[Ed. UPDATED 09.04.09 3:49 PM – Factcheck.org admitted false fact was published, acknowledged that this blog post caught it. See my follow up: FACTCHECK.ORG CAPITULATES.]
The relationship between President Obama and Factcheck.org has been on my mind recently as I’ve been preparing an exhaustive (and exhausting) research report pertaining to the issue of whether the President of the United States is currently a citizen or national of any other country besides the US.
As far as I can tell, President Obama himself never publicly stated during or after the election that he isn’t a Kenyan citizen.
In a now famous report, Factcheck.org, in response to a story originally published in The Rocky Mountain News, attempted to lay rest to allegations that Obama was currently a Kenyan citizen. In that report, Factcheck.org. stated that Obama had been a Kenyan citizen up until August 4, 1982 when they allege Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired.
Obama republished – at his web official site, Fightthesmears.com – only that part of the Factcheck.org analysis which stated that the President was a British citizen at birth. Obama republished this word for word thereby admitting the truth of the following assertion:
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…
The question arises as to why Obama didn’t republish the full article by Factcheck.org concerning his various foreign citizenship issues. Perhaps by placing a link on his page – just above the quote above – back to Factcheck.org, Obama intended to endorse all of the conclusions made by Factcheck.org in the report. But since the report has now been established to contain false and misleading data, I do not believe it’s fair to assume Obama endorsed that false data since he did not republish it.
FACTCHECKING Factcheck.org
Obama’s failure to endorse all of the Factcheck.org report inspired me to investigate whether all of the information presented therein was accurate.
I can now report that it has been conclusively established – the Factcheck.org report contains false information.
Two inaccuracies have been discovered.
Factcheck.org – Inaccuracy #1: President Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship did not expire on August 4, 1982.
Here’s what Factcheck.org reported in rebuttal of a Rocky Mountain News Report:
…Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. So The Rocky Mountain News was at least partially correct.
But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.
At Section 97, subsection (1), the Kenyan Constitution provides:
97. (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.
Please take note of the part above which states:
– “cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date”.
The “specified date” is defined at Section 97, subsection (6):
(6) In this section “the specified date” means –
(a) in relation to a person to whom subsection (1) refers, the date on which he attains the age of twenty-three years;
This law provides a two year window for a person to make the necessary declarations between the ages of 21 and 23. At the age of 23, if the person has not made the declarations, they cease to be a Kenyan citizen. (Unless they fall under various statutory exceptions which Factcheck.org also failed to discuss. I will examine the exceptions in a future report.)
So, according to the Kenyan Constitution, the earliest date Obama’s Kenyan citizenship could have expired is August 4, 1984.
Factcheck.org was absolutely wrong when they reported Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1982.
This is not just an issue of numerical semantics. Whether Obama was a Kenyan citizen on January 1, 1983 has important relevance to Obama’s status in the United Kingdom and to Commonwealth Citizenship in the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly known as the British Commonwealth).
On January 1, 1983, the British Nationality Act of 1981 went into effect. Section 37 of the BNA 1981 makes all citizens of commonwealth nations, who had been British Subjects before commencement of the BNA 1981, to thereafter “have the status of a Commonwealth Citizen“.
Section 50 of the BNA 1981 also states that Commonwealth Citizens are not aliens of the United Kingdom.
So, since Obama was a citizen of Kenya on January 1, 1983, he was also a Commonwealth Citizen and he was not an alien in the United Kingdom from that date. Had Obama’s citizenship expired on August 4, 1982 – as was incorrectly stated by Factcheck.org – then the British Nationality Act of 1981 (which didn’t go into effect until January 1, 1983) would not have governed Obama’s status.
The term “Commonwealth Citizen” – since the BNA 1981 – has effectively replaced the former title of “British Subject”. Up until the BNA 1981, both terms were synonymous and held synonymous rights and obligations.
It’s important to note that Section 35 of the BNA 1981 states:
s 35 Circumstances in which British subjects are to lose that status.
A person who under this Act is a British subject otherwise than by virtue of section 31 shall cease to be such a subject if, in whatever circumstances and whether under this Act or otherwise, he acquires any other citizenship or nationality whatever.
I’ve seen some very mistaken analysis of this section. Let me set the record straight: Even full British citizens ceased to be “British subjects” when the BNA 1981 went into effect.
The British government is doing away with the term, “British Subject”. From January 1, 1983 and onwards, persons who were previously British subjects and citizens of the UK (or of any Commonwealth nation) are now “Commonwealth Citizens” of the Commonwealth of Nations. “Commonwealth Citizen” has replaced “British Subject”.
If you were a British Subject before the BNA 1981, you are now (with very limited exceptions) a Commonwealth Citizen. It’s important to note however, that prior to January 1, 1983, the term British Subject was still in effect and had effective legal implications. We will return to this later.
