Proof that Barrack Hussein Obama is NOT legally serving in office.

#26
#26
IPorange said:
Right, but American citizenship is stickier than most. I'm telling you, there's no way Obama would have lost his citizenship as a very young child, regardless of what his mother did.

Which I guess begs the question, was Obama's mother a US citizen? One has to argue she wasn't any more if this avenue is to be pursued. Which is absurd.
Click to expand...

Then you are not well versed in international law or laws in other countries.
 
#27
#27
If he was declared to be ineligible to be pres does Biden or Pelosi get it? My guess is the next lawsuit would be Biden wasn't legally elected to be VP.
 
#28
#28
IPorange said:
I have dual citizenship. I'm telling you, the US only recognizes one as either A) a US citizen or B) not a US citizen. Dual citizenship doesn't enter into the equation for them.
Click to expand...

From your link:



Is it possible to be a dual citizen of the United States of America and another country?
YES -- in many cases.

If you have been a dual citizen from birth or childhood, or else became a citizen of another country after already having US citizenship, and the other country in question does not have any laws or regulations requiring you to formally renounce your US citizenship before US consular officials, then current US law unambiguously assures your right to keep both citizenships for life.

The US State Department -- once quite combative in its handling of dual-citizenship claims -- has changed the way it handles these cases in recent years, and it is now much easier to retain such a status without a fight than it used to be.

The situation is slightly less clear for someone who becomes a US citizen via naturalization and still wishes to take advantage of his old citizenship. People who go through US naturalization are required to state under oath that they are renouncing their old citizenship, and conduct inconsistent with this pledge could theoretically lead to loss of one's US status.

However, the State Department is no longer actively pursuing cases of this nature in most situations. In particular, when a new American's "old country" refuses to recognize the US naturalization oath (with its renunciatory clause) as having any effect on its own citizenship laws -- and insists that the person in question must continue to deal with his old country as a citizen thereof (e.g., by using that country's passport when travelling there to visit) -- the US State Department generally no longer minds.

Similarly, the State Department doesn't seem to be doing anything any more to people who renounce their US citizenship as part of a foreign country's "routine" naturalization procedure (in a manner similar to what the US makes its new citizens do). However, if the other country in question requires its newly naturalized citizens to approach officials of their old countries to revoke their previous status, one will generally not be able to remain a citizen both of that country and the US.



But I thought US law didn't permit one to be a dual citizen -- that if you were (by birth or otherwise), you either had to give up the other citizenship when you came of age, or else you'd lose your US status. And that if you became a citizen of another country, you'd automatically lose your US citizenship. So what's all this talk about dual citizenship?
It indeed used to be the case in the US that you couldn't hold dual citizenship (except in certain cases if you had dual citizenship from birth or childhood, in which case some Supreme Court rulings -- Perkins v. Elg (1939), Mandoli v. Acheson (1952), and Kawakita v. U.S. (1952) -- permitted you to keep both). However, most of the laws forbidding dual citizenship were struck down by the US Supreme Court in two cases: a 1967 decision, Afroyim v. Rusk, as well as a second ruling in 1980, Vance v. Terrazas.

Rules against dual citizenship still apply to some extent -- at least in theory -- to people who wish to become US citizens via naturalization. The Supreme Court chose to leave in place the requirement that new citizens must renounce their old citizenship during US naturalization. However, in practice, the State Department is no longer doing anything in the vast majority of situations where a new citizen's "old country" refuses to recognize the US renunciation and continues to consider the person's original citizenship to be in effect.

The official US State Department policy on dual citizenship today is that the United States does not favor it as a matter of policy because of various problems they feel it may cause, but the existence of dual citizenship is recognized (i.e., accepted) as a fact of life. That is, if you ask them if you ought to become a dual citizen, they will recommend against doing it; but if you tell them you are a dual citizen, they'll almost always say it's OK.
Click to expand...
 
#31
#31
IPorange said:
Yes, I read it. So apply that to a natural born citizen who happens to have inherited another citizenship.

This is nothing.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending the article. I know it's crap. I'm pointing out the fact that one can have dual citizenship.
 
#32
#32
IPorange said:
Yes, I read it. So apply that to a natural born citizen who happens to have inherited another citizenship.

This is nothing.
Click to expand...

"Inherited" - it may be. IF SO, I'm willing to bet people would have thought much differently of a man who legally was a dual citizen of another country. Would he have even run in the first place had this been made public? Would he have denied being a dual citizen?

In the case of the Indonesian law, his loss of citizenship over legal adoption is a game changer. Nothing has been proven and I doubt it will be. Record keeping even now in Indonesia is horrendous.
 
#34
#34
N'est-ce Pas said:
I'm not defending the article. I know it's crap. I'm pointing out the fact that one can have dual citizenship.
Click to expand...

Congratulations. You have proven to this dual citizen that I exist.

The point was US Law does not recognize it: you either are a US citizen (dualies too) or you are not. Which is also what my link said.
 
#35
#35
IPorange said:
So I'm less of an American because I inherited Canadian citizenship?
Click to expand...

Who said that? Or is this just some kneejerk emotional response based solely on stupidity? Why are you going this route instead of staying with the argument?

Yeah, you're the new group "Half-American". Didn't you check that on your census form? I guess you're not the American you thought you were, eh?

And US law DOES recognize it. Not sure why you keep saying that.
 
#36
#36
CSpindizzy said:
Who said that? Or is this just some kneejerk emotional response based solely on stupidity? Why are you going this route instead of staying with the argument?

