As a British Overseas Citizen, I am actually quite familiar with British Nationality Law. With very few exceptions (and Kenya, as far as I know, is not one of them), persons acquiring the citizenship of a newly-independent country lose British nationality (at that time it was called “Citizenship of the UK and Colonies”).

Since Barack Obama acquired Kenyan citizenship at Kenyan independence, he would have lost his CUKC status in 1963. He would therefore not have acquired any of the new British nationalities (British Citizen, British Overseas Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen) created in 1983 as a result of the British Nationality Act of 1981.

Are you a moron? The city you claim President Obama was born in was not even a part of The British Colony Kenya in 1961. If President Obama were indeed born in this city as you moronically insist, then he would be Zanzibaran - Not British.

Really. Perusing the Wikipedia pages on Momabasa and Kenya before posting this nonsense would have prevented you from looking like one of those nonsensical Teabgaggers or a gasbag.

From Wikipedia:

Mombasa was part of the state of Zanzibar until 12 December 1963 when it was ceded to be incorporated into the newly independent state of Kenya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mombasa#History

i think this should be pushed to obama comes clean on where he was born and where he is a citizen of. obama has spent millions of dollars to keep his records hidden from us that in its self shows he is hiding some thing.

Please refer to the Kenya Independence Act passed by the UK parliament (the Kenyan Constitution is part of Kenyan law and would have no business commenting on British Nationality).

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1963/pdf/ukpga_19630054_en.pdf

I think the provision that CUKC is lost upon acquisition of Kenyan nationality (for most people anyway) is on the first page.

Yes, I know about BNA 1981 repealing certain sections of the Kenya Independence Act, but that does not apply to Obama. BNA 1981 applies only if you were a CUKC _before_ the commencement of that act (see for example BNA 1981 Art 26 which would have applied to Obama were he still a CUKC at that point). However someone like Obama was on longer a CUKC at that point and therefore was not covered by BNA 1981.

The repealing refers more to the fact the BNA 1981 effectively abolished the status of CUKC and replaced it with new categories (British Citizen, British Overseas Citizen, etc), so upon the commencement of BNA 1981 on Jan 1 1983, the status of CUKC became defunct. It does not mean that persons who lost CUKC status as a result of the Kenya Independence Act regained it. (If it did, most Kenyans born before 1983 would be British Overseas Citizens, which is certainly not the case).

Hi,

Attorney Mario Apuzzo, the attorney for the Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al lawsuit filed in January 2009, included the charge that Obama is likely still a British citizen in his complaint. He has also written extensively on this issue in his blog and has had his essays on this subject published in the Washington Times National Weekly. You can read the lawsuit and the various essays in his blog and in the Washington Times via links at his blog and at SCRIBD.com:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html

Essay on Obama is a Brit in 10 Aug 09 issue Washington Times:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18352802/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-20090810-Issue-Wash-Times-pgs-8-9-Obama-is-a-Brit

Also TheBirthers.org did a good piece several weeks ago regarding the importance of the year 1983 and the importance of age 23 to Obama in investigating Obama in Kenya.
http://thebirthers.org/misc/1983.html

Obama is definitely not a natural born citizen of the USA under our Constitution for this, and likely multiple other reasons as to the true but still hidden and sealed facts about his birth and early life up to age 23. Read Mario’s essays and The Birthers essay for more on that.

Keep up the good work and helping expose the usurper in the Oval Office.

RJ

The reason that Obama could declare in his autobiography that his father was not a citizen and that Obama was a dual national at the time of birth and that Obama was elected president, confirmed, and sworn in, is that the term National Born Citizen DOES NOT exclude persons whose parent or parents were foreign born. And it does not even exclude dual nationals.

Here is why. The meaning of Natural Born stems from the citizenship laws in the Colonies at the time of the Revolution, in which the term “Natural Born” simply meant someone who was born in the colony regardless of the number of parents who were citizens. In British law, a person born in Britain was a Natural Born Subject, regardless of the number of parents who were citizens. The original meaning of Natural Born was, and remains, simply a synonym of Native Born.

Thus anyone born in the USA is Natural Born. This being the case, it was always the situation that some people born in the USA are inevitably dual nationals. This is because the USA is a Jus Soli country, a country that gives citizenship based on the place of birth. However, many countries, France and Italy for example, are Jus Sanguinis countries, countries that give citizenship based on the nationality of the parents.

What happens when a child whose parents come from a Jus Sangunis country is born in a Jus Soli country? The child has dual nationality. Both laws apply. The US law granting Natural Born Citizenship due to the place of birth, and the foreign law that says that the child remains a citizen of that country due to the citizenship of the parents. Many Jus Sanguinis countries hold that the child of one or two of its citizens remains a citizen of that country EVEN IF THE PARENT OR PARENTS HAS BEEN NATURALIZED BY ANOTHER COUNTRY.

So, there have been many US citizens born with dual nationality. However, the child’s dual nationality does not affect the fact that she or he was Natural Born in the USA.

The fact of being born in the USA is what makes a Natural Born Citizen. This is clear from the meaning of Natural Born. Still, there are some who hold that because a foreign country claims nationality over the child that fact affects the National Born status.

This is not true, and here is why. That would mean that a foreign law was taking away something that was granted to all children born in the USA.

According to the Dual Nationality theory, if foreign nationality affects Natural Born, and if France is Jus Sanguinis, then the child of French parents would NOT be Natural Born. But, if France repeals the Jus Sanguinis law, then the child IS Natural Born. But, if France passes the same law again, the child is then no longer Natural Born. We can hardly allow other countries to jerk us around in this way, and we don’t.

So, both by the definition of Natural Born and by the fact that we have never and never should allow another country’s law to affect the basic status of our children, Dual Nationality does not and cannot affect Natural Born status.

I agree that Obama was born a citizen of the UK and colonies (and I believe he admits as much). I disagree that he now holds any form of British citizenship.

Here’s why: He lost his CUKC in upon Kenyan independence in 1963 (Kenya Independence Act of the UK). The British Nationality Act of 1981 repealed the parts of KIA that refer to citizenship. However, BNA 1981 also abolished the status of CUKC for everybody. Those who were CUKCs just before the commencement of BNA 1981 were given one of the three new citizenships (British Citizenship, British Dependent Territories Citizenship, British Overseas Citizenship).

The timeline is very important here:

Articles 11, 13 and 26 of BNA 1981 state that acquisition of any of the new citizenships depends on holding CUKC just _before_ BNA 1981 came into effect, that is, _before_ the relevant parts of KIA was repealed. So yes, the parts of KIA are no longer law, but someone like Obama would not have acquired any of the new categories of British citizenship because that depended on him having CUKC prior to the repeal.

Sorry, I hope that this looks better:

Re: “are you arguing that we adopted the English common law as our national law and that our Founders wanted to guard against foreign influence by allowing those with foreign citizenship to be eligible for the United States presidency?”

There are two separate questions here. The first is did we adopt English common law?

The issue is the MEANING of the term Natural Born. Under English common law and the law in the colonies at the time of the Revolution it meant born in the place, born in the Colony. So when the writers of the Constitution wrote Natural Born, that was the meaning of Natural Born that was most natural (joke) to them. It was the overwhelmingly common meaning of the term Natural Born.

We did not have to formally adopt English common law for this meaning to apply. But there is evidence that in some case we DID adopt English common law.

For example, in the first Constitution of the State of New York, written in 1777 in which John Jay was the principle writer of the document, it says: “XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.’

So you see the Common Law was on Jay’s mind, and in some cases it became the laws of the states. Obviously, it had to be the case. The US could not rewrite all the laws right away. But the fundamental question is what does Natural Born mean? It had a meaning in the laws of the colonies and common law, and a meaning as defined by Vattel. What evidence is there that the Constitution used the Vattel definition and not the definition used by the laws at the time?

Re: “our Founders wanted to guard against foreign influence by allowing those with foreign citizenship to be eligible for the United States presidency?”

Yes it is absolutely clear that a foreigner is not eligible to be president. Also, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be president. BUT is the child of a foreigner who was born in the USA eligible to be president?

That is the issue. If the writers of the Constitution thought that a child of a foreigner was a foreigner and hence not eligible, at least one of them would have said it. There would have been some kind of discussion about the difference between ordinary born in USA citizens and citizens born in the USA of foreign parents. But there is no such discussion in the Federalist papers or elsewhere.

Is a child born in the USA in some way a foreigner because her parents were not naturalized before her birth? Does she lose that foreign quality if the parents were naturalized after her birth?

I am not referring to the issue of fairness. I am simply asking whether the writers of the Constitution would have applied a strict rule requiring US parents for eligibility when the difference between a child of naturalized parents could be simply a matter of timing and the clear meaning under the laws at the time was that Natural Born simply meant born in the country.

Re: “And are you also claiming that a natural-born citizen is natural-born by means of government statutes?”

I wasn’t discussing statutes. The ORIGINAL meaning of Natural Born was born in the country. Subsequent statutes added to the meaning. Sometimes children who were born outside of the USA were also considered Natural Born. This new meaning of Natural Born may apply to McCain, or it may not. But Obama is certainly qualified under the original meaning.

Re: “I’ve mentioned this several times before - the English common law at the time of the American Revolution had a very different view of citizenship (or more accurately, subjection) than the Founders’ views of the relationship between individuals and their government. ”

Sure. Who would disagree? I feel so much better being a citizen than a subject. I get a little thrill of pride. But the fact that we are a glorious republic and they are a backward looking monarchy does not mean that I have to have two US parents to be Natural Born and they do not need any to be Natural Born. In fact, in a republic it should be just the reverse. Remember: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

In a monarchy men are NOT created equal, yet the common law holds that regardless of the number of parents, a person born in Britain is Natural Born. But, because of Vattel (but not the writings of any framer), you say we require two US parents to be Natural Born. Well, where is the proof?

Okay, say that citizen and subject ARE different. Natural Born is the same.

Frankly, the terms citizen and subject are similar in a very basic way. Both citizens and subjects are residents of a country with a right to be there. The different emotional meaning of citizen and subject is relatively recent. In laws written in the era of the Constitution the two terms were used interchangeably.

For example, in the supplemental treaty between the US and Britain both sides are given the rights and privileges of Natural Born Subjects:

SUPPLEMENTAL TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA

10. Neither shall the independence of the United States be construed any further than as independence, absolute and unlimited, in matters of government, as well as commerce. Not into alienation, and therefore the subjects of his Britannic majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as natural born subjects, and enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the respective dominions and territories in the manner heretofore accustomed. (The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Volume 6, Hartley to Franklin.† London, March 31, 1783.[Note †: † 2 Sparks' Dip. Rev. Corr., 429.] http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/natural-born-treaty-between-us-and-great-britain)

If Natural Born meant two US parents to the USA this sentence would not make any sense. If Americans were already proud to be citizens and determined not to be subjects, this sentence would not make any sense.

Re: “To assume that they adopted the meaning of “natural-born subject” put forth by Blackstone, which was in turn based on the laws of the British Empire, is to assume that they agreed with the form of government that they had just severed ties with and explicitly rejected.’

Let’s see, a dual house legislature, trial by jury, we are so very different than Britain, we changed so much.
Besides, its not an assumption. The fact is that the term Natural Born was commonly used in the laws at the time to mean “born in the country.” Vattel did not even use the term Natural Born. He wrote in French (using the term I think, without searching “les naturales”) and the term Natural Born was not used in a translation of Vattel until years after the Constitution was written. Some wit has pointed out that as far as America is concerned “les naturales” is only the Indians.

Re: ‘it was clear that the founding generation understood that citizenship was acquired not from the mere place of birth, but from extraction, and there is plenty of evidence of that.”

Yes, then how about this quotation from Madison:

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

Let me stress what he said: “It is what applies in the United States.”

(This by the way knocks out dual nationality as having an effect on Natural Born as well)

And the Wong Kim Ark ruling held:

“the US Supreme Court in the Wong case:
“every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

(And the same ruling held that “citizen” and “subject” are synonyms where the issue of “natural born” is concerned.)

Notice that it said that in Britain all who were born were Native Born and THE SAME RULE applied in the United States under the colonies and that it continued.

Re: “or the time being, I would submit the very first naturalization act for evidence. In 1790, our Congress established that those born abroad to citizen parents were “natural-born citizens.’

