Replies

The bluebeeriver post should be framed and put on billboards.

There it is. That is the best summarized explanation of the period I have seen.

The known set of facts are:

a) Obama was removed his mothers US passport in August of 1968.
b) No individual US passport or other US passport has ever been presented showing that he held or was named on an other US passport after August of 1968 until he was an adult.
c) Document show is name to be Barry Soetoro and was the legal son of Lolo Soetoro and a citizen of Indonesia.
d) He could not have held ‘dual citizenship’ as the US and Indonesia did not allow that.
e) No evidence of legal immigration has been presented to reflect 1) loss of Inodensian citizenship 2) naturalization as a US citizen and 3) Legal name change from Barry Soetoro to Barack Obama.

The directly linked websites (Fight the Smears, etc.) have never used the words ‘natural born Citizen’. They use the words ‘native born’. It is not legally possible for a person to be both a natural born Citizen and a naturalized citizen. In mathematical set theory terminology these would be called non-intersecting sets. It is impossible to belong to both sets simultaneously.

The status of ‘natural born Citizen’ is not just ‘at birth’. It is ‘from birth’. The adjective ‘born’ means ‘from birth’. Given the Indonesian situation Obama has not been a citizen ‘from birth’ and would have had to naturalize to re-aquire US citizenship. Just a Berg states. Once you lose your citizenship you ARE no longer a ‘natural born Citizen’. You are then an alien. When you regain your citizenship THROUGH NATURALIZATION you are then a naturalized citizen. If you were born the US you may get away with claiming ‘native born’ status. Legally there is not differentiation so who really cares if ‘native’ is used vs. ‘naturalized’.

The reason Berg and the rest of can not find an proof of naturalization is simple. The non-intersecting sets of ‘natural born’ and ‘naturalized’ status would make it crystal clear that if Obama formally naturalized at some point - be it 1971 or 1983 or any other time this fact would automatically cause a constitutional crisis since it would be without a shred of doubt that he failed to meet Article II, Section 1 requirements.

It is not where he was born. It is that he had to NATURALIZE after his return in 1971.

Trump is missing the mark (maybe intentionally) with the call for college records. They may or may not have critical information (probably do). But it is the records from 1966 - 1972 that would provide insight into the issue of naturalization. Maybe Trump wants to walk the shells into the target. But the target should be INS records from 1966-1972 and possibly up through 1983.