Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Obama an Indonesian citizen? Evidence raises concerns over presidential qualification.
Klein Online ^ | 8 29 2011 | Aaron Klein

Posted on 08/30/2011 5:13:00 AM PDT by tutstar

Evidence continues to mount that President Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, raising concerns over his presidential eligibility.

Obama’s American mother, Ann Dunham, separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when the president was 2 years old. Dunham and Obama Sr. are reported to have later divorced.

In Hawaii, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, in 1965 and moved to Indonesia in October 1967.

Divorce documents filed in Hawaii on Aug. 20, 1980, refer to Obama as the “child” of both Soetoro and Dunham, indicating a possible adoption in the U.S.

The divorce records state: “The parties have 1 child(ren) below age 18 and 1 child(ren) above 18 but still dependent on the parties for education.”

(Excerpt) Read more at kleinonline.wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anndunham; barrysoetoro; certifigate; dncrico; dunham; federalfamily; fraud; hopespringseternal; indonesia; jakarta; kingofthedeficit; leosoetoro; lolosoetoro; marxistcoup; naturalborncitizen; obamacrimes; obamafamily; obamatruth; obamatruthfile; soetoro; stanleyanndunham; stanleydunham; thistimeforsure; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-352 next last
There is an image of the referenced document at the article but it can't be enlarged. I think that this doc has been posted on FR somewhere.
1 posted on 08/30/2011 5:13:06 AM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nightshift

gnip


2 posted on 08/30/2011 5:13:32 AM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

This was discussed long ago. American law doesn’t care what the parents do ~ they can’t give up the chillun’s citizenship ~


3 posted on 08/30/2011 5:14:39 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; BP2; rxsid; null and void; Candor7; melancholy

ping


4 posted on 08/30/2011 5:14:56 AM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Do you have a link to the law info? That would be good to provide for discussion.


5 posted on 08/30/2011 5:16:01 AM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tutstar
You can do a search on FR through GOOGLE.COM. I'd ask for "freerepublic citizenship obama". Should give you about 471,000 results. Possibly adding "indonesia" to the list will trim it down a bit.

In fact, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2064673/posts was started in 2008. If you come up with anything new add it onto that one!

6 posted on 08/30/2011 5:23:23 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The problem is that Barry Soetoro Barack Obama was attending college on a foreign scholarship. This means that Barry himself was admitting his Indonesian citizenship, hence his disqualification for being POTUS.
7 posted on 08/30/2011 5:26:07 AM PDT by Flavious_Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

So it still doesn’t matter, unless he enrolled at Occidental on a foreign student visa or obtained funding based on being an Indonesian citizen studying in America. Those records have been scrubbed, his damage is done, we just need to replace him in 2012.


8 posted on 08/30/2011 5:26:50 AM PDT by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA (Maxine Waters tells Tea Party to "go to hell" - no thanks, I have no desire to move to your district)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

“Obama’s American mother, Ann Dunham, separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when the president was 2 years old.”

I have never seen evidence that the two ever lived together at all, so there was no “separation”. Obama Sr. just left Hawaii.


9 posted on 08/30/2011 5:27:40 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

To all those critics of this issue out there (like Bill O’Reilly for example):

There’s a difference between using this issue to “change the election results” and using it to establish the qualifications of a CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR OFFICE.

Yes, Obama is a sitting president and according to YOU (not me) we should be respectful of the fact that he won the election.

But that was the LAST ELECTION.

Going into the NEXT ELECTION it’s fair by ANY STANDARD (including the ridiculously soft standards of “pundits” like Bill O’Reilly) to investigate this issue thoroughly.


10 posted on 08/30/2011 5:27:43 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tutstar; All

Like so many others, I wanted to see Mr. Obama adjudicated as ineligible for office.....which I personnally think he is because I don’t think he is a NBC in COTUS sense. However, in the case of Indonesian citizenship....I “believe” (I don’t know), that a child cannot renounce his citizenship by being adopted. So, being adopted by an Indonesian would not invalidate his U.S. citizenship. I do “believe” (I don’t know) that he had to clarify his status upon reaching adulthood.

