Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Obama, the President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen

See 29 July 2009 major update to this essay at this link:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html

Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States' right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.

The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:

"4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:

Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ...."

Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.

Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama's 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.

Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that: “1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. [sic] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. [sic] if his father becomes. [sic] . . . a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subjection (1). [sic] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. [sic] 1963.” These provisions made Obama’s father and Obama citizens of Kenya, respectively. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain nor the Kenyan Constitution caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship. Rather, the statements have been that his British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963 and that he then lost Kenyan citizenship under the Kenyan constitution and laws when he did not renounce U.S. citizenship at age 21. But since Obama never lost his British citizenship, it does not matter that Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship as he contends.

Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:

"97. Dual citizenship

1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament."

Hence, while the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. Kenya’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect Obama’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship.

The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:

"Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.

Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child's minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality."

Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.

"It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .

Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality."

British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.

Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning "declaration of renunciation" at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any "declaration of renunciation" of his British citizenship.

What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya's 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.

This all leads to the question of how can Obama be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was at birth both a U.S. citizen (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and a British citizen which alone disqualifies him from having that status? But to make matters worse, Obama continues to be a British citizen at a time that he is currently the President of the United States. Can we reasonably conclude that the Founding Fathers, who had just fought a war with Great Britain and who did not want a foreigner to occupy the Office of President, would have allowed a British citizen, who carries that status not only from birth but also to the time he occupies the Office, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its Military? Another question is how can a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military with current dual citizenship obtain a security clearance which he would need to access classified U.S. government information needed by him to carry out the sensitive functions of that Office?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

####

Read Atty Apuzzo's 29 July 2009 major update to this essay at this link:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html

####

23 comments:

Puzo1 said...

Teo Bear Said:

Very good Mario, but you make one critical mistake of assumption when you wrote, "What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.)."

Section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution concerning Dual Citizenship states, A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya. made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.

Please allow me to introduce you to Chapter 170, the Kenyan Citizenship (an act of Parliament) which states in Section 18, paragraph 2, (2) The Minister, or any public officer authorized in that behalf by the Minister, may, in any case in which he is satisfied that a person to whom subsection (6) of section 97 of the Constitution refers is, by reason of any circumstances not attributable to such person's default or neglect, unable to renounce his citizenship of some country other than Kenya or take the oath of allegiance, or to make or register any such declaration as is specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act, within the time prescribed in relation to that person in the said subsection, or any later date declared under this subsection, declare that the specified date in relation to that person shall be such later date as will permit that person an opportunity of doing all such acts, or all such acts as remain to be done:

As you can see fromthe above act of Parlament the age of 21 is not binding as the minister has discretionary powers, in this matter.

Also you may find interesting is what the Kenyan Constitution considers the specified date, it is assumed to be 21, but this is the age for those whose Kenyan citizenship was derived from sections 88, 91, 92 or 96. Obama Jr. Kenyan citizenship was derived from Section 87, and that age is 23. Two independent sources place Obama Jr. in Kenya during 1983, no more than his 22nd year of life. One was made public in 2004 and the other in 2009.

Considering his father's prestigious status as a high level and respected government official, whose funeral was attended by high ranking members of the Kenyan government including the current President, the corruption of Kenya, the fact that family members of the Luo tribe control the government, the laws of Kenya that in fact allow a person to retain two citizenships if their intent is to return and live in Kenya one day, and the fact that Obama's Kenyan records are sealed. You should not be so quick to say that he does not have Kenyan citizenship. This is something we may never know because the power of and integrity of subpoena cannot be expected to be honored their as we expect it to be honored here.

If you are interested in more details please look on thebirthers.org under dual loyalties.

mtngoat61 said...

To Dr. Conspiracy.

Maybe you should have announced your return as some one said in the movies, "I'm back." Something Atty Apuzzo wrote must be worrying your side as you have returned to his blog to plant your seeds of confusion and deception once again.

You said:
-----------------------------
I fail to see the relevance of any of this to Obama's eligibility to be President.

