It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forcing the issue of Natural Born Citizenship: How to get standing to have the question resolved.

page: 12
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

And, if the "right" lawyer was handling it as a closed adoption in 1961, then it was an "anything goes" scenario.

Hawaii years ago was a bastion for establishing fake identities and for bi-racial marriages.

Many States at the time had laws against bi-racial marriages and adoptions.

here's an old thread that delves into some good information....
Hawaii State Law allows foreign born Hawaii Birth Certificates (S. 338-17.8)

and as a side note, I strongly believe all those 200+ lawsuits were part of the public relations efforts by the Obama Campaign hired operatives. Controlled opposition 100%.

Orly Taitz and others (even Sheriff Joe) were part of the plan (blackmail involved).

Note in almost every lawsuit there was *always* just enough missing to make the case a loser thereby establishing automatic doubt in the average person's mind to make them automatically think there's nothing wrong or suspicious about anything about Obama.

And even some "theories" from WND (part of the C.O. plan also) touched on variances of adoption from Indonesia but were also cleverly missing any genuine meat and potatoes.

Professional controlled opposition. All Red Herrings.

My conclusion is Obama was born in Indonesia and adopted in Hawaii, and his 1961 birthyear may not even be true.

The real Father is most likely Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo





posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

OMG. I just want to hug you because I agree they are all controlled opposition! I believe this based on first hand experience with some that you mentioned. And once you doubt a few of them...the rest you find are linked and discredited, too.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
And, if the "right" lawyer was handling it as a closed adoption in 1961,


What adoption? There is zero evidence Obama or Cruze was adopted.


Hawaii years ago was a bastion for establishing fake identities


Care to back that claim up with some evidence?


Many States at the time had laws against bi-racial marriages and adoptions.


Care to show us these laws?


and as a side note, I strongly believe all those 200+ lawsuits were part of the public relations efforts by the Obama Campaign hired operatives. Controlled opposition 100%.


Your evidence for that is what?


Note in almost every lawsuit there was *always* just enough missing


True, small things like FACTS were missing in all the court cases!


there's nothing wrong or suspicious about anything about Obama.


As these is nothing suspicious or wrong about Obama (except he is black!)


And even some "theories" from WND (part of the C.O. plan also) touched on variances of adoption from Indonesia but were also cleverly missing any genuine meat and potatoes.


WND is wrong about virtually everything!


My conclusion is Obama was born in Indonesia and adopted in Hawaii,


Based on what? There is no evidence at all for that.

It is so funny how some people try and twist the facts and evidence (or just make crap up) to try and explain how Obama was elected as POTUS. Twice!
edit on 19-1-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents. [L 1979, c 203, §3; am L 1990, c 338, §3]


Correct, You have found the correct law.

Notice the part I have put in bold: "L1979". This means that the law was first enacted in 1979. The other annotations indicate that the version you quote includes modifications from 1990 (am 1990 = amended in 1990). Notice also that there are no earlier year references; when Hawaiian law is amended, the previous laws and dates are included in the citation and there is no previous law citation above.

The 1979 law was prompted by the 1977 recommendation of the National Center for Health Statistics. See US Vital Statistics History 1950-1995.

For completeness sake:

MYTH: Hawaii allows residents to register foreign-born infants as being born in Hawaii (in 1961):

Hawaiian Law §338-17.8 says:


[I]Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child… [L 1982, c 182, §1][/I]


Again, the law cited preceding did not exist until its passage in 1982 (the “L 1982”) , 21 years after Barack Obama’s birth registration on August 8, 1961. Conspiracy theorists suggest that some similar law may have existed before 1982, but this is not true. I repeat, when Hawaiian law is amended, the previous laws and dates are included in the citation and there is no previous law citation above.

In addition, examination of the 1959 code shows no such provision.


edit on 19/1/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 19/1/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

nice try.

the loophole was there.

that's why they added the law.




posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Exactly what I just referred to. It seems a foreign-born child would have been registered as indicated under Section 17 (which hasn't been repealed) and that is just a generic instruction for registering adopted children. However, specific regulations for foreign-born adopted children were created in 1981.


OK, that is all reasonable analysis as far as it goes.

So, the section is saying that if the adopted child, whether in-state or out-of-state (which includes foreign), does NOT have a 'original' birth certificate then a "delayed" certificate needs to be prepared according to Chapter 57 Part I or II R.L.H 1955.

Once the adopted child has an original birth certificate (either the 'real' one, or the 'delayed' one) THEN the substitute birth certificate can be prepared as normal according to Chapter 57-23 R.L.H.1955.

Your reference is to Chapter 08 R.L.H. So now you need to find Chapter 57 R.L.H. 1955 to find out the rules for preparing Birth Certificates. When you do so, you will find that birth location must be specified as to the actual place of birth. For foreign adoptions, that birth location will be found in the adoption papers and can thus be provided for the certificate.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
In addition, examination of the 1959 code shows no such provision.


Because Hawaii became a state on August 21st 1959.

8 USC 1405 deals with people born on Hawaii.

The issue with Obama revolves around his mother, how long she lived outside the US when Obama was born, his step dad and his nationality, obamas claimed nationality while in indonesia and the various records that can answer these questions that are either sealed, under lock and key or missing.


The issue with Cruz revolves around how long his mother lived outside the US before he was born in Canada. While canadian citizenship applies she was married to a british national and I thought she lived in the UK during that. A post a couple pages back had that info.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



They tightened a loophole with the new statute.


Yes, sort of. They put new provisions in place to conform to recommendations from the Feds. See: US Vital Statistics History 1950-1995.

I think the major procedural change was to add an indication that the certificate for the foreign born adoptee was not evidence of American citizenship.



It was not prohibited to register foreign born adopted children before then.


That is correct. My wording was bad. I apologize for my mistake.

I did not mean to imply that foreign adoptions could not be registered, just that they did not have a separate provision to handle it.

Mea Culpa.

The bottom line is that the 'Location of Birth' data item must be the ACTUAL location of birth in all cases on all types of birth certificates - 'real' or adopted; on time or delayed; in-state or out-of-state including foreign.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




And, if the "right" lawyer was handling it as a closed adoption in 1961, then it was an "anything goes" scenario.


Bull Manure. Prove it.



Hawaii years ago was a bastion for establishing fake identities


Bull Manure. Prove it.



and for bi-racial marriages.

Many States at the time had laws against bi-racial marriages and adoptions.


And many States did not. What does that prove or even imply?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Because Hawaii became a state on August 21st 1959.

8 USC 1405 deals with people born on Hawaii.


I don't know how you think this is relevant to the discussion at hand.



The issue with Obama revolves around his mother, how long she lived outside the US when Obama was born, his step dad and his nationality, obamas claimed nationality while in indonesia and the various records that can answer these questions that are either sealed, under lock and key or missing.


The answers to these questions are well known in the public record and none of it is in records that are 'under lock and key or missing'.

More importantly, none of it has anything to do or can change the fact that President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai'i, one of the 50 U.S. States in the Union, in August 1951.

He was born in America - he is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. End of Story.



The issue with Cruz revolves around how long his mother lived outside the US before he was born in Canada.


No it doesn't. She was an American citizen when he was born, so he was born an American Citizen (a Natural Born Citizen in point of fact). Time out of country has no bearing on the fact of her American Citizenship. Even if she took on Canadian Citizenship she cannot lose her American Citizenship with out a formal declaration of renunciation at a US Consulate - and that would be available via FOIA request from the State Department.

EDIT: there is a proviso in the above. In 1970, the law required that the mother have lived in the United States for 5 years between the ages of 14 and 28 in order to pass 'unconditional' citizenship to her foreign born child. Mrs. Cruz was born in 1934 and lived in the United States her entire life until she met Cruz around 1964. She could not have moved to Canada before 1962 when she turned 28. So she lived in the US for all of the 14 years between the ages of 14 and 28, almost 3 times the requirement required to pass unconditional citizenship to little Rafael.



While canadian citizenship applies she was married to a british national and I thought she lived in the UK during that.


There is no evidence that she was married to a British national - unless you consider Canadians or Cubans or Texans British nationals.

Her first husband was a man named Wilson from Texas. Last I heard Texans are not British Nationals.

Cruz was a Cuban citizen and national at the time of their marriage, I believe. Last time I checked, Cubans have never been British Nationals.

Cruz took out Canadian citizenship after he and Eleanor moved to Canada. Now Canada is a Commonwealth country and their Head of State resides in Buckingham Palace, but I do not think they are considered British Nationals. You'll have to ask a Canadian about that.

I have seen no evidence that she lived in the UK either. Even if true, it is irrelevant.


edit on 19/1/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 19/1/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 19/1/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




the loophole was there.


What 'loophole' exactly?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: xuenchen




the loophole was there.


What 'loophole' exactly?


Home birth "certified" by a practitioner is one.

Not hard to do with the right "practitioner" is it....

especially in 1961 Hawaii.




posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

SSN's are NOT from any state.


You would be mistaken...

SSN's are state specific and if you know how to read them they can tell you a lot.

The first 3 numbers of your ssn is the area number, the next 2 numbers is the group number and the last set is the serial number.

Area number is the geographic location - If your ssn begins with 489 that means you were born in / issued a ssn from Missouri.

edit on 19-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
I don't know how you think this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Because Hawaii was not covered by the US Constitution until it became a state. Prior to that it fell under Federal law in terms of citizenship, national status and births. The same holds for all US territories, like Puerto Rico, Guam etc...



originally posted by: rnaa
The answers to these questions are well known in the public record and none of it is in records that are 'under lock and key or missing'.

More importantly, none of it has anything to do or can change the fact that President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai'i, one of the 50 U.S. States in the Union, in August 1951.

He was born in America - he is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. End of Story.

Again there are discrepancies involving where he was born, claimed citizenship in Indonesia and how long she lived in the US prior to giving birth. If she lived outside the US for 5 or 10 years (depends on situation) the parent cannot transmit US citizenship to their child.

So no the records arent clear in this area as much as some people wish they were. Secondly you have family members of Obama who claim he was born in Kenya. If he was and was brought to Hawaii the archives for international lights would list him as a minor accompanied by a family member. Since the archives for international flights to Hawaii for the week in question it makes one wonder why.



originally posted by: rnaa
No it doesn't. She was an American citizen when he was born, so he was born an American Citizen (a Natural Born Citizen in point of fact). Time out of country has no bearing on the fact of her American Citizenship. Even if she took on Canadian Citizenship she cannot lose her American Citizenship with out a formal declaration of renunciation at a US Consulate - and that would be available via FOIA request from the State Department.

EDIT: there is a proviso in the above. In 1970, the law required that the mother have lived in the United States for 5 years between the ages of 14 and 28 in order to pass 'unconditional' citizenship to her foreign born child. Mrs. Cruz was born in 1934 and lived in the United States her entire life until she met Cruz around 1964. She could not have moved to Canada before 1962 when she turned 28. So she lived in the US for all of the 14 years between the ages of 14 and 28, almost 3 times the requirement required to pass unconditional citizenship to little Rafael.


Setting aside the british national issue (I will look for the link provided by the poster who corrected me) you run into the issue of her name appearing on canadian voter rolls. So she either became a canadian citizen or she lied to canadian authorities to vote.


Last - A natural born citizen is a person born within the US borders. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue although I think it will make it this go around. Its also the reason Congress was required to pass federal laws dealing with US citizenship outside the US mainland. Its also the very reason the founding fathers had to build in a grand father clause so they could be eligible to hold the office of president because they were not born in the US.
edit on 19-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The issue with Obama revolves around his mother,


So it is his mother now? Funny how birthers used to claim it was his father that was the problem!


how long she lived outside the US when Obama was born,


As Obama was born in the USA that makes him a natural born US citizen. All that other nonsense youj are trying to push is just crap!


his step dad and his nationality, Obama's claimed nationality while in indonesia


None of them relevant, as Obama is a natural born US citizen.


The issue with Cruz revolves around how long his mother lived outside the US before he was born in Canada.


Again, not at all relevant.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
SSN's are state specific


let us see what the Social Security Administration say about them - you know, the people who actually issue them!

www.ssa.gov...


Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.


So as you see they are not actually state specific!



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce
As Obama was born in the USA that makes him a natural born US citizen. All that other nonsense youj are trying to push is just crap!

That remains in doubt.



originally posted by: hellobruce
None of them relevant, as Obama is a natural born US citizen.

You and Obama should learn the laws then because it is relevant.


originally posted by: hellobruce
Again, not at all relevant.

Again you would be wrong. Read the law. Why was his mother on Canadian voter lists if she were an American?


Finally -
A natural born citizen is a person born within the US borders. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue although I think it will make it this go around. Its also the reason Congress was required to pass federal laws dealing with US citizenship outside the US mainland. Its also the very reason the founding fathers had to build in a grand father clause so they could be eligible to hold the office of president because they were not born in the US.
edit on 19-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Oh I bet that info on the SS site was put up there *after* the Obama controversy started.

A clever plan.




posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Yes lets see what the SSA says -
SSN breakdown by state

What you neglected to notice -


WARNING

On June 25, 2011, Social Security changed the SSN assignment process. The information below explains how we established and issued SSNs prior to the new SSN assignment process. We continue to provide it strictly for historical and informational purposes. Please see SSN Randomization for more information on Social Security's new assignment process and how it may affect you.


Unless Obama was born after June 25th 2011 his SSN is state assigned and not random.


The chart below shows the first 3 digits of the social security numbers assigned throughout the United States and its possessions. The same area, when shown more than once, means that certain numbers have been transferred from one State to another, or that an area has been divided for use among certain geographic locations.


Here is the cheat sheet or click the SSA link I provided above.-

edit on 19-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: hellobruce

Oh I bet that info on the SS site was put up there *after* the Obama controversy started.

A clever plan.




SSN randomization started June 2011. Any numbers issued prior to that date are state specific. I dont see Hawaii sharing any number groups issued to the Northeast US states or vice versa.

What the randomization does do is make it harder to track SSN's being used illegally.
edit on 19-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join