Replies

“BHO is a U.S. citizen at birth. As a child you can’t have your U.S. citizenship taken away from you by an act if your parents or the citizenship laws of another country. He may have acquired Indonesian citizenship (and a passport to boot). But in doing so, he didn’t lose his U.S. nationality.”

We know Obama lost his U.S Citizenship because in was in the Federal Foster Care system 1971 to 1979. Only foreign nationals could be in Federal Foster Care during the 70s. State-based welfare agencies could not provide services to foreign nationals during the 70s because it was against Federal Law.

Permanent resident aliens are entitled to receive a SSN if its applied for and are required to register with Selective Service if they are a male between the ages of 18 to 25.

It is now well settled that anyone may renounce his United States citizenship.

See Right of Expatriation, 9 Op. Att'y Gen. 356, 358 (1859) ("the general right, in one word, of expatriation, is incontestible"); Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 497 (1950) ("Traditionally the United States has supported the right of expatriation as a natural and inherent right of all people."); Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129, 139 (1958) (Black, J., concurring) ("Of course a citizen has the right to abandon or renounce his citizenship"); Lozada Colon v. United States Dep't o.f State, 2 F. Supp. 2d 43, 45 (D.D.C. 1998) (assuming that "an individual has a fundamental right to expatriate").

It was once thought that, because the Naturalization Clause contained no express provision for Congressional power to expatriate a U.S. citizen against his will, no such authority existed. U.S. Const. art. I, SS 8, cl. 4. As Chief Justice Marshall stated in dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), "[a] naturalized citizen . . . becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is, to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual." Id. at 827. In Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), the Court found an inherent federal power, beyond the express terms of the Constitution, to forcibly expatriate U.S. citizens, as a necessary attribute of sovereignty. See id. at 57 (concluding that power to expatriate necessarily arose out of federal power to conduct foreign relations (citing United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936))). That view was abrogated, however, in Afroyim. See Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 257 ("This power cannot, as Perez indicated, be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty possessed by all nations. . . . Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones.").

Under the Court's current jurisprudence, the Naturalization Clause empowers Congress to expatriate U.S. citizens without obtaining their consent, but only with respect to naturalized citizens who fall outside the protection of the Citizenship Clause. Individuals not protected by the Citizenship Clause acquire U.S. citizenship, if at all, solely by an act of Congress enacted pursuant to the Naturalization Clause, and not pursuant to the Constitution itself. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971) (Citizenship Clause does "'not touch[] the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization'") (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898)); see also note 6. With respect to such individuals, Congress's power under the Naturalization Clause includes the power to set conditions subsequent to naturalization, failure of which may result in expatriation without consent. See Bellei, 401 U.S. at 834 ("it does not make good constitutional sense, or comport with logic, to say, on the one hand, that Congress [in exercising its authority under the Naturalization Clause] may impose a condition precedent, with no constitutional complication, and yet be powerless to impose precisely the same condition subsequent").

By its express terms, the Citizenship Clause does not protect persons who acquire U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born abroad to parents, at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen, because such persons are not "born or naturalized in the United States." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 1 (emphasis added). See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 827 (1971).

Afroyim, the Court had held precisely the opposite view - namely, that nothing in the Constitution prevents U.S. citizens from forfeiting their citizenship, against their will, for voluntarily engaging in certain kinds of conduct, such as voting in a foreign election. That view was restated most recently in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958). See, e.g., id. at 58 n.3; id. at 61; see also Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 312 (1915); Savorgnan, 338 U.S. at 499-500. Three justices who dissented in Perez, however, concluded that the Citizenship Clause prohibits expatriation absent the citizen's assent. See Perez, 356 U.S. at 66 (Warren, C.J., dissenting). In 1967, the Court expressly overruled Perez by a 5-4 vote in Afroyim. See Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 257 ("we reject the idea expressed in Perez that . . . Congress has any general power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent"); id. at 262-63 (noting that primary purpose of the Citizenship Clause was to prevent Congress from stripping blacks of U.S. citizenship). Not a single justice suggested a return to Perez when the Court revisited the issue of expatriation in 1980. See Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980).

The statute's list of acts of expatriation appears to be exhaustive. See 8 U.S.C. 1488 (2000) ("The loss of nationality under this part shall result solely from the performance by a national of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in this part."). But see Kawakita, 343 U.S. at 731-32 (declining to resolve whether other acts of expatriation may be available).

Additional restrictions on expatriation, not apparently relevant here, are enumerated in 8 U.S.C. 1483 (2000). First, "[e]xcept as provided in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 1481(a) .

“We know Obama lost his U.S Citizenship because in was in the Federal Foster Care system 1971 to 1979. Only foreign nationals could be in Federal Foster Care during the 70s. State-based welfare agencies could not provide services to foreign nationals during the 70s because it was against Federal Law.”

All:

SvenMagnussen persists in posting claims, such as the one above, for which there is no evidence and have already been extensively debunked by evidence-seeking FReepers on this thread that was opened for that purpose:

“Obama Naturalized As A Citizen In 1983”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3005345/posts