THE FACTS, THE LAW, THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION
Legal Analysis by John Charlton
(Dec. 24, 2009) — Barack Hussein Obama has written 2 biographies about himself and has publicly 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 no publically available documentation 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 subject: a Commonwealth citizen, to be exact.
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 precise nature of his citizenship would be a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). Citizenship by descent is the means of obtaining it.
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, by virtue of the fact that his claimed father was born in the Kenya colony.
The Constitution of Kenya, Section 87, reads thus:
- 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.
- 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. However, in section 88 it specifies that one who can become a citizen, may only register as such if he is 21 years or older. Whether this means that he is not a citizen unless registered it not clear. If so, then if Obama Jr.’s parent(s) did not register him, he might not have become a Kenyan citizen.
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 become a Commonwealth Citizen in 1963
According to the Kenya Independence Act of 1963, Obama would have lost his British citizenship status as a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, if he became a Kenyan citizen on Dec. 11, 1963.
This is the legal conclusion of the provisions of Chapter 54, section 2(2):
(2) Save as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.
Nor is this obviated by the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, because these expressly do not include Kenya, but only the other colonies and protectorates of the British Empire.
However, according to Section 95 of the Kenyan Constitution, all Kenyan citizens become Commonwealth Citizens:
- 95. Commonwealth citizens
- Every person who. under this Constitution or an Act of Parliament. is a citizen of Kenya or who, under any law for {he time being in force in a country to which this section applies. is a citizen of that country shall, by virtue of that citizenship, have the status of a Commonwealth citizen.
What’s happening here, is that Kenya is going from the status of a colony to the staus of a Commonwealth Nation. Those who were Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in virtue of their birth or descent from someone born in Kenya, are now Commonwealth citizens, because Kenya has become independent.
Note that a Commonwealth citizen is the modern term which corresponds to the older term, “British subject”. This is because a British subject was the category of citizenship which encompased Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and British Protected Persons. “British subject” as a term is no longer used, but the notion is the same. It would be more accurate not to call Obama a “british subject”, but a “Commonwealth citizen,” but for Americans they would not understand what the latter is, without an explanation (most don’t know what the Commonwealth of Nations is either).
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 was born a British subject and remains such today
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, if Obama Jr. , did not become a Kenyan citizen, because his parent(s) did not register him as such, he would have gone from being classified a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent, to a British Overseas Citizen. If he did become a Kenyan citizen, then he became also a Commonwealth Citizen on Dec. 11, 1963, and that is the modern term for a British subject.
In summary, Obama was born a British subject, and remains either a British Overseas Citizen or a Commonwealth Citizen, that is, in either case, a British subject even today — that is, if his birth story is true. He was also a citizen of Kenya prior to age 21, and may still be one. He seems also to have been a citizen of Indonesia from 1966-1980’s, but his Indonesian citizenship status 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 nearly 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. I have however, altered the argument, since now with further study, I find that it is more correct to say Obama was born a British subject and now remains such.
Dec. ’09 to May ’18, for 8+ years this is till not resolved. Why are Obama’s records still sealed??? And by who’s authority???
The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961 and Lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, Right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in “Kenya, East Africa”.
This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet Exist?
Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the “British East Africa Protectorate”.
On the Birth Certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”.
This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively.
The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
Why hasn’t this been discussed in the major media?
Perhaps a clue comes from Obama’s book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I’m not a math genius, so I may need some help from you.
Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when Obama was born. That should have put his father’s date of birth approximately 1936 – if my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!) Now we need a non-revised history book-one that hasn’t been altered to satisfy the author’s goals-to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in Wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn’t have been more than 9 years old.
Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes ?
Here’s what I would like to know. If the TRUTH ever comes out and it is decided that Obama was never eligible to be president, what happens to all the laws he signed into being and all the executive orders? Should they all be null and void?
I don’t think Obama’s father would have been old enough to have fought in World War II. Are you perhaps thinking of an uncle or some other alleged Obama relative? To what page of the book are you referring?
Great article! It is sad that all these different approaches have to be found by Americans. The US Supreme Court utterly FAILED in their duty to uphold its US Constitution and order hearing where obama has to be the one to show just Cause as to why he is qualified.
It is totally ridiculous that the Congress committed Treason against our Country. No matter from what angle this is viewed, obama from his own many admissions in his books, etc. could never by any stretch be a “natural citizen” of the U.S.
Of the 3 branches it is a given the Executive will not help. The Congress has abetted Obama. Now it looks like the US Supreme Court is not upholding the Constitution either.
It appears that Hawaiian officials want to commemorate Barry’s Hawaiian birthplace. I’m sure they will use taxpayer dollars to do this, so that leaves them open to more FOIA requests.
——————-
Mr. Charlton replies: Where did you hear that, Jean? And why the insistence on creating the appearances of a real bc existing, and yet refusing to show it…??
Obama still a Brit? No kidding! See the official White House photo!
the pic here is photo shopped and is take from a pic done Jan 14th, 2009 release in LA Times. Really now where did you get that, or what are you trying to pull. I do not believe he is a Natural Born Citizen but stuff like this disinformation hurts the cause so I red flag you. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/01/barack-obama-fo.html
So is Obama a Usurper? or not? I believe he is!
If the Constitution mandates Article 2 NBC, then the Constitution says he isn’t the President.
So who is?
—————-
Mr. Charlton: When no candidate is eligible, the Congress must select a president pro tem, until it provides otherwise; there is a strong argument that McCain was eligible, since he was born of a father in military service; yet it was not war time, so that is debatable. Anyhow, Congress must make the selection, and has not, therefore technically, there is no president and all the Congressional bills “signed into law” after Jan 19th of 2009 are null and void.
As for Obama not being a natural born citizen; even if his parents and place of birth are as he claims, he is not: its not a matter of I believe or I do not believe; its a fact; and those who “don’t believe” are in denial or nuts.
As many have already stated, a minor child US citizen who has been conferred foreign citizenship via adoption can only lose their US citizenship upon reaching the age of majority (18) and then only by renouncing their US citizenship through an official volitional act as an autonomous adult.
Assuming Obama was indeed legally adopted by Soetoro AND he never formally reasserted his US citizenship during his 18th or any other year (i.e., no legal paperwork of such exists) does anyone know if the act of renewing his Indonesian passport after the age of 18 (as some have claimed) would constitute an official renunciation of his US citizenship? Also, would presenting himself at Occidental College as an Indonesian citizen (for admission and/or grant purposes) legally count as renunciation (or if not, be considered a disqualifyingly criminal act of fraud)?
Leo Donofrio completely dismissed these sorts of questions as too speculative to even consider, yet all or part of this scenario is at least reasonably possible even if not most likely. Has anyone ever seen these sorts of questions seriously addressed? Does any precedent exist?
Obama’s life story is more mixed up than a fresh load of wash just after the spin cycle.
The whole argument of this post is based on the assumption that Barack Obama Sr. was Barack Obama Jr’s father. There is no proof of that other than Obama’s, who we knows lies all the time, word. The strongest evidence supports the idea that Frank Marshall Davis as Obama’s father. If that were the case then Obama would not have been a British citizen at birth and not one today. Last know documented publicly available evidence indicates that Obama remains even today an Indonesian citizen and an American illegal alien.
http://octaman.com/comments/MalcolmO.html
How about this one? Quite a strong resemblance
I could not argue against any possibility you suggest I’ve come up with a number myself.
Except that, ‘legally’ it would be correct to say that the ‘Big0’ is the ‘little0’s’ father, whether he was the ‘actual’ biological father or not, by the mere ‘volume’ of pubic pronouncements of that being the fact.
Also, although his long form BC has not surfaced along with a marriage cert, there is a ‘divorce decree’ floating around that would be sufficient in court to establish the legality of parentage, barring any other contradictory evidence being admitted.
Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, even if he was adopted by Soetoro he would not have lost his US citizenship if he returned and established residency here before the age of 18. Supposedly he did return and live with his grandparents at age 10. Indonesian law has no effect on his US citizenship under US law. This line of research is a dead end.
“Indonesian law has no effect on his US citizenship under US law.”
Nor his British/Kenyan citizenship?!?!?
That is true IceTrey but…..since Barry was a minor upon his return to Hawaii from Indonesia, only his legal guardian could re-instate his natural born status. His mother did not return with him, nor did she return to Hawaii in the 2 year time period. This is what makes many of us believe he is not a legal citizen since he was never put back properly through customs. Face it……he’s a lying usurper.
————-
Mr. Charlton replies: Look, if I am correct in my understanding of this issue, US law does not recognize renunciations of US citizenship of minor US citizens, made by either them or their parent(s) or legal guardian(s). So regardless of any such renunciation or adoption in Indoensia, Obama would retain his citizenship status, which he acquired at birth. If his father was Obama Sr., he never was a natural born citizen, but if he was his father, and Dunham gave birth in the USA, he’d be able to acquire U.S. citizenship if his Mother filed for such, on the grounds of jus sanguinis from her; though in many places in a seemingly erroneous manner, many such births are considered ipso fact to confer citizenship on the grounds of jus soli, but in this case since the claimed father was never had legal domicile in the USA, that would not be the case.
Actually, assuming he was born in Hawaii, is gets his US citizenship from Section 305 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
and he was never natural born anyway, so that could not be reinstated
He most likely would not have lost his US Citizenship, if indeed he did have it at birth, by being adopted by Lolo Soetoro. That is true. However, if he had dual American/Indonesian Citizenship, as a result of the adoption, and did return to Indonesia as an adult to reaffirm his Indonesian passport, as is suspected, then he would have been renouncing American Citizenship at that point. It is believed he may have done this as his travels to Pakistan on an American passport may or may not have been possible at that point, that is also unclear. If this did happen, and he has not naturalized subsequently, he is still an Indonesian, and is an illegal alien here in the US.
——————-
Mr. Charlton replies: Certainly if he renounced his U.S. citizenship (there is no such thing in law as “American citizenship”) before an Indonesian official it would impact his political career, but I believe that in U.S. law that itself does not result in a loss of U.S. citizenship, since the latter requires that such a renunciation be made before a U.S. official.
In 1990, a story about Obama being the first black editor of the Harvard Review gave some background on his childhood and said he moved to Indonesia two years after he was born when his parents separated. It doesn’t mention Lolo Soetoro as his father, but it means that Obama’s own backstory is a little muddled. If he were adopted before the age of 5, he automatically became an Indonesian citizen at the exclusion of any other citizenship (they didn’t recognize dual citizens). Nothing in the naturalization law at that time would have prevented Obama from losing U.S. citizenship by adoption, so it makes sense that the story would change later that he didn’t move there until he was 6.
“His own upbringing is a blending of diverse cultures. Born in Hawaii, where his parents met in college, Obama was named Barack (blessed in Arabic) after his father. The elder Obama was among a generation of young Africans who came to the United States to study engineering, finance and medicine, skills that could be taken back home to build a new, strong Africa. In Hawaii, he married Obama’s mother, a white American from Wichita, Kan.
Two years later, Obama’s parents separated and he moved to a small village outside Jakarta, Indonesia, with his mother, an anthropologist. There, he spent his boyhood playing with the sons and daughters of rice farmers and rickshaw drivers, attending an Indonesian-speaking school, where he had little contact with Americans.”
Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html
Just one thing that might need to be addressed. Regarding adoption in Indonesia. You state: “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.”
Obama was 6 at the time he moved to Indonesia.
———————-
Mr. Charlton replies: Stanley Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetero were going together as early as pershaps the fall of 1963, when Dunham returned to Hawaii, after “finishing” her studies in Washington state. By 1964 they were going together, and Obama was still but 3 years. When they moved to Indonesia does not affect the issue. Ostensibly it can also be presumed that after the age of 5, a child could also be adopted.
Once source who contacted me from Indonesia said that the children of every marriage followed the citizenship of the father, even when adopted, for at least the time of the marriage. How the School record came to indicate Barry Soetero was Indonesian is yet unknown. You could not get enrolled without a govt issued idenfitication card; to get such a card for Barry, Lolo Soetero and Stanley Ann had to present some documents; one of which ostensibly was either an adoption record (or an amended Birth cetificate, indicating Lolo as the father), otherwise Barry could not be identified as an Indonesian citizen.
KENYA INDEPENDENCE ACT 1963 3(2)
both Obama’s father and grandfather were born in Kenya Colony “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”
——————–
Mr. Charlton replies: Tminu, John and I have discussed this below; and I concede that he has read 3(1) correctly, as indicating that the word “colony” in 3(2) and 3(3) does not refer to Kenya. Hence sections 2 & 3 indicate Obama lost his Citizenship status as a Citzien of the United Kingdom and Colonies IF he became a Kenyan Citizen.
I don’t want to belabor it, but if anyone else cited 3(2) claiming otherwise, I wont post the comment, since I don’t want to have to intervene 20 times and say the same thing. The links are in the article above, alll can read them.
I think by Barry’s own admission in his writings prior to running for office that he has told us of his heratige, re-gardless of the complexity of the law argued here? Think about it . He and Bill Ayres were runing the woods foundation, the annenberge foundation and trying to make ends meet; the fartherest thing from Barry’s mind was having to be a natural born citizen to run for President. In my opinion Barry is just a street hustler with a law degree.
John,
If you look a tthe Kenyan Constitution, it specifies in section 88, that someone who is entitled to Kenyan Citizenship in section 87, can register as a citzien of Kenya, but must be 21 years of age or older to do so; if a minor, his parent or legal guardian must do it for him.
However, in section 95 it reads:
“95. Commonwealth citizens
1. Every person who. under this Constitution or an Act of Parliament. is a citizen of Kenya or who, under any law for {he time being in force in a country to which this section applies. is a citizen of that country shall, by virtue of that citizenship, have the status of a Commonwealth citizen.”
That means, that though one becomes a Kenyan, he also becomes a Commonwealth Citizen.
All this is a bit confusing, because whereas the Kenyan Independence Act, pased by the parliament in London, says you lose your CUKC, the Kenyan Constitution passed by the Kenyan parliament in Nairobi, grants Commonwealth citizenship to all Kenyan citizens.
Because what is happening is this: Kenya is moving from being a protectorate/colony, to a Commonwealth Nation. Therefore, the article as I wrote it needs a minor correction, he does not retain his CUKC, he gets Commonwealth citizenship instead…I will make the corrections…
The KIA63 is very specific in retaining UK Citizenship for those children whose fathers were born in Kenya Colony. If Obama chose to become a Kenyan Citizen between the ages of 21-23—and he did go there then, then that’s all he is…Kenyan.
We’ve all wondered if he traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport, which all but prevented any American passport traveler from going there in 1981, but couldn’t he have also traveled there on a Kenyan passport?
Barack Obama is still a British Citizen, unless he’s either solely a full fledged Kenyan or Indonesian . Undeniable.
Natural Born Citizen of USA means NO other possible citizenships can enter in to the equation.
It seems Barack Obama was not the first admitted British Subject to run for President.
That distinction goes to Republican Candidate Charles Evans Hughes (1916). And he was challenged by Democrat Breckinridge Long.
Yes that Breckinridge Long! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breckinridge_Long
Breckinridge Long, Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution?, 49 Chi. Legal News 146 (1916); … [ couldnt find this article on the internet ]
http://www.fdlaw.com/articles/The%20Presidential%20Qualification%20Clause%20in%20this%20Bicentennial%20Year.pdf
[The papers of Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) span the years 1836 to 1950 with the bulk of the collection concentrated between the years 1905 and 1940. The papers focus chiefly on Hughes’s public service and consist of the following series: Family Papers, Correspondence, Subject File, Speeches and Writings File, Biographical File, Miscellany, and Oversize. The Correspondence series is organized in subseries of family correspondence, general correspondence, secretary of state files, and Supreme Court correspondence. The Addition contains a campaign song book from Hughes’ 1916 presidential bid.
The earliest items in the collection relate to Hughes’s father, David Charles Hughes. Located in the Family Papers, these items include letters of introduction by ministers and members of Wesleyan Methodist societies which Hughes brought with him when he immigrated to the United States from Great Britain in October 1855; documents attesting to his service as a minister of the New York Conference, New Windsor Circuit, Newburgh District; a letter acknowledging his voluntary withdrawal from Wesleyan University while in good standing; and several papers reflecting his affiliation with Baptist churches, including at Glens Falls, New York, where he was ordained as a Baptist minister. Other items include his certificate of naturalization in 1864 and a letter written by him in 1907 to the Sons of the American Revolution presenting genealogical documentation entitling Charles Evans Hughes to become a member of that organization. ]
http://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/text/hughes_ce.html
As you can see above, Hughes father was not naturalized until after his birth. Charles Evan Hughes was a Natural Born British Subject.
So I guess that makes the Democrats the original Birthers, oh the irony…
Obama IS a foreign national and Kenya knows it
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/obama-is-a-foreign-national-and-kenya-knows-it/
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT
Wednesday, 5th November, 2008
The House met at 9.00 a.m.
Dr. Khalwale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. You have heard none other than the Leader of Government Business acknowledge that because of Obama’s win in the United States of America (USA), the House is crippled.
Could we allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA? I humbly request! *****[note – “having a Kenyan ruling the USA”!]
and this little gem;
Kenyan historian Ali Mazrui states Obama Kenyan Citizen
http://www.archive.org/details/OtunnuOnLuoTribeMemberBeingElectedPresidentOct.252008
Otunnu on Luo Tribe Member Being Elected President, Oct. 25, 2008
Olara Otunnu (Harvard Law, 1978) relating the remark of Kenyan historian Ali Mazrui on the oddity that a member of Kenya’s Luo tribe (Barack Obama, a Kenyan citizen and Luo tribe member from birth) may become president of the United States before a Luo tribe member becomes president of Kenya.
I’m afraid your reading of the Kenya Independence Act is not correct. The preamble to the section that you highlighted, which you also quoted, reads:
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.
The key phrase is “one the appointed day”. On the appointed day, Kenya ceased to be a colony, and this section only refers to people in Kenya who had Citizenship of the UK and colonies due to birth in a place that was still a colony after Kenyan independence. This is standard working for most independence acts.
———————-
Mr. Charlton replies: John, it all depends, I suppose, on the effect of both the Independence Act and the Kenyan Constitution. By 1963, Obama Junior was no longer under the parental care of his father, and at least in U.S. law, since the marriage was bigamous, was never under his parental authority. The Kenyan Constitution grants citizenship to sons of Kenyans. The Independence Act converts Brtitish citizenship of Kenyans who become Kenyan citizens, into British Citizenship, but not all who get Kenyan Citizenship loose British Citizenship; because those born outside the Kenyan Colony can still keep British Citizenship.
Where was Obama Jr. born? if he was born in Mombasa, then I could see a strong argument for his loss of citizenship, even though he would also be illegitimate there, because British colonial law forbade a native marrying a Christian under native law, and so the second marriage would be bigamous.
If he was born in Hawaii, his father or mother might very well have registered the birth. According to section 3(c), such a registration if of Obama Jr as a British subject, rather than a Colonial subject, would have opted him out of the provision.
The question remains, whether Obama gets the benefit of Kenyan citizenship, without the loss of British Citizenship, on the grounds that he was illegitimate and not a resident in Kenya on the appointed day, just like those who were born outside of Kenya, or whose fathers or grandfathers were born outside of Kenya, but who became Kenyans on the appointed day.
So, if my grandfather was born outside of Kenya, my father in Kenya, and on the appointed day I was outside of kenya and my legal guardian did not claim Kenyan citizenship, would I be a Kenyan citizen or not?
British laws are murky…
If both my grandfather and father were born inside Kenya, and became Kenyan citizens, but I am illigitimate, and residing outside of kenya, under the legal guardianship of an American citizen, do I become a Kenyan or not; do I cease beign a British citizen by descent or not?
If you go back to the 1948 Nationality Act, Obama Jr. was a british citizen, not a colonial subject. If Obama Sr. did not act to make him Kenyan, he may not have become a Kenyan citizen; contrariwise if his birth was not registered as a Brit, he may not have remained a Brit.
The 2 Acts don’t spell this out.
If you find something let me know…
When writing this article, I followed the argument of the original author, who argued in favor of multiply citizenships, but who also did not consider these points.
One correction: “British Citizenship” did not exist until 1983 (when British Nationality Act 1981 took effect). Before that the citizenship was known as “Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC)”. CUKC was split into 3 categories – “British Citizen”, “British Dependent Territories Citizen”, and “British Overseas Citizen” by BNA 1981. (British Dependent Territories Citizen was recently renamed British Overseas Territories Citizen).
I don’t know every aspect of British Nationality Law (you are right, this is one of most complicated nationality laws out there – what other country has 6 categories of citizenship?). But I am pretty sure illegitimate birth did not confer citizenship by descent until fairly recently. So if he was illegitimate, he would not have been a Citizen of the United Kingdom on Colonies by descent.
If you think he was born in Kenya, he would be CUKC by birth, but would have lost it upon Kenyan independence.
If he was born outside of Kenya, and acquired CUKC by descent from his father, he would have lost it upon Kenyan independence. (The withdrawal of CUKC includes people like Obama who were CUKCs by descent from a father who got his CUKC status by birth in Kenya).
This is all pretty deliberate. The British government did not want an immigration problem and has since the early 60s tried its best to restrict the number of people who had a right to live or work in the UK. The withdrawal of CUKC from those who acquired the citizenship of an independent country is standard, and there are only a few exceptions. The main ones are
(1) Those who were connected to more than one colony. (Eg born in one colony and then moved to another). One generally retains CUKC when the first colony became independent (although CUKC was generally lost when the second colony became independent as well).
(2) Those who fell through the cracks and did not acquire the citizenship of the newly independent country. The classic case of this is Indians who moved to Africa. When Idi Amin expelled the Indians from Uganda in the early 70s, they moved en masse to the UK (because they had the appropriate CUKC passports), prompting the UK to further tweak its laws to prevent something like this from recurring.
(3) There were some colonies that negotiated a special exemption to the automatic loss of CUKC. Penang and Malacca are the most well known cases – this was negotiated because people from Penang and Malacca had reservations about being made part of a newly independent but Muslim country (Malaya, which became Malaysia upon later expansion).
(4) Hong Kong is also an interesting case. Hong Kong didn’t become independent, it was absorbed into China, and there was some controversy over this, since BDTCs ( this is after 1983 so no more CUKCs) from Kong Kong were not given an independent citizenship, but were made citizens of the Republic of China. In the end there was some compromise. BDTC was still withdrawn, but people with BDTC connected to Hong Kong could apply for a new category of British Nationality called “Britsh National (Overseas)” which they could keep for life but could not be passed down.
——————————-
Mr. Charlton replies: If what you say was true, then all the relatives of Obama who live in the U.K. today (and there are quite a few), how did they become British citizens, or how did they retain British citizenship?
I do not see how without a positive act of a BOS declaring his son, who does not reside in Kenya, a Kenyan citizen, that son would lose his BCbyD merely through the Kenyan Constitution. Do you mean to say that all those who had fathers and grandfathers born in Kenya, lost their British overseas citizenship, even if they wanted nothing to do with Kenya…I’d like to see the statute on that one…such an interpretation does not even seem logical.
From the little history I know of Kenya, the impending independence cause a great flight of trained personnell out of the colony, prior to the independence. It would make sense if that had something to do with their desire to retain their BOS or BCbyD.
As for not being a BCbyD if you were illegitimate, many sources say the opposite that BCbyD is by biological descent in British common law, not legal paternity. Sources for your interpretation?
OK, I found it… in the British Nationality Act of 1948, Part III (Supplemental), Section 32(2):
“Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”
——————–
“Subject to the provisions of”….what does this phrase mean? Does it mean, “as conditioned by the restrictions or determinations of”, or “only as applicable to”?
It seems to mean the former. Hence, ilegitimate children would not inherit citizenship, yet British common law did consider illegitimate children capable of inheriting citizenship, at least in England. Hmm…
Thanks John for publishing this critically important information. It just doesn’t make sense that an issue as critical as this has been left unanswered by our whole judicial system. It is even more disturbing to think about since he is doing things like this that I found at http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/print/wither_sovereignty/ :
*******************************************************************
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.
***************************************************
Why, please tell me why the mainstream media have not said a word about this?
—————-
Mr. Charlton replies: The Main Stream Media are all public stock companies, I think…when they are controlled by the wealthy, they put out the news the wealthy want you to hear….
If Americans don’t start supporting alternative media, they will lose freedom of information and their liberty…
I am especially thankful that a number of patriots came forward and volunteered to help as writers and editors here at The Post & Email. I could not do it alone forever.
I am also very glad that readers & patriots came forward and helped The Post & Email get off the ground, with about $1200 in donations. We now have the ability to expand on our own, though private investors are always welcome…
We have just established a legal fund to defray the expense of citizens who want to take legal action against the Department of Health in Hawaii or the AGs office there, to force the release of information regarding Obama’s vital records, and we shall shortly begin a petition campaign to selected govt. leaders to demand the release of those records…all this because a few patriots came forward…think what can be done with more help…
See our title bar, left for link to the Legal Fund…stay tuned for the petition campaign…