Why do they let birthers keep going with Obama's Birth Certificate?

How could Obama have been born in British East Africa in 1961 when his mother didn't leave the country until 1967?

Further, your lie about school children in Indonesia is getting VERY tiresome.

 

To this day, Barack Obama has presented to any 'controlling legal authority' the exact same certified document of his birth date and place of birth as has every other President.

There is no 'controlling legal authority' which a President is required or obligated to provide any such document- and no President has done so.

However, President Obama has provided more evidence to the American voters as to his place of birth in the United States than any other President.

All Birthers have are lies, speculation and innuendo.

 

Note to [MENTION=58094]expatriate[/MENTION] : He didn't say the copy posted on the White House website, which is the copy in question.

 

note to PatriotNews: nobody but strung out birthers gives a rat's rectum about some computer picture on an internet website. THAT has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not the president's birth certificate has or has not been authenticated by Hawaiian authorities. In fact, the legal document - which is the ONLY document that means anything - HAS been seen, touched, read, and authenticated by the authorities in the sovereign state of Hawaii. They tell us that the document is legitimate and that President Obama was born in Hawaii and is, therefore, a natural born citizen.

 

One reason I put you on Ignore is you seem lack the most basic reading comprehension skills.

You also love to 'hand wave' without any evidence to show your side of the debate.

 

I checked out the schools in Indonesia and read their citizenship laws and I have posted the statutes on who is a natural born citizen..

I also know from experience what air travel was like for pregnant women in 1961 and how long it would have taken to fly from Kenya to Hawaii..

If you have ever had a US passport or have one now on the back of the front cover it lists your place of birth.

You are just terminally ignorant.

 

Why should I believe you on anything since you so readily lie to protect your messiah? You 'hand wave' but provide no references.

Air travel for pregnant women was NOT banned for three trimesters. Air travel was NOT banned for new mothers. Enrollment in any Indonesian public school was prohibited by the state. Posted all over the internet images showing Barry's school record, with citizenship listed as Indonesian and religion as Muslim.
View attachment 32732

Since you are so obviously reliant on computer images as factual, legal documents, then this is, by your liberal standards a an accurate document showing Barry "The One" Soeteoro a.k.a. Barry Dunham, a.k.a. Barry Obama, a.k.a. Barack Obama, a.k.a.Barack Dunham, a.k.a. Barry Soebarkah, a.k.a. Barack Soebarkah.

Purportedly, Obama was legally adopted by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, which made Obama an Indonesian citizen according to Indonesian law. Because Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Obama thus lost his U.S. citizenship (if he even had it) when he became an Indonesian citizen in or about 1967. At that point, Obama also ceased to be a Kenyan citizen, according to both Indonesian and Kenyan law. Indonesian law would also have required Ann Dunham to renounce her U.S. citizenship for her marriage to Lolo Soetoroto have been considered legal in that country. If, after Obama returned to Hawaii, he applied for and was granted American citizenship he would be a naturalized citizen (like California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) and not a natural born citizen, and would therefore be ineligible to serve as president of the United States. It is possible that Obama did not even bother to become a naturalized citizen of the United States and remains an Indonesian citizen even today. Appropriate federal records would be on file if Obama made application for naturalization. If they exist, they have not been made public. [258, 300, 305, 492]

Indonesia’s policy of not allowing dual citizenship must be respected by the United States in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1930. Further, Obama, as a child, was not specifically required to renounce his U.S.—that would have been an automatic result of his adoption by Lolo Soetoro. Fair or not, the consequence of Dunham’s marriage to Soetoro and Soetoro’s adoption of Obama was that he became an Indonesian citizen… regardless of whether he understood the situation at age five or six. [492]

