A Timeline of Barack Hussein Obama’s Nationality and Citizenships

1) The father, Obama, Sr., was already married to a Kezia in Kenya. Therefore, the marriage to Dunham was void ab initio due to bigamy. This meant Obama, Jr. obtained U.S. nationality by statute through his mother, either through 8 U.S.C. 1401, native birth to a U.S. mother, or 8 U.S.C. 1409, the out-of-wedlock provision.

Attorney Phil Berg claimed the 1409 statute is not applicable. He claims the Obama-Dunham marriage was valid because the United States did not recognize a Luo tribe ‘village’ wedding. However, I beg to differ citing the Hague Conventions. See, http://www.legallanguage.com/resources/treaties/hague/1978-march-14th-convention-2/

However, if the 1978 treaty did not reflect existing laws the U.S. observed in 1961, then the attorney may be correct, that by only a few months Dunham failed to meet post age-14 residency requirements to pass U.S. citizenship on to Barack Obama. This, of course, applies only to a Kenyan birth.

Then, consider the matter of abandonment. The status of legal parent comes into play when the father abandons the family. Obama abandoned Dunham and child almost immediately. Therefore, Dunham’s nationality was significant.

If abandoned and born in Hawaii, for which Obama refuses to offer certified proof, the 14th Amendment and 8 U.S.C. 1401 applied and Obama was automatically a British subject by birth outside of British jurisdiction, and a U.S. citizen by statute.  

 
“FactCheck.org clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

2) In most states, Obama, Sr’s impregnation of a 17-year old would have been statutory rape. Marriage of the rape victim voids prosecution. If memory serves, Hawaii’s age limit for statutory rape at that time was 15-years old, so Obama’s only reason for marrying her was to avoid appearances of statutory violation in his applications for scholarships and foreign student aid in states that did have the 18-year old statute.

3) Records show that Obama never moved in with Dunham, or provided any means of support. In fact, he left Hawaii without Dunham and child with the excuse the Harvard scholarship did not provide for his family.

4) Here is the U.S. statute for legal parent. Title 8, U.S.C. 1101(b)(2) “(2) The terms “parent”, “father”, or “mother” mean a parent, father, or mother only where the relationship exists by reason of any of the circumstances set forth in subdivision (1) of this subsection, except that, for purposes of paragraph (1)(F) (other than the second proviso therein) and paragraph (1)(G)(i) in the case of a child born out of wedlock described in paragraph (1)(D) (and not described in paragraph (1)(C)), the term “parent” does not include the natural father of the child if the father has disappeared or abandoned or deserted the child or if the father has in writing irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption.”

You have to read the whole damn statute to find it, but I did.

5) The British Nationality Act requires a child of a British subject born outside British or colonial control to register the child with the British secretary of state within one year, or the child loses British subject status. There is no proof, or reason to believe Obama went to the trouble of registering with Britain a Hawaii-born Obama, Jr. If born in Kenya, Obama would have been registered as a matter of course. The applicable British law is British Nationality Act, 1948, 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56. Part II, Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Citizen by Birth or Descent, “(b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later . . .”

The law is terribly dense and not fun to read, but I found the applicable subsection if the child was born in Hawaii.

6) Under the laws of the new Independent Kenya, Kenyans had the opportunity to remain British subjects, but had to register with the British secretary of state. This particular law is found in attorney Phil Berg’s research. Therefore, Obama lost British nationality at birth at one-year old, or upon 1963’s Kenyan Independence.

7) Obama, Jr. was born with dual nationalities, but was solely U.S. between the ages of two and six. In 1967 he was derivatively naturalized Indonesian. Again, Phil Berg hired an Indonesian lawfirm to look that up. Dunham’s marriage to Lolo Soetoro and her Indonesian residency made Obama an Indonesian, a nationality he maintained well into his late teens, early twenties. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958, Law No. 12 (1945)

[8] Unbeknownst to Obama, and even though he passed himself off as Indonesian into his early twenties, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act automatically restored his U.S. citizenship, which he lost as a minor through his mother’s marriage. All it took was his continuous residency from age 14 through 19.