We knew before the election that Obama was born with British Citizenship. Whether he retains it makes no difference. The Supreme Court has already decided that dual citizenship in and of itself does not erase natural born citizenship in the US (Perkins v Elg).
-----------------------------

Could you please try for once not to mix apples and oranges. Citizenship and Natural Born Citizenship are not the same thing. One can be dual-citizens of two countries and not a natural born citizen of either. However, one can only be a natural born citizen of one country. That is a fact and law of nature, not man-made laws. I know it is hard for you since that is apparently your full time job ... to obfuscate the issue. Thus again ...

1. With the elibiglity to be the President of Obama we are talking about the term of art "Natural Born Citizen" which applies to the office of the Presidency and CINC, not simple citizenship of the USA or of two countries. And by natural law definition a "Natural Born Citizen" cannot have dual citizenship. That is the very nature of being a natural born citizen ... being born of two parents who are citizens in the country precludes any other country in the world having any citizenship claims on the child. A natural born citizen has allegiance and claims via one country and only one country at birth. Get it ... the facts at hand at the instant of birth.

2. In the Perkins v Elg case the Elg had "natural born citizenship" of the USA at birth due to being born in the USA to two parents who were naturalized citizens of the USA ... at the time of her birth. That is not the case with Obama. His father was never a U.S. citizen nor was his father even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent resident. His father was a foreign student here studying for a few years. Obama was NEVER a natural born citizen (NBC) at the instant of his birth. Thus he cannot have NBC status erased because ... Obama NEVER had it. NBC status can only be obtained by the facts of the nature of events at the person's birth and cannot be given later by any man-made law. Since Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen he can never be a natural born citizen of the USA no matter where Obama was born.

Once a court case is heard on the merits, this Constitutional fact will be made clear and Obama, the Usurper, currently in the Oval Office will be past history.

M Publius Goat
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org

Teo Bear said...

To ObamaConspiricy,

You wrote - I fail to see the relevance of any of this to Obama's eligibility to be President.

We knew before the election that Obama was born with British Citizenship. Whether he retains it makes no difference. The Supreme Court has already decided that dual citizenship in and of itself does not erase natural born citizenship in the US (Perkins v Elg).

First you fail to see because you fail to know the history of this Nation. If you knew the history of the Nation than you would understand that the Founding Fathers did not want any taint of foreign influence. You would understand that the reason for the natural born citizen clause and the 14 year clause was because they wanted complete LOYALTY to the United States as a quality of the President.

Also what you wrote about us knowing, this is NOT TRUE. Can you tell me what mainstream media stations talked about this in depth? Obama's website and his sycophants told us he lost his chance for British citizenship when his parents did not register him, and that he needed to confirm it at 21 years of age. BUT this was a lie, because under British law he is a British subject.

Zapem said...

Mr. Apuzzo, I sent you some congressional evidence discussed in 2006 and made part of the record via e-mail last night that debunks the misinformation being spread across the internet by wannabe lawyers such as Obamaconspiracy, etc.

I think you'll find it quite interesting and legally factual.

In pertinent part, "Now, in 1898, the Supreme Court reversed course. And I can understand the sentiments of the Court for doing so. In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court dealt with a child of a Chinese immigrant who was here legally, permanently, but subject to a treaty that we had entered into with the emperor of China that would never recognize the ability of anyone to renounce their prior citizenship. However the sympathy there falls, we should not read that Wong Kim Ark case so broadly as to insist upon the Constitution setting a minimum threshold for conferring citizenship on anyone who happens to be born here, whether here permanently or temporarily, whether here legally or illegally, or the worst case scenario, whether here with a design to cause harm to the United States, to engage in armed conflict against United States.

I should have gotten that to you sooner, but I believe it was part of the flash drive material that was sent.

There's much misinformation. These people need to read the actual congressional record for the facts, not their own interpretation which are faulty.

Zapem said...

Remember too, even the most liberal minds, especially Peter J. Spiro, former law clerk to Justice Souter, admitted before the Congress:

"With the minor exception of service in senior Federal Government positions, dual citizenship poses no concrete harms. Of course, dual citizenship reflects continuing ties to a country of origin..."

