Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire WHY OBAMA IS NOT A CITIZEN

You are right.. one of the possibilities is shot down. I'd read earlier where the status of a minor did follow the parent, and apparently they were flat wrong.

The problem facing Barry isn't one of the law, it is public perception. Disclosure of the various sealed documents would resolve the matter quickly. One way or another.

Another example of how McCain and his campaign people botched the election. I'm almost glad he didn't win.

Very true Dan, but any subsequent disclosures would also likely be treated like the release of "certificate of live birth" and immediately declared forgeries if they supported a case for citizenship. It's kind of like a heads I win, tails you lose type of wager, it doesn't matter what you do, you are not likely to win no matter what you do. There is simply not a lot of incentive for him to do so as there will be those that will tirelessly continue to sow the seeds of doubt on the citizenship issue. The argument against his citizenship is one that continually shifts to a new set of arguments when the old arguments do not pan out.

As far as the latest argument which started this thread involving and Indian named Elk I simply do not see the connection. I read (skimmed) the case and as far as I could tell the decision was primarily based on treaties made between the US and Native Americans. I don't see how that becomes applicable to Obama unless he is a Native American who is bound by that specific treaty.

It's all the republicans fault if you listen to MSNBC. They spent hours talking about the raciest rebublicans that are behind this myth. How poor Obama is just the scape goat for these charges.

What they don't want anyone to know is about the case I put a link to, has nothing to do where a child was born, it's about the fathers citizenship.

Well, the citizenship rumor started with Hillary supporters, any blame for this rumor should be assigned to them regardless of what MSNBC says.

I did read your link and as far as I can tell this decision really has to do with the sovereignty that Indian nations have within US borders and the treaties and agreements that we have made with them in the past. Can you explain why this particular legal decision should apply to Obama since he is not a Native American Indian?

He's a fraud for sure and I have zero doubt that whether he is considered Indonesian or Kenyan, he sure as hell isn't American.

His simple trip to Pakistan in 1981 is pretty good proof. No Americans were allowed there in that time, so he was either on a UK passport, or an Indonesian......No other option available.

That short form that was provided was a fraud and even if it wasn't, where's the long form?

The fact is, my sons have had to provide more proof to attend public school and play little league than he has to be President..........There's something really wrong with that scenario.

Here is the relavant part from your link that I read in the decision, I couldn't find where his fathers citizenship was relevant to the decision or not.

The decision of this point, as both parties assume in their briefs, depends upon the question whether the legal conclusion that under and by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States is supported by the facts alleged in the petition and admitted by the demurrer, to-wit, the plaintiff is an Indian and was born in the United States and has severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes and fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, and still continues to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is a bona fide resident of the State of Nebraska and City of Omaha. The petition, while it does not show of what Indian tribe the plaintiff was a member, yet, by the allegations that he "is an Indian, and was born within the United States," and that "he had severed his tribal relations to the Indian tribes," clearly implies that he was born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States. Though the plaintiff alleges that he "had fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States," he does not allege that the United States accepted his surrender, or that he has ever been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen by the state or by the United States. Nor is it contended by his counsel that there is any statute or treaty that makes him a citizen.

The question, then, is whether an Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, is, merely by reason of his birth within the United States and of his afterwards voluntarily separating himself from his tribe and taking up his residence among white citizens, a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Under the Constitution of the United States as originally established, "Indians not taxed" were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives and direct taxes were apportioned among the several states, and Congress had and exercised the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and the members thereof, whether within or without the boundaries of one of the states of the Union. The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states, but they were alien nations, distinct political communities, with whom the United States might and habitually did deal as they thought fit, either through treaties made by the President and Senate or through acts of Congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States. They were in a dependent condition, a state of pupilage, resembling that of a ward to his guardian. Indians and their property, exempt from taxation by treaty or statute of the United States, could not be taxed by any state. General acts of Congress did not apply to Indians unless so expressed as to clearly manifest an intention to include them.

