His Kenyan citizen lapsed when he turned 21 so he's no longer a citizen of any foreign country. And he's also a U.S. citizen from birth, which means he is a natural-born citizen.
“And he’s also a U.S. citizen from birth, which means he is a natural-born citizen.”
So is Pedro the anchor baby?
You are mistaken at the very least.
Naturl Born Citizens MUST have CITIZEN PARENTS.
“His Kenyan citizen lapsed’
That’s an ODD statement about the supposed President of the United States.
The House passes a non binding resolution recognizing Hawaii as the 50th state and Abercombie throws Obama a bone stating he was born there. The Senate passes a non binding resolution stating McCain is some type of citizen. I find this quite humorous.
Since the proverbial horse has left the barn, impeachment of the current occupant of the White House is the logical remedy to remove him from office with the caveat of evidence to support Constitutional requirements.
re: “His Kenyan citizen lapsed when he turned 21...”
It did not.
The (factcheck) report is not accurate as to Obamas historical British Subject status in that the implication exists that British subject status was lost along with British citizenship back in 1963.
The proof of this exists in the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) which states in Section 2(1):
2.-(1) On and after the appointed day, the British Nationality Acts 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if-
(a) in section 1(3) of the said Act of 1948 (which provides for persons to be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens by virtue of citizenship of certain countries) there were added at the end the words and Kenya ;
Now we must look at the British Nationality Act of 1948, Section 1:
1.(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.
(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression British subject and the expression Commonwealth citizen shall have the same meaning.
(3) The following are the countries hereinbefore referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.
According to the KIA, the words and Kenya are added to subsection (3) making all Kenyan citizens also British Subjects upon the appointed day, December 12, 1963.
First, Obama could not have lost his Kenyan Citizenship on August 4, 1982. This means his foreign nationality issues were not only governed by the Kenyan Constitution, but as of January 1, 1983 he was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1981.
AND SO OBAMA WAS A BRITISH COMMONWEALTH CITIZEN AFTER THE BNA OF 1981 took effect Jan 1 1983, AND SO HE STILL IS, since he was not only governed by KIA63.
The botfuscation tactic is to make it seem as if his citizenship vanished, but it did not. Obama is STILL a British Citizen.
And their is your implicit assumption, for which there is no support in law or the Constitution. The Constitution does about 3 forms of citizenship. Art I, section 8 talks about naturalization, as does the 14th amendment. Art. II Section 1, speaks of Natural Born Citizen, and finally the 14th amendment speaks to "citizenship by birth in the US".
As I said above, the statutes make a person born outside the US, a "citizen at birth" under some circumstances. Such a person can hardly fit the 14th amendment definition of "(native) born in the US", but since Congress only has power over naturalization rules, they must be considered, for Constitutional purposes at least, "naturalized at birth".