According to Indonesian legal experts, it is extremely difficult for non-Indonesian citizens to enroll in public schools in that country. That was especially true during the 1960s, when Indonesia was a police state and Indonesian immigration officials and the police performed weekly checks on public schools to confirm citizenship compliance. This further supports the assumption that Obama was adopted by Soetoro. Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, has stated that Obama was adopted by their father, Lolo Soetoro. Soetoro-Ng, who was born in Indonesia on August 15, 1970, also has a Hawaiian birth registration. It is therefore illogical to argue that Obama’s short form Hawaiian certification of birth proves he was born in the United States when his half-sister has the same document yet was born in Indonesia. [329, 801, 1810, 1988]

Indonesia today still does not allow dual citizenship. Under Indonesia law, once Obama became a naturalized citizen by virtue of adoption he could not lose that status without relinquishing his citizenship in writing, under oath. If he did that, the government of Indonesia would have those records. If he did not do so by age 21, Obama is to this day still considered an Indonesian citizen by that country. His place of birth or the nationality of his mother is irrelevant; Indonesian law takes precedence under The Master Nationality Rule of Article 4 of the Hague Convention on 1930. Upon returning to the United States from Indonesia, Obama eventually satisfied the “five-years-after-age-14” residency requirement of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, thus making him a naturalized citizen of the United States at age 19. Residing in the United States for five or more years after attaining age 14 established the intent of Obama to become a U.S. citizen under the law, which supersedes the Indonesian citizenship over which he had no control because of his age at adoption. Nevertheless, while Obama may be a U.S. citizen he is likely not a natural born citizen. [801]
(http://www.colony14.net/id136.html)

​

 

They didn't fly in the third trimester or in the weeks following childbirth... Of course Obama's half sister was born in Indonesia in 1970.

Obama was only in Indonesia for 3 years.. Your source is wrong on Indonesian law.. is that why you did a cut and past with no url?

BTW, the International school that Obama attended was Dutch and it was full of expat kids.

 

and Elg v Perkins covers the citizenship issue of natural born minor children being removed from the country by their parents not losing their citizenship because of the actions of their parents.

 

Okay, your lies are beyond laughable.

*CLICK*

 

Article 8 of the draft revision says that foreigners must have been living in Indonesia for a consecutive term of at least 15 years, or 20 years not consecutively, before they can apply for citizenship.

Besides which, the foreigner must speak Bahasa Indonesia fluently and have sufficient knowledge of Indonesia's Constitution and history.

•BY NATURALIZATION: Indonesian citizenship may be acquired upon fulfillment of the following conditions: Person provides proof of loss or renunciation of former nationality, is at least age 21, was either born in Indonesia or has resided continuously for five years or not continuously for ten years, knows the Indonesian language, has knowledge of Indonesian history, has no criminal record, is of good mental and physical health, has a regular means of support, and, if applicable, has obtained their spouse’s permission.

http://www.mysecondpassport.com/citizenship-laws/indonesia-citizenship

 

This has been proven false already.

 

Other countries citizenship laws are meaningless to US law. And no such law exists in Indonesia.

 

Even conceding the birth certificate given to the president by the State of Hawaii was certified, (which is different from authentic), the one they put out to the public on the website is an obvious fraud. That is the only point that is important.

 

it was authenticated. I posted the quote that said precisely that. and the point you think is important is important only to you and to the rest of the mom's basement dwelling birther crowd. Really. NOBODY else cares. The image on the website is totally irrelevant. It's accuracy will NEVER be questioned in a court of law because its accuracy is not important to any issue other than birther craziness. Period. If a court of law ever decided to take up the Obama natural born citizen issue, they would invariably demand to see the original document. Which has been authenticated. Which is all that the REAL WORLD cares about. Birther on with your bad self!

 

Here's my point. The birth certificate on the website is a fraud. That has been my point all along. If you don't want to debate the validity of that birth certificate posted by the White House, then you are free to go away.

 

Only a Birther would come to the conclusion that even though:
a) The State of Hawaii stated: “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to theauthenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai'i.” and
b) The State of Hawaii also stated: On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth. and
c) The State of Hawaii also provided a link to the White House release of that Birth Certificate.....

That of course, the State of Hawaii was not referring to the BC the White House released.

Birthers can't even come up with a consistent Konspiracy theory. One moment they are saying that Hawaii is in on the Konspiracy- and then they are arguing that Hawaii never confirmed anything.

Birthers- all they have are lies, speculation and innuendo.

- - - Updated - - -

What about the 2008 birth certificate?
What about the statements by multiple Hawaiian officials that they have confirmed that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?

Can we nail you down to specifically what you think is a fraud and what is not?

- - - Updated - - -

What about the physical hard copies that they showed reporters- the ones that Savannah Guthrie photographed and confirmed that she had seen and felt the raised seal on?

You know- the one that look just like the one posted online?

 

No one is saying it was banned.

What any rational person questions is the bizarre theory that a pregnant woman would make that trip for absolutely no reason.

The Western world had been terrified by a brutal uprising in Kenya called the Mau Mau uprising- which included stories of slaughter of European women- the uprising ended in 1960...one year before Birthers fantasize that a pregnant Stanley Ann Dunham made the trip to a place that the Western World associated with slaughtering white women.

But it gets better. We know that Barack Obama Sr. did not leave the United States during that time period- so she would have had to be travelling all by herself- to Kenya- where she knew no one.

But it gets better. Barack Obama Sr.'s family was hostile to their wedding. So not only does she not know anyone- the only contacts she had were hostile to her relationship with her husband.

Birthers fantasize that the very pregnant Ann Dunham left modern Hawaii and spent 4 days travelling to Kenya to give birth in a third world country that she knew no one, and had no reason to be there.

AND then she smuggled her newborn back.....and then committed fraud to get her son declared as born in the United States.

Rather than just give birth in the United States with her parents and husband there, in a modern medica facility- without any need to travel or commit fraud.

Such are the minds of Birthers.

 

Birthers are typically very ignorant people.. Now they are saying that an American child can renounce his US citizenship!

 

Ah I love that document- because Birthers both claim it is proof of Obama becoming an Indonesian citizen- but also they ignore that it says his place of birth is Hawaii.

Americans do not lose their citizenship easily- the only way to do so is to legally renounce citizenship, which would entail going to an American embassy and formally renouncing citizenship.

And 5 year old American's do not have the right- or capacity to denounce their citizenship, even if they want to.

 

I have been making one point, and one point all along. Ever other issue is a side issue to me. The one posted by the White House has been determined to be a fraud by many experts. I have posted that evidence throughout this thread. No one, not one person, has ever presented proof that the one posted by the White House is authentic. No expert has testified that the one posted by the White House is authentic. [/Discussion]

 

Its outrageous for them to claim someone under 21 could possibly renounce their US citizenship..

 

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
sign an oath of renunciation
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS

Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship


Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

I have yet to see Birthers come up with a single example of a minor successfully renouncing U.S. citizenship.

Here is a quote from an Immigration law firm's website:

(2) Voluntariness and intent: Minors who seek to renounce citizenship often do so at the behest of or under pressure from one or more parent. If such pressure is so overwhelming as to negate the free will of the minor, it cannot be said that the statutory act of expatriation was committed voluntarily. The younger the minor is at the time of renunciation, the more influence the parent is assumed to have. Even in the absence of any evidence of parental inducements or pressure, you and CA must make a judgment whether the individual minor manifested the requisite maturity to appreciate the irrevocable nature of expatriation. Absent that maturity, it cannot be said that the individual acted voluntarily. Moreover, it must be determined if the minor lacked intent, because he or she did fully understand what he or she was doing. Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent;

Like all things Birther- they make stuff up, and then convince themselves that it must be true.

 

The one posted online is legally irrelevant.

The certified copies shown to the reporters appear to be identical- i.e. with the exact same information- as the one posted online.

Do you think that those copies are forgeries also?

If so- then the 'layers' are immaterial.

If not- then the 'layers' are immaterial.

 

No expert has ever declared it a fraud.