Our laws or theirs?
If their laws permit it. we are bound by treaties to recognize their laws as it pertains to their citizens.
The typical liberal argument is that North Korea can declare all American citizens to be North Korean citizens to prevent anyone from being elected president based upon the Natural born citizen clause. It is a lousy argument, first because it deals with a premise that North Korea has power over people that never entered that country or were ever schooled there.
Obama did enter Indonesia and was enrolled in the state run schools there, his step father was a citizen and his mother became a citizen and spent the rest of her life there.His sister is a citizen of Indonesia as well.
Obviously we look upon Indonesia as one of those safe countries where even though they don’t allow dual citizenship, there is no stigma to being a citizen of Indonesia unlike North Korea where had Obama been made a citizen of that country by his stepfather the situation would be wildly different.
The Question then is why do we accept one over the other, Indonesia at the time Obama was there was a brutal Muslim regime which ruled with an iron fist equal to North Korea at the time.
People tend to forget that.
I guess I should have been specific. My references to "the law" were to U.S. law. References to Indonesian law were identified as such, or intended to be. My apologies if I was not consistent in doing so.
If their laws permit it. we are bound by treaties to recognize their laws as it pertains to their citizens.
Yes, but we're talking about a minor child with presumptive U.S. citizenship as well.
The typical liberal argument is that North Korea can declare all American citizens to be North Korean citizens to prevent anyone from being elected president based upon the Natural born citizen clause. It is a lousy argument, first because it deals with a premise that North Korea has power over people that never entered that country or were ever schooled there.
It's a silly, specious argument, since we're talking about citizenship status at birth, derived from being born on the soil of the U.S. to parents who are, at a minimum, naturalized. Such a mischievous foreign claim would not be recognized by the U.S., either, with a rather glaring precedent going back to the earliest years of this nation. A war was fought over it; the War Of 1812. Of course, typical liberal arguments tend to assume that history began whenever convenient for liberals, so we should not be surprised.
Obama did enter Indonesia and was enrolled in the state run schools there, his step father was a citizen and his mother became a citizen and spent the rest of her life there.His sister is a citizen of Indonesia as well.
Yes, and so was (perhaps still is), Barack Hussein Obama, II. But, any argument that says he lost any U.S. citizenship in childhood as a result, is in error. His own parents/legal guardians could not relinquish his U.S. citizenship if he indeed had such citizenship, and certainly the government of Indonesia could not. Upon reaching the age of majority, it's a different matter, though.
Obviously we look upon Indonesia as one of those safe countries where even though they don’t allow dual citizenship, there is no stigma to being a citizen of Indonesia unlike North Korea where had Obama been made a citizen of that country by his stepfather the situation would be wildly different.
The potential stigma for Obama, to having been a citizen of Indonesia as a child, with presumptive, natural-born U.S. citizenship, would be the legal consequences of actions taken or perhaps not taken upon reaching the age of majority. Hostile, foreign actions regarding citizenship have ample historic precedent, and U.S. law does not recognize them. Neither does The Law Of Nations, nor modern international law.
The Question then is why do we accept one over the other, Indonesia at the time Obama was there was a brutal Muslim regime which ruled with an iron fist equal to North Korea at the time.
While I can't speak to circumstances in Indonesia during the span of time in question, I can speak to the legal reasoning behind the acceptance of U.S. citizenship being retained by a minor child, despite the actions of parents and foreign governments: Perkins v. Elg.
People tend to forget that.
After having put forth a fair amount of effort on this forum, regarding the Presidential eligibility issue in general, I'd say that most who make erroneous claims never knew to forget. There are also those who seek to deliberately sow confusion, whether out of some personal, wishful thinking or out of nefarious political motivations, I can't say.