Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's eligibility issue: Why the British Citizenship argument is a red herring
The Greater Evil ^ | 06/27/09 | Polarik

Posted on 06/27/2009 6:13:50 AM PDT by Polarik

In a recent press conference, Les Kinsolving of World Net Daily finally got to ask the question that we've all wanted to ask Obama, "Why won't you show us your real birth certificate?" Press Secretary Gibbs response was startling. He said that the Obama Administration had put a copy of it, one with a raised Seal, on the Internet. That response, more than any other mentioned to date, should have gotten people to their feet shouting, "NO, it's NOT a real birth certificate!" Or, at least, it's not the long-form original.

In effect, Obama, by way of his Press Secretary, just admitted to committing felony document fraud as what is posted on the Internet is a forgery, a false government identification document in violation of Federal statutes.

However, there is another school of thought, a group most notably headed by Leo Donofrio, who, upon hearing that question and Gibbs' reply, would have gotten to their feet shouting, "NO, it's Obama's British Citizenship, stupid! To Hell with the birth certificate." According to Donofrio, the fact that Obama committed felony document fraud is not only irrelevant, but is "–without a doubt - a conspiracy theory of epic proportions.

"Nobody can deny that it’s a textbook conspiracy theory. Regardless of whether he has a genuine long form BC saying he was born in Hawaii, the concept that the COLB is a forgery would certainly concern a vast conspiracy to defraud the American people. Conspiracies do exist, but they have a very bad reputation and the media can spin them as kookery with ease."

After pursuing the document fraud arument for over a year, I have encountered many people who, at first glance, seem to be earnest-sounding individuals who also believe that Obama should not have been elected President. Ar first, they appear to be on the same side as the "Birthers," but, unlike those who want to see Obama's real, original birth certificate, they go out of their way to do everything in their poweer to dissuade anyone from wanting to see Obama's real, original birth certificate. If I've seen it once, I've seen it a thousand times. There is no other issue that bothers them more than the prospect of Obama having to release his actual birth certificate.

And, when yhey reach the point where it seems like the push to see it is actually gaining traction, they come out even harder than before, mercilessly cracking on Birthers as fools and wingnuts, which is exactly what Obama trolls have done for over a year now.

I submit to you, and I have the experience to make this statement, that Obama and his Campaign did not, by accident, admit that, when Obama was born, his father, Obama Sr., was a British citizen. NO way, Jose. Almost everything that Obama and his minions have done to date, has been deliberate and planned. That tidbit in Factcheck about his father's citizenship was not an "Oops" at all. It was a big, fat, smelly red herring, and the people who are pushing the British Citizenship argument to the exclusion of all other arguments -- particularly, the fake COLB -- are blowing smoke up your tailpipe.

Mr. Donofrio's lastest skreed is about Kinsolving's question and how "WND dropped the balla" with respect to Donofrio's pet theory. Leo insists that Kinsolving should have asked Gibbs the following question:

"During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?"

OK, for the last time, I'm going to break this issue down, as I see it for what it really is, so that everyone clearly understands the implications of pursuing the British citizenship route to challenging the "natural-born status" of Barack Obama, to the exclusion of all other actions taken.

To begin with, Leo Donofrio argues that what is on Obama's original birth certificate is irrelevant and that even hinting that the Internet COLB is bogus is a stupid conspiracy theory. According to the British citizen strategy, Obama admitted he was a dual citizen at birth and that eligibility advocates have simply questioned whether that makes him ineligible to be President under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution.

Stop right here. Do not go any further until I reread these previous declarations:

Obama's original birth certificate is irrelevant.

Obama admits he was a British citizen at birth.

Eligibility advocates SIMPLY questioned if he is Constitutionally eligible to be President.

In other words, this is tantamiunt to saying it's an academic exercize in Constituional Law. Removing OBama from office is not the isue at all. Donofrio has made that point clear. It's all about setting a legal precident for a centuries-old Constitutional question that has been sideskirted by every court since.

OK, O'll go along for the ride.

let's say the judge rules that the Framers of the Constitution intended Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution to exclude dual citizenship. Does this mean that Obama knew he was ineligible? What Obama knew or did not know is irrelevant. The definition of NBC as it applied to dual citizenship at birth was never made. The precident did not exist. No harm. No foul.

Now what? There is no precident for what happens next. Does everything revert back to a previous date? What date?

None of the above. You know that the ruling will be appealed refardless of which way it goes. If it goes against the Plaintiff, you are not going to get it overturned by SCOTUS. You many not even get a hearing on it.

By the time it would go to SCOTUS, there's a better than even chance that Sotomayer will be sitting on the bench. You already know which way she's going to vote.

OK, I'll play along here and imagine what happens if it is upheld? What would SCOTUS do? They will say that Congress should have raised this issue during the cerification of the Electoral Count. The Court will then say it does not have the power to remove a sitting President - only Congress does. Then what? Obama sits on the sidelines and let Biden run things while Congress figures out what to do next?

Notic that the question of divided loyalties hasn't come up once in this discussion. Remember, THAT was the sole purpose of making someone who was born with dual citizenship ineligible to be President! If Obama had British citizenship at birth, he didn't have to swear allegiance to the Queen. Does it even make sense to talk about loyalties for a newborn, or now as an adult in already serving as President.

It does where Obama is concerned.

It should now come as no surprise to anyone that Obama has more loyalties to our enemies than he does to our allies. Obama has more loyalties to the Middle Eastern World than to the Western World. Obama has more loyalties to Dar al-Islam than to Dar al-Harb. Obama has more loyalties to his foreign investors than to his domestic supporters.

Yet what seemed like a big Constitutional crisis at first now seems to have fizzled out. Now, through all of these mashinations Obama gets a pass on ever having to show where he was born, when he was born, and to whom he was born.

What if Obama is actually the son of someone else? What if his father was born to Malcolm X or Frank Marshall Davis, as some theorize? Too bad, because you will never know that without seeing Obama's original birth certificate.

So, let's recap. Here are the two tenets of the British Citizenship makes Obama ineligible argument:

Obama's original birth certificate is irrelevant.

Obama admitted he was a British citizen at birth.

Obama is, therefore, a natual-born British citizen and is Constitutionally ineligible according to Article 2 Section 1.



If this court case should actually make it as far as the Supreme Court, and if it looks like he is going to lose the case, Obama will make a startling announcement!

Obama announces that the reason why he was withholding his original birth certificate is because he didn't want anyone to know that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., WERE NEVER MARRIED!!!!

Game over, Donofrio!

Prior to 1983, British nationality was transmitted from the father through one generation only, and ONLY if the parents were married in accordance with English Law.

In other words, folks, Obama was not a British citizen at birth. Obama might have been born with no citizenship at all if he was born in Kenya. and not Hawaii.

However, since the people who are pushing this strategy so hard, to the exclusion of evey other strategy, have said that his birth certificate is irrelevant and would make no effort to obtain it, Obama walks, free and clear.

Oh, I'm sure that he'll get tons of sympathy from the vast majority (if not all) of his fan base because they don't believe that marriage is even necessary to have a child.

This is the reason why we must continue to push Obama to release, not only his long-form "vault" certificate, but also the very same Certification of Live Birth that he had claimed to have made and posted on the Internet.

TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; colb; eligibility; ineligible; naturalborncitizen; obamafile; obamanoncitizenissue
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
If you think that the courts will actually rule that Obama is ineligible and should step down or be removed as President, then I have this 1961 Kenyan birth certificate I'd like to sell you.

Oh, and when you continue to crack on the fake COLB "conspiracy," you had better believe that I take it personally.

1 posted on 06/27/2009 6:13:50 AM PDT by Polarik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: null and void; Beckwith; stockpirate; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; Myrddin; ...


2 posted on 06/27/2009 6:14:19 AM PDT by Polarik (Forgeries are forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
Nice strawman.

Your money quote which you seem to miss the implications of is here:

In other words, folks, Obama was not a British citizen at birth. Obama might have been born with no citizenship at all if he was born in Kenya. and not Hawaii.

If he has no citizenship at all, he cannot be a natural-born US citizen.

My personal thinking is that his birth certificate has a typo, which shows him either as a girl, or white.

He's too f***ing narcissistic to ever let a mistake of that sort see the light of day.


3 posted on 06/27/2009 6:25:57 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

I think the ONLY action to take is in the States that every person running for office within a state has to prove with the long form with the seal that they are eligible to run. That means running for President would require 51 (DC) certified birth certificates.

It would not make a difference now but it would in 2012. The Senate certified McCain was eligible but never did certify ZERO.

4 posted on 06/27/2009 6:26:08 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (Mary Fallin for OK Governor/Coburn for Senate 2010 ! Mark Rubio for FL Senate 2010!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

America’s court system might just be her downfall. Cases can be dragged out for decades and never be settled. Hussein knows this and that’s why he’s sealed every last shred of evidence up tighter than Ft. Knox. I don’t blame the usurper so much as those who blindly brought him to power. Washington needs a good house cleaning.