The answer is that at this point in time countries were beginning to play around with the original meaning of Native Born. The original meaning was just born in the country. With the legislation the aim was to add to the original definition a new group of people with the same rights, people who would not normally be Natural Born (because they were born OUTSIDE) but who became Natural Born under statue.

As the Wall Street Journal has pointed out, this new meaning of Natural Born may or may not apply to Article II, but the original meaning certainly applies, and it simply means born in the USA. And, as you say, the law was change to make the Natural Born into simply citizen.

Re: “If we assume that what you called its “original meaning” applies, then we are simply assuming the original meaning according to British monarchical law.”

Let me reply as I think one of the “originalists” on the court (Scalia and Alito for example) might reply. They would say that the phrase was used as it was used at the time and that if the writers of the Constitution wanted to use the term Natural Born in a new way, they would have said so.

We have discussed the background to the term. Take a second to ponder the vast number of experts who disagree with your interpretation and ask yourself why.

For example, such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

Yale Law Review wrote: It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not. (Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988)

The argument that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen was sent to the members of the Electoral College by people who were opposed to Obama, asking the electors who were supposed to vote for Obama not to, and all the 365 who were supposed to vote for Obama still voted for Obama. The US Congress (the one one from before the November election) confirmed his election without a single legislator commenting after the vote that she or he really wanted to vote against Obama because of him not being a Natural Born Citizen.

A small group of Republicans have introduced a bill to make future candidates prove that they are eligible. The bill would require the candidates to post their birth certificates, NOT the birth certificates of their parents.

ALL of these could be wrong. But they are only wrong if there are five votes on the Supreme Court that Natural Born takes two US parents, and I figure that there isn’t even three.

Re: “Is it logical to allow someone with foreign citizenship to run the federal executive branch? And would that safeguard the position from foreign influence?”

The thing you have to realize is that the framers allowed us to make our own mistakes. There is a tremendous number of things that are bad that the framers allowed us to do. For example, Article II does not bar us from electing a former criminal. The framers did not feel that it was important to protect us from electing a former criminal. They thought that we could make that decision ourselves.

Similarly, a person who had fought against the revolution, a Torry, is not barred by Article II. Nor is a traitor. Benedict Arnold would have been eligible. Why? Because the framers thought that we could, and should, make that decision ourselves.

So, if a vast class of bad people are not specifically barred from being president, why bar a child of a foreigner if the child was born in the USA? Does the child inherit the fact that that his parent was a foreigner? Is the child of German immigrants who was born before they were naturalized different from one who was born after they were naturalized?

But it is not for us to perform the logic. We need to see what the framers thought and whether they were thinking “Vatel” or thinking “the law” when they wrote Natural Born Citizen. There is no written evidence for Vattel’s two-parent theory. The evidence from Madison and others is that the framers believed with Blackstone that birth in a place is the key thing that affects allegiance. So the child of a foreigner born in the USA becomes a US citizen at birth because of being born here.

If they were thinking of the law at the time (and they were), then Natural Born is a synonym for native born, and that means anyone born in the country.

And if it means anyone born in the country, then the fact that there is some foreign law that says that the child is a foreign citizen cannot affect that. IF we allowed a foreign law to affect the definition of Natural Born, then we would give to foreign countries the right to affect who will be eligible to be president. Cede that principle and they will use it. Some foreign country that does not like a presidential candidate will pass a law that says that because of parents or all persons in a class that includes him were citizens of that foreign country, and that would make the candidate not eligible.

That would be giving foreign governments just the kind of influence that our framers did not want to give them.

So, you see, the decision over whether to allow someone who was at one time or for that matter still is a Dual National is up to the voters. That is the essence of the Constitution. We have the choice. The issue of dual citizenship is something that should have been discussed more before the election. It was discussed some, and we voted for the fellow who at one time (not continuing now) had dual nationality. That also is the essence of the Constitution, that a fair decision was made by the voters and the electoral college, and that is the way the system works.

And, certainly, the Supreme Court would not take the election away unless the Constitution clearly said that a Dual National or a person without two US citizens was not eligible. Most scholars, and the voters, think that they are eligible.

I appreciate the civilized discussion.

Re: “If Obama is so certain that constitutional law will support his claim to the presidency, why is he doing everything in his power to keep all relevant information/documentation concealed from the public?”

This crosses from the legal issue of whether a dual national or a person without two US parents is eligible to be president to the discussion of facts such as the allegation that Obama has done “everything in his power” to keep things concealed from the public.

The facts are that Obama has done more than any other president to prove that he was born in the USA. No president has ever shown his birth certificate before. Obama posted his and had it authenticated by BOTH Polifact and FactCheck, and the facts on it were twice confirmed by the two authorities in Hawaii who looked into the birth certificate file. So, the evidence for Obama being born in Hawaii is overwhelming, and Obama certainly did not conceal it. He showed the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which is the only one that Hawaii sends out.

It is sometimes alleged, falsely, that Obama has spent “millions” concealing documents. But that also is not true. There were and are NO lawsuits against Obama asking only for documents, and all of them that I have looked at (which is by far most) do not ask that Obama provide his birth certificate to a court at all.

The lawsuits before the election were to stop the election. Most of the lawsuits after the election were to stop the certification or to stop the Inauguration. The remaining cases claim a lot of things, always including the issue of whether Obama is eligible because of his father’s citizenship. So, none of these cases were for documents, and so Obama has not opposed a single case for documents.

Then why hasn’t he shown his college records, you may ask. Why should he? It is his right not to. In the case that asked for the records, once called Keyes v Obama, it asked for all his college records, meaning the grade point average in every course. No president has ever shown that. Some have shown grade point averages. The point is that Obama did not have to show his college records, and there is no reason why he should not defend that right.

One more point of clarification:

The form of British nationality that Obama was born with (”Citizen of the UK and Colonies”) no longer exists - it was abolished by the British Nationality Act 1981. [See BNA 1981, Schedule 9, which repeals BNA 1948 where CUKC was introduced].

All current forms of British nationality were introduced by BNA 1981 (or later legislation). Acquiring any of these forms of British nationality upon the commencement of BNA 1981 (on 1 Jan 1983) was dependent on one’s status immediately prior to the commencement of that Act [See BNA 1981, Articles 11, 13, 26].

The repeal of KIA by BNA 1981 therefore does not mean that Obama regained British nationality because:

(1) The form of British nationality that Obama had and could have regained (CUKC) was abolished by BNA 1981.

(2) New forms of British nationality introduced by BNA 1981 were dependent on one’s status prior to BNA 1981 (i.e. the pre-repeal version of KIA matters). Since the pre-repeal version of KIA withdraws CUKC from those acquiring Kenyan citizenship upon independence (with a a few exceptions that Obama does not quality for), Obama’s pre-BNA 1981 status did not entitle him to any of the new categories of British nationality.

It is unfortunate that British Nationality Law is so horrendously complex. How many countries can claim to have six current categories of nationality [BC, BOTC, BOC, BS, BPP, BN(O)], at least two defunct categories [CUKC, BDTC] and at least two associated categories [Commonwealth citizen, EU citizen]? Britain is also one of the very few countries for which citizenship/nationality does not automatically confer the right to work of live in the UK. But that is another matter entirely.

If SMRSTRAUSS posts here again, you need to be aware he is an official O-Bot whose mission is to undermine blogs questioning Obama’s eligibility. One blogger had this to say about SMRSTRAUSS:

“With a little bit of work, I was able to find out this O-bot was likely Obama Superdelegate from DC, Shadow Senator Paul Strauss.”

http://www.reboottherepublic.com/blog/currentevents/i-just-kod-an-obot-o-bot-on-the-birth-certificate-issue/

==========
Anyone concerned about the eligibility issue should see these graphics:

Graphic Defining “Citizen” vs “Natural Born Citizen”
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/graphic-defining-citizen-vs-natural.html

Graphic Defining “Natural Born Citizen”
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/10/graphic-defining-natural-born.html

Obama The Unconstitutional Usurper
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/graphic-obama-unconstitutional-usurper.html

3 Graphics: Quo Warranto Process to Remove Obama
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/quo-warranto-to-remove-obama.html