Thursday, December 3, 2009

Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., was Born a British Subject

This essay was originally posted by Atty Mario Apuzzo in this blog on 7 April 2009. An excellent piece by Atty Apuzzo and well worth reading again. And Obama being born subject to a foreign power, he is not Constitutionally eligible to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. See this related August 2009 essay by Atty Apuzzo: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/being-born-subject-to-foreign-power.html

The below essay re-posted here by: Charles Kerchner, CDR USNR (Retired), Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress, Contributor and an Editor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., was Born a British Subject Governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, and is Currently also a British Protected Person and/or a British Citizen to This Day

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Written: April 7, 2009
Updated: July 29, 2009
Minor Edits: August 6, 2009
Printed Wash Time Natl Wkly: August 10, 2009


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.”

Under the Kenyan Constitution of 1963, Obama’s father and Obama became citizens of Kenya. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain, nor the Kenyan Constitution, nor the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, as amended, 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."

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 and which he did not lose under the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, as amended. 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, as amended, 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 Citizenif 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 born after 1789, 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 should have 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And For More About What Obama, His Online Obot Trolls, and Heavy-Weight Backers of Obama Such as Google Want to Hide About Obama's Citizenship Issues See:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html

###

33 comments:

jayjay said...

Mario:

Good to see the re-emphasis on this original post since the Obots are really flailing around for excuses on the subject (and failing badly).

You might also note this bit of Christmas Cheer for the White House & denizens:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNGG8tIJNMY

tigerzhou said...

tigerzhou:

Hello again under the new nic (nickname).

Are you saying that you have some sort of demonstrated proof that Barach Obama was an Indonesian citizen when he lived there with his mother and stepfather and attended school??

I sometimes find it a challenge to follow your posts exactly. Do you perhaps have a friend who might help you clarify the intended meaning of them??

I'm trying to determine if you think the man is (or was) an Indonesian citizen by adoption or by any other operation of Indonesian law.

I also wonder is you know of any way (perhaps through friends still in that country) that you might be able to obtain any information about the man's passport history, if any, with Indonesia?
Yes; I had preliminary proof to proved that thing

tigerzhou said...

here we go;
first look at his book dreams from my father
Second look at US at travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html on dual nationality on Google or any other search engine.
Third look also the possible loss of US citizenship or dual nationality at travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html; this is the job for you mr Appuzo to check this things up for I don't see any age limitation (as minor on foreign country. then shall we moved to Indonesian law regarding all this?

Ms. Cris Ericson said...

So, any chance of getting anyone in Great Britain to send Obama an income tax bill?

Cris Ericson
http://crisericson2010.blogspot.com

tigerzhou said...

The relation was started when his family moved to Indonesian soil. Now after he was adopted by his Indonesian step father in Hawaii by married his mom; then as I saw on wiki:
Dunham married Indonesian student Lolo Soetoro, who was attending college in Hawaii. When Suharto, a military leader in Soetoro's home country, came to power in 1967, all Indonesian students studying abroad were recalled and the family moved to the island nation.[12]

tigerzhou said...

then:From ages six to ten, Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, including Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi School. I shall continue with Indonesian law regarding to this:
1. Indonesian civil code; easily could be found using any of Search engine regarding of that. Now the had not reform it yet so you could catch up with that. This had tings to do with children status; married and divorce outside Indonesia and citizenship of the child as biological (his half sister) and adopted via marriage.Started from article 5a. and so on.

tigerzhou said...

Now let's moved to Indonesian citizenship law; should google make sure that you cannot find it on google.com; I had make my back up. You could mailed me at zhoujohn777@yahoo.com if you had big mailbox. The citizenship I mentioned would be law no.62/1958 start from article 1.b that said b.persons who at their birth have a legal family relationship with their father, a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, with the understanding that said citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia starts as from the existence of that legal family relationship and that said legal family relationship is created before the persons concerned have reached the age of 18 or before they are married at an earlier age;

tigerzhou said...