5 posted on 06/27/2009 6:27:40 AM PDT by bgill (The evidence simply does not support the official position of the Obama administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
I found it.
6 posted on 06/27/2009 6:32:26 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

“...his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham,
and his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr.,
So, in addition to everything else, he is also a bastard?

7 posted on 06/27/2009 6:33:04 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

Legally,I believe,the fact that Hussein may or may not have been,at one time,a British citizen doesn’t matter.All countries have the right to consider anyone they want to be a citizen.My Dad and his siblings were considered to be Irish citizens from the day they were born by the Irish government even though they didn’t apply for it and they were all born here of *two* US citizens.

8 posted on 06/27/2009 6:40:04 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Christian+Veteran=Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
So, in addition to everything else, he is also a bastard?

In the most common current usage of the B word, you bet'cha!

9 posted on 06/27/2009 6:53:39 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

Glad to hear that you take it so seriously !

I was getting worried that the stimulus-funded grant to the university might have slowed you down.

10 posted on 06/27/2009 6:55:12 AM PDT by mrmeangenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

So I guess the divorce papers of OBAMA Sr and Stanley Ann Dunham are also fake!

11 posted on 06/27/2009 7:21:30 AM PDT by txoilman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik; null and void; Beckwith; stockpirate; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; Myrddin

There is absolutely no proof anywhere that teen porno star Mama Obama,
Stanley Dunham, and BHO, Sr. were ever married: 1 point to Team Polarik

As a believer in Team Keyes and Team Donofrio's strategy, that is something I had overlooked and I am desperately researching that British Nationality Act of 1948 to see if legitimate matrimony is necessary. More than likely it is, old chap, as ...gor blimey mate.... we cannot encourage half-caste bastards running around with British Passports. OTOH, a Judge Sotomayor might feel that the child of an unwed American citizen mother, is a "Natural Born Citizen," even if the single mother is white.

I realize that the COLB posted on the web site is more than likely a forgery made up from his half-sister's COLB (BTW, she was born in Indonesia and has a valid Hawaii COLB, which is a point that Team Obama seems to never mention.)

But, there is absolutely no law requiring Obama to show a COLB, whether a copy, an original, or a bit of Photoshop frippery. Or a valid Birth Certificate. E.G., Kid walks into a bar with fake ID, nobody makes him show it, he shows it off later, who's going to arrest him? And on what charge? Obama walks into the White House, sits down, has a drink, no law requiring him to show ID.

IMHO, this is the only mistake the Team Obama made. There was no need to post that fake-looking COLB. One is supposed to eligible according to the Constitution, however there is no way stipulated to prove it. I think I am eligible, I sign the state electoral waivers. Finito! No laws broken.

"You think I am not eligible, Mr. Keyes, Mr. Donofrio? So sue me. My lawyers tell me that since there are no laws requiring me to present documentation in CA or in NJ, you probably don't have standing to sue me, or anyone else in regard to this matter."

Yes, Polarik, the forgery is shocking. But somewhere there is a valid Hawaii COLB, even if there isn't a Birth Certificate. In order to dodge the highly unlikely forgery charge brought in a court of law, all he would have to do is produce a real COLB. Piece of cake. E.G., Say you're stopped on the road with a poor Xerox of your driver's license and it has a wrong address. The cop's computer shows that there is a valid driver's license somewhere, just as Hawaii's Governor says she can produce a valid COLB. You get a ticket and you will be required to show your real driver's license. Case over, no big deal, either. Judge will not, and probably cannot make you show other documentation, and most certainly not your parents' marriage certificate.

Furthermore, a facsimile posted on the internet is not a legal document, so whether it's fishy or not doesn't really count ... particularly since he is not legally required to present any documentation anywhere to anyone to prove his eligibility! The point, my rightfully shocked friend, is moot.

The real reason a body of state electoral law regarding Presidential eligibility is absolutely necessary is that we cannot have this happen again. This President's Constitutional eligibility is a valid question. However, Team Obama has skipped through a large loophole. Even if we can't get the impostor out before 2012, we have to close that loophole, because no matter what we think, our enemies have already shown that a legally shaky President is a weak President.

No reason a law cannot be on 2 or 3 state books before 2012. Realistically, Team Clinton-Soros are already a-fixing to remove the fool Obama in 2012. I am beginning to think they actually wanted him to win to take the 'bad economy' rap! Read all about it in their paid stooge Dick Morris' "Catastrophe," as fine a job of political back-stabbing ever done.

