British Nationality Act of 1948

Chilidog · **Joined:** Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:36 pm **Posts:** 1963

In a discussion on WND, I decided to actually read the act.

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

I found this section interesting:

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—

(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

(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; or

(c) that person's father is, at the time of the birth, in Crown service under His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom; or

(d) that person is born in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act in which a citizenship law has then taken effect and does not become a citizen thereof on birth.

(2) If the Secretary of State so directs, a birth shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been registered with his permission notwithstanding that his permission was not obtained before the registration.

Since there is no proof that the birth was ever registered within a year, I put it to you all, that the President was never a british citizen, or at least not after August 4, 1962.

Plutodog · **Posted:** Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:37 pm

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:17 am

Chilidog wrote:

In a discussion on WND, I decided to actually read the act.

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

I found this section interesting:

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—

(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

(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; or

(c) that person's father is, at the time of the birth, in Crown service under His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom; or

(d) that person is born in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act in which a citizenship law has then taken effect and does not become a citizen thereof on birth.

(2) If the Secretary of State so directs, a birth shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been registered with his permission notwithstanding that his permission was not obtained before the registration.

Since there is no proof that the birth was ever registered within a year, I put it to you all, that the President was never a british citizen, or at least not after August 4, 1962.

The different subsections are linked by "or", not "and". IANL, but I think that if Kenya fit the requirements of section "A", then the President would still have met the requirements of the section, even though President Obama was born in the United States and the birth was (so far as we know) not registered with a British Consulate.

Plutodog · **Posted:** Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:27 am

Oh, snap!

Piffle · **Posted:** Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:00 am

Mikedunford wrote:

The different subsections are linked by "or", not "and". IANL, but I think that if Kenya fit the requirements of section "A", then the President would still have met the requirements of the section, even though President Obama was born in the United States and the birth was (so far as we know) not registered with a British Consulate.

^^^ This.

I believe that it is correct to conclude that President Obama initially inherited UK citizenship at birth and was therefore briefly a dual citizen of the U.S. and the U.K. But wait! there's more. When Kenya was granted its independence in 1963, he became a dual citizen of the U.S. and Kenya. However, Kenyan law does not recognize dual citizenship for adults. So, Obama's dual U.S.-Kenyan citizenship evaporated when he reached his majority.

IMHO, the best argument against birfer claims that dual citizenship at birth -- absent any act implying acceptance or ratification by the citizen/subject -- disqualifies one from becoming President is to employ reductio ad absurdum. Here goes:

Assume that the Republic of Cabinda wants to encourage immigration by people with good genes for raising corn. So it passes a law stating that any person born in the states of Kansas or Nebraska are citizens of Cabinda at birth.

Going forward, would this law disqualify anyone born in Kansas or Nebraska from becoming President of the You-Ess-of-A even if they've never heard of Cabinda?

The point, of course, is that real 'Merkins do not look to foreign nations to define or meddle with the terms of the United States Constitution.

bob · **Posted:** Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:29 am

Piffle wrote:

However, Kenyan law does not recognize dual citizenship for adults. So, Obama's dual U.S.-Kenyan citizenship evaporated when he reached his majority.

The Kenyan constitution in effect at the time of Obama's birth did not allow for dual citizenship for adults. The new-ish Kenyan constitution allows for those who lost their Kenyan citizenship by this method to apply for reinstatement of Kenyan citizenship.*

* And there's no evidence Obama has done so.

Plutodog · **Posted:** Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:33 am

bob wrote:

The new-ish Kenyan constitution allows for those who lost their Kenyan citizenship by this method to apply for reinstatement of Kenyan citizenship.*

* And there's no evidence Obama has done so.

Which means, of course that he did apply and got his Kenyan citizenship back but he and the Kenyan government are conspiring to hide that from the 'Murican Patriots'.

Piffle · **Posted:** Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:06 am

bob wrote:

Piffle wrote:

However, Kenyan law does not recognize dual citizenship for adults. So, Obama's dual U.S.-Kenyan citizenship evaporated when he reached his majority.

The Kenyan constitution in effect at the time of Obama's birth did not allow for dual citizenship for adults. The new-ish Kenyan constitution allows for those who lost their Kenyan citizenship by this method to apply for reinstatement of Kenyan citizenship.*

* And there's no evidence Obama has done so.

Perhaps my disclaimer was inartfully or enthemematically stated: "absent any act implying acceptance or ratification by the citizen/subject." In any event, we reach the same conclusion.

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:31 am

Chilidog wrote:

In a discussion on WND, I decided to actually read the act.

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

I found this section interesting:

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—

Actually this is the key part. Barrack Obama Sr. was a CUKC by birth not descent so it's not necessary to delve into the conditions a to d.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23522

Beyond your highlighted portion I think you need to look to "unless"... a-d.

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:08 am

realist wrote:

Beyond your highlighted portion I think you need to look to "unless"... a-d.

Why? - They only come into play when the father is a citizen by descent only.

Judge Mental · **Joined:** Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:29 am **Posts:** 342

Welsh Dragon is definitely correct.

Somerset · **Posted:** Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:41 pm

Welsh Dragon wrote:

realist wrote:

Beyond your highlighted portion I think you need to look to "unless"... a-d.

Why? - They only come into play when the father is a citizen by descent only.

What's the difference between citizen by birth versus citizen by descent?

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:57 pm

Somerset wrote:

Welsh Dragon wrote:

realist wrote:

Beyond your highlighted portion I think you need to look to "unless"... a-d.

Why? - They only come into play when the father is a citizen by descent only.

What's the difference between citizen by birth versus citizen by descent?

In this case, and glossing over some complications , a citizen by descent would be a legitmate child born with a father who was a citizen of the UK and Colonies but born outside the UK and Colonies. A citizen by birth was one born within the UK & Colonies.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

British Nationality Act of 1948

Who is online