While I thorougly disagree with Mr. Spiro in his conclusion that it posts no harm, just look at California for a prime example, Mr. Spiro even admits that at the Federal level, dual citizenship does pose a harm and goes on to further admit, it's due to having continuing ties with another country.

When Obama calls Kenyans his "brothers and sisters" and becomes actively involved in their politics and makes promises to them, which he did during his campaign and now, he demonstrated HIMSELF that he had divided loyalties.

Had the American people really understood the gravity of those statements and his habit of shaming Americans instead of other countries who deserved it 10x more, which he did at the G20, true Americans would have never voted for him.

The question then becomes, here we have a man who sits in the oval office and does nothing to protect this country while North Korea fires what could have potentially been a nuclear warhead and he's worried about shaming Americans? His job is to protect THIS country!

He has PROVEN where his loyalty lies and why the framers warned against allowing such men to achieve the office of the presidency and he SHOULD be investigated at the very least.

Ignoring this technicality is not going to go away. Mostly because, Obama's actions aren't going away. And his actions are anti-American.

Spiro didn't see a problem with that in McCain, but I note he has NOTHING to say when it comes to Obama. For that, he remains silent, just like his ex-boss, Justice Souter. Because they know what they've said on the matter and I just quoted one of the things they've said.

If even Spiro can admit that there's a problem with dual-loyalties at the Federal level and the framers are proven to have discussed foreign influence and dual-loyalties for MONTHS, both are saying you can't do it. You need a president that owes no allegiance to ANY OTHER COUNTRY. THIS is why Obama is considered a usurper. He is a usurper, plain and simple and his actions cement every opinion out there, including the liberal legal opinion that was agreed on before the Congress in 2006.

I suggest you do some research, Ms. Obamaconspiracist.

Puzo1 said...

To Dr. Conspiracy:

While me may disagree as to the consequences to one who would aspire to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military, I am happy to see that you agree with me that Obama is still a British citizen today.

Perkins v. Elg dealt with whether the Elg child lost her U.S. birth citizenship status because of the acts of her parents and not because of anything she elected to do or some treaty or Act of Congress. The Court starts by emphasizing that Elg is a born citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment a' la Wong Kim Ark.

On the question of dual nationality, the Court only said that a U.S born citizen who later in life acquires another nationality through the parents (making that person a dual national) does not lose his/her U.S. citizenship by that act alone.

I am not contending that Obama lost his U.S. citizenshp at any time (assuming he was born in the U.S.) because of his dual nationality. Hence, the Elg decision is not applicable. The Elg decision has absolutely nothing to do with what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is and whether dual nationality at birth and at present disqualifies such a person from being President because as such that person cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen." This latter issue has nothing to do with losing born U.S. citizenship but rather with whether one has the necessary type of citizenship to be eligible under Article II to be President.

Also, both the Elg and Steinkauler children were born in the U.S. to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of birth. That made those children Article II "natural born Citizens" and eligible to be President. The Court simply said that those children do not lose their U.S. birthright citizenship simply because their parents in later years and when the children are minors cause them to acquire some other nationality. What was the central point is that those children were born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents and by election did not retain any foreign citizensip upon reaching their years of majority. The same result obtained for the other children commented on by the Court who were born in the U.S. to foreign parents, except these children were declared "native citizens" or just "citizens" under the 14th Amendment with no comment that they were eligible to be President.

The Elg Court acted to protect a U.S. born child's right of election as to what nationality he or she wants to be, a right that it said belongs to the child upon reaching the age of majority.

It is interesting to note that Obama, upon reaching the age of majority at no time renounced his British Citizenship and therefore continues to have that citizenship while occupying the office of President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

This Post Moved From Prior Postion.
-------------------------

Posted by Dr. Conspiracy:

I haven't had but a few minutes to spend on Google, but I found this from British parliamentary debate:

In 1963, we were negotiating independence for Kenya. The Government of the day decided to give the Asian community a choice. They said, “For two years, you will have an option; you can either opt to become a citizen of Kenya or you can retain your British nationality status, with all the rights which that involves”. If it was the intention of the right hon. Member for Streatham to withdraw the right of free entry from the Asian, African and the European populations—the African population were automatically Kenya citizens—it should have been made clear beyond doubt in the 1963 Act that these rights of citizenship were being withdrawn.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1968/feb/27/commonwealth-immigrants-bill#S5CV0759P0_19680227_HOC2_380

While I have quite a bit of reading to do, I strongly suspect your thesis is doomed.

Dr. Conspiracy said...

I have completed my analysis of your argument. My conclusion is that the controlling legislation is the British Nationality Act of 1981 that says in section 35:

"Circumstances in which British subjects are to lose that status.

A person who under this Act is a British subject otherwise than by virtue of section 31 shall cease to be such a subject if, in whatever circumstances and whether under this Act or otherwise, he acquires any other citizenship or nationality whatever."

From this we may conclude that Barack Obama lost Citizenship in the UK and Colonies on December 31, 1963, when he gained Kenyan citizenship under the Constitution of the newly created independent nation of Kenya according to its Constitution Chapter VI, Section 87, subsections (1) and (2).

mtngoat61 said...

To Dr. Spin:

The Spin Doctor is here once again to debate another discussion about what Obama's citizenship identity is, i.e., that amongst other foreign claims on Obama as to citizenship, we also know Obama is still a British Citizen.

But Dr. Conspiro Spin cannot change what Obama is NOT. Obama is NOT a natural born citizen of the USA since Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, nor was his father ever even an immigrant to the USA, nor was his father even a permanent resident in the USA. Obama's father was simply sojourning in the USA in college for a few years, and subsequently went back to Kenya. Obama's mother then remarried and moved with Obama to Kenya where Obama was adopted by his new step-father and Obama became a citizen of Indonesia. Thus while Obama may be a simple citizen of several countries, he definitely is NOT an Article II "natural born citizen" (NBC) of the USA and he is not eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military under our Constitution since his father was not a U.S. citizen. Obama is a usurper in that office. So whatever Obama is, we know what he is NOT.

Obama is likely a basic citizen of several countries including the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Kenya, and/or maybe even a 14A basic citizen of the USA depending on the facts that we may learn once we see his sealed and hidden original birth records and college records, not some questionable and altered digital computer images. A digital computer image is not a primary source document record, nor is the digital computer printout used to make it, which no official document experts have been allowed to see or handle or examine.

Obama is a citizenship chameleon. He is a "citizen of the world". He has proclaimed that himself in public speeches. Under international law he has multiple claims to his allegiance and foreign influences on him by several sovereign governments and also from immediate family and tribal affiliations. He bows to Saudi Kings. He likely has had multiple passports from several countries in his lifetime. But one thing we know for sure, he is NOT a constitutional Article II "natural born citizen" of the USA. Thus, in the debates as to what he really is, let us never forget the main issue as to his eligibility to be President, what he is not! Obama is not an Article II NBC of the USA!

The spin doctor cannot spin that away even though he continues to try via various diversions and obfuscations. This issue will not go away no matter how often, fast, or hard the Spin Doc trys to spin it.

M Publius Goat
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org

jayjay said...

Dr. Conspiracy has it at least a bit garbled when, speaking of the BNA81 and citing a specific section of thayt act, he says:
---------------------
"From this we may conclude that Barack Obama lost Citizenship in the UK and Colonies on December 31, 1963, when he gained Kenyan citizenship under the Constitution of the newly created independent nation of Kenya according to its Constitution Chapter VI, Section 87, subsections (1) and (2)."
----------------------

BNA81 does not apply in the particular instance - BNA48 and the Kenya Constitution DO.

The KC shows that as a dual citizen (United Kingdon and Colonies -or "British" as a shorthand reference - and Kenya) the actual fact is that - per the KC - Obama the younger must renounce by age 21 his British citienship to be only a Kenyan citizen (note to all - "Keynan citizen" is not "American citizen").

I know of no such record of repudiation of British citizenship ... but perhaps Dr. C. can provide same - and hopefully using laws that actually apply rather than citing, say a 2025 law being hashed out by any of the UKC bodies as he did with the inapplicable BNA81 law.

