Are you ignoring where factcheck goes on to say that Obama had dual citizenship because he was born in the US......that when Kenya became independent, he gained Kenyan citizenship rather than British......and that, as of his 23rd birthday, lost that Kenyan citizenship?
All of which also ignores the obvious fact that the US is under no obligation to concern itself with the citizenship laws of other nations in a case like this. Under US law, having been born on US soil, Obama was a citizen, whatever the British Nationality Act might or might not have to say.
Then again, these and other important facts about this have been provided to you over and over and you have continues to beat this dead horse anyway. So I doubt anything I or anyone else might post will have any effect on your obsession.
Obama lost Kenyan citizenship, yes but he still didn't lose his British Nationality. That remains to this day. He has dual allegiances and yes, he is a citizen like you say above, just not a natural born Citizen.
Watch and Listen:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8&feature=related]Natural Born Citizen? - YouTube[/ame]
Actually, according once again to the factcheck page where you got your pic from, he DID lose British citizenship as part of the Kenyan constitution when they gained independence.
Wrong. Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:
"97. Dual citizenship
1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament."
Hence, while the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. KenyaÂ’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect ObamaÂ’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship
The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by this:
"Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.
Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child's minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality."
Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.
Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning "declaration of renunciation" at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any "declaration of renunciation" of his British citizenship.
What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya's 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of ObamaÂ’s and his fatherÂ’s birth. ObamaÂ’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite KenyaÂ’s independence and new constitution.
This all leads to the question of how can Obama be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was at birth both a U.S. citizen (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and a British citizen which alone disqualifies him from having that status? Answer. He can't. But to make matters worse, Obama continues to be a British citizen at a time that he is currently the President of the United States which means he is a usurper. Think of this, do you believe that the Founding Fathers, who had just fought a war with Great Britain for America's Independence and who did not want a foreigner to occupy the Office of President, would have allowed a British citizen, who carries that status not only from birth but also to the time he occupies the Office, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its Military? I THINK NOT AND NO REASONABLE AMERICAN WOULD THINK THAT EITHER.
