British Law declares Obama a British citizen!
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
The Post & Email
THE FACTS, THE LAW, THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION
Legal Analysis by John Charlton
# © 2009/2010
The Union Jack, symbol of British tyranny and oppression to the American revolutionaries, has flown over the head of Barack Obama from his birth.(Dec. 24, 2009) — Barack Hussein Obama has written 2 biographies about himself and has publickly spoken of his origins in many public speeches. He claims as his biological and legal father, a man who went by the name Barrack Hussein Obama. That is the more common Kenyan spelling of the name. His claimed father also went by the names “Barak” and “Barack”, the former when he penned an article in an journal on economics, in Nairobi, in the 60’s, the latter when he registered at the University of Hawaii. The latter form appears on the electronic image of Obama’s alleged Certification of Live Birth.
If we apply the provisions of British and Kenyan law to the simple facts, which Obama claims about himself — though in truth there is not documentation that the public has seen to confirm the truth of these facts — the inescapable conclusion is that Obama was born a British subject and is now, still to this day, a British citizen.
The laws and regulations which lead to this conclusion are the official British Consular Registry Stipulations, the British Nationality Act of 1948 and of 1981, Kenya Constitution, and the Kenya Independence Act of 1963.
Let’s see how these apply to Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
The Consequence of Obama’s alleged birth story is that he’d be born a ‘British Citizen by Descent’
The British Consular Registry uses the criteria set forth in the British Nationality Act of 1948 Section 5(1) of the United Kingdom and Colonies to determine who would be qualified as a “British Citizen By Descent.”
Section 5-1 reads thus:
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:
Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—
(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or
(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; or
(c) that person’s father is, at the time of the birth, in Crown service under His Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom; or
(d) that person is born in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act in which a citizenship law has then taken effect and does not become a citizen thereof on birth.
The man Obama claims as his father is Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., a man born in the Kenya Colony in 1936. Being born in the Kenya Colony, he was a British subject or citizen. Obama was born after the commencement of this above quoted act, ergo, Obama Jr. is a British citizen-by-descent.
The Consequence of Obama’s alleged birth story is that he’d become a Citizen of Kenya in 1963
According to the Kenya Constitution (87), Obama became a Kenyan citizen in 1963, in virtue of the fact that his claimed father was born in the Kenya colony.
The Constitution of Kenya, Section 87, reads thus:
87*. Persons who became citizens on 12th December, 1963
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on llth December, 1963, as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person, shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963:Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on llth December, 1963, as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person, shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Therefore Obama Jr. became a citizen of Kenya, Dec. 12, 1963, when his father did. Moreover, when his father returned to Kenya, upon graduation from Harvard, he obtained employment with the Kenyan Government as a senior Economist.
Note, that while the Kenyan constitution prohibits dual citizenship for those 21 years old or older, it does not do so for minors (cf. section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution).
The Consequence of Obama’s alleged birth story is that he’d remain a British citizen-by-descent after 1963
According to the Kenya Independence Act of 1963, Obama would have retained his British citizenship status.
This is the legal conclusion of the provisions of Chapter 54, section 3 of that act of Parliament:
3.—(1) Any reference in subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section to a colony, protectorate or protected state shall, subject to subsection (7) of this section, be construed as a reference to a territory which is a colony, protectorate or protected state (within the meaning of the British Nationality Act 1948) on the appointed day, and, accordingly, shall not include a reference to Kenya or any part thereof.
(2) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, a person shall not cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 2(2) of this Act if he, his father or his father’s father —
(a) was born in the United Kingdom or in a colony; or
(b) is or was a person naturalised in the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(c) was registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(d) became a British subject by reason of the annexation of any territory included in a colony.
(3) A person shall not cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 2(2) of this Act if he was born in a protectorate or protected state, or if his father or his father’s father was so born and is or at any time was a British subject.
(4) A woman who is the wife of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall not cease to be such a citizen under section 2(2) of this Act unless her husband does so.
…
Since Obama’s claimed father was born in Kenya Colony, which was in 1936 part of the British Empire, and furthermore, since his father’s father, Hussein Onyango Obama was born in the British Protectorate of Kenya in 1895 (cfr. Dreams of My Father, p. 376; 425-426) , and was therefore a British Protected Person under the British Nationality and Status Act of 1914, Obama Jr retained his British citizenship status after Dec. 12, 1963.
Obama’s alleged childhood history raises the question that he was adopted by an Indonesian citizen, and therefore became an Indonesian citizen in 1966-67
According to the laws of Indonesia, in force in the 1960’s, Obama would have become a citizen of Indonesia if he was adopted by Lolo Soetero at the age of 5 or younger.
It is not yet known whether he was adopted, of if he was, in what year this may have occurred. Facts to support such an adoption are thus: an Indonesian school record which indicates that he was an Indonesian citizen, bearing the name Barry Soetero, and the Dunham-Soetero Divorce Decree of 1981, which indicates a non-minor as a child of the marriage.
That Obama goes by the name “Barry” was evidenced recently, when he called into a radio show and spoke with the outgoing Governor of Virginia. On that occasion he identified himself as “Barry from D.C..” When questioned about this phone call, the White House said that it “would not be inaccurate” to say the person calling was Barack Hussein Obama, Jr..
The Presumption is that Obama did not revoke his British Citizenship on Aug. 4, 1979
According to the British Home Office: U.K. Border Agency, to renounce British Citizenship one must be at least 18 years of age and fill out a declaration, using form RN.
Therefore, upon reaching the age of 18, on Aug. 4, 1979, Obama could have revoked his citizenship. However, the British Government has never affirmed that he has. Therefore in law we must presume that he has not, if his birth story is true.
There is ground to suppose Obama renewed his Kenyan Citizenship in 1982
The Kenyan constitution establishes that upon reaching the age of 21 years, a Kenyan citizen must renounce all other citizenships, if he wants to retain his Kenyan citizenship. There is a 2 year window in which he must make such a renunciation. In Obama’s case this window opened on Aug. 4, 1982, and closed on Aug. 4, 1984. It is known that Obama visited Kenya 2 years after his father’s death (which occurred in 1981), and thus in 1983, during this window of opportunity.
The Consequence of Obama’s alleged birth story is that in 1983, he’d become a British-overseas-citizen and remain such today
Obama acknowledges his British citizenship, by bowing his Queen, Elizabeth II.
The British Nationality Act of 1981 changed the nomenclature for citizenship status.
The pertinent provision of that act is found in Chapter 61, Part III, and reads as follows:
PART III BRITISH OVERSEAS CITIZENSHIP
s 26 Citizens of U.K. and Colonies who are to become British Overseas citizens at commencement.
Any person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before commencement and who does not at commencement become either a British citizen or a [British overseas territories citizen] [FN1] shall at commencement become a British Overseas citizen.
By “commencement”, the Act signifies Jan. 1, 1983, the date upon which it went into force.
Hence according to this Act, Obama Jr. would have gone from being classified a British citizen-by-descent, to a British Overseas Citizen.
In summary, Obama was born a British citizen-by-descent, and remains a British Overseas Citizen even today — if his birth story is true. He was also a citizen of Kenya prior to age 21, and may stil be one. He seems also to have been a citizen of Indonesia from 1966-1980’s, but this is uncertain.
[Editor’s note: There was another article at The Post & Email with a similar title and subject, but which I was asked to pull by its author, since the author feared being attacked by Obama supporters. I owe all the research to this author, but this article is entirely my own creation, inasmuch as I have not cited the author in anything, and wrote all the above myself, excluding the cited laws.]
Showing posts with label british nationality act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label british nationality act. Show all posts
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
America’s two unconstitutional Presidents
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
(Updated in parenthesis. - Dianna Cotter 12-15-2009)
Students of history know that history repeats itself, and today we are reliving the past of 1880’s. Some of the similarities between the 21st President and the 44th are startling, and the ramifications are huge.
President Chester A. Arthur was the son of an Irish immigrant, William Arthur, and Vermonter, Malvina Stone. Arthur would tragically assume the Presidency upon the assassination of President Garfield in 1881 and become the 21st President. President Arthur was successful in keeping the secret of his heritage, and he died shortly after leaving the White House November 18, 1886. He served honorably and well as President of the United States, but was not Constitutionally Qualified for the Office of either Vice President or President, and set a precedent by which it would happen again.
During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chester’s birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction. Arthur’s father, William Arthur was a British citizen at the time of the future President’s birth. Born in Ballymena, Ireland in 1796 he would not become a Naturalized citizen until August 31st, 1843. No one ever checked into his immigration status at the time of his son’s birth. Chester Arthur, 14 at the time his father was naturalized, and would surely have known this. Sound somewhat familiar?
Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, "Chester Alan Arthur Papers”. Microfiche Copy courtesy of Leo Donofrio Esq.
This document and its relevance have only recently been discovered. The President himself would not help matters any, he burned nearly all of his records and papers before he died in Nov. 1886, a year and a half after leaving office.
A lawyer and scholar by the name of George D. Collins Esq. wrote an article regarding citizenship during Arthur’s term, that had the President seen it, would have concerned him. “Are Persons born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens thereof?” was published in the American Law Review in Sept. /Oct. 1884. Collins thesis reverberates through history: “… are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of such birth were aliens, citizens there of?” Collins relies on two sources in particular for his answer.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” -14th Amendment
He also draws upon “The Law of Nations” by Emerich Vattel written in 1758, on which the U.S. Constitution was largely based. Collins states in his article, the term “jurisdiction thereof” means “not subject to any foreign power”, citing Section 1992 in Section 1 of the new 14th Amendment. He quotes Vattel:
The native or natural citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as a matter of course that each citizen on entering into society reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. -Vattel
Collins concludes:
Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – Collins
Had Collins known that President Arthur’s father was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Arthur’s birth, he would have correctly concluded that the President was not a natural born citizen and not eligible for the office. It was considered a matter of National security; the Commander in Chief should not be subject to any foreign power, and for that reason the “natural born” distinction is made.
Today, a direct and startlingly similar situation exists between President Arthur and President Obama. The 44th President was also born to a British citizen, not a naturalized citizen of the United States. For the same reasons both Presidents were not eligible for the office, the only difference lay in Barack Obama’s public admission of his father’s status:
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.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982. -Fight the Smears
(Correction: The President's website has not been updated to include the information that his Kenyan Citizenship did not actually expire until 1984. The site misconstrued the Kenyan law, and FactCheck.org was forced to give credit for the correction to Leo Donofrio Esq. This has direct implications with regard to the British Nationality Act of 1981 which went into effect in 1983. Because his Kenyan Citizenship was still in effect in 1983, Obama may still be a Kenyan Citizen. Neither the President nor any of his surrogates have addressed this issue.)
This quote illustrates four things very clearly. First, the President is the son of a British Kenyan. Second, his citizenship in Kenya expired in 1982, meaning that another country had a claim on the President from birth to 23 and he could choose to keep it as an adult. The third is unstated; the President’s British citizenship can still be formalized. The fourth issue it states very clearly. At birth, Barack Obama was subject to the power of a foreign nation, “The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr. ‘s children.” and therefore was not at any time a natural born citizen due to his triple nationality status, and he knows it.
The President has spent a million dollars fighting various court cases across the country, not so much to keep his past hidden, but to keep people focused on what they think he is hiding. What is relevant is what he has admitted out in the open. The President at birth was an American citizen, a British citizen and a Kenyan citizen. At no time in his life has he ever been a natural born citizen of the United States. Barack Obama was a subject of two separate foreign powers in the instant of his birth.
Barack Obama has hidden the truth right in the open, it has never been an issue of where he was born, it was who he is the son of. A British, Kenyan National. In the instant when Citizenship is decided, birth, he was British, Kenyan, and American. By definition, a person cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America while at the instant of their birth also being the citizen of any other Nation. A citizen? Yes, but not one that is solely native, solely natural, to the United States, and the United States alone.
The "President" has fought attempts to reveal his birth and other records. He has done so for the singular reason to keep people focused on what he is hiding, rather than the relevance of what he has admitted in the open. This is the relevance of Barack Obama's Heritage.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., was Born a British Subject Governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, and is Currently also a British Protected Person and/or a British Citizen to This Day
by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Written: April 7, 2009
Updated: July 29, 2009
Minor Edits: August 6, 2009
Printed Wash Time Natl Wkly: August 10, 2009
Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States’ right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.
The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:
“4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:
Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ….”
Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama’s father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.
Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama’s 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.
Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
“1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. [sic] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. [sic] if his father becomes. [sic] . . . a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subjection (1). [sic] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. [sic] 1963.”
Under the Kenyan Constitution of 1963, Obama’s father and Obama became citizens of Kenya. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain, nor the Kenyan Constitution, nor the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, as amended, caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship. Rather, the statements have been that his British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963 and that he then lost Kenyan citizenship under the Kenyan constitution and laws when he did not renounce U.S. citizenship at age 21. But since Obama never lost his British citizenship, it does not matter that Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship as he contends.
Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:
“97. Dual citizenship
1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”
While the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. Kenya’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948 and which he did not lose under the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, as amended. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect Obama’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship.
The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:
“Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.
Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child’s minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality.”
Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.
“It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .
Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality.”
British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.
Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, as amended, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning “declaration of renunciation” at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any “declaration of renunciation” of his British citizenship.
What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya’s 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.
This all leads to the question of how can Obama be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was at birth both a U.S. citizen (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and a British citizen which alone disqualifies him from having that status? But to make matters worse, Obama continues to be a British citizen at a time that he is currently the President of the United States. Can we reasonably conclude that the Founding Fathers, who had just fought a war with Great Britain and who did not want a foreigner to occupy the Office of President, would have allowed a British citizen born after 1789, who carries that status not only from birth but also to the time he occupies the Office, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its Military? Another question is how can a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military with current dual citizenship obtain a security clearance which he should have to access classified U.S. government information needed by him to carry out the sensitive functions of that Office?
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)