I agree that Mario is correct and Dr. C. is incorrectly dealing in misinformation - but hey!!! that's what Obama the younger (aka Birdie) and his defemders do.

No one - even the prescient Dr. C. - can know for certain anything about the man's birth without viewing his full BC which we can be fairly certain he has kept from all for good reason.

8by8 said...

Excellent

Teo Bear said...

To Conspiro, the spin doctor,

It is irrelevant to what you reference in the BNA of 1981. The fact is that Obama was not born a natural citizen of the United States because at his birth the BNA of 1948 made him a Subject of the Crown.

The whole point about being a natural born citizen is that you are free from all foreign claims upon your allegiance at the time of birth. Do you understand this concept? At the time of birth.

Natural Born Status is given at the time of birth, it is not given by an act of law, or at a later date. Again at the of his birth Barack Hussein Obama, II was a British Subject and therefore NOT a natural born citizen.

We still do not know the circumstances of his birth that are on the long form, so he may not even be a US citizen at all.

Puzo1 said...

Dr. Conspiracy:

I want to first make it clear that under Article II what is controlling are the circumstances surrounding Obama’s birth, for a would-be President must be a “natural born Citizen.” That is a status that is established at birth and not later in life. Obama has conceded that he was born also a British citizen. It is inconceivable and an affront to common sense that the Framers would have constitutionally allowed a born British citizen post-grandfather clause to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new nation. Hence, the argument can end there. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to show that Obama also continues being a British citizen. Such a showing is important because it reveals why the Framers required that the President be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and not just a "Citizen." It also shows why an Article II “natural born Citizen” is one that is born on U.S. soil to parents who are also U.S. citizens, for only under such birth circumstances can a future President possess the Constitutional assurance that he will not be conflicted with any other nation's allegiances and loyalties.

Now on the question of Obama's current citizenship status. You do concede that at his birth in 1961, Obama became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). You also concede that at no time in his life did Obama ever renounce his British citizenship.

You argue that Obama automatically acquired Kenyan citizenship under Article 87, Section 1 of the 1963 Constitution of Kenya on December 12, 1963, the day that Kenya became independent from Great Britain. You further argue that since he automatically acquired that citizenship, he lost his CUKC by way of Sections 2 and 3 of the Kenya Independence Act 1963(KIA 1963).

You do recognize that the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981) repealed Sections 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963. You then ask the question whether by such repeal, did Obama regain his CUKC "(while he was traveling in Pakistan on his U.S. passport)." (Actually, under the BNA 1981, his citizenship status would no longer be called CUKC, but rather British Overseas Citizen (BOC). Further, you provide no evidence that Obama used a U.S. passport when he travelled to Pakistan). You cite Section 35 of the BNA 1981 and argue as follows:

"35. Circumstances in which British subjects are to lose that status.

A person who under this Act is a British subject otherwise than by virtue of section 31 shall cease to be such a subject if, in whatever circumstances and whether under this Act or otherwise, he acquires any other citizenship or nationality whatever.

[Section 31 deals with citizens if Ireland.]

So in conclusion, Barack Obama is not a citizen of Kenya nor of Britain."

But on close analysis, we can see that Section 35 of BNA 1981 does not apply to Obama. Section 35 makes reference to Section 31 which provides:

"Section 31 Continuance as British subjects of certain former citizens of Eire.

(1) A person is within this subsection if immediately before 1st January 1949 he was both a citizen of Eire and a British subject.

(2) A person within subsection (1) who immediately before commencement was a British subject by virtue of section 2 of the 1948 Act (continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects) shall as from commencement be a British subject by virtue of this subsection.

(3) If at any time after commencement a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who is within subsection (1) but is not a British subject by virtue of subsection (2) gives notice in writing to the Secretary of State claiming to remain a British subject on either or both of the following grounds, namely—
(a) that he is or has been in Crown Service under the government of the United Kingdom; and (b) that he has associations by way of descent, residence or otherwise with the United Kingdom or with any [F90 British overseas territory] , he shall as from that time be a British subject by virtue of this subsection.

