1) The father, Obama, Sr., was already married to a Kezia in Kenya. Therefore, the marriage to Dunham was void ab initio due to bigamy. This meant Obama, Jr. obtained U.S. nationality by statute through his mother, either through 8 U.S.C. 1401, native birth to a U.S. mother, or 8 U.S.C. 1409, the out-of-wedlock provision.
Attorney Phil Berg claimed the 1409 statute is not applicable. He claims the Obama-Dunham marriage was valid because the United States did not recognize a Luo tribe ‘village’ wedding. However, I beg to differ citing the Hague Conventions. See, http://www.legallanguage.com/resources/treaties/hague/1978-march-14th-convention-2/
Nevertheless, a marriage is a form of contract in partnership. If it is witnessed and consummated, and with children, the contract is valid irregardless of so-called ‘recognition’ as it is between two people.
However, if the 1978 treaty did not reflect back to existing laws the U.S. observed in 1961, then the attorney may be correct, that by only a few months Dunham failed to meet post age-14 residency requirements to pass U.S. citizenship on to Barack Obama. This, of course, applies only to a Kenyan birth.
Then, consider the matter of abandonment. The status of legal parent comes into play when the father abandons the family. Obama abandoned Dunham and child almost immediately. Therefore, Dunham’s nationality was significant.
If abandoned and born in Hawaii, for which Obama refuses to offer certified proof, the 14th Amendment and 8 U.S.C. 1401 applied and Obama was automatically a British subject by birth outside of British jurisdiction, and a U.S. citizen by statute.
“FactCheck.org clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”
2) In most states, Obama, Sr’s impregnation of a 17-year old would have been statutory rape. Marriage of the rape victim voids prosecution. If memory serves, Hawaii’s age limit for statutory rape at that time was 15-years old, so Obama’s only reason for marrying her was to avoid appearances of statutory violation in his applications for scholarships and foreign student aid in states that did have the 18-year old statute.
3) Records show that Obama never moved in with Dunham, or provided any means of support. In fact, he left Hawaii without Dunham and child with the excuse the Harvard scholarship did not provide for his family.
4) Here is the U.S. statute for legal parent. Title 8, U.S.C. 1101(b)(2) “(2) The terms “parent”, “father”, or “mother” mean a parent, father, or mother only where the relationship exists by reason of any of the circumstances set forth in subdivision (1) of this subsection, except that, for purposes of paragraph (1)(F) (other than the second proviso therein) and paragraph (1)(G)(i) in the case of a child born out of wedlock described in paragraph (1)(D) (and not described in paragraph (1)(C)), the term “parent” does not include the natural father of the child if the father has disappeared or abandoned or deserted the child or if the father has in writing irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption.”
5) The British Nationality Act requires a child of a British subject born outside British or colonial control to register the child with the British secretary of state within one year, or the child loses British subject status. There is no proof, or reason to believe Obama went to the trouble of registering with Britain a Hawaii-born Obama, Jr. If born in Kenya, Obama would have been registered as a matter of course. The applicable British law is British Nationality Act, 1948, 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56. Part II, Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Citizen by Birth or Descent, “(b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later . . .”
The law is terribly dense and not fun to read, but I found the applicable subsection if the child was born in Hawaii.
6) Under the laws of the new Independent Kenya, Kenyans had the opportunity to remain British subjects, but had to register with the British secretary of state. This particular law is found in attorney Phil Berg’s research. Therefore, Obama lost British nationality at birth in his second year, or upon 1963’s Kenyan Independence.
7) Obama, Jr. was born with dual nationalities, but was solely U.S. between the ages of two and six. In 1967 he was derivatively naturalized Indonesian. Again, Phil Berg hired an Indonesian lawfirm to look that up. Dunham’s marriage to Lolo Soetoro and her Indonesian residency made Obama an Indonesian, a nationality he maintained well into his late teens, early twenties. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958, Law No. 12 (1945)
[8] Unbeknownst to Obama, and even though he passed himself off as Indonesian into his early twenties, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act automatically restored his U.S. citizenship, which he lost as a minor through his mother’s marriage. All it took was his continuous residency from age 14 through 19.
See the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) 301(a)(7) and 301(b)’s five-year continuous residency requirement to become a U.S. citizen, http://www.theodora.com/ina_96_title_3.html
This is a tangled web of immorality, fornication, deceit, lawlessness, and laws involving three or four nations. Obama was born a dual national, and lived most of his formative years as a third. He regained U.S. citizenship by a fluke of a law created to prevent minors naturalized by parents losing their U.S. nationality at birth. If he had so much as lived with his mother a summer or two during the required residency period, he would have lost U.S. citizenship, and would have had to formally apply as an adult, which required taking the Oath of Allegiance and Renouncing his Indonesian citizenship.
The ‘natural born citizen’ clause was insisted upon in Article II so that the highest executive office of the land, and the position of Commander in Chief, would not be influenced by foreign nationalities. A U.S. citizen by birth, with no other nationalities, titles of nobility, or nationalities from a foreign father was the only assurance.
For those arguing that ‘native born’ status is sufficient proof, I strongly encourage them to reconsider.
Imagine that were true. Then, a 14th Amendment ‘native born’ citizen at birth from a Mexican illegal alien would be eligible to be president, even if he resided in Mexico most of his early life, just barely meeting the 14-year residency requirement after age 35. I would suppose, then, that a Mariachi band playing ‘Hail to the Chief’ would then be in order?
UPDATE January 5, 2018: After the April 27, 2011 White House website posting of a PDF of Obama’s Hawaiian ‘long form’ Certificate of Birth (determined almost immediately to be a forged digital document) the true ‘place of birth’ for Obama remains unknown. There are four Obama ‘birth’ documents. The first one was presented during his run for nomination, the so-called ‘short form.’ At first I thought it was just a computerized database record, but without a ‘birth witness’ listed, which was strange. In time, I figured out, with the help of a Hawaiian citizen who visited a Vital Records clerk, that it was a §338-17.8. This explains 17.8 being a ‘certification of live birth’ versus a ‘certificate of birth’ as there was no witness at a licensed birthing facility. Only a citizen of the state, the mother, can request this form of birth record. A second (in the photo inserted) is a §338-17 used to refile from another state. The other two are from Kenya, a copy of the original and then a certified copy. These have the greater chance of being genuine documents as they are witnessed, but a U.S. court denied a petition to have them certified by a Kenyan court. It seems someone ‘got’ to the judge . . . in the end, all this is moot as a ‘natural born citizen’ gets his birth nationality through the father by blood, also known as sanguinity or jus sanguinis.
What about the mother’s U.S. citizenship? Isn’t that also ‘natural’? Until recent (1952) statutory provisions designed to ease ‘repatriation’ of a mother to her pre-marital U.S. citizenship, her children with the alien father did not have U.S. ‘citizenship at birth.’ They were natural-born citizens of the father’s nationality, but only U.S. citizens by statutory provisions in naturalization law. Most people confuse or conflate ‘citizenship at birth’ with ‘natural born citizenship,’ but the first is a process of naturalization law in which the child only gains U.S. citizenship through legal (not natural) conditions plus removal of the foreign nationality (de-alienage).
One judge declared citizens are either born or naturalized, but he neglected to distinguish statutory ‘citizenship at birth’ being part of naturalization law and process.
Affidavit Submitted to Members of Congress, but Ignored
Paralegalnm's Blog 
Leave a comment