See the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) 301(a)(7) and 301(b)’s five-year continuous residency requirement to become a U.S. citizen, http://www.theodora.com/ina_96_title_3.html

This is a tangled web of immorality, fornication, deceit, lawlessness, and laws involving three or four nations. Obama was born a dual national, and lived most of his formative years as a third. He regained U.S. citizenship by a fluke of a law created to prevent minors naturalized by parents losing their U.S. nationality at birth. If he had so much as lived with his mother a summer or two during the required residency period, he would have lost U.S. citizenship, and would have had to formally apply as an adult, which required taking the Oath of Allegiance and Renouncing his Indonesian citizenship.

The ‘natural born citizen’ clause was insisted upon in Article II so that the highest executive office of the land, and the position of Commander in Chief, would not be influenced by foreign nationalities. A U.S. citizen by birth, with no other nationalities, titles of nobility, or nationalities from a foreign father was the only assurance.

For those arguing that ‘native born’ status is sufficient proof, I strongly encourage them to reconsider.

Imagine that were true. Then, a 14th Amendment ‘native born’ citizen at birth from a Mexican illegal alien would be eligible to be president, even if he resided in Mexico most of his early life, just barely meeting the 14-year residency requirement after age 35. I would suppose, then, that a Mariachi band playing ‘Hail to the Chief’ would then be in order?

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

29 Responses to “A Timeline of Barack Hussein Obama’s Nationality and Citizenships”

  1. paralegalnm Says:

    McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were “native-born citizens of the [p662] United States,” as cited in Wong Kim Ark.

    United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.”

    Note, this case is indiscriminately applying Common Law, not U.S. statute . . . nor is he defining the intent of the founders in Article II. In Dred Scott, the judge merely used Article II as an example that citizenship is acquired by birth.

    There is even a citation in Ark that says ‘subject equals citizen.’

    Now, you know that is not true, and so you cannot conflate common law with Article II of the constitution, or the 14th Amendment. Citizens are different than subjects. A subject infers dominion demanding loyalty; a citizen is a participating member under jurisdiction of the law. You may as well say that a slave is the same as an employee because they both are ‘servant:master’ relationships.

    However, in another citation, there is a hint at distinction when Mr. Binney, in his abstracts of law, stated that, “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” That principle is jus soli, which is the right of any sovereign state to confer, or not, citizenship on children born of alien or citizen alike.

    But, while both citizens have ‘equal protections’ and rights under the law, Article II demanded that only a ‘natural born citizen’ be eligible so as to avoid foriegn influences working their way into the single highest executive office. Therefore, you must veer away from the common law and naturalization statute and rely on Vattel, and the original construction and intent of the founders.

    Vattel discriminated and distinguished between children of citizens and children of aliens. The ‘natural’ devolvement of allegiance came not from soli, which is given or denied by leave of the state, but sanguinis. No act of law can abrogate jus sanguinis, for it is from nature.

    That is why the founders chose ‘natural born citizen’ as defined by Vattel, not common law concerning natural born subjects within British dominion. Britain relied on their law based on ‘dominion’ and the force of military occupation at home and foreign lands. However, even that law had limits; it did not extend beyond two generations.

    It is in section IV of Wong Kim Ark where J. Gray departs from common law and ventures into jus sanguinis. It is here that Vattel, and the founders, are more influenced by French and Roman law.

    J. Gray departs from common law and tradition in Ark, writing:

    At the time of the passage of that act, although the tendency on the continent of Europe was to make parentage, rather than birthplace, the criterion of nationality, and citizenship was denied to the native-born children of foreign parents in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, yet it appears still to have been conferred upon such children in Holland, Denmark and Portugal, and, when claimed under certain specified conditions, in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece and Russia. Cockburn on Nationality, 14-21.
    There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. [p668]
    Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.

    From here onward, in Ark, J. Gray proceeds to define Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship as that under U.S. law, rather than historic and foreign precedent. That law was the 14th Amendment; and if you read that law it is entirely based on jus soli, . . . nothing more, nothing less.

    So, what happened to jus sanguinis? It remained reserved to those born of U.S. citizens and the Vattel-ian maxim that a country replenishes itself with children born of its own citizens, because children of foreigners, regardless of being ‘native-born,’ will dilute the national identity. Vattel, Law of Nations, § 212

    Justice Gray acknowledges jus solis citizenship at birth, e.g., Bobby Jindal; but reminds us of the right of election at the age of majority limiting the hold of the soil alone on nationality. Blood has a more permanent contribution, which Jindal could have chosen at age 18, thus renouncing the soil and reclaiming the nationality and identity of his family . . . his blood . . . that of India.