(4) A person who is a British subject by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) shall be deemed to have remained a British subject from 1st January 1949 to the time when (whether already a British subject by virtue of the said section 2 or not) he became a British subject by virtue of that subsection."

Section 35 does not apply to Obama, who was not “under this Act . . . a British subject.” Obama was a CUKC under the BNA 1948 and under Section 26 of the BNA 1981 would become a British Overseas Citizen (BOC) and not a British subject. Not being a British subject in any way under BNA 1981 let alone otherwise than under Section 31, Section 35 simply does not apply to Obama. With Section 35 failing to remove any CUKC (and BOC) status from Obama, there is no other provision in the BNA 1981 that does so.

Hence, the question that you have not adequately answered is whether Obama regained his CUKC and therefore his BOC under the BNA 1981 when Section 9 of the BNA 1981 repealed Sections 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963. Please note that while Section 9 of the BNA 1981 repealed Section 2 and 3 of KIA 1963, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (2002 c.41), Sch 2 Para 1(c) repealed Section 9 of the BNA 1981. I will await your thoughtful analysis.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

Hi Bob (from Dr. Conspiracy's blog),

You say that "[s]o even if Dr. Conspiracy is totally wrong about Section 35, you still haven’t proved that the BNA 1981 revived Obama’s CUKC status (and then converted it into BOC status) as the BNA 1981 revoked the original grant of CUKC status to Obama."

We have to go about this thing one step at a time. Ok, so you now admit that Dr. Conspiracy was wrong about using Section 35 to prove that Obama's CUKC could not have been revived by the repeal of Section 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963.

I guess then what is left is the following: Section 2 and 3 of KIA 1963 removed Obama's CUKC but the BNA 1981 repealed Section 2 and 3 of KIA 1963. Hence, what remains in the British law which shows that Obama does not have BOC (CUKC is converted to BOC under BNA 1981) under BNA 1981 which states at Section 26 that "[a]ny person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before commencement and who does not at commencement become either a British citizen or a [British overseas territories citizen][words substituted by British Overseas Territories Act (2002 c.8), Section 2(2)] shall at commencement become a British Overseas citizen?" You do not cite to any law or section of the BNA 1981 that supports your statement that "the BNA 1981 revoked the original grant of CUKC status to Obama." There being no such law in existence unless you can show me that one so exists, logically, if the BNA 1981 repealed the law that took CUKC away from Obama then he regains that which was taken away. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of British Parliament in 1981 repealing Section 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963? If he regained his CUKC through the BNA 1981, it would be at the moment the Act went into effect. At that moment Obama would have been a citizen with CUKC immediately before commencement. Hence, Obama would then have BOC under BNA 1981.

On the 12(b)(6) motion, I fail to see how wanting the President to show that he is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II of the United States Constitution and therefore eligible to be Presient fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for is not the requirement Constitutional? Will the court grant such a motion because Obama has conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii through his internet digital image posting of his COLB (not a long-form paper birth certificate examined by any competent public authority) and that he is an Article II "natural born Citizen?" Or will the court grant the motion because of some other threshold issue that does not go to the merits?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Georgetown said...

Puzo1; found this 2005 article
that supports the claim that Obama may still hold British citizenship
rights (esp. if born in Kenya)

Sanjai Shah was born in 1962 Kenya when it was under colonial rule. He had renounced Kenyan citizenship because local law prohibits dual nationality(for adults).Shah obtained a British Overseas Citizen passport for travel into the UK. But when he arrived in the UK without sufficient funds and return ticket he was treated like an prohibited immigrant. That left Shah stateless and he resided in the Nairobi Kenya airport. (yes like the movie Terminal-Tom Hanks)
Upon the recognition of it's error,
"The High Commission has decided in principle to grant him full UK citizenship, pending a "citizenship ceremony."

Puzo1 said...

Duplicated here from another thread in this forum:

The Chief said...
---------------------
Post I of II

The following is an email I recently sent to Byron Dorgan, Senator ND, with a copy to Senator Conrad, Representative Pommroy and Governor John Hoeven.