That's mean that he had Indonesian citizenship prior to his movement to Indonesian soil automatically; since in order to get the marriage was legal on Indonesian soil and the adoption via marriage was also legal; then this must be recorded on Indonesian court; Stmrstrauss said that the Indonesian said that obot never become Indonesian citizen. this is funny since according to this law; this should be record about this; and if the Indonesian father recognize that child as his own son then look at the adoption law written on Indonesian civil code that also strenghthen my opinion that the child must follow the father nationality; according to the law said all child standing in front of law is under the parents. Since Indonesia is using paternalistic then his nationality automatically become Indonesia; since he was minor back then according to Indonesian law.

tigerzhou said...

And so on due to this law no.62/ 1958. Indeed he could withdraw his nationality but in order to do so he got to do it in front of Indonesian official or if he is abroad/ far away from Indonesia then this must be done in the Indonesian consulate or embassy where Indonesia still had authority. Should he never done that then according to Indonesian law he is still an Indonesian. Let said he ever done this secretly; then now I asked you mr.Appuzo; if some one had dual nationality according to US law and at some point of his life he renounced this citizenship; is he could being said natural born citizen or not. If he do still a natural born citizen then there's nothing could be done about this fact. But if that's true then I think it's funny when I checked on this site:
travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html and travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

tigerzhou said...

Now if you wanted to see it further I already created a place that hold all Indonesian civil code regarding to him. Even the family law no.1/1974 in Indonesia that was applied in 1974 and still is used even today said the same. I also put the translation of Indonesian marriage law above and the law before that law on this site
thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/editorial-oct-14-2009-—-judge-clay-d-lands-delirium under name mannu ziggy. My suggestion is copy and paste this law and spread this clone and also the Indonesian civil code and citizenship law no.62/ 1958. Remember that Indonesia now had new law of citizenship law no.12/2006.

tigerzhou said...

I also put the translation of Indonesian marriage law above and the law before that law on this Also obtain this information from the site of :
thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/editorial-oct-14-2009-—-judge-clay-d-lands-delirium under name mannu ziggy. My suggestion is copy and paste this law and spread this clone and also the Indonesian civil code and citizenship law no.62/ 1958. Remember that Indonesia now had new law of citizenship law no.12/2006.

cajapie said...

Mr. Apuzzo, can you please clarify some issues about the British citizenship?
When I read the BNA 1948, given that Obama's grandfather and father were British citizens by birth, that would make Obama (if born in hawaii) a British citizen by descent. Yet you call him a "British subject" too? Is there a difference?

Also in reading the Kenyan Independence Act, if Obama did not choose Kenyan citizenship by age 21 he just retained his British citizenship.
So he is no longer a Kenyan citizen, correct?

From what I take away, he is a dual British/US Citizen, but of course could never be a natural born citizen because he is a US Code 1401 statutory citizen (which means he could not possibly be a natural born citizen).

What I also don't understand is how he can be a US citizen when the naturalization oath still requires one to "abjure" all other allegiances....how can he then be a US Citizen while still holding his British citizenship, when the US does not officially recognize dual citizenships anywhere? If you take the naturalization oath to be at all meaningful, it should mean US citizenship is precluded when one holds any other allegiance.

jayjay said...

tigerzhou:

Thany you for all the information.

We'll hope that Mr. Apuzzo can digest it all and finds it helpful. Perhaps at some point the courts will make Obama prove that he is eligible under our laws to hold the office he now occupies ...

Guy4013 said...

Hi Mario and Charles,

Orly has a news story this morning from the Watertown Daily News, Feb 14, 1992:

"Soviet Union demise leaves Lumumba(Moscow) students in bind"

The story describes a student named Roman Obama, 31 years old from Africa who has been for a decade given a free education and travel worldwide by the communist university

Subtracting 31 from 1992 you get 1961, Obama's birth year.

I find it interesting since NO One remembers Obama at Columbia U?

Thanks for all you do.

tigerzhou said...

Now mr Appuzo; if the fact I had sent to thee, then I wanted you to share this with:
1. Dr Orly taitz (I had sent most of this to her). But due to my lack of knowledge of US law then I shall told you this going to need your assistance.
2. Please find Col. Gregory S Hollister; for he is the first one to use this facts against obot.
3. Make an open letter challenging him also about this subject.
4. Finally please if the judge don't question of jurisdictions then I beseech thee to make additional pages request to the judge so this fact of his lost years in Indonesia is also included.

tigerzhou said...