    Again, solis is by statute, and blood is by nature.

    Thus, I conclude that Gray did not rely entirely on history or common law, but recognized conflicts in the law . . . which remains in your misinterpretation of Wong Kim Ark. The correct interpretation of Wong Kim Ark is that U.S. law prevailed and existed solely in the 14th Amendment, but didn’t consider jus sanguinis or ‘natural born citizen’ as demanded in Article II.

    Just as J. Gray relied ENTIRELY on the 14th Amendment to affirm Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship at birth, we may rely on the chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, who wrote, and I quote:

    [E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend

    You may as well tell God Almighty Himself that the words of his prophets condemning stealing, adultery, homosexuality, murder, theft, or bearing false witness . . . worshipping other gods before him . . . ‘Awwwww, the history of the world practiced these things, so you really didn’t mean that precisely as written in the bible.’

    Here are some more quotes concerning natural born citizenship:

    Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except … children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” (1866)

    Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.”

    The founding fathers would not condone a dual national considered a natural born citizen eligible for the presidency.

    Barack Obama was, by British law, a natural born subject; by U.S. law, a citizen through his mother under the 14th Amendment or 8 USC 1409. The 14th Amendment is jus soli rules, and 1409 sanguinis and statute through the mother.

    Here is another proof of his ineligibility under Article II:

    At age 19, unbeknowsnt to Barack Hussein Obama, U.S. naturalization law (1952 INA 301) quietly de-alienaged him from his chosen Indonesian nationality. His ignorance of this happy accident of becoming a U.S. citizen, instead of losing his citizenship, is made clear by his travels to Pakistan under an Indonesian passport, and his apparent application to undergraduate school as a foreigner.

    In effect, Obama didn’t even choose U.S. citizenship at the age of decision, it was an accident of residency. His U.S. residency allowing that was due to his mother abandoning him to her grandparents as she remained an Indonesian citizen till her death.

    This, is what you and your law MIS-interpreters . . . your mutilators of original construction and intent, define as a Natural Born Citizen as written into Article II, written to bar foreign nationality into the supreme executive office of the land, and to its Commander of Armies.

  2. anonymous Says:

    Because of his childhood circumstances, BHO can not prove allegience to any one country. I can now see why no politician will touch this issue. This must be ruled on by the supreme court and outside of any political arena. It will be a truely remarkable case if it makes it to the supreme court.

  3. Linda Says:

    paralegalnm,

    Very good article. I however beg you to do a bit more research into the Obama/Dunham split. Obama Sr did not abandon his son, Dunham left Obama Sr in Hawaii to attend college in Wa. state, lawyers on several of the cases have documents from the college that atest to this. Also, interviews of those that knew Dunham at the time have stated quite openly that it was Dunham’s decision not to join Obama Sr on the east coast when he transfered to school there from Hawaii when Obama was more than a year old & living in Wa. state with the mother. Obama Sr was here on a scholarship program and could not willy nilly follow the mother around when ever she decided to relocate.

    So, how does this affect things when it was the mother that took the child away and was responsible for seperating the child from the father?

    • paralegalnm Says:

      1) The Obama-Dunham marriage was void ab initio in the United States due to bigamy.
      2) The legal test for ‘abandonment’ is defined in both 8 USC 1101 and the 1948 British Nationality Act. My sources show that Obama, Sr. never co-habited with Dunham and child, and chose Harvard even though the grant did not include enough money to support a wife and child.

      Either way, the marriage was void and if Obama was born in Kenya, the out-of-wedlock provision applied. Dunham resorted to an uncontested divorce, presumably due to years of abandonment. Proof of a Kenyan marriage, and thus bigamy, would have required apostilles from Kenya proving Sr. was already married to Kezia.

      It is difficult to nail down exact circumstances. I even go so far as to intimate Obama, Sr. married Dunham after impregnating her to avoid the appearances of statutory rape. This was, after all, still the 1960’s. In the end, the marriage was void from the beginning and the father has the responsibility to house and provide for the family, which Obama, Sr. did not.

  4. Linda Says:

    You might want to sneak on over to my site,I have several articles on the founding documents that contain more historical evidence, especially that of (Justice) James Wilson, signer of the constitution as well as the declaration and also James Kent. Kent very clearly defined the difference between natives & natural borns in his commentaries. Kent defines the tern ‘native’ as an artificial person created by ‘LAW’ and then goes into great detail on it.