So, even if this never comes to court in regard to Obama, we need those state laws so that this disgrace is never repeated. In the meantime, it appears that Obama has engineered the "Perfect Legal Storm," by exploiting a loophole in the Constitution which requires eligibility but has no process for assuring it. After all, the Constitution was intended to be followed by men of honor and good will, not crafty weasels trying to sneak themselves through.

By all means, Forgery Chargers (Team Polarik), Birthers, Dual Citizen Men, State Law Partisans for Electoral College Requirements for Certification of Eligibility (ME!), Keyes, Donofrio, keep up the pressure. But the Presidential election is a scant 3 1/2 years away, an historical nano-second, so don't count on seeing Obama back in Chicago before then.

12 posted on 06/27/2009 7:39:47 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (What's with the Birth Certificate Fuss? Hitler was a foreigner. So was Stalin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
If this court case should actually make it as far as the Supreme Court, and if it looks like he is going to lose the case, Obama will make a startling announcement!

Obama announces that the reason why he was withholding his original birth certificate is because he didn't want anyone to know that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., WERE NEVER MARRIED!!!!

Bullsh!t -- it's a matter of court record!
Obama 64 divorce - p 3 Obama 64 divorce - p 2

And confirmed elsewhere:

"Mrs Anna Obama" in Seattle, '61-'62

The divorce papers would hold up in court -- not a "claim" that there was NOT a marriage. Furthermore, the courts must abide by THIS:

“This copy serves as prima facia evidence

However, if you REALLY want to be sure -- simply conduct a DNA test! I'm sure that would yield some interesting results, too...

13 posted on 06/27/2009 7:50:15 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

Yeah, WND has the eBAY “certified Kenyan BC” sale mention:

14 posted on 06/27/2009 8:29:12 AM PDT by Kandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
We already have recorded that Obama's wife michellle said his mother was "very young and very single" when obama was born.

If its the case (please give documentation) that british law only gives citizenship from the father to the son in the case that the father is married to the mother

.........then since obama's parents were NOT married -- how did obama get his kenyan/british citizenship?

(the implication here is that obama got british/kenyan citizenship through place of birth and not parentage--ie kenya.)

15 posted on 06/27/2009 8:55:13 AM PDT by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative; Polarik; hoosiermama; seekthetruth; LucyT; STARWISE
Luckily, many of us who have been slugging away on the Eligibility issue have been wise enough to ARCHIVE information that the Obots and Hillary State Department have worked diligently to remove from the public eye.

It's important to know that the US did "formally" recognize dual citizenship until 1990 -- I've yet to find a precise and reliable answer as to when it started in the 20th Century, although I think it started in the late-1960s or early-1970s. The policy is set by the US State Dept, under the direction of the Executive branch, and -SHOULD- be in line with Congressional immigration law.

HERE are TWO important primers on Dual Citizenship that precede any revisionism by the Obots.

First, THIS is an accurate FAQ on Dual Citizenship from 1995:

Second -- and this is HARD to find -- is the original text of the "67 Interpreter Releases 799" - 1990 Dual Citizen memo, released to US Consulate offices overseas. It is translated from RUSSIAN and is next to impossible to find -- in fact, WHAT IS POSTED BELOW might be the ONLY copy of the memo on the Internet.

Note: that as the US has no treaty recognizing dual citizenship, it has used this fact to get out of contracts in the late 19th century & early 20th century with other nations (confirmed by the last paragraph of memo):

The problem of dual citizenship in the United States.

In many cases, Am. citizens could be citizens of other States. Existing legislation allows them to maintain two (or more) of citizenship, where am. citizens have another nationality by birth or have acquired the citizenship of another State, having already am. and the laws of another state does not require a formal renunciation of U.S. citizenship.

By virtue of the fact that at present there is no U.S. treaties with other countries on mutual recognition of nationalities, the term dual citizenship applies universally to all cases of multiple nationality. For the purposes of s. Government's concept of dual nationality means that they face two or more countries simultaneously, and each one has its own citizenship laws based on a system of law of the country.

Traditionally, followers of the practice of rigid approaches to cases of multiple U.S. Department of State - whose role is to determine the citizenship status of Americans held abroad or applying for a passport in the country - in recent years to track any longer, even when foreign. s become citizens. citizenship by naturalization, but want to retain their current citizenship of another country.

By acquiring United States citizenship, a person under oath renounces citizenship of other countries and, in theory, a mismatch that oath may result in loss Am. citizenship. But from a legal point of view Am. oath will not affect the validity of the citizenship laws of other states, and the person taking am. citizenship, in most cases is not automatically deprived of their existing citizenship. On the one hand, the U.S. did not formally make the newly naturalized citizen to contact the consulate of his first State of nationality and to renounce it, on the other hand, not doing so, the person as though indirectly suggests insincerity of their oath, which previously often led to a loss of U.S. citizenship . Now, to avoid confusing multiple trials (and from multiple cases is here for hundreds of thousands), fed. U.S. authorities prefer «blind» to the problem.