This also goes to all guest and
Merry Christmas and happy new year for all of us, may the Lord bless us all.

Puzo1 said...

I of IV

cajapie,

Your question: "When I read the BNA 1948, given that Obama's grandfather and father were British citizens by birth, that would make Obama (if born in hawaii) a British citizen by descent. Yet you call him a "British subject" too? Is there a difference?"

Answer: In the British Nationality Act of 1948 (BNA 1948), the drafters sought to ensure the widest application of British subjectship status. Under Article 1(1), all Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) were given the status of British subjects. Article 1(2) provided that any person having such status was known either as a “British subject” or “Commonwealth citizen” and further provided that “British subject” and “Commonwealth citizen” meant the same things.

Obama’s father was a CUKC under BNA 1948 Section 4 (citizenship by birth) and Obama was a CUKC under BNA 1948 Section 5 (citizenship by descent). Hence, both Obama and his father were both “CUKCs,” “British subjects,” and “Commonwealth citizens.” Section 19 of the BNA 1948 provided that a CUKC no longer wanting to be as such could have by duly registered declaration renounced his CUKC and that upon such registration, that person would cease to be a CUKC. Hence, under that Act, any CUKC who was also the national of a foreign country would continue to be a CUKC unless he renounced his CUKC status by a registered declaration.
Under the Kenyan Constitution 1963, Obama become a Kenyan Citizen in December 1963. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. 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, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Hence, under subsection (1), Obama’s father became a citizen of Kenya and under subsection (2) Obama, who was a CUKC from birth by descent from his father having been born in the British colony of Kenya, also became a citizen of Kenya. Therefore, Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963 which we will see below continued until age 23 not 21.

The Kenya Independence Act 1963 (KIA 1963) at Section 2(2) provided that all those persons who became Kenyan citizens on the “appointed day” (December 12, 1963) ceased to be CUKCs. Hence, it appears that Obama and his father ceased being a CUKC after December 12, 1963 and were only Kenyan citizens. But the same KIA 1963 provided at Section 2(1)(a) that Kenya was to be added to the list of countries found in section 1(3) of the BNA 1948 which means that, while they lost their CUKC status, by the force of now being citizens of Kenya, both Obama and his father became “British subjects.” Hence, after December 12, 1963, both Obama and his father continued to be “British subjects.”

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of IV

The British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981), in Schedule 9, repealed Section 2 of the KIA 1963 which was the provision providing that all those persons who became Kenyan citizens on the “appointed day” (December 12, 1963) ceased to be CUKCs. Hence, with this provision repealed, Obama regained his CUKC and British subject status. He lost his British subject status under KIA Section 2(1)(a) which had no consequence since he regained CUKC and British subject status under BNA 1948 Section 1 and 5. But the BNA 1981, in Schedule 9, also repealed virtually the whole BNA 1948. So it would appear as though Obama then lost his CUKC and British subject status that he had under BNA 1981 Section 1 and 5. But Obama by the repeal of Section 2 of the KIA 1963 had regained his CUKC status. And the BNA 1981, Section 26 provides 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 shall at commencement become a British Overseas citizen” (BOC). Under the BNA 1981, Obama did not become any of the types of citizenships listed and so being a CUKC immediately before commencement by the repeal of Section 2 of the KIA 1963 he became a BOC which he continues to be to this day.

Your question: "Also in reading the Kenyan Independence Act, if Obama did not choose Kenyan citizenship by age 21 he just retained his British citizenship.
So he is no longer a Kenyan citizen, correct?"

Answer: Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship at age 21. Rather, under the Kenyan Citizenship Act, Chapter 170, he had until age 23 to renounce any other foreign citizenships. The following quote is taken from the Belgian Embassy materials and concerns the application of the Kenyan citizenship law to persons born in Belgium to fathers who were born in Kenya like Obama’s father was:

Minors who are Kenyan nationals “by descent” (i.e. born abroad of Kenyan parents), become nationals “by registration” upon reaching the age of majority (21) and not “by naturalization”. They are required to renounce the nationality of their country of birth between their 21st and 23rd birthdays, and take the oath of allegiance. Any such persons who fail to do so on or before their 23rd birthday, automatically cease to be a citizen of Kenya on that day.