Byron -- First, your duty is to the State of North Dakota and the Constitution of the United States of American; that you are failing to carry out.

I can appreciate your not wanting to revisit Obama's birthright; but, not doing so makes you complicit in his cover up of his true citizenship status.

You again state that he was born in Hawaii, and therefore he is a "Natural Born Citizen", I disagree, at best he could only be a Citizen of the United States of America, that is NOT a Native or Natural Born Citizens by any stretch of the imagination; from what legal source do did you determine he is in fact a "Natural Born Citizen"?

If you will read Article II of the United States Constitution, and then look at Vattel's Law of Nations which the founding fathers used in their drafting of the constitution you will find volumes on native-natural born citizenship.

To be born a native-natural born citizen it cannot be bestowed on any one by a act of legislation, or a court of law; this can only be by birth to two (2) United States Citizens.

I know you, along with the other members of both houses of congress as still in denial. Your candidate won, but it is not about the issue of candidates or who won it is about the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is being expensively reported that Congress was well aware of the eligibility issue before they ever came to a conformation vote. All 535 of you, because of this knowledge, were in fear of overturning the election because of the riots that would certainly have occurred; and because you did not want to be labeled Racists; while in fact ignoring your constitutional duty.

Dick Chaney was as much to fault for this occurring as was every member of the certifying congress. You all, the entire congress and President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, violated your oaths of office; by basically wimping out when you should have stood up or our constitution. It is part of your oath of office.

Now, read this, Obama, even if he was born in Hawaii, can never be a "Native-Natural Born Citizen" you cannot get there by legislation; it has to be a procreation act by two (2) already United States Citizens; that is a natural act as Vattel describes it in the Law of Nations. Therefore, even if Obama was born in Hawaii only one of his parents could have been considered a United States Citizen; One is not Two (plural). His father was a Kenyan, a British Subject, by Obama's own admission, though well documented in research, therefore there is a missing citizenship link here.

Many will argue that Common Law says otherwise, but remember this, English Common Law had no effect on US Laws or Statutes since the founding fathers did not use English Common Law as a reference tool while drafting the constitution of the United States of America; and guess why, they were throwing of the yoke of British oppression, and the King's Law.

International Law has not place in the United States Legislature or the Judicial System as much as the liberal-socialist-Marxists of this country would like it to be a deciding factor in our legal system.

July 18, 2009 7:09 PM
---------------------

Puzo1 said...

Duplicated here from another thread:

The Chief said ...
----------------------
Post II continued from Post I

By Constitutional Law none of you in congress or Dick Cheney can be held liable for your failures, and cannot be arrested or prosecuted while sitting, going and coming from congress; but you al can be held liable by the people who elect you and that my friend is coming home to roost. Also remember treason is punishable for acts or lack of acts committed in legislative sessions; and is not exempt from being carried out when discovered and prosecuted in the federal courts.

So when you tell you do not want to revisit Obama's ineligibility again, I can understand where you stand on the Constitution of the United States of American; and that you are unwilling to defend it when it does not suit your needs, or the need of the liberal/socialist agenda that has been building over the last 50 years.

For me, I am, 1st a Constitutionalist and, I believe the founding fathers had it right when the held that the legislature would try to meddle in the very constitution they were about to ratify, that they need safeguards, and they were right; 2nd I am a Capitalist/Free Enterprise/Market person; I believe that any thing congress gets there hands on they will screw it up, management by committee never works, I believe that the wealth of the nation is in its people, who when left alone will get it right, and prosper; will they fail at times, yes; but it will be their failure and learning curve; will people get hurt along the way, yes; but again it is a learning experience; will be people get taken advantage of, yes, but that is also a learning experience, and if they learn anything from the experience they won't put themselves in that position again; can the people along the way have a redress to their problems, yes, but they need to take the initiative. Congress reminds me of the father and mother who ride herd over their offsprings to the point of not letting them fail at anything, and therefore direct their entire lives; this is what congress, and the president, are doing today, and have done in the past.

Too big to fail, I don't think so, let the free market place take care of the ills of capital wrongly placed or misdirected.

