Mass confusion of Citizenship Rules: Obama is Legit

Originally posted by coven
reply to post by avingard

 

Hrmmm... Well I guess that rules out McCain as well.



[edit on 11/30/2008 by coven]

I remember a few months ago during the election, NPR had a segment on discussing this, they also mentioned McCain also and they brought up something relative the military which by proxy meant he was born as a citizen in a territory considered to be U.S. sanctioned, a base possibly.

Some people raised the issue of his validity as a candidate.

I just want to make sure that everyone understands my opinion on this issue concisely.

I do support Mr. Obama. If it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Obama is not a "Naturalized U.S. Citizen"; I do support removing him from office.

If this were to happen I would hope that the American public would have the sense and simplicity to focus on vetting two more candidates (or just another Dem candidate if Mr. McCain would still apply[considering the 'military brat' clause, he should be fine]). Hopefully this would be a quick and painless process.

Maybe I'm just being pragmatic, but I hope for a clean and clear resolution to this issue. And I really think this is a NON-Issue. As in I think he is who he says he is, and he was born where he said he was born. If this is not the case, not one patriotic Obama supporter could logically stand behind him, at least this one couldn't.

FX44Rice,
Re-read the first post... I said I woke up shortly after the Iraq Invasion...

Rockpuck,
Humorous? I am sorry to say that I am one that tends to back a winner. I supported Paul, up until I heard he wants Roe V. Wade overturned, as well as other issues I disagree with.

I'm a Socialist Libertarian. Provide me with the help I need, but keep your nose out of my private life.

At first when it seemed that Paul could get the nod, I was close to voting Republican for the first time in my life. Then the GOP threw him under the bus for Romney, then Giuliani, then Huckabee, Then Thompson, Then McCain. Any party that picks liberty last doesn't get my vote.

I remembered Obama from the Convention Speech in '04... I even remember poking my brother and saying, "right there is the first black president, and the next JFK". I was enamored by his speech. At first I thought he wasn't experienced enough... Then I researched his background.

8 years in the State Senate for Illinois! 4 Years in the U.S. Senate! This young, handsome, highly intelligent, well educated man has more than enough experience. He's open minded, (at least to the views that matter to me...) as evidenced by his honesty in both of his books.

He seemed more worthy than the 5th out of 9 pick for the other party. He further proved himself to me during his debates, with that sly smirk that screamed "you scummy MotherBLEEPer' when people were trashing him... Yet his eloquence with words never floundered (minus a few uhs and uhms here and there )

I guess you could say I drank the Kool-aid. I have every bit of faith that he will be a great president...

But I want to see these questions answered 100% for sure.

As Danx said in another thread along the same lines as this one... His application to the school he attended in Indonesia claims his place of birth as Hawaii... Case closed; he's Natural Born. However, if it takes legal judgements to appease the masses, it should be allowed.

That said... When he is proven legitimate, will you give him a chance?

Or will you search out the next method to oust Mr. Obama?

reply to post by coven


It doesn't hurt to be extra sure. After all, he's going into the supposedly highest position in America. If he's really qualified, there's nothing for him to worry about.

[edit on 12/1/2008 by SonicInfinity]

reply to post by SonicInfinity

Exactomundo!

Its the skeptic in me. I'll take you at your word, cuz I like ya. But that guy over there (points) he doesn't believe ya... and he don't like ya... He might if you can prove to him you're not lying. Then, he can vouch for ya in the future.

reply to post by coven


In that case it should be easy enough to provide proof of citizenship. So I guess the big question is, why is he avoiding it like the plague. When the government doesn't release footage of the pentagon everyone and their brother shouts conspiracy and quite rightfully so (before you start knocking me, I do not for one second believe the government's story), on the other hand we have some guy that just pops up out of nowhere and he either cannot or will not provide his proof of citizenship and yet either because he is a minority or because he is the messiah of the media, we are not suppose to question this? Sorry to sound rude man, but you gotta pick a side and stick with it. You cannot wish the government to be accountable and not the minority or media messiah. That is hypocrisy and most of the people on here will eat you alive for that.