Whatever, the SCOTUS has (for whatever reason - I don’t know) punted on this issue. We are powerless to force the issue....unless we go into rebellion...which I will not do.


11 posted on 08/30/2011 5:27:54 AM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html


12 posted on 08/30/2011 5:30:25 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Flavious_Maximus

How do you know he was attending college on a foreign scholarship?


13 posted on 08/30/2011 5:31:26 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
"“Obama’s American mother, Ann Dunham, separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when the president was 2 years old.” I have never seen evidence that the two ever lived together at all, so there was no “separation”. Obama Sr. just left Hawaii."

But . . . Obama Sr. was already married to another woman in Kenya at the time reports say he "married" the promiscious Miss Dunham. Therefore, little bastard Barry is truly a little bastard.

This jungle love stuff is pretty well complicated if you ask me. What a PITA

14 posted on 08/30/2011 5:33:37 AM PDT by atc23 (The Confederacy was the single greatest conservative resistance to federal authority ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
So, being adopted by an Indonesian would not invalidate his U.S. citizenship.

True, but the more pertinent question, IMHO, is WHICH of the 2 distinctive types of citizenship he possessed in the first place.

A citizen by the soil (native-born) is NOT eligible to be President unless he is also a citizen by blood (natural-born).

15 posted on 08/30/2011 5:37:08 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Flavious_Maximus

You’ll need to argue that one out with State Department.


16 posted on 08/30/2011 5:39:34 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

It doesn’t matter. No court or legislative body in this country has the integrity, the ethics or the honor required to do anything about this. As far as I’m concerned they are all complicit.


17 posted on 08/30/2011 5:44:34 AM PDT by pgkdan (Time for a Cain Mutiny!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavious_Maximus
This article is CRAP and they know it. They admit right in the article itself.

“But U.S. law would still recognize Obama as an American citizen”.

“If Obama had Indonesian citizenship for a period, it may not necessarily have changed his U.S. citizenship status, but it could raise loyalty concerns.”

You don't need to look it up. Another country, or your parents, or ANYONE (not even you) can lose your U.S. citizenship while under the age of majority (21). (and in some cases even after that (Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939))

18 posted on 08/30/2011 6:08:20 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

Zero has always been UNqualified to be POTUS. He may be DISqualified too, but at this point it is academic. The only way to get him out of Air Force One is to vote him out next year.

Sadly, U.S. citizenship is handed out indiscriminately, like a prize in a Cracker Jack box. It is one of the signs of Empire, like Roman citizenship.

We now have millions of people running around with “dual” citizenships. If you are well connected and have enough money you can potentially be a “citizen” of a dozen countries at the same time. For example, you can buy one from Belize or claim one from Ireland if a grandparent was from there.


19 posted on 08/30/2011 6:10:33 AM PDT by Malesherbes (- Sauve qui peut)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tutstar; All

Let’s consider a thought problem here for a moment...strictly for conversational purposes.

Let us say that next February, undeniable and unshakable, proven public proof that Obama was not only ineligible to even run for President, but calls into question his eligibility to run for his former Senate seat as well.

Then what?? Someone explain to me exactly what they think would happen next, if anything.

I don’t think there would be any more support for Premier Hussein’s impeachment beyond the Republicans in the House, and I am not convinced that all of them would vote to impeach. Even if they did, the Democrats and all of the RINO Republicans in the Senate would never in a million years vote to convict.

And even if Hussein was impeached, convicted and removed from office before the election, who here has warm fuzzy feelings about Joe Biden ascending to the Presidency and perhaps naming Nancy Pelosi as his Veep??

Thomas Jefferson wrote in his “Notes on the State of Virginia”: “The time to guard against corruption and tyranny is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.”

I fear that because we collectively allowed a very talented face-dancer to casually work around our election laws, we now have the wolf in our midst and as Jefferson pointed out it will be much harder to do something about it after the fact.

I also fear that the Country has suffered such grave economic damage from this community agitator and his Communist friends that we are in much more danger than many would care to admit and that even more damage is going to be done before we can get them out of office in January 2013.


