Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For anyone who is interested [un]InformedConsent's reliance on Part II Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, Citizenship by birth or descent, just went down the toilet.
Relying on paragraph 5 subsection (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
Was added during the Imperial Conference of 1937 to clarify the nationality of 16 Realms which were no longer under the jurisdiction of the Crown, i.e, such countries as South Africa, Canada and Australia.
The emergence of the new Commonwealth, where most nations became republics and thereby not allegiant to the Crown obviously caused changes to the hitherto encompassing British citizenship. These changes also had significant consequences on the fifteen realms which, together with Britain, remained under the Crown. Eventually it became accepted that, whilst the sixteen realms shared the same monarch, that sharing did not extend beyond the person of the Queen.
The Crown of the United Kingdom, which was hitherto held to be ‘indivisible’, had evolved into a ‘divisible’ Crown owned separately by the individual constitutions of each realm. It is thus that, in Australia, we recognise the Queen as Queen of Australia, likewise in Canada and the other realms.
Today those nations which were once, in the words of the Statute of Westminster: “united one to another by a common allegiance to the Crown” are now separate not only as far as citizenship is concerned, but also with regard to a common allegiance.
One might note that mention of the United States is boldly absent because the U.S. is neither a member of the Commonwealth or a Colony but a foreign country!
As a result, subsection (a) has no bearing on Obama's alleged dual citizenship, thus subsection (b) is the relevant statute. Ergo, Obama has not now nor has he ever been a citizen of the Great Britain.
The British Government realized that the Canadian Citizenship Act would be quickly followed by similar legislation in other Commonwealth countries, especially those like India and Pakistan, which were about to gain independence, and which would wish to assert this by passing their own citizenship laws. The British Government decided to recognize this new reality and, after consultations with Commonwealth countries, proposed to restrict British nationality to recognize two types of British subjects: firstly citizens of the the UK and Colonies; and secondly citizens of independent Commonwealth countries. The British Government had no intention of relinquishing responsiblity for its Colonies and changing their citizenship. nor did it wish to remove British subject status from citizens of independent Commonwealth countries. British status from citizens of independent Commonwealth countries. British subject status, although it would become much less important for Commonwealth citizens, was still seen as contributing to the unity of the Commonwealth and to Britain's leading role.
Then anyone else's personal experience can contradict that.
Quote:
No. I automatically was an Italian citizen at birth by Italian law. They simply did not know I existed. They could not know I existed unless and until I took an affirmative action to claim the benefits of that citizenship.
Just as Barack Obama would have to take an affirmative action to claim the benefits of his British Citizenship.
No. Read the British Nationality Act of 1948. Application and/or registration was not necessary for Obama to be a British citizen at birth.
Quote:
The vast majority of American dual citizens are not even aware of their status and will go to their graves completely unaware that they ever had the status or bore any obligation to the laws of those other countries.
Are you trying to claim that the vast majority of Americans have non-US citizen parents like Obama, and don't know it? Seriously?
Quote:
This is the most egregious feature of the Birther claim. Not only does it demand US laws be inferior to those of every other nation on the globe from Venezuela to Vanuatu... but it imagines that Allegiance is a magic genetic thing passed in the blood... as if a newborn infant has an allegiance to anything other than it's mother's breast.
Inferior? No. Necessitates that US citizenship law co-exist with other countries' citizenship laws in a mutually acceptable manner? Yes. The US State Department acknowledges other countries may have valid citizenship claims on US citizens.
Quote:
It is frankly... nuts.
Take that up with the US State Department. Their stated protocol contradicts your 'opinion.'
Oh.... you are grossly in error on that assertion. The final decision in Wong Kim Ark cannot have been reached if the definition of natural born citizen derived from any source other than British common law. Remove that definition, and the final decision has no support.
It is absolutely rato decidendi.
LOL... sorry, son. But that dog won't hunt.
I disagree. And the judges' ruling supports my position. The judges DID NOT rule Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen. They ruled him a citizenonly. Hmmm... Seems they know more than you think you do.
For anyone who is interested [un]InformedConsent's reliance on Part II Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, Citizenship by birth or descent, just went down the toilet.