The law does not provide for dual citizenship for adults (those over 21 years of age), but allows minors (those under 21 years of age) to retain the citizenship which they may have acquired by birth, descent or registration, as the case may be. Any minor who acquires Kenyan citizenship is granted a period of two (2) years from their 21st birthday to decide on which nationality to retain. However, failure to renounce the other nationality on or before the 23rd birthday results in loss of Kenyan citizenship.
http://www.kenyabrussels.com/docs/nationality_of_child_born_abroad.pdf.

Hence, if anything, Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 23. We do know that he traveled to Kenya before reaching his 23 birthday. We do not know what he did while he was there regarding renouncing any foreign citizenships and thereby keeping his Kenyan citizenship. If he did not so renounce any foreign citizenship by the time he reached 23, he would have lost his Kenyan citizenship at that age. Regarding retaining English citizenship, see my answer above.

Your question: "From what I take away, he is a dual British/US Citizen, but of course could never be a natural born citizen because he is a US Code 1401 statutory citizen (which means he could not possibly be a natural born citizen)."

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

III of IV

Answer: By natural law and law of nation definition which the Framers adopted, a "natural born Citizen" cannot possible be born with any recognized dual allegiances because he would have to be born in the country to a mother and father who were themselves citizens (hence, jus soli and jus sanguinis united in the child at birth producing Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance or just one allegiance). All "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens" but not all "Citizens" are "natural born Citizens."

Your question: "What I also don't understand is how he can be a US citizen when the naturalization oath still requires one to "abjure" all other allegiances....how can he then be a US Citizen while still holding his British citizenship, when the US does not officially recognize dual citizenships anywhere? If you take the naturalization oath to be at all meaningful, it should mean US citizenship is precluded when one holds any other allegiance."

Answer: The first oath of allegiance in American history was on May 30th, 1778:

“I _____, do acknowledge the United States of America to be Free, Independent, and Sovereign States, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the Third, King of Great Britain; and I renounce, refute and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States, against the said King George the Third, his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United States in the office of _______, which I now hold with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding.”

Can you just imagine the Framers allowing someone being born a British subject post Article II grandfather clause to be President when such an oath existed in 1778?

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

IV of IV

In contradiction and which further confirms the Founding Fathers' meaning of what a "natural born Citizen" is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the Third Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he was a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word “born” when he recommended to General Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens”) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that allegiance only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen even though swearing sole allegiance to the United States is not constitutionally eligible to be President because of having been born subject to a foreign power, then any other “citizen” who was born with dual allegiance and also subject to a foreign power and who does not take an oath of sole allegiance to the United States also cannot be.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

cajapie said...
:-)
Impressive. Thank you very very much. I am so grateful to get this in-depth of an explanation, we can all use these facts when confronted with incredulosity and ridiculous bot arguments.

So Obama went to Kenya between ages 21 and 23, but we don't know if he swore an oath to become a Kenyan citizen, so he could be a BOC or a Kenyan citizen...but if he's the latter, Kenya does not allow dual citizenships.

I hope you do not mind my asking further, but since I have been met with many a bot argument, I know what they say at this juncture--because I've heard it before: "But his mother was American, and he did not CHOOSE to be British, so he is just American."

Really, I've been told that by a Senate office representative, and by several bots.

I read all that you wrote, and perhaps it's "me" but I still don't get the dual citizenship concept which muddles things. There's even this website
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html
and this guy is obsessed with the notion that his son can be President even though his mother is Canadian. I've even corresponded with him, and when he can't defend his position he gets testy and rude and won't "debate"...but the fact that he finds wiggle room (although he is a layperson not a lawyer) in US Code implies that things are not very clear.
You wrote that naturalized citizens sort of legally rewrite their citizenship, rewind it back to the beginning as it were, yet they were still not born that way and thus cannot be NBC.
Obama never swore an oath of naturalization in the US.
US Code does not apparently preclude dual citizenship, yet unlike Britain and Canada, it does not invite, embrace, or officialize it either.

So just where does that leave an "Obama"? He never naturalized, so isn't he just an alien, since only Britain, not the US, does not require one to "abjure all other alligiances"?

I can't help but notice that anchor babies, who never naturalize, would not also be considered US citizens...yet this seems to conflict with US Code 1401.

I also notice that the Indiana OPINION tries to make jus soli only into NBC, and the instructions for this bogus-filled opinion had to come from Obama's lawyers, so they obviously want to avoid the British citizenship and lack of being naturalized as a US citizen, like the plague.

I feel privileged to get your explanations, and whatever you may want to contribute is greatly appreciated. I guess I'm still "stuck" at the dual citizenship quandary. "What" is he?

December 6, 2009 12:48 AM

tigerzhou said...

stmrstrauss ever said to phone the Indonesian embassy and asked about the matter that potus is an Indonesian. when I asked via email they said out loud that he merely stays and never become Indonesian citizen. Funny thing is by their own law they had said never but if you cross check with their own laws this mean that they had lies so many time.

tigerzhou said...

I also had the procedure to get rid Indonesian citizen, but now I had no time yet to translate to you. But I shall do it ASAP or inform thee on where to get that info.

John said...

Obama did not regain CUKC upon BNA 1981. This is because BNA 1981 also repealed BNA 1948, the act that created CUKC status in the first place.

Puzo1 said...

John,

I want to make it perfectly clear that Article II "natural born Citizen" status is determined at the moment of birth. Hence, Obama's current British citizenship status, which may be important in judging if he continues to be a "natural born Citizen" if he ever was one and to know where his current allegiance and loyalties lie, is not at all controlling on the question of whether he was a "natural born Citizen" at the moment of his birth.

With that understanding in mind, it is still important to know if Obama is currently or could be the citizen of any foreign power. Under the English common law, Obama was born a "natural born subject" of Great Britain. In the United States, once you are born a United States citizen either under the 14th Amendment or an Act of Congress, the government itself has no constitutional power to take away that citizenship. Rather, the person can voluntarily and intentionally give up that citizenship. Hence, my question to you is once the BNA 1948 was repealed as we know it was by BNA 1981, what happened to Obama's British "natural born subject" status? Are there any other English statutes that pre-date BNA 1948 which can shed some light on this question?

John said...

"British subject" was renamed in BNA 1981 to "Commonwealth citizen". The term "British subject" as used today refers specifically to the pre-BNA 1981 status known as "British subject without citizenship". Obama falls into the first category. His commonwealth citizenship status is tied to holding a citizenship in a commonwealth country (eg Kenya), so Obama would have lost his commonwealth citizenship when he lost his Kenyan citizenship.

Britain does not have a written constitution. This means that Parliament basically has full power to enact laws that would in most countries require constitutional changes. With regards to citizenship and nationality, Parliament has as a matter of practice enacted laws that withdrew citizenship from colonies that became independent. (In fact, people connected to Hong Kong lost their British Dependent Territories Citizenship in 1997 even though Hong Kong did not become independent - there were plenty of protests over this but to no avail.) Unfortunately the lack of a written constitution basically means that there isn't a way like there is in the US to challenge these laws on constitutional grounds.

cajapie said...

ksbd wrote:
"the one problem with your scenario is that the only way Obama can be British or Kenyan is if his birth was registered in Kenya within a year after he was born. Also there are big problems with Barak Sr.’s marriage to SAD being invalidated by his previous marriage to Kezia. Under British law, only the first marriage and its offspring would be recognized as legitimate. The question then is whether Obama is considered natural born as the bastard child of a legally unwed mother."

Answer:
"You’re confusing registration, required when there’s citizenship by a father who was by descent, whereas Obama’s father was a citizen by BIRTH. If Obama’s father had only been a citizen by descent himself, he could not given Obama Jr. British citizenship without registration.
But since BO Sr. and Onyango were fully Born British Citizens, their descendants (if born outside of britain or a colony of britain) were by law automatically British Citizens by Descent. If Obama had been born in Kenya, then he was also born a British Citizen by Birth…the difference now is irrelevant since the BNA of 1981 gave him full British citizenship before the age of 23."

cajapie said...

ksbd wrote:
"

You need to read closer:

Section 32 of the BNA 1948 says: “(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child …”

British law only recognizes the offspring of the first marriage, not second marriages.

Part II, rule 5 (applies to both citizenship by birth or descent) of the BNA 1948 says: “(b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later; …”

If Obama wasn’t registered, he’s not a British citizen. If he’s not legitimate, he’s not a British citizen. Under the known circumstances, there’s little indication that British law would recognize him as a citizen."

Answer:
"

Sorry but Obama himself published twice that he was born under the governance of the British Nationality Act of 1948, which would not have been the case per your false assertions that he was stateless via paternity.

Further Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann’s divorce decree prove a marriage, and BNA1948 does not alter Kenyan laws allowing polygamous marriage for males. Meaning, English law recognized the marriage.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/polygamy-centrepiece-african-morals-allowed-kenyan-law

“There is no definition of “legitimate” in the Act. However, legal advice
suggests that English law, in considering questions of legitimacy, will look to
the law of the domicile of the father at birth. If that law treats a child as
legitimate, then English law will likewise recognise that status (Hashmi -v-
Hashmi [1972] Fam 36).”
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/legitimacy?view=Binary

A child is treated as legitimate by English Law if the parents believed themselves to be married. 2.2.7
“It may be appropriate to assume reasonable
belief in other cases (e.g. on the part of a woman married
in a country whose law permits polygamy).”
"

cajapie said...

ksbd wrote:
"

Barak Sr.’s marriage to SAD wasn’t polygamous nor was his marriage to Kezia. British law ONLY recognizes polygamous marriages IF they’re legal where they take place. SAD and Barak Sr. married in Hawaii where a polygamous marriage is illegal, so no, British law does not recognize this as a polygamous marriage. Barak Sr. lied to both women. Neither went into their marriages under the pretense it would be a plural marriage, much less a legal plural marriage.

The child of a bigamous marriage is not recognized as legitimate under British law. Sorry, the little bastard might by virtue of illegitimacy be a legitimate president."

Answer:
"

There’s no record of where the marriage occurred, only a divorce.
Seems you’re bent on refuting Barack himself who stated that he was born British. He does admit things, stupidly at times, such as cosponsoring SR511 wherein he admits both parents must be US citizens for a child to be a natural born citizen.

This is a branch which, although interesting, is irrelevant to OUR country’s requirements which are that both parents be US citizens. Obama was only born a statutory citizen, and no statutory citizen since ratification is eligible."

cajapie said...

ksbd wrote:
"

The divorce record states where the marriage took place. We can only take that at face value, but if true, then there’s no way it was a ‘polygamous’ marriage.

As for disproving Barry, he’s never personally stated that he’s a British citizen. But even if he did make a personal statement, it doesn’t mean that he’s right. The citation itself is from FactCheck which already stated the wrong facts about how old he had to be to maintain his British or Kenyan citizenship.\

As for being a statutory citizen … this is a poor argument because ALL citizenship is statutory. Citizenship is not a ‘naturally’ exisiting concept. It has to be defined all with the country and how it is statutorily defined."

Answer:
"

Barry admits that he was born under British governance also on “Paid for By Barack Obama” fightthesmears. He’s an idiot and admits he’s ineligible in SR511 and Feinstein’s bill by virtue of cosponsorship.

Not all citizenship is statutory, obviously, since NBC is not anywhere in the 14th or USC1401, never has been, and its is the only omitted permutation, and the Constitution and precedents such as Minor state that it’s not in the 14th which guides statutory US Citizenship.

Again, ksbd seems you want him to not be British and to be a NBC, both based on bogus premise."

cajapie said...

Just wanted to let you know about the bots new "illegitimate little bastard" argument for eligibility! LOL

puzo1moderator said...

New animated video shows Obama explaining how he deceived the American electorate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz0_LNLA9GY

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Border Raven's Blog said...

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Can "jurisdiction" be divided, shared, exclusive, concurrent?

COTUS Article 6 binds treaties, how much?

On June 6, 1951, in Washington DC, President Harry S. Truman signed the 1951 British Treaty (September 7, 1952, Date-In-Force), authorizing Britain consular jurisdiction over British citizens, in the USA, where consular officers could register births to British citizens, in the district of jurisdiction, and issue passports to those children.

Barack Obama Sr., was a foreign born student, carrying a British passport, on a US non-immigrant student visa (8USC1101(a)(15)(F)(i)), under British consular jurisdiction, per 1951 British Treaty.

Barack Obama Sr., never became a naturalized US citizen before August 4, 1961.

British jurisdiction goes back a few years.