Lets go even one step further, even if he is a citizen by virtue of an American mother and was in fact born in Kenya; this makes him a liar for stating he was born in Hawaii. So if he is not born in Hawaii then he is a liar and I do not trust him to lead my country, not that I trust any of these fools anyway. Democrat = heads, republican = tails, none the less, your playing with the same quarter.

reply to post by DarrylGalasso



I'm sorry if I confused you.

I'll say it as simply as I can.

I like Obama. I supported Obama... But if he cannot/will not provide proof of citizenship to a relevant governmental body that can vet that the information provided is true, than he should NOT be allowed to be sworn it.

that said, he has no liability to answer to any one citizen or organization. If the Supreme Court hearing is still on, we WILL get our answer then. However, I believe this answer WILL be that he is a legitimate citizen, born in the United States.

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
Democrat = heads, republican = tails, none the less, your playing with the same quarter.

Not to sound biased, but from my personal experience in dealing with BOTH parties members while trying to be elected... Democrats have a tendency to act with much focus, while the Republicans just look to act a swiftly and hard as possible. Both are good people. and both have their flaws... but from when I've been around the guys and gals when the mikes are off, They show their true colors. Dems work with their heads. Repubs work with their hearts.

Another way to put it... Dems take to damn long to do anything. and Republicans do it so damn quick that they make a lot of mistakes.

We're screwed either way yes... but if we gotta go for the lesser of two evils I'm more concerned with less mistakes than hasty action.

But of course this is just my Opinion. It's validity to you personally may very well be squat.

If it were legit he and his team would not be sidestepping the issue.

His connections to CFR and the fact the mainstream media back him are more than enough for me to NOT trust this guy.

Masters of puppets are pulling your strings, twisting your mind and smashing your dreams.......

Originally posted by coven
reply to post by DarrylGalasso

 

that said, he has no liability to answer to any one citizen or organization.

I do not wish to start a fight as I agree with most of what your saying and I myself was a very big fan of Obama until I basically caught him in not one, not two, not even three lies, at this point I am sorry, can no longer support the man. But the real point of this post is this; You can believe what you like, I however believe he does have to answer to citizens, one or all. He is an elected official in a government that is "supposedly" "Of, by, and for the people." Not of the supreme court, not of the democratic national committee, but of the people, that means me and that means you. If he is unwilling to be held accountable by those he represents and whom put him in office to begin with, then he is absolutely no better than the bum that is there now, and yes I take exception to that. This is my country just as much as it is any other "American citizen's" no more, no less. I am; however, quite interested as to why you do not think he is accountable or liable to the people of this country. Perhaps you being on the inside know the real deal, or something that us peon, breaking our back just so we can pay our bills people do not know. That is an exceptionally bold remark and honestly it is something I would expect to hear from Cheney, kind of reminds me of the "It's just a God damned piece of paper." remark by our oh so glorious leader now. Are all of you people in politics so bold as to think that we mean nothing and you do not have to answer to us?

Edited for grammatical correction


[edit on 12/1/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

Originally posted by coven
Any child born to a U.S. CITIZEN is a U.S. CITIZEN....

So... The only way OBAMA IS NOT a citizen... Is IF HE FILED FOR KENYAN CITIZENSHIP Before HIS 18th BIRTHDAY.

The latter statement in the above quote says it all. If Obama was in fact Born in Kenya, he would have automatically been declared a Citizen of the British Crown. This of course does not negate an American Citizenship, but for "Natural Born" status his Mother would have had to apply for him to be declared as such.

I already knew this..lol

A Friend of mine is as Australian as they come...

But her Dads an American. Makes her an American Citizen by default, even though she has never set foot in the US before.

In fact, if she were to marry an Australian man, he too would become a US Citizen by default, through marriage to a US Citizen.

Your Citizenship laws are sooo damn cool....!!

Not that I'd ever want to come to the US, not with the trouble your having right now anyway

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


Jus Sanguinis.

is a social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state.
en.wikipedia.org...

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents). The U.S. Congress is responsible for enacting laws that determine how citizenship is conveyed by a U.S. citizen parent or parents according to the principle of jus sanguinis. These laws are contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

www.uscis.gov... 19c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD


His Mother was a Natural Born Citizen. With him only spending 4 years of his child hood (6-10) and then returning to the U.s. Utilizing the rites of Jus Sanguinis He IS legitimate. Sorry Mate.

Just wanted to add...

Can ANYONE explain why a person can be given citizenship at birth, yet NOT be considered a Natural Born Citizen.

Naturally, They were Born a Citizen...

This is just nuts.

I've never had big aspirations growing up. Perhaps the biggest was to become a proffessional athlete.

However, I have the "original" copy of my "Certificate of Birth". Whats this "live Birth" crap?

I also keep a few copies in other places.

Same goes for my original Social security card, and my forget whats it, called has something to do with draft in case of war,or some such.

Now.....

This Obama guy, we hear stories of him being "groomed from birth" to become POTUS, ooook. Now don't you think they'd keep track of his damn Birth certificate and/or SS card?

To me this means he is lieing. The PTB are helping him as well, because they wouldn't let anyone get nearly this far without PROOF of citizsenship.

What is this guy, a Born Russian?

Pehaps a clone. Everyone mentions his similaritties in speech to JFK. Did Jackie O' (god bless her) sleep with one of the help in her later years?

Or is Obama a mix of JFK's DNA, and some colored lady?

Maybe he's a mix of the DNA of all the great leaders of past..., ok The last few are just crazy morning thoughts, I'm half awake.

But where are this guys papers, I got mine within arms reach of me for cripes sake??????

But even still, the US gov can reproduce money, i'm sure they can reproduce an original C.O.B for this guy, all it has to do is fool the people, and "thier" experts, (how hard is that, I mean come one, haha)

I just wonder where the hell this al is going. All I know is IT BETTER NOT BE A THIRD TERM FOR "W". If it does....., we're going to hell in a handbasket.

Originally posted by Nola213
However, I have the "original" copy of my "Certificate of Birth". Whats this "live Birth" crap?

Certificate of Live Birth (looking at two right now) my Girlfriends from Neptune New Jersey From January 1978.

My Son's from Columbia, TN May 2006.

My Tennessee B.c. is called a Certificate of Birth.

Does this mean my sons is fake? and mines real?

I believe it just proves that even in the same state a year can make a big difference in formatting of government documents.

I'll get to the rest of your post later. It's 5am where I am, and that means it's time to sleep for 4 hours before work. (scratch that)

Ok... You're at least humorous with a sleepy mind. I get mean, without realizing it...

That said I agree... This better not be a setup for even one extra month of W.

Also... I think him not having an original is more showing that something odd ISN'T occuring. Wouldn't someone as you say groomed to be in this position have all of their ducks in a row from the get go? Wouldn't the PTB who are planting Obama consider that he would be vetted and thus PRE-PLANNED to create these documents properly? I truly hope they didn't use 'change' (which I considered a positive) to mean change from bad to worse. (I.e. president Bush to Supreme Commander Bush)


and with that... I'm off to sleep.



[edit on 12/1/2008 by coven]

Originally posted by coven
reply to post by avingard

 

I could have sworn the president had to be a natural born citizen (which is what the first quotation is about... Natural citizenship comes from the mother, unless married, until the age of 18...)

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. I'm British and my daughter was born in Britain and holds a British birth certificate but, as her father is an American citizen she also holds a US birth certificate. She has natural citizenship simply because her father is an American, regardless of where she was born.

Another point I made about that was that technically the US and Britain do not allow dual citizenship. It didn't stop her father from registering her as a natural US citizen though and the US embassy weren't bothered that she was already registered as British due both to me being a Brit and being born there. We didn't have to choose one citizenship, or the other, they just don't officially recognise that she's also a citizen of the other country.

Originally posted by Ironclad
I already knew this..lol

A Friend of mine is as Australian as they come...

But her Dads an American. Makes her an American Citizen by default, even though she has never set foot in the US before.

In fact, if she were to marry an Australian man, he too would become a US Citizen by default, through marriage to a US Citizen.

Your Citizenship laws are sooo damn cool....!!