The alien and dependent condition of the members of the Indian tribes could not be put off at their own will without the action or assent of the United States. They were never deemed citizens of the United States except under explicit provisions of treaty or statute to that effect either declaring a certain tribe, or such members of it as chose to remain behind on the removal of the tribe westward, to be citizens or authorizing individuals of particular tribes to become citizens on application to a court of the United States for naturalization and satisfactory proof of fitness for civilized life, for examples of which see treaties in 1817 and 1835 with the Cherokees, and in 1820, 1825, and 1830 with the Choctaws,.........

I have read elsewhere, see the McCain link I posted above, that the claim that there was travel ban to Pakistan in 1981 is a blatantly false claim originating from Hillary supporter Nicholas Berg.

http://washingtonindependent.com/52...gated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors



I have also read elsewhere that the state of Hawaii does not ever issue copies of the long form BC, only copies of short form are available. If true, then the demand to produce a copy of the long form is very unreasonable.

He is a US Citizen and I will tell you all Why!

Only a US Citizen of Color can use the RACE card that Good and call cops stupid and get away with it!


haha lol
Just joking gang, just wanted to make a joke.

Kique

That whole website and article did little more than determine they haven't found anything more than anyone else.

No records for Harvard, Columbia, Birth, or passport..................

Nahh......He's very transparent.

And John McCain was born in Panama....

This thread is beating a dead horse.

It does not matter where obama was born or where he is a citizen of , he will be POTUS until 2012 or 2016.

If it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that obama is a space alien , born on the planet Neptune he would still be POTUS until 2012 or 2016.

Whether we like it or not.


Mike

On a US Military base (US Territory) and had made Full Disclosure to Congress of the Facts and got a Congressional Resolution Acknowledging that he was "Natural Born."

Bam Bam just runs and hides--I HATE THAT.

BMT

Well, they can say what they want , but is it 100% sure he was born on American territory?
From wikipedia

John McCain (born 1936), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born in Col�n, Panama,[32] near but not in[33][34][35] the Panama Canal Zone,[36] of two U.S. parents, who were at the time serving at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station.[37] However, opinions on McCain's presidential eligibility were voiced or published based on the false premise that he was born in the Canal Zone. In March 2008 McCain was held eligible for Presidency in an opinion paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who supposed a birth in the Canal Zone.[38] In April 2008 the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural born citizen, since he was "born in the Panama Canal".[39] In September 2008 U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural born citizen, although he acknowledged the possibility that the applicable laws had been enacted after the fact and applied only retroactively.[40] These views were criticized by Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who argues that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. � 1403, because at the time of his birth and with regard to the Canal Zone the Supreme Court's Insular Cases overruled the Naturalization Act of 1795, which would otherwise have declared McCain a U.S. citizen immediately at birth.[41] In any case, the US Foreign Affairs Manual states that "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen [�]".[42] In Rogers v. Bellei the Supreme Court only ruled that "children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment", and didn't elaborate on the natural born status.[43][44] Due to his birth in Panama, McCain was at the least a statutory born citizen of the U.S. according to the Naturalization Act of 1795.

Page 112 U. S. 102

to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.


His Father was subject to a forien set of laws. His son was subject to the same laws. He there for is not a U.S. citizen.


He is not, nor ever been a U.S. citizen. Reguardless of any birth cert.

A minor can not renounce his citizenship. Several cases have occurred in which parents have registered a minor in a foreign country as a citizen of that country and the kid was able to maintain his US citizenship. I do not know whether this was the case with BHO.

The US Departmentof State says (see: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html )

"Dual Nationality


"The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

"A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

"Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

"However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

"Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country's embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad."

BHo was born in Hawaii, so is a US natural born citizen.

That is a very "iffy" legal argument and I don't think it would hold up IMO.

Any lawyers in the house?

George Romney (Mitt Romney's father) was born in Mexico and he ran for President in 1968. It was accepted that, even though he was born in a foreign country, his parents citizenship made him a US citizen and eligible t run for President.

I was supposed to travel to Pakistan on business in late 1981 and had my US passport and visa in order, but had to cancel due to illness. I don't think the above is correct. My trip was nothing special, just buisines.