The birther thread to end all birther threads

Therefore, you must reject the Birther claim that Barack Obama is a dual citizen.

Unfortunately, any nation with jus sanguinis citizenship for children of citizens born overseas (the US included) actually is doing just that.

Not that it really matters.

 

it's all true i'm sorry to say. i just dethroned queen elizabeth by naming her to the brooklyn dodgers.

 

Now that is funny.

 

A person of exceptional merit, generally a non-United States citizen, may be declared an Honorary Citizen of the United States by an Act of Congress, or by a proclamation issued by the President of the United States, pursuant to authorization granted by Congress.

Seven people have been so honored, five posthumously, and two, Winston Churchill and Mother Teresa, during their lifetimes.

wiki

 

finally... thanks... you too.

 

Thank you for opening our eyes Margot, you're the one

 

But of course he's a dual citizen, he was born a Kenyan citizen and a British subject... he's not a natural born citizen, just a native born... if he was born in Hawaii, that is.

And, of course, "dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country".

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

 

And Dutch makes another U-Turn.

Poor guy can't tell whether he's coming or going!!

 

But Dutch, you already informed us that a person couldn't be made a citizen of a foreign country without his consent.

Obama never 'consented' to be a Kenyan citizen. So by your own proclamation he couldn't have ever been a dual citizen.

Which is rather funny, because of course, he was indeed made a Kenyan citizen without his consent, which is immaterial to his natural born status, and yes indeed, if Birthers were able to change the definition of NBC in order to remove Obama, that would mean any foreign country could veto who could be U.S. President.

Birthers are ever so willing to abuse the Constitution in their quest against Obama.

 

he's a natural born kenyan

 

"The American people deserve better than someone being tried in the court of public opinion".

 

i guess you didn't get the memo

 

I don't think so. From what I have been told by the attorneys next door in the office building is that a case called Minor v Happersett sets binding precedent over the Wong Kim Ark case.

 

You Obamabots are so predictable, LoL

This is from your own, fight the smears site:

"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.”

http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

So, was Barack Obama Kenyan citizen until 1982, yes or no?

 

From what I have read his Kenyan citizenship expired but not his British citizenship. He is still a British subject.

 

I believe he was a Kenyan citizen until he turned 23.

But of course you said that no one could be made a citizen of a country without their consent, and Obama never consented to be a Kenyan citizen.

Either persons can have citizenship imposed upon them- in which case the new definition of Natural Born Citizen that Birthers are trying create would mean that any government would have veto power over who could be our President-

Or governments cannot impose citizenship on persons without their consent- as you said- in which case clearly Obama misunderstood and couldn't have been a Kenyan citizen.

Make up your mind.

 

Is that the Attorney family? Because I am not aware of any actual real lawyers who believe Minor V Happersett is binding precedent over anything- except at one time perhaps about whether a woman was a citizen.

But instead of relying upon the Attorney family in Mobile, perhaps we should look to the analysis of actual identifiable legal experts

http://webservices.lexisnexis.com/l...=hYcY.ILCa.ZCaS.baac&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

Ankeny V Daniels- Court of Appeals- Indiana:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural [*29] born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens." n15


Personally, I think the opinion of these judges trumps those of the anonymous Attorney's next door.

 

this is new. the difference jeff is you say we are trying to create a new definition, when we really just want the supremes to excercise judicial review. why would your team always try to paint us extreme unless you were hiding stuff ?? why would there be an army of obots if there were no issue at all. these conflicts continue to exist and unfold.

 

Yes, I say that you are trying to create a new definition, with the express and sole purpose of the removal of Barack Obama.

You don't want the Supreme Court to 'exercise judicial review'- you want the Supreme Court to be judicial activists and make a ruling that changes our consensus understanding of the definition of a key part of our Constitution. You don't want a ruling- you want the Supreme Court to declare Barack Obama ineligible- and if by some laughable miracle it ever reaches a Supreme Court decision, and they rule against you, you will reject their ruling, like you reject every other Birther failure.

I paint you as extreme just like the "Income Tax" is unconstitutional group, who continue to tell people to refuse to pay their income taxes. I think your position is as extreme as if you were to be arguing that slavery really had never been abolished, and you really have the right to keep slaves.

I am not 'hiding' anything else. I continually post actual opinions by real legal experts declaring that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen- for instance the Indiana Court of Appeals. In support of your new theory(Kerchner's theory really) you have nothing but the opinions of a couple of Birther attorney's.

I have repeatedly asked you to explain how you reconcile your new theory with the fact that almost 70 million citizens voted for Obama, the Electoral College elected him, Congress confirmed him without a single objection- not even Michelle- and Chief Justice Roberts swore him in- were they all wrong? How is that possible?

I have repeatedly asked you to explain why no one but a few nutjobs have raised this issue- not one of Obama's real opponents- not Hilary, not McCain, not the RNC, even now not a single Republican candidate questions Obama's NBC status since he was born in Hawaii.

The very fact that you believe that there is an 'army of obots' is a further expression of how far removed you are from reality. On these boards there are 3 or 4 of us that regularly refute Birther speculation, innuendo, and lies- call me an obot for that- I don't mind- certainly a more honorable title than that of being the town Birther.

 

where's rahl ? is he ok ? i know he is pointless so much of the time, but we're all a team trying to figure out these obama scandals. sf jeff you are going to have to set your clock and get up early so i can argue while i am still fresh. i know you live on the left coast, but the day is half over by the time you wake up.

i didn't mean the whole army was here. there are other forums you know.... god...

have eligibility defined by the court, with the express and sole purpose of the removal of barack obama and all other usurpers.

i've told you repeatedly 50 million were tricked. my 87 year old mother (a lifetime republican and career corporate wife) was coerced by my siblings, and the other 19,000.999 are too stupid to figure it out still. so he'll get 20 million this time if he's not in jail.

 

Okay- so you think that the voters were tricked- how?

Barack Obama wrote two books, and had on his website that his father was a Kenyan.

So how were the voters tricked?

And your only answer for the voters is that they 'were tricked'- what about everyone else listed below?

I have repeatedly asked you to explain how you reconcile your new theory with the fact that almost 70 million citizens voted for Obama, the Electoral College elected him, Congress confirmed him without a single objection- not even Michelle- and Chief Justice Roberts swore him in- were they all wrong? How is that possible?

I have repeatedly asked you to explain why no one but a few nutjobs have raised this issue- not one of Obama's real opponents- not Hilary, not McCain, not the RNC, even now not a single Republican candidate questions Obama's NBC status since he was born in Hawaii.

Everything you post shows that your only purpose is the removal of Barack Obama from office- and that it is not and has never been about eligiblity.

 

and all other usurpers. if rahl was a usurper for instance, he would have to go. wong would be another.

 

Your imaginary attorneys are wrong again. Minor v. Happersett wasn't even a citizenship case. It was a suffrage case. It therefore set no precedent.

But even if it had, the Wong case came later so it would have superseded anything in the Minor decision.

 

If, as you insist, a nation cannot give its citizenship involuntarily, no. Obama was never a Kenyan citizen.

 

Then you still haven't read much.

Under UK law he would have immediately lost his British citizenship upon Kenya's independence.