Official. U.S. position with regard to dual citizenship, which is guided by State Department, has been set forth in this telegram am. consulates and embassies on April 16. 1990. (67 Interpreter Releases 799, 23.07.90, 67 Interpreter Releases 1092, 01.10.90).

The preamble of the telegram states that «the changes in the interpretation of the law on nationality, make it increasingly difficult to review contested cases ... In the past, our response was to increase the man-hours, a full hearing, as well as improving education and training. However, significant changes in the process to ensure impartial, quick and justifies the decision ... and »

According to the latest revision of the INA (Section 349), U.S. citizens could lose their citizenship by voluntarily committing a series of actions with the intent to abandon am. citizenship. These include: naturalization in foreign. State; taking the oath or solemn declaration of fidelity Foreign. State or its policy. offices, service in foreign armies. States involved in hostilities against the United States, as well as the officer rank in the Foreign Troops. States occupation government. positions in the Foreign. State, the state of nationality of that State, or taking an oath on appointment to the post, a formal renunciation of U.S. citizenship before the employee s. Consular office abroad, a formal renunciation of Am. Citizenship in the U.S. (but only in time of war); state. treason.

All of the above may result in loss of citizenship, just as committed with the intention of relinquishing it. To determine whether the actions of a citizen in the U.S. so, State Department uses «Uniform Admin. standard of proof »(Uniform Administrative Standard of Evidence), which is based on the assumption that« am. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship if (a) Naturalization of Foreign. State, and (b) signing the declaration of foreign allegiance. State in accordance with established practice there, or (c) accepting an offer «nepolit. work in foreign. Government ».

In accordance with this presumption, a U.S. citizen, committing acts falling within paragraphs (a), (c) and (c), shall not be obliged to declare in advance their intention to retain citizenship, because it is stored for them automatically.

If the cases, the relevant section 349, paragraphs 1,2,3,4, are in the field of view Am. consular officer, he may ask a citizen, whether he committed his acts with the intent to abandon am. citizenship. After receiving otritsat. response, U.S. Consul confirms official. that the actions of citizens do not bear in itself the intention of renunciation of citizenship, and, accordingly, the U.S. citizenship of that person's remains.

When you put. reply, this person will be asked to fill out special. questionnaire to determine its relationship to U.S. citizenship. By filling out the questionnaire and sign a statement of voluntary relinquishment of citizenship, Am. Consul prepare a certificate of loss of nationality. Certificate, in turn, forwarded for consideration and decision in the State Department.

Adm. standard of proof does not apply if the person is formally renounce U.S. citizenship before the Am. Consul abroad, took the state. post «policy. level »in Foreign. State has committed an act of state. treason or «being in the status of immigrant, committed an act so inconsistent with U.S. citizenship, which they regarded as the intention of the voluntary renunciation of citizenship».

Three recent cases are considered am. consular service on an individual basis.

In all other cases, the presence of the U.S. citizenship of a citizen of another state does not create a direct threat to his am. citizenship.

Recognized that a person can have dual citizenship by virtue of the laws the United States and another State, not by choice (for example, a child born abroad of Am. Parents can be a U.S. citizen and country of birth). U.S. citizen may acquire foreign. citizenship by marriage to an alien, a naturalized American, is not necessarily lose the citizenship of the country of birth, American by another nationality in virtue of certain circumstances, automatically, does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.

U.S. citizen is obliged to leave and arrive in the country on AM. passport, but the second State may require the same in his regard. Using a U.S. passport of another country did not pose the threat of Am. citizenship.

At the same time, it is assumed that a person with dual citizenship are equally loyal to the United States and another State. They are required to obey the laws of both countries and each country has the right to enforce its national laws there are. At the same time, when an insoluble conflict between states (eg, war), dual nationals must comply with the U.S. and am faithful. laws even in the hostile country to maintain their citizenship in the future (U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kawakita v. US; 343 US 717, 1952).
[Emphasis added]

While the U.S. recognizes the possibility of two or more nationalities to its citizens, Am. Government does not encourage multiple because of potential problems that it may represent. The jurisdiction of another State to U.S. citizens with dual citizenship may be contrary to the laws of the United States and limit the possibility of am. Government to promote it abroad, because domicile country has more rights to it.