    I have them cited and linked to for easy access.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      I read your article and, unfortunately, you are reading too much into the Kent citation in which Kent himself wrote too little.

      Very good find on the Wilson citation though. I’ll cite your blog when referencing it.

      • Linda Says:

        Can you elaborate?

        I am working on my next series and I site Kent, so if I am misinterpreting, can you direct me to further study before I post the article?

      • paralegalnm Says:

        I was going to refer you to my ‘Timeline’ blog, but here you are.

        The concept of dual citizenship is one of discomforture; the law is wary that the nation of birth applies jurisdiction and law to confer citizenship, while an alien father (or mother) also confers through jus sanguinis the foreign nationality.

        Therefore, domicile and the age of decision are incorporated into modern law. The child must choose by a certain age with intent, or meeting residency requirements.

        I am still struggling through your Kent citation. Some writers are missing links in their logical progression.

        For a better understanding of current law, I cite http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html

        There you will find a dozen or so cases quickly briefed and linked. I suggest reading the Bellei vs Rogers case. I Shepardized it and it is current and followed.

        Wong Kim Ark is very much misrepresented by Obamatons. In other ‘Timeline’ comments, I enlarge upon Ark. Justice Gray recognized British common law as declaratory, having some jurisdiction over foreign born children to its subjects. But, he set that aside for the purpose of ruling on Ark’s right of citizenship, and why the 14th Amendment was written out of previous laws and made part of the constitution.

      • Linda Says:

        Thanks.

        I am familiar with the Rogers case & your breakdown of the WKA case is the best I have seen thus far.

        Off to check the link you provided. Will come back if I have further questions.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Also, I break down the grammatical structure of A2S1Cl5 a little differently at http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/diagramming-the-grammatical-structure-of-article-ii-%c2%a7-1-cl-4/

  5. Alfonso Ekdahl Says:

    In Marxist theory, it is the go-between state between Capitalism and Communism. I have alot of family in Europe dwelling under Socialist authorities now and some of whom were below Communism previously. I work for a European company and work with people day-to-day who have lasted under said systems for their entire lives. I know darn well what it is, and I have no desire to live under that sort of government. I would rather combat you in the streets then to exist as they do.

  6. Ed Darrell Says:

    2) In most states, Obama, Sr’s impregnation of a 17-year old would have been statutory rape.

    Stanley Anne Dunham turned 18 on November 29, 1960. She was at least 18 when she got pregnant.

    The age of consent in Hawaii was 16.

    You could look it up.

  7. paralegalnm Says:

    If I recall correctly, the age of consent in Hawaii was 15.

    But, in other states it was 18, so marrying Dunham was possibly a strategic ploy to avoid the appearances of statutory rape in the states Obama, Sr. was applying for scholarships.

    A felony was grounds for deportation.

    Of course, Obama was already married, so the Dunham marriage was void ab initio . . . and Obama a bastard.

  8. Ed Darrell Says:

    Statutory rape is a crime in the venue that has jurisdiction. Hawaii’s age of consent would be binding on all states in this case. You can’t prosecute in Massachusetts for a crime in Hawaii.

    The woman was pregnant when they married. Big whoop.

    You need to look up the law on legitimacy. In all states, in England under common law, and in the French empire under the Code Napoleonic, Obama is not a bastard.

    But then, what’s the law to you?

  9. paralegalnm Says:

    There is a term ‘unclean hands,’ as well as avoiding the ‘appearance of wrongdoing.’

    There may have not been a legal issue in Hawaii, but the incident may have an affect in applications for matriculation in other states.

    I have framed this issue as ‘appearance of wrongdoing’ consistently, but obviously you refuse to consider the context.

  10. Ed Darrell Says:

    I have framed this issue as ‘appearance of wrongdoing’ consistently, but obviously you refuse to consider the context.

    It has no real legal import. It’s cheap gossip. Under U.S. law, with all statutes of limitations having long expired, it would make no difference. Especially since the age of consent in Hawaii is younger than you allow, and was younger then than you’d allow, the only possible reason you could have for bringing it up is the hope of smearing Obama somehow. I considered it with all the weight it should have legally. A judge would throw the evidence out, and sanction you if you mentioned it again.