20 posted on 08/30/2011 6:12:07 AM PDT by Bean Counter (Obama got mostly Ds and Fs all through college and law school. Keep saying it.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

I’m interested in that too. AFAIK it’s all conjecture.


21 posted on 08/30/2011 6:13:12 AM PDT by meatloaf (It's time to push back against out of control government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp


22 posted on 08/30/2011 6:20:58 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
You don't need to look it up. Another country, or your parents, or ANYONE (not even you) can lose your U.S. citizenship while under the age of majority (21). (and in some cases even after that (Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939))

In Perkins v. Elg, the court ruled that a person does not automatically lose their naturalized citizenship status merely by moving overseas. But Obama was born here. You can argue that he's a natural born citizen or a native born citizen, but the fact is that he was a citizen at birth. That cannot be taken away from a person, it can only be relinquished voluntarily and intentionally. And according to U.S. law a parent cannot do that for their child.

23 posted on 08/30/2011 6:21:00 AM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tutstar
They are NOT going to remove him from office.

Nor are they going to make Obama prove anything.

So this issue isn't even worth talking about.

The laws do not apply to the important people (liberals and their constituencies).
24 posted on 08/30/2011 6:22:08 AM PDT by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tutstar
Evidence continues to mount that President Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, raising concerns over his presidential eligibility.

Does that evidence perhaps include the legal papers finalizing the Indonesian adoption? Or something showing when the Indonesian law changed to allow someone of Obama's age to become an Indonesian citizen upon adoption?

25 posted on 08/30/2011 6:23:58 AM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bean Counter; LucyT; Fred Nerks
Let us say that next February, undeniable and unshakable, proven public proof that Obama was not only ineligible to even run for President . . . .

I don’t think there would be any more support for Premier Hussein’s impeachment beyond the Republicans in the House, and I am not convinced that all of them would vote to impeach. Even if they did, the Democrats and all of the RINO Republicans in the Senate would never in a million years vote to convict.

If your fundamental premise is correct--he is not eligible to hold the office of President; then impeachment does not lie against him.

Impeachment is the remedy to remove someone who holds the office of President. The legal result under Supreme Court precedents that are fairly clear is that if he is not eligible to hold the office, he is not there even if that is where he physically goes to work for some period. He isn't President--therefore no impeachment.

And to follow along with the part of your inquiry I didn't quote, the consequences are these: Joe Biden is Acting President, not President nor Vice President; those of Obama's acts which require a President (appointment of Supreme Court justices; signatures approving legislation which legislation would not have become law without his signature such as bills where Congress adjourned after passage and before he signed the bill; military orders) are void.

And at that point, he is simply a squatter in the White House until he is removed by appropriate process.

The way you would get to that position legally would be the result of a proceeding in which a person with standing pursued a legal action to invalidate some specific act as President.

An effective challenge to a military order would work and lots of individual members of the military would have standing but that is a careful legal proceeding and so far, where the officer had standing and effective representation, the military has withdrawn the order.

Another effective challenge would be by a party to a Supreme Court appeal who challenged participation of Sotomayor or Keagan in an appeal to which that person was a party.

26 posted on 08/30/2011 6:40:02 AM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tutstar; LucyT; BP2; rxsid; null and void; Candor7; melancholy; muawiyah
This DISINFORMATION apparently has a life of it's own.

It has generally been conceded (except by me) that Magic was born of an American mother in Hawaii. If true, that would make the man a NATIVE American Citizen. If so, that citizenship cannot be removed.

Upon reaching his majority, the fellow had the choice of American, Indonesian, British, or Kenyan citizenship. Apparently he chose "American."

The fact that he had this choice (probably still does) is enough to convince me that he is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, as required by Article II of The Constitution.

The fact that elected Republicans, and so many FReepers, are not getting, or pretending not to get, the difference between NATIVE and NATURAL born citizenship, is disheartening to say the very least.

To further adumbrate: It was traditionally held that a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" is a person born to TWO (2) American Citizens within American jurisdiction. The parents themselves can either be naturalized, or Natural Born. Someday, some court or other might get off its black-robed duff long enough to answer the questions put to it on behalf of the 50 Million or so American voters who can still read the Constitution and hold that traditional view.

27 posted on 08/30/2011 6:43:41 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (America. Too late to fix. Too early to start the shooting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Fake, but accurate?


28 posted on 08/30/2011 6:49:05 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Snopes ? Rofl lmao

They’re never biased! /sarc


29 posted on 08/30/2011 6:50:00 AM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
There was ONE "traditionally held" position that you needed two parental units who were natives, but there were OTHER "traditionally held" positions that all you needed was to be born here rather than somewhere else, with or without a parental unit who was a citizen.

Numbers of Freepers have come up with enough stuff to suggest the issue has never been settled. The fact the FOUNDERS exempted those who'd been simply living in America, whether they were born here or not, suggests their concern was with where the hopeful office holder was born (or the jurisdiction thereof).

Then, it turned out America was a lot more difficult to get populated and developed than the Founders had imagined. If it hadn't have been for the Great Famines of the 1800s we'd probably still be pushing in the lower tens of millions rather than up there over 300 million people.

30 posted on 08/30/2011 6:51:32 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tutstar
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

31 posted on 08/30/2011 6:56:02 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
Actually, pre-revisions in the immigration laws made under Lyndon Baines Johnson, American law provided that if young ladies of a certain age went abroad to have illegitimate babies, the babies could not be American citizens.

This applied mostly to immigrant families from Ireland and Italy who were sending the girls to convents abroad to have the kids ~ most of whom would be shuffled into Catholic orphanages and then raised to be part of the religious community.

32 posted on 08/30/2011 6:56:59 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Flavious_Maximus
“The problem is that Barry Soetoro Barack Obama was attending college on a foreign scholarship.”

Exactly. Obama has said “students loans” paid for his school. The problem is loans have records, and there are no records of Obama having taken out student loans, or him paying any back. He basically scammed the system and has been lying ever since.

33 posted on 08/30/2011 6:58:10 AM PDT by Gabrial (The Whitehouse Nightmare will continue as long as the Nightmare is in the Whitehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Flavious_Maximus; All
The problem is that Barry Soetoro Barack Obama was attending college on a foreign scholarship. This means that Barry himself was admitting his Indonesian citizenship, hence his disqualification for being POTUS.

This has never been proven. And many have already pointed that out. The problem is - it has not been disproven. The college records remain locked away (or destroyed all together by this time).

Barry Soetoro as a foreign national makes a lot of sense with the available data points.

The 1980 divorce - it lists a 'child' above 18 that needs college costs paid for. Not 'stepchild', not 'adopted child' - 'child'. The Hawaii court in 1980 seems to believe they were dealing with a legal child of Lolo Soetoro.

Name change while at Occidental. That has never been played out. Barry to Barack for sure happened. But everyone is murky on the last name used during the time.

Lack of a valid social security number. Why does a person who never lived in CT have a CT number of a dead person?

Forged selective service document. A foreign national would not have to register with SS. Maybe he did not - because he did not have to.

Indonesia makes the obots go nuts. Look at this thread. There is something in this. Indonesia issues stir the bees in the hive more than anything in Hawaii or Kenya.

An adult who claims foreign national status on US soil after age 18 is basically disavowing their citizenship. You must present yourself as a US Citizen while in the US. This is why you MUST show your US passport when entering the US if you are a multi-national with US citizenship.

At the age of 18 Obama could have claimed British, Kenyan, US and Indonesian citizenship. Did he claim only one and use it as early adult? Did he claim multi-national but hide his US citizenship to gain favored status? There is proof lacking - one way or the other. So it remains possible - if not probable.

34 posted on 08/30/2011 6:58:54 AM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

That confirms, as I thought, that Occidental hasn’t released Obama’s records. Based on his writings while at the Harvard Law Review, I don’t expect we’ll discover Obama was a brilliant student if his transcripts are released.


35 posted on 08/30/2011 7:01:00 AM PDT by meatloaf (It's time to push back against out of control government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
This situation is so DISGUSTING. He should have been MADE to show proof of birth at the time he won the election...BEFORE the swearing in....THERE ARE CONSEQUENSES to this...as it sets a precedent for those that follow in the PRESIDENCY. It's always been a requirement the guy in the white house is supposed to be American born. His whole “non history, non paper trail” of his earlier years, the time and effort that's been spent to keep his past history a BIG SECRET smells to high heaven.

Now, we are stuck with a guy who is an America hating, Muslim Islamic loving,Communist/Marxist loving idiologist who has and continues to implement his plan to destroy our capitalism, freedom way of life in our nation....he's already gone a long way to implement his plan for us folks.....and I put nothing past him.

36 posted on 08/30/2011 7:01:36 AM PDT by Molly T. (Has the gang in Washington crossed your line in the sand yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Great post, as always. You do a singular job of laying out the issues, and you have a gift for cutting through the noise and getting to the heart of the matter.

One thing I wanted to mention. Don’t assume that everyone who doesn’t grasp the difference between native and natural born is a conservative. I recently had a very eye-opening experience. I took an intensive tour of four of the most radically—and rabidly—Obot/anti-birther/Soros funded/moonbat sites on the web. I discovered FR anti-birthers posting on these sites [as members of good standing], furthering the anti-birther cause. I came upon numerous mentions of FR anti-birthers as cause celebres, acknowledged, lauded and cheered on by the leftists. I came upon mentions of leftists who had stealth FR accounts, and who further the anti-birther memes on eligibility threads. They then report back to their lefty brethren how insane and stupid FR so-called ‘birthers’ are.

So don’t assume everyone who claims an inability to distinguish between native and natural born is trying all that hard. They may be here just to defend Obama. Fwiw.


37 posted on 08/30/2011 7:04:06 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

Unfortunately it may come for you!


38 posted on 08/30/2011 7:05:19 AM PDT by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
The fact that elected Republicans, and so many FReepers, are not getting, or pretending not to get, the difference between NATIVE and NATURAL born citizenship, is disheartening to say the very least.

Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson, both considered as possible SCOTUS justices, wrote the following re McCain's eligibility to be President for the Senate. In it they opine that natural born can be the product of either jus sanguinis or jus solis.

"The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United Suites v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.

and

Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.

and

Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier."

Now you may discount or disagree with their opinion, but for you to state without reservation that this is settled law is just plain wrong. Eventually, this will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.

39 posted on 08/30/2011 7:10:17 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6
The US recognizes dual nationality.

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship. Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

40 posted on 08/30/2011 7:17:11 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kabar

This section of the law was not added until 1981. The law in effect when Barry would have been adopted in Indonesia did not prevent him from renouncing his U.S. citizenship ... providing he ever had it. There’s no legal proof that he did.


41 posted on 08/30/2011 7:20:39 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

I am biased also, but still want the truth. If you have more proof, just present it.


42 posted on 08/30/2011 7:21:58 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Tribe and Olson have dropped the ball. Minor v. Happersett is instructive here: “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizen. These were the natives, or natural born citizens ...” The WKA ruling affirmed this definition by acknowledging that Viriginia Minor’s citizenship was established by virtue of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis circumstances: “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...” Wong Kim Ark was NOT born to citizen parents and thus could not be ruled a citizen per the definition of NBC. Justice Gray also recognized that he couldn’t necessarily rule Ark to be a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment unless he could show how Ark’s parents fulfilled the subject clause, which he did by requiring permanent residence and domicil. Since Obama’s father had neither, Obama is not an NBC nor a 14th amendment citizen.


43 posted on 08/30/2011 7:28:18 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Significant Court Cases

A number of cases, some of which reached the Supreme Court of the United States, have helped frame immigration law regarding dual nationals. Here are some of the most noteworthy.