U.S. law does not consider himself the subject of dual citizenship and does not require citizens to choose one of two or more nationalities. Quite the contrary. In one of the basic immigration status Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 US 253, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court used the reasoning of 14 amendments to the Constitution, to affirm the right of Am. Citizens for dual citizenship (the first sentence of the amendment, the so-called «item on citizenship», states that «All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subordinate jurisdictions onyh are U.S. citizens and the state in which they reside»).

Afro been naturalized in the United States of Poles, who moved to Israel in 1950. He tried to renew his expired am. passport in 1960., but the State Department received a waiver on the grounds that the law on immigration and citizenship, he lost U.S. citizenship by taking part in the elections in Israel in 1951. Afro sued the State Department and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is still am. citizen.

The starting point of such a ruling was the Court's decision that the 14 amendment elevates the status of citizenship in the constitutionally guaranteed right and, accordingly, the U.S. Congress had no right to adopt a law depriving a person of citizenship without his consent. In this regard, the Supreme Court invalidated provisions of the deprivation of automatic citizenship for participation in the elections in another country, as well as similar provisions relating to service in the Foreign. Foreign armies and adoption. oath, except when such acts are committed with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. Following the court decision on this and similar immigration cases the U.S. Congress has made the appropriate changes in immigration law in 1978 (Public Law 95-432), 1986 (Public Law 99-653) and 1994. (Public Law 103-416). [Emphasis added]

Under consideration by Congress is 7 bills, one way or another regarding the issues of citizenship, but none of them does not affect the issue of dual or multiple nationality. In general, Am. unlikely to recognize the legal change in relation to this matter.

U.S. has no treaty on mutual recognition of dual citizenship with other countries. In the late XIX - early XX centuries. United States ratified a number of treaties on nationality (the so-called «contract Benkrofta», on behalf of a well-known am. Diplomat J. Benkrofta), but their goal was just the prevention of cases of dual nationality by automatic deprive a person of U.S. citizenship when adopting the State of nationality of the counterparty under the contract, and vice versa. As a result, as many decisions Am. Supreme Court's dual citizenship, these contracts were not feasible, and to date the U.S. got out of all.

Проблематика двойного гражданства в США. Во многих случаях ам. граждане могут являться гражданами других государств. Существующее законодательство позволяет им сохранять два (или несколько) гражданств в тех случаях, когда ам. граждане имеют другое гражданство по рождению или же приобрели гражданство другого государства, уже обладая ам., и законы другого государства не требуют формального отказа от гражданства США.

В силу того, что на настоящее время у США не существует договоров с другими государствами о взаимном признании гражданств, термин dual citizenship применяется универсально ко всем случаям многогражданства. В понимании ам. правительства концепция двойного гражданства означает наличие у лица гражданств двух или нескольких стран одновременно, и каждая из них имеет собственные законы о гражданстве, основанные на системе права данной страны.

Традиционно исповедовавший практику жестких подходов к случаям многогражданства госдеп США – в чьи функции входит определения статуса гражданства американца, находящегося за рубежом или подающего заявление на получение загранпаспорта внутри страны – в последние годы перестал отслеживать таковые, даже тогда, когда иностр. граждане приобретают ам. гражданство по натурализации, но хотят сохранить за собой существующее гражданство другой страны.

Приобретая гражданство США, человек под присягой отказывается от гражданства иных государств, и, в теории, несоответствие этой присяге может привести к потере ам. гражданства. Однако с правовой точки зрения ам. присяга не влияет на действие законов о гражданстве других государств, и лицо, принимая ам. гражданство, в большинстве случаев не лишается автоматически своего существующего гражданства. С одной стороны, США формально не заставляют вновь натурализованного гражданина обратиться в консульство государства своего первого гражданства и отказаться от него, с другой стороны, не делая этого, данное лицо как бы косвенно свидетельствует о неискренности своей присяги, что ранее зачастую приводило к потере гражданства США. Теперь, во избежание множественных запутанных разбирательств (а счет случаям многогражданства идет здесь на сотни тысяч), фед. органы власти США предпочитают «закрывать глаза» на данную проблему.

Офиц. позиция США в отношении двойного гражданства, которой руководствуется госдеп, была изложена в его телеграмме ам. консульствам и посольствам 16 апр. 1990г. (67 Interpreter Releases 799, 23.07.90; 67 Interpreter Releases 1092, 01.10.90).