Yeah, you're the new group "Half-American". Didn't you check that on your census form? I guess you're not the American you thought you were, eh?

And US law DOES recognize it. Not sure why you keep saying that.
Click to expand...

I'm just going off of you speculating that people would have somehow thought less of him if they had known he had dual citizenship. Why would they? But yes, you may retreat to your usual sanctuary of responding to a question with a shotgun blast of questions.

As far as US law recognizing it: no, they really don't. You're either a US citizen, or you are not. There are no "dual citizenship" clauses. I've linked to the State Department. Not sure where you are going to go to show they're mistaken.
 
#37
#37
CSpindizzy said:
Who said that? Or is this just some kneejerk emotional response based solely on stupidity? Why are you going this route instead of staying with the argument?

Yeah, you're the new group "Half-American". Didn't you check that on your census form? I guess you're not the American you thought you were, eh?

And US law DOES recognize it. Not sure why you keep saying that.
Click to expand...

He likes playing semantics. Be careful, though. He'll go all Daniel Morgan on your azz and demean your intelligence without a scintilla of evidence. Truly scientific.
 
#39
#39
The birthers cannot be reasoned with because they are incapable of rational thought.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
The birthers cannot be reasoned with because they are incapable of rational thought.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Are you being protected by the secret service? And are you in possession of the birth certificate in question?
 
#41
#41
gorockytop101 said:
He took arr jobs!
Click to expand...

they_took_our_jobs_tshirt-d23564803.jpg
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
The birthers cannot be reasoned with because they are incapable of rational thought.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Seeing some of your sound rebuttals and even original posts, I'd say you and the birthers have much in common.
 
#44
#44
IPorange said:
I'm just going off of you speculating that people would have somehow thought less of him if they had known he had dual citizenship. Why would they? But yes, you may retreat to your usual sanctuary of responding to a question with a shotgun blast of questions.

As far as US law recognizing it: no, they really don't. You're either a US citizen, or you are not. There are no "dual citizenship" clauses. I've linked to the State Department. Not sure where you are going to go to show they're mistaken.
Click to expand...

I think enough evidence is shown already. Clearly if something is recognized by the government, dual citizenship exists. Giving a recent example - the kid that was returned to Russia because his adoptive mom had enough. The kid was as you say a "US citizen" but strangely enough he was still a Russian citizen. The US asked for the kid back. Russia said sorry. The US recognized the fact that this kid had dual citizenship and habeas corpus was with Russia. The US has told family and local law enforcement agencies that there is nothing they can do in this case because he is also a Russian citizen as well - dual citizenship. There are other cases like this for other nations in case you use the argument that this is Russia and we treat things differently with them.
 
#45
#45
nickknx865 said:
Somehow I knew GS started this thread as soon as I saw the title.
Click to expand...

Not exactly an earth shattering assumption. Anything pertaining to the birther movement and how Muslims are going to kidnap your children and bake them in a pie usually starts with gs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#46
#46
JTrainDavis said:
Not exactly an earth shattering assumption. Anything pertaining to the birther movement and how Muslims are going to kidnap your children and bake them in a pie usually starts with gs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

And after that they will build a mosque to commemorate it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#48
#48
MG1968 said:
also, isn't a "natural born citizen" someone who's parents were also US citizens at the time of birth?
Click to expand...
If Barack Obama Sr. was the father, that would be a moot point. But since it was actually Frank Marshall Davis, then you may have an argument.
 
#49
#49
IPorange said:
His birth certificate and Hawaiian newspapers indicate otherwise.

Good luck with that, birther.
Click to expand...

Three things:

1. Obama's birth certificate has never been produced in court or anywhere else.

(A COLB [especially one that is admittedly forged] is NOT a birth certificate fyi for the hundredth time, why can't you comprehend that?)

2. Newspaper clippings have no bearing in court.

3. You really should switch back to your koolaid avatar, it suits your pc koolaid wino profile so well.

PS; Referring to other posters with derogatory names such as 'birther' does nothing to enhance esteem among your peers, not to mention it doesn't prove your point at all, if it somehow improves your self-esteem, you need to see a shrink.
 
#50
#50
CSpindizzy said:
Not defending birthers but you do know what you said above has nothing to do with the article right? There is a legitimate issue with saying that British citizenship which is patrilineal was passed through to Obama. If that is the case and Obama has never sworn off that citizenship, he would be considered a dual citizen.

A birth certificate only indicates place of birth. It does not rule out ANY other allegiances OR a person's swearing off allegiances OR applications for citizenship or citizenship rules of other countries that drop US citizenship. In this case, Obama could have been born in Hawaii and still not be eligible to be President. While it has yet to be proven and legally upheld the question has NOT been disproven either.
Click to expand...

In the first place Obama has never produced a birth certificate and has spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to avoid having to produce one in court.

Several other legal questions are before various courts.

Meticulous passport records have been kept by the US State Department since 1925.

Why have those of Obama and his mother been scrubbed from the records?

Was his mother in Kenya at the time of his birth?

When in Indonesia it was illegal for Barry to hold dual citizenship, since his American citizenship was renounced and there is no record produced so far that he ever applied to have his American citizenship (if indeed he ever was an American citizen), renewed when he returned to America, then we may have a sitting president who isn't even legally an American citizen.

Then too, when he traveled to Pakistan, (and who knows what other of the 57 islamic states,) under what passport was he granted a visa (or visas)??

Also, when he attended various Universities in America, did he receive foreign student assistance??

These are just some of the questions that beg answers.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top