    A bastard child born in Hawaii would be natural born by any definition. If you could convince some corrupt court to declare that Barack Obama should be considered illegitimate, that would seal his status as natural born for all of your efforts.

    And in the end, he gets no less rights than an actual bastard.

    So the only possible reason you bring it up is to smear a good woman.

    Yes, there’s wrongdoing, and you should apologize for it.

  11. paralegalnm Says:

    Unclean hands has real import in a court of law. It puts the party at a real disadvantage.

    As for Dunham, she not only abandoned Obama but her country. She essentially renounce U.S. citizenship marrying Lolo Soetoro (Indonesia forbids dual citizenship, as should the U.S.) and never returned to the U.S. until she was on her deathbed from cancer.

    Changing the subject, the U.S. has two serious problems. Healthcare costs are being subjected to legal malfeasance and the national debt is reaching bankruptcy levels.

    There are two solutions:

    Healthcare can become affordable again if the HMO’s take over legal representation of their injured subscribers.

    If Sarah Palin is elected president, our oil companies can be deregulated to the degree of renewed production. The tax revenue and balance of trade from oil is the ONLY industry big enough to pay off the 14 trillion of debt. Debt goes down simutaneously as trade goes up.

    Oh yeah, a third solution . . . IMPEACH the IMPOSTER OBAMA.

  12. Colony14Author Says:

    See also the full Obama Timeline at:

    http://colony14.net/id41.html

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Nice site . . . obviously a lot of work, and a lot prettier than mine.

      My legal analysis has a few points that differ . . . might be helpful if you read both my Timeline and the first blog post from January 2009, Barack Hussein Obama — A Natural Born British Subject.

  13. Ken D. Webber Says:

    I am doing research on Obama’s Father’s DOMICILE status. I am also looking over your page here. I believe that you may have misunderstood Wong. Many people believe Wong was decided on jus soli and that is NOT the case IMHO. Wong was decided entirely on the phrase… “under the jurisdiction of the US.” It had nothing to do with Wong’s parent’s nationality and everything to do with the fact that they were Chinese laborers domiciled, meaning permanent residence, in the United States. It was not jus soli nor by blood that decided Wong but the power of the US government having jurisdiction in the matter over Wong’s parents. Had Wong’s parents been foreign diplomats then Wong would have lost his case and been declared a Chinese citizen even though he was born here.

    I ask my questions because I believe there is ample proof that Obama Sr. was NOT domiciled here, that his stated place of domicile was Kenya. That fact would make Obama Jr. a Kenyan, not a natural born American citizen. Yes? No?

    I also believe that Obama is an illegal usurper and CANNOT be impeached, because a US President can be impeached – but not a criminal playing the role. This is why I think a lot of these cases are getting thrown out. They get thrown out for lack of standing. They get thrown out for failure to state a claim. I have seen postings that suggest that the proper procedure would be a grand jury that simply nullifies the Politician on the grounds that he or she is ineligible for the office. This has happened before with other politicians.

    I would love to hear your comments as you have a lot more legal knowledge than I do.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Ark’s parents were legally domiciled, but not admissible as immigrants.

      Justice Gray cobbled together natural born citizenship to children of alien denizens by conflating a concept of foreign feudal law with an equally invalid interpretation of the ‘under the jurisdiction’ clause.

      Ark was born with Chinese ‘alienage,’ and his native birth contributed nothing to birthright U.S. citizenship. The court could have addressed the treaty, and the Cooley, or Chinese Exemption Act. Ark could have been admissible as an asylee from a tyrannical government, but birth on U.S. soil is not any part of legislated act, nor is it the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

  14. Ed Darrell Says:

    I ask my questions because I believe there is ample proof that Obama Sr. was NOT domiciled here, that his stated place of domicile was Kenya. That fact would make Obama Jr. a Kenyan, not a natural born American citizen. Yes? No?

    No.

    In order for Obama’s father’s domicile to be considered, his father would have to have been either a British soldier on duty in the U.S., or a British diplomat assigned to the U.S., AND Obama’s mother could not be U.S. born.

    None of those obtain.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Obama, Sr.’s legal student, non-immigrant alien status did not contribute to U.S. birthright citizenship. Obama, Sr. was a British subject, and conferred British citizenship.

      That is the weakness and conflict of Justice Gray’s ‘domicliary’ theory. In Gray’s legal scenario, Obama, Sr. would enable two nationalities at the same time.

      The U.S. citizenship of the mother only comes to the fore if the father loses legal parent rights, through abandonment or remaining permanently in the U.S.

      Nevertheless, while 8 USC 1401, et seq, allows the child to live in the United States as a citizen at birth, other laws rear their head when the child reaches the age of eighteen. It is a that time, the foreign nationality of the father becomes an issue once again. The child can choose to adopt the father’s nationality, or remain a U.S. citizen.

      This is the dynamic of dual nationality at birth, and why it is right and proper to consider such a birth, of one alien parent, a ‘naturalized’ citizen. While judges have proferred different definitions of ‘naturalization,’ the most accurate one is the function of ‘de-alienage’ by statutory provisions.

      Obama was de-alienaged at the time around his birth, and again at age nineteen.

      • Ed Darrell Says:

        But only if we all agree that British law is superior to U.S. law, and applies in preference to U.S. law, in almost all circumstances.

        If we simply apply U.S. law, Obama is a citizen at birth.

        Under your scenario, Obama would have fewer rights than a bastard born to a single mother with no identified father. That conclusion is silly and contrary to the policy of the law.

      • paralegalnm Says:

        Nationality law is tied to inheritance and succession. Only in absolute tyrannies is nationality forced, permanent, and capricious.

        The ‘natural’ family is a father/provider and mother/caretaker. To mate successfully, a man must prove his ability to provide. That is a historical fact that crosses borders of even species, not just internationally.

        Therefore, in a free society, the father’s nationality is determinative of the bloodline, inheritance, and allegiance of the children.

        The courts claiming that ‘place of birth’ alone is sufficient and the fundamental principle of allegiance is shockingly illogical.

        Under both U.S. and British law, if the father abandons the family physically, economically, or both, he loses legal parental rights. It is then that statute provides for the mother’s maiden nationality to determine that of the child.

        I don’t know what is unfair about this. Nullius Fillius may leave a child without a father, but the laws of nature equally must determine a nationality, just as laws of nature and society must remove one of two possible nationalities.

        The laws that remove that second nationality are called Naturalization Laws, i.e., returning the person to a natural state of allegiance to one sovereign nationality.

      • Ed Darrell Says:

        Only extreme “anti-American-exceptionalists” have made the same arguments that you make here, that we should kowtow to British law, rather than stick with what had been U.S. law since 1789, that anyone born here is a citizen here.

        You want to leave that up in the air until the child reaches majority? On what basis do you backtrack on law and tradition like that?

        Any mug in the street would tell you that U.S. citizenship is a prize to have and hold. You think we should question that, legally?

        Such bizarre interpretations of the law hold back the cases on Obama’s citizenship, I think. You don’t have a legal leg to stand on, but it would be nice for a court to cut through all the issues and tell you that.

        Not that you’d believe any other court.

      • paralegalnm Says:

        I am a paralegal, and have read the law extensively . . . including the British Act.

        You hit the nail on the head with your comment that U.S. citizenship is a prize, to have and to hold.

        Please, look at that statement and reflect . . . because it is that point of view that biased interpretation of the law as an assumption of citizenship as a ‘prize’ of such desire, that the ‘gift’ superseded jurisdiction of a foreign sovereignty, if not the natural father himself.

        U.S. law required an immigrant to first be ‘admissible,’ and then meet standards of residency, good character, and knowledge before taking an oath of allegiance, plus renunciation of the alienage.

        That ‘naturalization’ was then conferred derivatively to the naturalized immigrant’s wife, and minor children.

        Nothing in the law conferred citizenship at birth, by mere birth on U.S. soil. That was a creation, a fantasy of law, created by the judiciary in case law I consider invalid under rules of jurisprudence, and unconstitutional by law.

      • Ed Darrell Says:

        In all your paralegalling, someday you should read the notes on the Philadelphia convention, and common law on citizenship. Everything in the law conferred citizenship by mere birth on American soil.
        [edited for incredibly stupid stuff]

      • paralegalnm Says:

        Convention debates are one thing . . . in fact, somewhere I have a legitimate U.S. court case of a state suing for right of conferring citizenship based on habitancy alone.

        Naturalization was, and is, an enumerated power of congress.

        Show me soil birthright in that law, or shut up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: