Not true.
This form clearly states that Obama's father's temporary stay was set to expire on August 9, 1961 and he was applying to extend his temporary stay to August 9, 1962.
"APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME OF TEMPORARY STAY":
Posted on 04/02/2013 9:04:27 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
The Immigration and Naturalization Service:
“Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”
Interpretation 324.2(a)(7):
“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.
The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
Interpretation 324.2:
“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status IF NATURALIZED, NATIVE, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.”
(Excerpt) Read more at uscis.gov ...
Correct. And as such, Obama falls within those not covered by the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
Thus, we can look to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull's definition of the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement of the 14th Amendment in the Congressional Record:
"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."Obama and the DNC have already stated that the British Nationality Act of 1948 "governed" (exact quote) Obama's status at birth on the 'Fight The Smears' website.
Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “complete jurisdiction thereof?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them.
Do we not make treaties with the British?
Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to live inChina, they never came back to the US.
“Permanent domicile” means not a tourist, a fly-over, a birth on a foreign boat in port or a member of a foreign invading military. If you have an address, a spouse and a child, that is considered as having a “permanent domicile.”
Yes, he might.
I would like to have a look though at Morse’s other statements, and try and figure out whether he’s actually contradicting himself or not.
He certainly has clearly stated, in the passage you cited, that the children born on US soil of alien parents are US citizens.
Again, look to the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.That Wong Kim Ark's parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth is an agreed upon fact in the case.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court was aware that his parents returned to China when he was 17, as we can see in the Court's Syllabus:
"That said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark continued to reside and remain in the United States until the year 1890, when they departed for China."U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark - Syllabus
That did not preclude the parties or the Supreme Court from agreeing that Wong Kim Ark's non-citizen parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth in 1873.
We know for a fact that Obama's father was never permanetly domiciled in the U.S., even at the time of his birth, because he was always in the U.S. on a temporary student visa.
The Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn’t apply to Obama.
Not true.
This form clearly states that Obama's father's temporary stay was set to expire on August 9, 1961 and he was applying to extend his temporary stay to August 9, 1962.
"APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME OF TEMPORARY STAY":
I know what semicolons are for; they’re one of the basic tools of my trade. I notice you’re not answering my questions. Like many birthers, you’re willing to focus on the fragment of a sentence that you think supports your case and ignore how it fits in with the rest of the text around it.
“Purpura & Moran v Obama”
What is significant about this case is that it was argued by Mario Apuzzo, himself. It was then argued by him before a three judge panel for the New Jersey appeals court. They ruled,
“We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12, 2012.”
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2012/a4478-11.html
R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E) says “that some or all of the arguments made are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion”.
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r2-11.htm
Mario Apuzzo also submitted an amicus brief in the appeal of the Tisdale case. The Appeals Court accepted the brief and then said,
“We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.”
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/tisdale_ac_order.pdf
Which of those cases were decided upon the fact that neither the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision nor the 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction” requirement applied to Obama?
Both cases were argued that it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen. Both failed on that account. No one has argued the question of domcile. Until then both Obama and Governor Jindal are eligible.
Your cited cases therefore do not apply.
Do you have anything else?
Absence of a ruling in a questionable case does NOT confer eligibility.
Millions of people over the centuries have come to the United States via temporary LEGAL status and then stayed permanently by changing their status first to Permanent Resident Alien and then, after five years or more, Naturalized US Citizen.
In five years of trying and more than 200 civil suits, has any judge or any court ruled that Barack Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen due to his father not being permanently domiciled? Obama’s mother and his grandparents with whom he lived were permanently domiciled by any standard.
Agreed, but Obama's father did NO such thing. He was ALWAYS in the U.S. on only a TEMPORARY basis. There are legal forms signed by him attesting to that fact. Therefore he was NEVER permanently domiciled in the U.S., and the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling DOESN'T apply in his son's (Obama's) case.
Neither does the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement as Obama and the DNC specifically STATED that the British Nationality Act of 1948 "governed" (exact quote) Obama's status at birth.
Has a case on Obama's father's lack of permanent domicile in the U.S. as required by the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling ever been tried?
Obama’s mother and his grandparents with whom he lived were permanently domiciled by any standard.
I'll refer you again to the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."Obama's non-citizen parent must have been permanently domiciled in the U.S. for the ruling to apply to Obama. Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. There is actual evidence that proves he was only in the U.S. on a temporary basis.
One more time:
Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
The Lieutenant Governor/Secretary of State of New Jersey (a Republican)
adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s opinion and the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to review the lower court’s ruling.
State courts don't set federal precedent.
That ruling relies on the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark citation in the Ankeny decision. I've already proven that the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to Obama as his father was NEVER permanently domiciled in the U.S.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.