Perkins v. Elg (1939)
This case involved Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States in 1907 to Swedish parents and raised in Sweden. When she turned 21 she acquired a U.S. passport and returned to live in the United States. Later, the U. S. government tried to deport her, claiming that under Swedish law she had become a Swedish citizen when she and her parents returned to Sweden. The U. S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Elg was in fact a U. S. citizen because her parents’ action did not take away her right to reclaim U. S. citizenship when she reached her majority. While this is not technically a dual citizenship case (since Elg did not try to maintain her Swedish citizenship), it nonetheless was important for those who did not wish to lose their right to U. S. citizenship through no fault of their own.

Kawakita v. United States (1952)
Tomoya Kawakita, born in the United States to Japanese parents, was in Japan when World War II broke out. During the war he supported the Japanese cause. He went to work in a factory where he supervised and also abused American prisoners of war who were forced to work there. After the war he returned to the United States on a U. S. passport, whereupon he was arrested for TREASON, convicted, and sentenced to death. Kawakita appealed the sentence, arguing that he had registered as a Japanese national during the war and therefore was not a traitor. The Supreme Court ruled that Kawakita had neither acquired Japanese citizenship nor renounced U.S. citizenship, since he was already a dual national. Kawakita lost the appeal but instead of EXECUTION he was stripped of his U. S. citizenship and deported to Japan.

Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)
Beys Afroyim immigrated from Poland to the United States in 1912 and became a naturalized citizen some years later. He became fairly well known in art circles as a modernist painter in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1950 he emigrated to Israel, and ten years later he tried to renew his U. S. passport. The State Department refused, explaining that Afroyim had voted in an Israeli election in 1951 and had thus given up his citizenship in the United States.

Afroyim sued the State Department, and the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor in a 5-to-4 vote. Interestingly, the Court invoked the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although intended to guarantee citizenship rights to freed slaves, the Court held that in effect it protected all American citizens from losing their citizenship without proof of intent to do so. True, Afroyim had voted in an Israeli election. But this was not a formal renunciation of his U. S. citizenship.


44 posted on 08/30/2011 7:28:38 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

we’ll know after he’s out of office.

the left will be bragging about it.


45 posted on 08/30/2011 7:35:17 AM PDT by ken21 (ruling class dem + rino progressives -- destroying america for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Tribe and Olson have dropped the ball.

Are you a recognized constitutional expert or did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express?

My point is that this is not settled law as much as you would like to opine otherwise. Whether one likes or agrees with Tribe and Olson or not, they have the legal "gravitas" and pedigree to elicit attention and support for their position. This will have to go to SCOTUS to be resolved. You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that it doesn't change anything. Obama is in the WH and is the President and the CIC.

46 posted on 08/30/2011 7:36:16 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

“There’s a difference between using this issue to “change the election results” and using it to establish the qualifications of a CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR OFFICE.”

The Democrats will be happy to have this conversation...as soon as Marco Rubio starts his future presidential run.


47 posted on 08/30/2011 7:42:55 AM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
This was discussed long ago. American law doesn’t care what the parents do ~ they can’t give up the chillun’s citizenship ~

That is not the relevant aspect of it. If Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, it would explain why there are so many shenanigans with his birth certificate. The original would have been sealed, and a new one would have been created.

48 posted on 08/30/2011 7:50:50 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
If, in fact, there were any shenanigans at all.

The biggest problem was in his "kamp" refusing to show it at all ~

49 posted on 08/30/2011 7:55:52 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6; Flavious_Maximus; All; muawiyah
All we know is that what Obama has told us about himself is false. The exact truth is unknown.

The Indonesian trail has been "sanitized," as has been any Kenyan trail, the Occidental trail, the Columbia trail, the Harvard trail, the Illinois Bar trail, the Social Security trail, the Selective Service trail, the Drug Use trail, the Girl Friends and lack thereof trail, the Paki-STAHN trail, the Bill Ayers trail, the Mom trail, the Frank Marshall Davis trail, the Hawaii trail; all either cleaned up or so truck-muddled that no one can figure them out.

Simple question, folk. W-or-WTF is this guy?

50 posted on 08/30/2011 7:56:09 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (America. Too late to fix. Too early to start the shooting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-352 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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