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

Advertisements

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

6 Responses to Obama’s Mother and Expatriation by Marriage

  1. Expatriation through marriage ended with the passage of the Nationality Act of 1940 which went into effect January 12, 1941.

    http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/54%20stat%201137.pdf

    • arnash says:

      Skip the horrible huge image-file PDF link given by Dr. C. and just go to the text page at http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/2010/2010usc08.pdf Instead of 38 pages of distorted image, it’s 536 but the file size is about the same, 2.5 Mb. But who has time to read through all that? I suppose it has a good table of contents that might help finding the pertinent info.

      It is insufficient to claim that expatriation by marriage ended with the 1940 Act and then fail to give any reference to where in all that it is found. I can believe it did end, but who can explain the official Interpretation of the Attorney General in 1967-68 stating that it was still the policy of the U.S. government? He states that the Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v Rush means in effect that U.S. women who marry foreigners can’t lose their citizenship though that wasn’t what it was about, and that until they state that, he implies, it will not be the policy to NOT expatriate them. That means that in 1961 it WAS the policy to expatriate them. What other explanation is there?

      I’ve shared this discovery with various persons and websites with the hope that they can confirm or disprove it so that it has validity or is invalidated. But I don’t know that there are enough resource on the internet to get to the bottom of the issue. But this much is certain, all that matters is what the policy of the government was in 1961, not before or after. But then that isn’t really all that matters because the policy of the government can be a non-legal, unconstitutional bastardized interpretation by the Attorney General and not based on the actual law. We see that situation in the policy that deems every tom-dick-and harry born on U.S. soil to be U.S. citizens except those born to foreign diplomats, when by U.S. law a child of any foreigner is not a U.S. citizen. Only those born to immigrant aliens are citizens because only they are in compliance with the requirement of the 14th Amendment that they be born in the U.S. subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government and non-immigrants are not so subject. Only citizens and immigrants are subject. Foreigners and their children are subject to their own governments, as well as international treaties covering visitors, tourists, students, diplomats, etc. This is not rocket science.

      Regardless of whether or not Obama’s mother was expatriated by marriage, the very nature of the citizenship of American women when interwoven with the circumstance of marriage to a foreigner, and all the contradictory policies, statutes, practices, and decisions of judges regarding their citizenship demonstrates clearly that no child born of such a couple comes into this world free and clear of citizenship complications by being simply and naturally a citizens by birth (to citizens) not merely a citizen “at birth” by the beneficence of the federal government via automatic derivative citizenship.

  2. arnash says:

    I’d like to state that I’ve imaginatively over-simplified the history of expatriation by marriage. It was in fact, I’ve learned, a total mess. Laws would say one thing. The Executive branch would have a policy of its own, individual judges were the ones granting or denying citizenship and they could ignore the rules and that was that unless their ruling was overturned when the Feds appealed their decision to a higher court. So, bottom line is that there was no bottom line, it was all over the map. Confusion, people! A government of men and not one of laws. That’s the result of something as unnatural as expatriation. There are no rules in nature that apply. So its up to the choices of men.
    They chose this way and that way. but it appears that mostly the Executive branch held with expatriation by marriage regardless of the Law or the Courts, though that seems hard to believe, but it may have been possible if there was never any section of Nationality law that dealt clearly with the issue.
    Then it would have been purely up to the State Department and the Immigration & Naturalization Service. I suspect at this point that that was the situation in 1961 when Obama was born. If that is correct, then his mother would have been viewed as having relinquished her citizenship by marrying his father in a “shot-gun wedding” meant to make him “legitimate” but which in effect made him even more illegitimate in regard to presidential eligibility.

  3. arnash says:

    Barack Obama is a United States constitutional citizen! Therefore he has ALL of the rights of ALL citizens!…uhhhh…with one tiny little insignificant caveat, -he just has to recuse himself from serving as the Commander-in-Chief because that job was singled out by our founding fathers to be off-limits to constitutional citizens. -a slight minor footnote, a detail hardly worthy of attention because no one who wasn’t qualified to be President would ever have the audacity to run for an office that he’s unqualified to serve in. Right?

    ~~~Holy Crap! Rip Van Winkle just woke up and can’t believe what he’s seeing! A foreigner by birth is seating in the White House? How the hell did that happen? Isn’t anyone going to do something about it? Or at least say something about it? What are our national leaders and our guardians in the Press saying?
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  4. arnash says:

    Dear Rip Van Winkle, you shouldn’t be too shocked because one was elected and took office who holds it in violation of the Constitution. Every country makes a mistake now and then.
    He is not a constitutional citizen of the United States. But even if he were, that wouldn’t make him eligible to be the President. No one who is a Constitutional Citizen, or a Statutory Citizen, or a Naturalized Citizen, or an Administrative Policy “Derivative” Citizen is allowed to be President by the Constitution because they are not NATURAL Citizens but instead are various types of Naturalized Citizens. That means that they had one or both foreign parents. Natural citizens have only American parents. The office of the President can be entrusted only to them even though naturalized citizens may be even more patriotic, Constitution-love and defending citizens, but they aren’t Constitution- qualified to be President.

    • arnash says:

      Dear Rip, some people don’t give a tinker’s damn about abiding by the Constitution, nor even understanding it. Whatever seems preferable to achieve their idealistic humanitarian, elitist autocratic goals is OK because after all, the ends DO justify the means, right? Why let a piece of paper stand in the way of all that social good that redistributionism can produce? Anyone who can’t see that wisdom is must be a simpleton. Simpletons think that the government doesn’t know what’s best for everyone. How dare they question the wisdom and intelligence and integrity, and morals of the government? After all, their existence is for the sake of the government, not the other way around, right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: