave up her rights when she married Obama Sr.

What has Kenyan law and "muslim" law have to do with the USA?

That's what you people aren't understanding.

No, you are not understanding that neither Kenyan or "muslim" law has any bearing on the USA.

Obama Sr. was never naturalized, so according to US law, she was a Kenyan citizen.

You do not even read what you post, as if you had read it you would have seen

nor taken it from any U.S.-born women

As he never became a naturalized citizen, she had become a Kenyan citizen according to Kenyan law,

She never gave up her US citizenship....

Xcalibur254
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Another country's laws do not dictate our own laws. If they did what's to stop a country like North Korea from claiming that every US citizen was no longer a US citizen but a citizen of North Korea. The only way she could have renounced her citizenship is if she did so under US law, which means there would be paperwork. However, even if she did renounce her citizenship Obama would still be a natural born citizen because he was born on US soil. Just look at the case I mentioned above, Perkins v. Elg , if you don't believe me. In that case Elg was born on US soil to two Swedish nationals. She then spent her life growing up in Sweden. In the decision it was stated that since she was born on US soil, not only is she a US citizen but she would even be eligible to run for President.

I just posted the laws regarding that.

Her parents were Swedish citizens that went back to Sweden and never naturalized. The difference in Obama's case is that his US mother gave up her rights as a citizen, and then therefore, when she gave up her rights as a citizen, she was eligible to declare intent. But Elg's parents were never naturalized. Obama Sr. was never naturalized either, and since Stanley gave up her rights, under the law, she could only be naturalized again.

But the court stated that about Sweden, and yet the law does not provide for the same for other countries of nationality.

That would mean then every anchor baby is eligible to become president, wouldn't that be so? And yet Mexican babies born here are still creating controversy within the law.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Wow, what a bizarre reading of that law. It seems you forgot the most important part even though you quoted it:

This 1922 law finally gave each woman a nationality of her own. No marriage since that date has granted U.S. citizenship to any alien woman nor taken it from any U.S.-born women who married an alien eligible to naturalization.

Prior to this law a woman's citizenship was dependent on her husband's. After this was not the case. If her husband was already naturalized but she wasn't she still had to file for citizenship but could do so in an expedited process. If the husband was not already naturalized she had to start the process from the beginning. The final part regards the process women could take to regain their citizenship if they had lost it due to marriage prior to this law being enacted.

WarminIndy
You can't change the facts of the law in 1964, you have to accept that it was what it was.

You seem to think a country can make a law that effects the USA.... As was posted above, what is stopping north Korea making a law declaring everyone in the world is a North Korean citizen, and has to pay 50% of their salary in tax to North Korea.... according to you that means every US citizen must pay that tax as that is the law....

You really do not stop and think about what you are posting here, do you!

bjax9er
reply to post by GNOarmy

 

Prove his mother is not an American citizen.
Then talk to me.

Prove she's even the mother...and that he wasn't born of a jackal.

WarminIndy
The difference in Obama's case is that his US mother gave up her rights as a citizen,

Where and when did she do that, and who were the witnesses when she made that declaration to a US official. What was the US officials name and title.

Birthers claims are getting more and more bizarre!