Obama’s Mother and Expatriation by Marriage

The most important, though covert, issue of the 2008 presidential election was that of Barack Obama’s ancestry.  His American ancestors went back hundreds of years.  No, wait.  Make that his African ancestors who went back hundreds of years, -no make that thousands of years, no-wait, -make that tens of thousands of years.   If his father had married an indigenous American, (forever erroneous labeled “Indians” by Columbus) then there would have been a truly colossal clash of ancestries; -different continents, different cultures,  different religions, different races, and different countries.
Instead his significant ancestral clash was not in any of those realms but in that of his parents’ nationalities.  Which citizenship would he be born with?  British? or American? Or both?   If he had been born between 1907 and 1922, the answer was very simply.  It followed the same straight-forward tradition as society and religious teaching & practice.

By Christian tradition and Church Law, the wife was subordinate to the husband who was the head of the household.*  Therefore she was fully a part of his world and belonged to him.
The outward manifestation of that relationship was that upon taking the wedding vow giving herself to her husband, she thereby passed from the jurisdiction of her father to that of her mate.  If he was a foreign man, then her maiden citizenship, inherited from her father via patrilineal descent, switched to that of her husband as she left behind her former family name and her former family citizenship and adopted his and his alone, becoming fully a part of his world and his family.

That tradition is known as “expatriation by marriage”  For many years it was an integral part of the official policy of the American Immigration & Naturalization Service, as well as The State Dept., which is responsible for visas and passports.

But after women gained the right to vote, naturalization law changed to reflect their new status and the Cable Act of 1922 gave them back to some the U.S. citizenship which they lost due to the Nationality Act of 1907, -at least if they remained within or returned to the United States.  Later revisions, particularly the Act of 1940 protected their citizenship no matter where they lived with their foreign spouse.  So that was the law that Congress passed and that one would assume was followed.

But one learns from reading the official Attorney General nationality Interpretations of Supreme Court rulings, that that national policy of expatriation by marriage was only questioned, and possibly nullified after the U.S. Attorney General interpreted a Supreme Court ruling (Afroyim v Rusk) to mean that depriving American women of their citizenship could not be based merely on marriage to a foreigner.  That overturned the policy in theory but not necessarily in practice, -at least that’s the impression that the Attorney General’s interpretation gave.

He states what his extrapolation of the Supreme Court decision means for women marrying foreign men, but then states that nevertheless, it is not the policy of the government to follow it(!) (since it was not a direct ruling?).  That was written about 25 years ago (1969) but there seems to be nothing in the official Interpretations that supersedes it.  Very curious.  It leaves one not sure what the heck the policy was then or is today.  But I digress.

[updated observation: the executive branch is under no obligation to agree with the judicial branch’s ever-changing and contrary opinions.  Its officers are under a sworn oath to defend the Constitution and law of the United States, so if they believe those laws are constitutional, they may choose to ignore a court opinion that they view as wrong.  And that may have been the case.]

What one needs to know that is of significance is that the court ruling didn’t happen until 1967, -six years after Barack Obama’s mother married his father and gave birth to him.  So what applied to him when he was born?  Was it the law passed by Congress or was it a policy of the INS that was contrary to it?  Did they inexplicably still follow the law that was in force between 1907 and 1922, during which time American women were routinely expatriated by marriage to foreigners?  Judging by the statement of Attorney General Rusk in 1969 it seems as though he said the law was not the policy of the government.  Go figure.  Perhaps they distinguished between American women in America and those in permanent foreign residence with their foreign husband.

By the time the Supreme Court decision in 1967 was handed down, Obama was already a U.S. citizen (-living in Indonesia and adopted by his Indonesian father).  How then did he become a U.S. citizen, you wonder? He didn’t because his mother had no proof of where he was born since she had no birth certificate for him, and thus no proof of nationality.

Obama: son of a foreign student and an American female, -devoid of U.S. citizenship at birth?   So it seems because both his mother and foreign father were not subject to the full U.S. jurisdiction and so neither was their child.  In order to be fully subject, women in 1961 would have needed to be subject to military draft registration and conscription, training in boot camp, and two years of service, possibly in a war zone.  But women were and still are exempt from mandatory full subjection to the authority of the central government, -just as are foreign diplomats, visitors and students, and children born to them while on U.S. soil.  So BHO would not only have not been a natural born citizen but would not have been a U.S. citizen at all, -whether born in the U.S. or abroad.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution reads either:
A. Any person, including a derivative citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,”  or
B. No person except a a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,”

Which answer is incorrect?  Answer: A.  And which form of citizenship did Barack Obama possess at birth, -A, or B.?  Answer:  Neither.  Not a natural born citizen, nor a derivative citizen.  He was purely a British subject by birth unless the INS didn’t actually followed the law.

Who are a natural born citizens?  It is they who are born as citizens, -by the nature of their father.  Citizen parents produce citizen children.  Parents who are members produce children who are members.  It’s been that way since time immemorial in every clan, tribe, people, and nation on earth.  Foreign fathers produce foreign children.  No foreign national can father a natural domestic citizen.  Only native fathers can father true natives.  And only citizen fathers can father natural citizens.

Understand this: citizenship by any form of naturalization, including derivative citizenship via naturalization of parents, is not natural citizenship.  Natural citizens are not naturalized citizens, and naturalized citizens are not natural citizens.  The Constitution of the United States expressly requires that the President be no one except a natural born citizen, and naturalized citizens are not natural born.  They are man-made citizens even if they are made citizens at birth.

Natural citizens are “nature-made”, and require no law, statute, amendment, policy, judicial ruling, or treaty to produce their existence nor legitimize it in any way.  That’s why their citizenship is not found in any law ever passed by Congress.  Congress was given no authority to legislate regarding citizenship except in regard to those where are not natural citizens.  Those who are not natural citizens have direct connections to foreign nations, whereas natural citizens do not.  Their only connections are indirect, -through grandparents, -NOT through parents.

When foreigners become officially recognized residents of America, then any children born to them will be statutory citizens, -citizens by 14th Amendment common law.  Children born to statutory citizens are natural born citizens, -citizens by nature because they were born to citizen parents.  Any foreign father who becomes a naturalized citizen will father natural born citizens, and any children born to him before naturalization will automatically become U.S. citizens, but not natural born citizens because he was still an alien when the were born.

For better or worse, the man that the Democrat Party knowingly made their candidate even though he was not even close to being a natural born citizen, is heading for a reckoning some day.  Whatever the outcome will be, it will inescapably be tumultuous.  Perhaps it will be revolutionary in scope, including a full-blown constitutional crisis like the nation has never seen.  But it’s impossible to say which scenario would be worse; -one in which reality comes down like a hammer on a complicit government and the party that committed the biggest election fraud in history, or one in which the only response is like the sound of one hand clapping.  But silence, like action, is a choice when it is the choice of a free citizen with a free citizen’s responsibility to keep their wayward government close to, if not on, the straight and narrow path.

*  This is how a representative government works. The head of the household (the husband/father unless deceased) represents the house as a whole. The house as a whole elects representatives for local, state, US House & presidential electoral college members. The electoral college members represent the state as a whole in the presidential election and cast their vote for the candidate that best represents their state as a whole. Then last but not least we have the State governments (which represent the body of the state as a whole) and they were to elect the persons to represent the state in the US Senate. That is until it was usurped by liberals on both sides of the aisle.
by http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

by a.r.nash 1-27-12    http://obama–nation.com