Relying on paragraph 5 subsection (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
Was added during the Imperial Conference of 1937 to clarify the nationality of 16 Realms which were no longer under the jurisdiction of the Crown, i.e, such countries as South Africa, Canada and Australia.
The emergence of the new Commonwealth, where most nations became republics and thereby not allegiant to the Crown obviously caused changes to the hitherto encompassing British citizenship. These changes also had significant consequences on the fifteen realms which, together with Britain, remained under the Crown. Eventually it became accepted that, whilst the sixteen realms shared the same monarch, that sharing did not extend beyond the person of the Queen.
The Crown of the United Kingdom, which was hitherto held to be ‘indivisible’, had evolved into a ‘divisible’ Crown owned separately by the individual constitutions of each realm. It is thus that, in Australia, we recognise the Queen as Queen of Australia, likewise in Canada and the other realms.
Today those nations which were once, in the words of the Statute of Westminster: “united one to another by a common allegiance to the Crown†are now separate not only as far as citizenship is concerned, but also with regard to a common allegiance.
One might note that mention of the United States is boldly absent because the U.S. is neither a member of the Commonwealth or a Colony but a foreign country!
5.(1)(a) includes those born in a foreign country, so it would apply to Obama.
But read 5.(1) again, carefully.
Quote:
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—
We can stop here because that last sentence doesn't even apply to Obama. His father wasn't a citizen of the UK by descent only; he was a UK citizen by birth.
Then anyone else's personal experience can contradict that.
Not anyone's, no. They would first have to be dual citizens.
That said... can you show me an example of where anyone's personal experience does in fact contradict that? Of course you can't, because my experience is not merely typical, it is the rule.
That is an absolute falsehood, and you know it. Italian law on jus sanguinis is the same as almost every other nation that grants it... to include the United States and the United Kingdom. You are frankly trying to invent some fake difference between them, but there is none.
Pay very close attention to these next two sentences, because they are true for me, they are true for Obama, they are true for any dual citizen anywhere on the planet.
Any nation that grants jus sanguinis citizenship at birth is powerless to act on the obligations of that citizenship until the citizen makes an affirmative act to claim the rights afforded by it. And all nations (to include Great Britain) require that citizen to document and prove their qualification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
No. Read the British Nationality Act of 1948. Application and/or registration was not necessary for Obama to be a British citizen at birth.
Just as it is not necessary for me to apply or register to be an Italian citizen at birth. However, if I want an Italian passport, I must prove to the Italian Government with certified documentation of my descent before they will acknowledge it. After all... they're not just going to take anyone's word for it.
And pay attention here again, because this is also a very important sentence.
For President Obama to get a UK passport, he would have to prove to the British Government with certified documentation of his descent before they will acknowledge it.
You earlier were making silly noises about anonymity... but President Obama is certainly not anonymous. And still... he could never access the benefits of his British citizenship without making taking the affirmative action of claiming it.
Just like Italy. Just like the US. Just like every other nation with perhaps the single exception of Poland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Are you trying to claim that the vast majority of Americans have non-US citizen parents like Obama, and don't know it? Seriously?
Nope. Your inability to grasp simple discussions remains unblemished. I never even said the vast majority of Americans were dual citizens. The actual number is probably only about 30%... and most of them (like me) have two US citizen parents. And yes... most of them have no idea that they are dual citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Inferior? No. Necessitates that US citizenship law co-exist with other countries' citizenship laws in a mutually acceptable manner? Yes. The US State Department acknowledges other countries may have valid citizenship claims on US citizens.
Alas, no. You are absolutely claiming US law inferior, because you have claimed that any foreign country... no matter how small and unimportant... can trump US citizenship law by declaring any American citizen one of their own even without that person's consent. Even without that person ever having set foot in the nation making the claim.
I take a somewhat more patriotic stand on that issue than you do. I actually consider the US a sovereign nation, not a rump state of Lebanon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Take that up with the US State Department. Their stated protocol contradicts your 'opinion.'
You mean the same State Department that has declared in court under oath that president Obama is a natural born US citizen?
You appear, again, to be a bit confused about the State Department's actual position on this issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
