On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:59:14 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:27:50 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:04:37 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:50:55 -0500, BAR wrote:


Does the rule of law mean anything? From where do the laws of the USA
come? I find it interesting that a lawyer, The Obama, is so ignorant
of the laws of the USA. What is he hiding regarding his birth?

Absolutely nothing, he has disclosed his birth certificate, and the
state of Hawaii has declared it legitimate.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...ING01/81031064

Ah - my friend it may not be a legitimate certificate - by law. For the
reasons stated.

That's what's going to be the issue - is that certificate a legal
document based, as it is, on a flawed law?

Again - I think it's silly and frankly, insulting to Obama and, this may
surprize you, I'm on the opposite side - this is much to do about
nothing - Congress can fix this immediately.

But that's the issue - can Congress make this go away.

And that's were the fun of discussing this is.

However, the law you mentioned the Nationality Act of 1940 isn't the one
that applies. That law was superseded by the Immigration and Nationality
Act of 1952 (McCarren Walter Act).

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, section 349 (a), provided:

“From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a
national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall
lose his nationality by -- (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign
state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf
by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a
parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That *nationality
shall not be lost by any person under this section* as the result of the
naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age
of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on
behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian,
or duly authorized agent, *unless such person shall fail to enter the
United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-
fifth birthday*: ....”

Section 355 of that Act provided that:

“A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of
twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the
legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality
under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States
nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such
foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, *United States nationality
shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by
the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five
years without having established his residence in the United States*.”

Yeah - I just read about that, but, according to the legal beagles,
the section I referenced, the age clause still applies.

That's what I've read anyway.