So will you hear from me again, yes, will I drop the Obama eligibility issue, no; the only way you can shut me up is to restrict my access to your eamil; then I will have to resort to snail mail and pay the postage, which by the way has gone up another $.02; good management by that organization; maybe we should out source this to the United Parcel Service; they have to turn a profit or their shareholders get real excited, I believe they are a little more efficient that the USPS could ever hope to be, even with a change in management; point to ponder.

As always, I am still here.

Jim Buzzell
Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
United States Navy
313 E Division Street
PO Box 456
Kenmare ND 58746
701-385-4931
402-301-5098
mmcsbuzz@restel.net

July 18, 2009 7:48 PM
--------------------------

kris said...

Mario, are you saying that there are persons living in Kenya today who did not renounce British citizenship in order to become Kenyan citizens and are therefore considered still to be British citizens? Also, at the time of this ruling did these British citizens have to be residents of Kenya (were there any resident requirements?) - that anyone living permanently outside of Kenya with no intention of returning or who never resided for any required length of time in Kenya - still retain their British citizenship?

IOW, if Obama never resided in Kenya for any legally reasonable length of time to be considered a resident, is he simply governed by his birth (if Kenyan) and that nothing would automatically apply to him re: automatic reversion to Kenyan citizenship from formerly British citizenship due to birth status alone?

I'm just a simple reader and not acquainted with all the nuances of possible law application interpretations.

Joseph D said...

Doesn't Obama's father have to take a oath of allegiance to the US for his son to become natural born citizen. Being born in the US before or after the fact of his father takes the oath. That's how i read it but can someone break it down for me?

Puzo1 said...

JosephD,

You are correct.

An Article II "natural born Citizen" is a child born in a country to citizen parents. See Minor v. Minor (1875).

Obama’s father, not being a born U.S. "citizen," had to have taken an oath of sole allegiance to the U.S. before Obama was born in order for Obama to have been born a “natural born Citizen.”

Here is one of my many articles on this blog that breaks it down for you: How Obama’s Enablers Mislead the Public on the Meaning of an Article II “Natural Born” Citizenhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-obamas-enablers-mislead-public-on.html

Mick said...

Also remember that Obama may have traveled to Pakistan in 1982, at age 20 or 21, the age of majority, on a British passport, which he could have easily acquired. As such he would have made a declaration of allegiance to Britain at the age of majority. Pakistan was a British Commonwealth, and travel there on a British passport at the time would have certainly been freer and easier. Alas, we are not allowed to see his passport records, but the last person that did was murdered.

Mick said...

Also remember that Obama may have traveled to Pakistan in 1982, at age 20 or 21, the age of majority, on a British passport, which he could have easily acquired. As such he would have made a declaration of allegiance to Britain at the age of majority. Pakistan was a British Commonwealth, and travel there on a British passport at the time would have certainly been freer and easier. Alas, we are not allowed to see his passport records, but the last person that did was murdered.

L Gamber said...

Mario, I believe you are spot-on!
I conversed with you on Topix.
Grand Birther told the SHEEPLE IN 2008 before Obama was elected that his election would lead to a Constitutional Crisis, that he would be a Cancer On The pResidency, that the cost of living would increase, and the standard of living would decrease simultaneously. Now for the latest NEWS.
U.S. jobs pay an average 23% less today than they did before the 2008 recession, according to a new report released on Monday by the United States Conference of Mayors.
In total, the report found $93 billion in lost wages.
Jobs lost during the recession paid an average $61,637. As of 2014, jobs in the same sectors paid an average of $47,171 annually.
"Under a similar analysis conducted by the Conference of Mayors during the 2001-2002 recession, the wage gap was only 12% compared to the current 23%--meaning the wage gap has nearly doubled from one recession to the next," stated the Conference of Mayors in a statement.
The report also found that 73% of metro area households earn salaries of less than $35,000 a year.
President Barack Obama, who is on a two-week vacation at Martha's Vineyard, has yet to comment on the dour economic findings.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/11/U-S-Wages-Down-23-Since-2008
obamafakeandfraudulent.blogspot.com