В преамбуле данной телеграммы говорится, что «изменения в трактовке законодательства о гражданстве делают все более трудным рассмотрение спорных случаев... В прошлом нашим ответом было увеличение человеко-часов, более подробное разбирательство, а также улучшение обучения и тренировок. Однако необходимы существенные изменения в процессе для обеспечения беспристрастных, скорых и оправдываемых решени...й»

В соответствии с последней редакцией Закона об иммиграции и гражданстве (раздел 349) граждане США могут утратить гражданство при добровольном совершении ряда действий с намерением отказаться от ам. гражданства. К ним относится: натурализация в иностр. государстве; принятие присяги или торжественного заявления верности иностр. государству или его полит. подразделениям; служба в войсках иностр. государств, вовлеченных во враждебные действия против США, а также принятие офицерского чина в войсках иностр. государств; занятие гос. должности в иностр. государстве, состоя в гражданстве этого государства или принимая присягу при назначении на должность; формальный отказ от гражданства США перед сотрудником ам. консульской службы за рубежом; формальный отказ от ам. гражданства на территории США (но только во время войны); гос. измена.

Все вышеперечисленное может привести к потере гражданства, лишь будучи совершенным с намерением отказа от него. Для определения того, было ли в действиях гражданина США такое намерение, госдеп пользуется «единообразным адм. стандартом доказательства» (Uniform Administrative Standard of Evidence), который исходит из той предпосылки, что «ам. граждане намерены сохранить гражданство США при (а) натурализации в иностр. государстве, а также (б) подписывая декларацию верности иностр. государству в соответствии с установленной там практикой или (с) принимая предложение «неполит. работы в иностр. правительстве».

В соответствии с данной презумпцией, гражданин США, совершая действия, подпадающие под пункты (а), (в), и (с), не обязан заранее декларировать свое намерение сохранить гражданство, ибо оно сохраняется за ним автоматически.

Если случаи, соответствующие разделу 349, п.п. 1,2,3,4, попадают в поле зрения ам. консульского сотрудника, он может спросить гражданина, совершал ли тот свои действия с намерением отказаться от ам. гражданства. Получив отрицат. ответ, консул США подтверждает офиц. что действия гражданина не несли в себе намерения отказа от гражданства, и, соответственно, гражданство США за этим лицом сохраняется.

При положит. ответе, данному лицу будет предложено заполнить спец. опросный лист для определения его отношения к гражданству США. По заполнении опросного листа и подписи лицом заявления о добровольном отказе от гражданства, ам. консул готовит сертификат об утрате гражданства. Сертификат, в свою очередь, направляется на рассмотрение и для принятия решения в госдеп.

Адм. стандарт доказательства не применяется, если лицо формально отказалось от гражданства США перед ам. консулом за рубежом, заняло гос. должность «полит. уровня» в иностр. государстве, совершило акт гос. измены или «пребывая в статусе эмигранта, совершило действия настолько несовместимые с гражданством США, что они рассматриваются как добровольное намерение отказа от гражданства».

Три последних случая рассматриваются ам. консульской службой в индивидуальном порядке.

Во всех остальных случаях наличие у гражданина США гражданства другого государства не создает прямой угрозы его ам. гражданству.

Признается, что человек может обладать двойным гражданством в силу действия законов США и другого государства, а не по собственному выбору (к примеру, ребенок, рожденный за рубежом от ам. родителей, может быть гражданином США и страны рождения). Гражданин США может приобрести иностр. гражданство при заключении брака с иностранцем; натурализованный американец не обязательно утрачивает гражданство страны рождения; американец, которому другое гражданство в силу тех или иных обстоятельств предоставляется автоматически, не рискует потерять гражданство США.

Гражданин США обязан покидать и прибывать в страну по ам. паспорту, но второе государство может требовать того же в своем отношении. Использование гражданином США паспорта другой страны не создает угрозы его ам. гражданству.

Одновременно предполагается, что лица с двойным гражданством одинаково лояльны США и другому государству. От них требуется подчиняться законам обеих стран, и каждая страна вправе обеспечить соблюдение своих законов гражданином там находящимся. В то же время при возникновении неразрешимых конфликтов между государствами (например, война) бипатриды должны соблюдать верность США и ам. законам даже на территории враждебной страны для сохранения своего гражданства в будущем (постановление Верховного суда США по делу Kawakita v. US; 343 US 717, 1952).

Хотя США признают возможность наличия двух или нескольких гражданств у своих граждан, ам. правительство не поощряет многогражданство в силу потенциальных проблем, которые оно может представлять. Распространение юрисдикции другого государства на гражданина США с двойным гражданством может противоречить законам США и ограничить возможности ам. правительства содействовать ему за рубежом, т.к. страна-домициль имеет больше прав на него.

Законодательство США не рассматривает сам предмет двойного гражданства и не требует от граждан выбора только одного из двух или нескольких гражданств. Скорее наоборот. В одном из основополагающих иммиграционных дел Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 US 253, 1967, Верховный суд США использовал аргументацию 14 поправки к Конституции, чтобы подтвердить право ам. граждан на двойное гражданство (первое предложение текста поправки, т.н. «пункт о гражданстве», гласит, что «все лица, родившиеся или натурализованные в США и подчиненные юрисдикции оных, являются гражданами США и штата, в котором они проживают»).

Афроим был натурализованным в США поляком, который переехал в Израиль в 1950г. Он попытался продлить свой истекший ам. паспорт в 1960г., но получил отказ госдепа на том основании, что по Закону об иммиграции и гражданстве он утратил гражданство США, приняв участие в выборах в Израиле в 1951г. Афроим подал в суд на госдеп, и Верховный суд США постановил, что он остается ам. гражданином.

Отправной точкой такого постановления было решение суда о том, что 14 поправка возводит гражданство в статус гарантированного конституцией права, и, соответственно, конгресс США не имел права принимать закон, лишающий лицо гражданства без его согласия. В этой связи Верховный суд признал недействительным положение Закона об автоматическом лишении гражданства за участие в выборах в другой стране, а также схожие положения относительно службы в иностр. армиях и принятия иностр. присяги, за исключением случаев, когда подобные действия совершаются с намерением отказа от гражданства США. Вслед за судебным решением по этому и подобным иммиграционным делам конгресс США внес соответствующие изменения в иммиграционное законодательство в 1978 (Public Law 95-432), 1986 (Public Law 99-653) и 1994 гг. (Public Law 103-416).

На рассмотрении в конгрессе находится 7 законопроектов, так или иначе касающихся вопросов гражданства, однако ни один из них не затрагивает проблематики двойного гражданства или многогражданства. В целом ам. правоведы признают маловероятным изменение сложившегося в стране отношения к этому вопросу.

США не имеет договоров о взаимном признании двойного гражданства с другими государствами. В конце XIX – начале XX вв. США ратифицировали ряд договоров о гражданстве (т.н. «договоры Бэнкрофта», по имени известного ам. дипломата Дж. Бэнкрофта), однако, их целью было как раз предотвращение случаев двойного гражданства путем автоматического лишения лица гражданства США при принятии гражданства государства-контрагента по договору и наоборот. В результате же многочисленных решений ам. Верховного суда по двойному гражданству эти договоры стали невыполнимы, и к сегодняшнему дню США вышли из всех.

16 posted on 06/27/2009 9:08:29 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
British Nationality Prior to 1983

The British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1 January 1983. Prior to 1983, British nationality was only be transmitted from the father through one generation only, and parents were required to be married.

That can be construed as jus sanguinis or possibly even a type of lex soli in Obama Sr's case, but not jus soli (unless you want to give the Kenyan birth theory credence)

17 posted on 06/27/2009 9:25:22 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; 1COUNTER-MORTER-68; ...

Thanks, BP2.

Pinging everyone to read #12, #13, #16 and #17.

[It’s okay to skip the the part written in Russian.]

18 posted on 06/27/2009 9:34:37 AM PDT by LucyT (We lived in the best of times, in the best place, in all of human history. - Lucy T.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BP2

I read your memo but the back and forth confused me.

can you sum up the memo into a quotable?

19 posted on 06/27/2009 9:36:23 AM PDT by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer; null and void; Beckwith; stockpirate; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; Myrddin; ...

What I stated is that if Obama’s parents were not married — and there is a good chance that they were not — and Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, then he would not automatically acquire British citizenship from his father, assuming that Obama Sr. is his father and assuming that his father was a Citizen of the United Kingdom on or after 1948.

If Obama was born in Kenya, then he is not a natural-born citizen NOR a naturalized citizen at birth, AND a lying forger (which he already is).

There is sufficient doubt that his parents were NOT married because no marriage license was ever found or released, and that the legitimacy of that copy allegedly to be the Dunham/Obama “Divorce decree” is highly suspicious, given the presence of forged signatures on it.

The basis for my claim comes from the British Nationality Act of 1948. Under the 1948 Act, CUKC status was acquired by:

legitimate descent from a CUKC father for children born elsewhere. Only the first generation acquired British nationality automatically.

“father” means the father of a legitimate or legitimated child (see 2.4.3)

Glossary Term (No Link)

A parent is the biological mother of a child, the biological father if he was married to the mother when the child was born or if he can prove paternity, or the adoptive mother or father of a child who has been legally adopted.

20 posted on 06/27/2009 9:44:46 AM PDT by Polarik (Forgeries are forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson