Liacakos v Kennedy 195 F.Supp. 630 (1961)
Note: A man born in the US to Greek Parents, considered to be a Greek citizen under Greece’s Jus Sanguini rules and a US citizen under the 14th Amendment was found to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Both the fact that he was born to two aliens and the fact that he possessed a dual allegiance formed no objection to the ruling that he was a natural born citizen
195 F.Supp. 630
Vassilios LIACAKOS, a/k/a William G. Lias, Plaintiff,
v.
Robert F. KENNEDY, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 5249-55.
United States District Court District of Columbia. June 29, 1961.
Jack Wasserman and David Carliner, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., E. Riley Casey, Gil Zimmerman and William A. Matthews, Sp. Assts. to U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for defendant.
HOLTZOFF, District Judge.
Tomasicchio v Acheson, 98 F.Supp. 166 (1951)
Note: The following ruling in the District of Columbia outlines how citizenship is not an issue of international law but rather municipal law. And how in the United States, a child born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents, is a citizen. Furthermore, it describes in significant detail the concept of Dual Nationality. This should lay to rest most of the claims that President Obama, by virtue of being born with dual allegiances, was not a natural-born citizen. Since, as many have observed, the Constitution only recognizes two forms of citizenship, namely a natural-born citizen and a naturalized citizen, the precedents in the Court that find that Dual Citizenship is not a disability to maintaining one’s US citizenship, even when voting, or taking part in a foreign country’s military.
98 F.Supp. 166
TOMASICCHIO v.
ACHESON,
Secretary of State.
Civ. A. No. 2613-49.
United States District Court District of Columbia. June 18, 1951.
Jack Wasserman, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
George Morris Fay, U.S. Atty. and Ross O’Donoghue, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., for defendant.
HOLTZOFF, District Judge.
This is an action against the Secretary of State to procure a judgment declaring the plaintiff to be a citizen of the United States.1
A minor cannot renounce Allegiance to the US: In re Reid, 6 F.Supp. 800 (D. Or., 1934)
A case with an interesting twist, and finally resolved by the Supreme Court. The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal which overruled the lower court, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court but rejected because it was filed too late. Several Courts, including the Supreme Court have noted how these cases tend to fail on appeal due to lack of representation by the defendants, who often petition or file pro-se without legal representation. In Elg v Perkins SCOTUS observed how the AG failed to represent a full argument on the topic and that given the lack of opposition to the AG’s statement, they decided to ‘represent’ the opposing argument. A somewhat unusual solution to a usual problem with immigration cases.
A like determination is found in Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N. Y. 356, 84 Am. Dec. 193. The specific question, however, is whether the parents of a minor have the power to destroy his rights to the privileges and immunities of citizenship in the United States to which he is entitled by birth. It would seem that the denial of the right to the minor himself is a cogent argument against the existence of such a right in any other person. It was early recognized in this country that a minor has no right of his own accord to expatriate himself and is “totally incapable of making any election in regard to his citizenship.” Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N. Y. 356, 376, 84 Am. Dec. 193. This limitation has been reaffirmed recently in U. S. ex rel. Baglivo v. Day (D. C.) 28 F.(2d) 44, where it is said: “A native-born citizen [of the United States], who has not attained the age of 21 years, cannot renounce allegiance to the United States.”
Supreme Court of Hawaii on Citizenship
Clearly rejecting jus sanguini citizenship in favor of jus soli.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS CONCERNING THE REGISTRY OF THE STEAMSHIP CHINA
In the matter of the application of George W Macfarlane for a writ of mandamus Appeal from circuit judge first circuit
Submitted September 15 1897
Decided September 27 1897
JUDD CJ, FRERAR and WHITING JJ
Opinions of the Judge Advocate General of the Army, Volume 2
Opinions of the judge advocate general of the army, Volume 2, 1919
ALIEN Citizenship of American Born Son of Nonnaturalized Alien. A man who was born in this country though of German parents is a natural born citizen of the United States United States Constitution fourteenth amendment. Such a person had a double allegiance by birth but his permanent residence in the United States after attaining his majority indicates an election of United States citizenship. Thus the American view is that he was an American citizen originally and that he has now no other citizenship. 3 Moore’s Dig Int Law 532 539
Furthermore, it is probable that his residence in this country for 10 years prior to January 1 1914 resulted in a loss of German citizenship according to the German view (North German law of June 1, 1870; German imperial citizenship law of July 22, 1913 sec 31.)
Collins – Are persons born within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens thereof
Some have referenced the writings of George D Collins when attempting to make a case that Vattel and not Common Law determines who is a natural born citizen. However, these people forget to add that the same person argued many of these ‘arguments’ in front of US v Wong Kim Ark and that the Court rejected his arguments. Remarkably many of Collins’ same ‘arguments’ are to be found in the claims of the modern day birthers. With a minor difference, that since Collins made these arguments, they were rejected by the Courts.
ARE PERSONS BORN WITHIN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF
GEORGE D COLLINS
The American Law Review (1866-1906); Sep/Oct 1884; 18, American Periodicals Series Online pg.831
MANDOLI v. ACHESON, 344 U.S. 133 (1952)
(pdf)
The Supreme Court first observed that even though born of Italian Parents, he was a dual citizen at birth.
Petitioner Mandoli was born in this country, of unnaturalized Italian parents. These circumstances made him a citizen of the United States by virtue of our Constitution and a national of Italy by virtue of Italian law.
Did he even have to elect citizenship when reaching the age of majority?
The Nationality Act of 1940, 9 though not controlling here, shows the consistency of congressional policy not to subject a citizen by birth to the burden and hazard of election at majority. This comprehensive revision and codification of the laws relating to citizenship and nationality was prepared at the request of Congress by the Departments of State, Justice and Labor. The State Department proposed a new provision requiring an American-born national taken during minority to the country of his other nationality to make an election and to return to the United States, if he elected American nationality, on reaching majority. The Departments of Justice and Labor were opposed and, as a consequence, it was omitted from the proposed bill.
On Perkins v Elg
What it held was that citizenship conferred by our Constitution upon a child born under its protection cannot be forfeited because [344 U.S. 133, 139] the citizen during nonage is a passive beneficiary of foreign naturalization proceedings. It held that Miss Elg had acquired a derivative dual-citizenship but had not suffered a derivative expatriation. In affirming her right to return to and remain in this country, it did not hold that it was mandatory for her to do so.
Natural-born "sujets mixtes" (double nationality)
The concept of being a natural born dual citizen is explored in International law: a treatise By Lassa Oppenheim, Ronald Francis Roxburgh, 1920
310 Individuals owning double nationality bear in the language of diplomatists the name sujets mixtes. The position of such mixed subjects is awkward on account of the fact that two different States claim them as subjects and therefore claim their allegiance. In case a serious dispute arises between these two States which leads to war an irreconcilable conflict of duties is created for these unfortunate individuals. It is all very well to say that such conflict is a personal matter which concerns neither the Law of Nations nor the two States in dispute. As far as an individual has through naturalisation option and the like acquired his double nationality one may say that he has placed himself in that awkward position by intentionally and knowingly acquiring a second nationality without being released from his original nationality. But those who are natural born sujets mixtes in most cases do not know it before they have to face the conflict and their difficult position is not their own fault .
Loss of birth right citizenship – US Law
Note: Obama returned to the United States well before reaching the age of eighteen and thus the only possible ways for him to have lost his birthright citizenship is through 1481(a)(3), serving in the foreign armed forces, 1481(a)(5), formally renouncing his citizenship to a consular representative, 1481(a)(6), making a formal written statement while in the United States in time of war or 1481(a)(7), treason. Per 1481(b), it’s up to the party asserting that a loss of nationality occurred to present the necessary evidence.
In other words, lacking any evidence that Obama renounced his citizenship, he continued his US birthright citizenship when reaching the age of majority.
The current nationality laws of the United States do not specifically refer to dual nationality. The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality does not affect U.S. citizenship; however, under limited circumstances, the acquisition of a foreign nationality upon one’s own application or the application of a duly authorized agent may cause loss of U.S. citizenship under Section 349 (a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481 (a)(1)].
In order for loss of nationality to occur under Section 349 (a)(1), it must be established that the naturalization was obtained voluntarily by a person eighteen years of age or older with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. Such an intention may be shown by the person’s statements or conduct (Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 1980), but as discussed below in most cases it is assumed that Americans who are naturalized in other countries intend to keep their U.S. citizenship. As a result, they have both nationalities.
United States law does not contain any provisions requiring U.S. citizens who are born with dual nationality to choose one nationality or the other when they become adults (Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133, 1952). While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government does not endorse dual nationality as a matter of policy because of the problems that it may cause. Claims of other countries upon dual-national U.S. citizens often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts to provide diplomatic and consular protections to them when they are abroad.
Naturalization by Treaty
Note: Under international law and the law of nature, inhabitants of a nation, which title is transferred to another nation, become citizens of the new nation, with the opportunity of election to maintain the original citizenship. This fact is important when discussing Obama’s British citizenship which was lost when, under the Kenya Independence Act, was transferred to Kenya. Under Kenyan Constitution, Obama’s failure to elect Kenyan citizenship when reaching the age of majority, caused Obama to lose his Kenyan citizenship, while continuing his US birthright citizenship. Similar treaties between the United States and Great Britain, allowed the inhabitants of ceded territory to elect and/or abandon British or United States citizenship.
Chapter VI.—Naturalization By Treaty.
The question of naturalization by treaty may be passed over without any considerable comment. The general principles controlling such cases are entirely clear and have been understood and acted upon by the Government from the first.
Election of Citizenship – Children w. dual nationality
Note: The general principle is that a child born on US soil cannot lose his birthright citizenship through the actions of the parents, and, once reaching the age of majority, can make the decision as to which birthright citizenship to continue.
Source: United States. Dept. of State, James Brown Scott, David Jayne Hill, Gaillard Hunt, Citizenship of the United States, expatriation, and protection abroad, Issue 326 of House document, GPO 1906.
Inasmuch as our Government declares that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, and also recognizes as well as adopts, on its own part, the rule that children of citizens resident abroad are citizens of the country to which the parents owe allegiance, there arises, as will be seen, a conflict of citizenship spoken of usually as dual allegiance. The matter was up for consideration and decision in Trimbles v Harrison, 1840, 1 B Monk 140 ,where the matter to be determined was as to the citizenship of a woman who born in Boston in 1773 of British parents, was taken by her father to England prior to 1798, where she was married. In discussing this question, the court said:
Blackstone – Children of Aliens
11 Citizens born abroad - With the exception of those born of alien enemies who happen to hold a part of the country as enemies it is the allegiance not the soil that determines (7 Coke Rep 18 a). Whether a child born in the house of a foreign ambassador would be an alien or citizen seems doubtful. The dictum of the commentator as to French law is no longer true. A child born in France of foreign parents may claim French citizenship under certain conditions(Code Nap I 1 ,9). In both countries the citizenship derived by actual birth is probably now held to be conclusive if properly claimed (See Wooddesson Lect 1, 231).
Reasonable doubt?
BHO COLB
There is now reasonable doubt that Mr. Obama meets the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of “natural born” citizenship. This means that there is also reasonable doubt that he is qualified to be President of the United Sates and commander in chief.
Source: Colonel Harry Riley (US ARMY Ret.)
The problem with this argument is two fold. First of all the concept of ‘reasonable doubt’ and secondly, whether reasonable doubt disqualifies Obama from being the President of the United States.
Under the ‘De Facto Officer‘ Doctrine, the President would still be ‘de facto’ President and his orders and actions remain binding until the President has been found ineligible. The question now becomes one of determining the eligibility of the President. The 2oth amendment clearly places the power to qualify the President in the hands of Congress, the separation of powers, as exemplified in the Constitution through the principle of impeachment, place the power to find a President eligible in the hands of Congress and the power to remove a duly elected President, through the principle of impeachment, also clearly in the hands of Congress. Alternatively, in 2010, the people can vote into power a Congress who may be interested in an impeachment procedure, or finally, in 2012, the voters can decide to elect a new President. In the mean time, the suggestions that the Court, perhaps through Quo Warranto, can decide the eligibility of a sitting President, ignore the clear separation of powers implications as well as legislative and legal history which deny that a Quo Warranto can be used against a sitting President, since this would circumvent the clear Constitutional principles. Common law never trumps the Constitution.
So now that we have addressed the qualification issue, the issue of ‘reasonable doubt’ is irrelevant but still worth addressing. Since Obama by any reasonable standard is shown born on US soil per his COLB and since additional data support these findings, there is little doubt that the President is a citizen as well as a natural born citizen due to being born on US soil under jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. His temporary ‘dual citizenship’ cannot be disqualifying especially since the President Obama had returned to the United States well before reaching the age of majority.
June 2, 2005: Holsworth v Berg – Sanctions Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD HOLSWORTH and ELIZABETH
HOLSWORTH,
Plaintiffs :
v.
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ.,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION : 05-1116
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOYNER, J. June 2, 2005
Via the instant motion, Third Party Defendants Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity, Carpenters Pension and Annuity Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity, Carpenters Savings Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity, Carpenters Joint Apprentice Committee, National Apprenticeship and Health and Safety Fund, Metropolitan Regional Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and Carpenters Political Action Committee of Philadelphia and Vicinity (“Carpenters Health”) move for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against Defendant Philip J. Berg, Esquire. For the reasons which follow,
the Third Party Defendants’ Motion shall be granted.
Orly – James v Obama – Part 2
C. President elect’s Failures to Qualify
17. By public evidence, President Elect, Obama had failed to qualify:
18. A) By allegiance to Britain at birth via his alien colonial father, irreparably negating his being a “natural born citizen”;
Comment: Begging the question. In fact, as several early court cases and common law history have shown, the fact that one or more parents has some allegiance to another country, does not mean that a child born on US soil has the same allegiance. In fact, under allegiance of, is a term commonly misconstrued when all it means is that the child has to obey the laws of the country. This was added to exclude children from diplomats, who are born under diplomatic immunity, and children of invading military.
2009-03-16 – Sullivan v Marshall – Dismissed w. Prejudice
Comment: Sullivan v Marshall is a lawsuit I had not been tracking. Luckily, the Right Side of Life blog did track it and reports that the case had been dismissed w. prejudice.
Russ: Exploring the Evidence
The following is a work in progress in which I explore the claims left in the comments by a poster name Russ. Since his comments seem to be repeating typical assertions found on the web, assertions which in many cases are contrary to fact, I have decided to take his claims and show ‘the rest of the story’. I encourage anyone interested to contribute their observations, comments and suggestions.
2009-03-17 – Orly Taitz – Touhy request (FOIA)
Comment: Has noone informed Orly that the Keyes v Bowen lawsuit has been thrown out? The FOIA action, which was just recently touted by Orly as “US Attorney Generals signing on to her cause”, but was in fact nothing more than a refusal of the DOJ to abide by the issued Subpoena, seems to be moot right now. What is interesting is how many of the disproven assertions Orly still seems to be considering ‘facts’. Enjoy. My predictions? The FOIA request will be thrown out as moot.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEMAND FOR INFORMATION,
UNDER UNITED STATES EX RELATOR TOUHY V RAGEN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
Exploring the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause
Source: Constitutional Law: General Conceptions, Fundamental Rights, Liberty and Property, Powers of Congress, Federal and State Jurisdiction, By James Parker Hall, Published by deBower-Chapline co., 1910
§80. Persons excluded as not “subject to the jurisdiction.” What qualification upon citizenship by birth is introduced by the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?” This has been judicially explained to exclude from citizenship five classes of persons who have been actually born within the territorial limits of the United States. The exclusion of four of these classes results from the rules of public international law in view of which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted and in the light of which it has to be interpreted. The fifth class is one peculiar to our own government, but having an origin and history that as fully entitle it to exclusion as the other four.
Loss of Citizenship Clarified – 1940 and 1952 Immigration and Nationality Acts
Source: What’s your evidence – A top notch resource for any Eligibility Researcher
Immigration law has been complicated due to the fact that Congress has passed various acts and amendments to said acts. We shall start with the Act of 1940 and then discuss the changes made in 1952 since these are relevant to President Obama as he was born in 1961. The results are that Obama would not have lost his US birth right citizenship, even if his parents had managed to obtain an Indonesian citizenship for him, something prohibited by Indonesian law.
Dual Nationality and the Supreme Court
Dual nationality, the Supreme Court has explained, is “a status long recognized in the law.” Kawakita, 343 U.S. at 723. See also id. at 734 (“Dual nationality . . . is the unavoidable consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries. One who becomes a citizen of this country by reason of birth retains it, even though by the law of another country he is also a citizen of it.”) (citation omitted); Savorgnan, 338 U.S. at 500 (although “[t]he United States has long recognized the general undesirability of dual allegiances[,] . . . [t]emporary or limited duality of citizenship has arisen inevitably from differences in the laws of the respective nations as to when naturalization and expatriation shall become effective”); Elg, 307 U.S. at 329 (“As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality.”). The mere assertion by an individual of citizenship in one country thus need not manifest an intention to relinquish citizenship in another country, for “[t]he concept of dual citizenship recognizes that a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact that he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other.” Kawakita, 343 U.S. at 723-24.
Orly Taitz – She did it
Orly Update
Orly Taitz reports that she managed to get Robert’s attention and delivered a box full of documents to his security people. While I have to admire the tenacity of Orly, her posting also reveals an aspect which I personally find troublesome. And no it is not the lack of legal support for her claims, and it is not the speculative nature of her assertions, no it is the following statement
Why are you afraid to speak up, to stand up for you constitution? Why are you afraid to tell this arrogant jerk from Africa and Indonesia- You need to go home, you cannot be a president and commander in chief because you are not a Natural born Citizen. To be a Natural born Citizen you have to have both parents as citizens. Your father was never a US citizen and you don’t qualify and you also spit us in the face by refusing to unseal your vital records. There is no proof that you are even a citizen. For all we know, you need to go back to Kenya and wait for your green card, and that after we try you for all the crimes perpetrated upon American citizens.
As I and others have already pointed out, there is no credible evidence that President Obama is an Usurper. In fact, since he is the de facto and likely also the de jure President of the United States, we cannot make claims that lack in supporting evidence.
Vattel interpreted
So far as Mr. Vattel states the doctrine on the subject of citizenship in this section he states it correctly, but there are other questions on this subject, not noticed by him, which it would be well to state. These have reference to the following:
1. Children born of the subjects of one power in the territory of another. 2. Illegitimate children born of a foreign mother. 3. Foreign women who have married the subject of a State. Upon these points the doctrine in United States, is, 1, That children of foreigners born here are American citizens if they elect to declare themselves so, whilst the children of American citizens born abroad are themselves citizens of the United States, unless the I4th amendment has changed this doctrine, upon which there is a difference of opinion ; 2, Illegitimate children belong to the State of which the mother was the subject ; and 3, Except in the United States, the nationality of a wife is merged in that of her husband, so that in those countries, when a woman marries a foreigner she loses her own nationality and acquires his; but here a native woman marrying a foreigner remains the subject of the State, though an alien woman marrying a citizen of the United States becomes herself naturalized, unless she continue throughout her husband’s lifetime, a non-resident. Hall’s Inter. Law, secs. 68, 69, 70.
Source: James Houston Gilmore, Emer de Vattel, University of Virginia, Notes of a Course of Lectures on Vattel’s Law of Nations Published by J. Blakey, 1891
From International Law, By William Edward Hall, Published by Clarendon press, 1880
68: Under a custom, which was formerly so general as to subjects be called by an eminent French authority ‘ the rule of power Europe Y and of which traces still exist in the legislation within the of many countries, the nationality of children born of the territory of another subjects of one power w1th1n the terr1tory of another was dictated by the place of their birth, in the eye at least of the state of which they were natives. The rule was the natural outcome of the intimate connection in feudalism between the individual and the soil upon which he lived, but it survived the ideas with which it was originally connected, and probably until the establishment of the Code Napoleon by France no nation regarded the children of foreigners born upon its territory as aliens. In that Code however a principle was applied in favour of strangers, by which states had long been induced to guide themselves in dealing with their own subjects, owing to the inconvenience of looking upon the children of natives born abroad as foreigners.
Mario Apuzzo – Still wondering about dual citizenship…
Mario Apuzzo
Mario Apuzzo wonders:
Hence, how do you maintain that being absolutley subject to the jurisdictiohn of the U.S. only requires that the child be born on U.S. soil when I have just shown you that just being born on U.S. soil can still create double or triple allegiances in the child by inheritance of allegiances from his alien parents?
Hence, you cannot deny that a child born on U.S. soil to one or two alien parent(s) will also acquire one or two additional allegiances from that/those parent(s). Or can you?
Sure, the concept of dual or more citizenships was not foreign to the Framers and legislators and justices since then. Therefore, children are not deemed to choose any citizenship as their birth right until their reach the age of adulthood when they choose which citizenship to maintain. If this includes the birth right citizenship of the United States then the child, when reaching adulthood can indicate, if necessary, that he wants to continue his US citizenship and he remains a natural born citizen.
Orly Taitz on Israel Radio – There is nothing 'this man' (Obama) says which is ever true.
Same old assertions, many of which are simply incorrect such as the claim that since Obama’s father was not a US Citizen, Obama could not possibly have been a natural born citizen even though the courts have ruled that children of aliens born in the US gain US citizenship by birth right.
Some other goodies:
Selective Services: Failed to register under his legal name Barry Soetoro. Thus the Selective Services registration signed by Barack Obama must be fraudulent.
There is nothing ‘this man’ (Obama) says which is ever true.
It comes to the point of treason.
And then the conspiracy again: “An interesting fact is that both Michelle and Barack Obama have job description positions listed with all major news agencies and news papers.”
Indonesian Citizenship Law Explored
Several people have asserted that Obama, by virtue of being adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia, acquired Indonesian citizenship and lost US citizenship.
Let’s explore the laws which were relevant during the 4 years from age 6-10 during which Obama was in Indonesia.
The law in question is Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia
Fight the Smears – Obama never renounced US Citizenship
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
American Citizenship By Taliesin Evans
Taliesin Evans, American Citizenship: And the Right of Suffrage in the United States Published by Tribune Print., 1892
FEDERAL CITIZENSHIP BY INHERITANCE.
Federal citizenship may be acquired by inheritance by virtue of the place of birth, irrespective of the status of the parents.
Birth within the dominion and jurisdiction of the United States creates citizenship of itself (4).
All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. Rev. Stats. U. S,, Sec. 1992.
Read More…
Obama Natural Born Citizen Flowchart
For sake of reality let’s accept that Obama was born to Stanley Ann Durham, a US citizen. So let’s walk through the possibilities
Indonesian law and dual citizenship
Once again Dr Conspiracy corrects the mistakes made by Berg and others when discussing Indonesian law.
The rather complicated Article 3 is of interest. It says that a child cannot acquire Indonesian citizenship if it would create dual citizenship unless the child is able to renounce said citizenship (which an American child is unable to do).
And another myth bites the dust. At this rate nothing much remains and the best hope for the nObama’s is to show that Obama was born in Kenya and that his parents were legally married. Of course, the fact that his Certification of Live Birth shows Honolulu as the city of birth, complicates matter ‘slightly’. But even the city of birth may not matter if Obama was born ‘out of wedlock’.
Game set and match.
Recent Comments