Not that I'd ever want to come to the US, not with the trouble your having right now anyway

Not true about her husband automatically becoming a US citizen. My ex-husband was American and I'm British. I had to apply for US citizenship even though we were married and our daughter was a US citizen. I actually turned down citizenship because I was told I couldn't keep my British citizenship because the US didn't allow dual nationality with Britian. Instead I took 5 year residency and never renewed it because I moved back to Britain.

I found out afterwards that I could've took the US citizenship and that Britian and the US just don't technically recognise your citizenship of the other country. Still, my daughter is still American so if I ever feel inclined to apply again, I can - not that I feel the need to do that. I'm quite happy being a Brit.

Like your friend though - my daughter holds both British and US citizenship. Each country just doesn't recognise she's a dual citizen.

Edit to add - what amused me most during my interview, about taking US citizenship, was that as soon as I said I didn't want it because I wouldn't give up my British citizenship, the interviewer got most annoyed. He really couldn't understand why I didn't want to become an American. He was totally arrogant about it and grilled me for about 10 minutes about why I didn't want it - even asking if my marriage was genuine. I've never forgotten that experience because he was genuinly offended that he was offering me US citizenship and I turned it down. I just wasn't prepared to give up being British and at the time didn't realise I could hold both but they wouldn't recognise each other. Poor man was most bemused.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by Maya00a]

reply to post by akdivine


Do remember that John McCain was also born outside US, in Panama, but since his parents were American citizens, he could become an American citizen

reply to post by danx


I love it when folks won't post the entire source document, cut and paste sections that bolster their opinion rather than fact:

Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality

The Department of State is responsible for determining the citizenship status of a person located outside the United States or in connection with the application for a U.S. passport while in the United States.

POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
4. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
7. conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE

As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.

DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS APPLICABLE

In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who:

1. is naturalized in a foreign country;
2. takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state;
3. serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or
4. accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government,

and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed.

When, as the result of an individual's inquiry or an individual's application for registration or a passport it comes to the attention of a U.S. consular officer that a U.S. citizen has performed an act made potentially expatriating by Sections 349(a)(1), 349(a)(2), 349(a)(3) or 349(a)(4) as described above, the consular officer will simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person's intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship.

PERSONS WHO WISH TO RELINQUISH U.S. CITIZENSHIP

If the answer to the question regarding intent to relinquish citizenship is yes , the person concerned will be asked to complete a questionnaire to ascertain his or her intent toward U.S. citizenship. When the questionnaire is completed and the voluntary relinquishment statement is signed by the expatriate, the consular officer will proceed to prepare a certificate of loss of nationality. The certificate will be forwarded to the Department of State for consideration and, if appropriate, approval.

An individual who has performed any of the acts made potentially expatriating by statute who wishes to lose U.S. citizenship may do so by affirming in writing to a U.S. consular officer that the act was performed with an intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Of course, a person always has the option of seeking to formally renounce U.S. citizenship abroad in accordance with Section 349 (a) (5) INA.

DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS INAPPLICABLE

The premise that a person intends to retain U.S. citizenship is not applicable when the individual:

1. formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular officer;
2. serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities with the United States;
3. takes a policy level position in a foreign state;
4. is convicted of treason; or
5. performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. (Such cases are very rare.)

Cases in categories 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be developed carefully by U.S. consular officers to ascertain the individual's intent toward U.S. citizenship.

APPLICABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE TO PAST CASES

The premise established by the administrative standard of evidence is applicable to cases adjudicated previously. Persons who previously lost U.S. citizenship may wish to have their cases reconsidered in light of this policy.

A person may initiate such a reconsideration by submitting a request to the nearest U.S. consular office or by writing directly to:

Express Mail:
Director
Office of Policy Review and Inter-Agency Liaison (CA/OCS/PRI)
Overseas Citizens Services
Bureau of Consular Affairs
U.S. Department of State
4th Floor
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Phone: 202-736-9110
Fax: 202-736-9111
Email: [email protected]

Regular Mail
Director
Office of Policy Review and Inter-Agency Liaison (CA/OCS/PRI)
Overseas Citizens Services
Bureau of Consular Affairs
U.S. Department of State
SA-29, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20520