Wiki says this about the Commonwealth leadership:
“Under the formula of the London Declaration, Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of the Commonwealth, a title that is currently annexed to that of British monarchy.“
Commonwealth citizens have the following rights :
In the United Kingdom, as in many other Commonwealth countries, Commonwealth citizens… are in law considered not to be “foreign” or “aliens”… Commonwealth and Irish citizens enjoy the same civic rights as British citizens, namely:
- the right, unless otherwise disqualified, to vote in all elections (i.e., parliamentary, local and European [1] elections);
- the right, unless otherwise disqualified, to stand for election to the British House of Commons;
- the right, if a qualifying peer or bishop, to sit in the House of Lords; and
- eligibility to hold public office (e.g., as a judge, magistrate, minister, police constable, member of the armed forces, etc.).
So, as you can see from all of the above, the date which Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship creates a whole set of complex international law issues which have yet to be resolved.
The facts are important and do need to be checked and reported accurately. If you are going about the world doing business under the name “Factcheck.org”, you should be held to a high standard of integrity and thoroughness, especially when reporting facts which intended to influence the national election of the United States.
The irony is that Factcheck.org was allegedly correcting The Rocky Mountain News story which stated that Obama was currently a dual citizen of Kenya. Suffice it to say, I am not impressed with Factcheck’s fact checking abilities. We shall see if they have the humility to correct their mistake.
Because of various statutory exceptions regarding the declarations mentioned in Section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution, the original report by the Rocky Mountain News – stating that Obama was a dual citizen of Kenya and the US – might have been accurate. Information not currently in the public domain is necessary to answer this question as well as the question of whether Obama is currently a British citizen.
This documented false reporting by Factcheck.org coupled with the analysis below strips them of any previously assumed penchant for accuracy and objectivity.
Factcheck.org either dropped the ball on this one, or they reported the facts wrong on purpose as part of a propaganda package of deceit for the purpose of getting Obama elected. It’s one thing to say that the public was aware of Obama’s foreign national issues – IF – the facts are reported accurately to the American people.
Since Obama quoted Factcheck.org and provided a link back to the site, it is important now that every single assertion Factcheck.org made be closely scrutinized. I am in the process of doing a complete review of Kenyan and British nationality law.
Factcheck.org – Inaccuracy #2: While Obama’s status as a British citizen may have been short lived, Factcheck.org failed to state that his status as a British subject was not short lived.
Obama remained a British subject from his birth and after the Kenya Independence Act went into effect in 1963, all the way up until that status changed to Commonwealth Citizen in the BNA 1981.
Here’s what Factcheck.org reported:
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…
Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom.
Obama only republished the first paragraph above, not the second which stated that his British citizenship was short-lived.
Please notice that Factcheck.org mentions Obama’s British citizenship and his status as a British subject. But when they conclude that Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived, they say nothing about his status as a British subject continuing, which it certainly did.
The report is not accurate as to Obama’s historical British Subject status in that the report implicates his British subject status was lost along with British citizenship back in 1963. It was not.
The proof that Obama remained a British subject after 1963 exists in the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) which states in Section 2(1):
2.-(1) On and after the appointed day, the British NationalityActs 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if-
(a) in section 1(3) of the said Act of 1948 (which provides for persons to be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens by virtue of citizenship of certain countries) there were added at the end the words ” and Kenya ” ;
Now we must look at the British Nationality Act of 1948, Section 1:
1.—(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.
(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression “British subject” and the expression “Commonwealth citizen” shall have the same meaning.
(3) The following are the countries hereinbefore referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.
According to the KIA, the words “and Kenya” are added to subsection (3) making all Kenyan citizens also British Subjects upon “the appointed day”, December 12, 1963.
It has now been conclusively established that President Obama could not have lost his Kenyan Citizenship on August 4, 1982. This means his foreign nationality issues were not only governed by the Kenyan Constitution, but – as of January 1, 1983 – he was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1981.
My research has discovered multiple legal mechanisms which have the potential to establish that President Obama is now a full citizen of Kenya as well as the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Republic of Indonesia. Unfortunately, information available in the public domain cannot answer these questions.
The American people, despite what they have been told by factions such as the unreliable Factcheck.org, continue to remain in the dark as to whether their President holds any foreign citizenships or nationalities at this time.
Obama, as President of the United States, is also the Executive head of the State Department. Please review the following current policy of the Obama administration as to dual nationality:
The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. (Emphasis added.)
The Obama administration policy is that dual nationals owe allegiance to the foreign country as well as the US. The law applies to the President. If he is a dual national, he owes allegiance to “foreign powers“.
THE SOLUTION
Whether President Obama currently holds the status of dual (or multi) national remains of paramount concern to the national security and the national sovereignty of the United States. But unlike the issue of whether Obama is eligible to be President, the issue of whether he is currently a foreign national of any other nations can be resolved very easily.
All President Obama has to do is officially renounce citizenship in all foreign nations and supranational organizations. This will remove any unwanted and possibly unknown lingering attachments to foreign nations which may exist at this time.
I have read many arguments alleging that foreign law should not effect US law. While the issue is not that simple – as Obama’s own State department agrees – the solution is.
President Obama, for the good of the nation, needs to officially renounce all foreign national ties. Each nation to which he was attached has a legal mechanism by which he can permanently sever citizenship and/or nationality.
It’s time for the nation to call on the President to officially and legally renounce all foreign allegiance. And it’s time for the President to respond.
————————————————————————————————————-
