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 ...
The party you are arguing w is truly dishonest. Thank you for setting the record straight.
Anyone with half a brain can see that Obama is Constitutionally ineligible, Supreme Court cases and all.
I'm still trying to decide if his defenders are hopelessly corrupt, or just plain stupid. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and think that they're just plain stupid.
“I’m still trying to decide if his defenders are hopelessly corrupt, or just plain stupid.”
You & me both! I go back & forth. I don’t want to imagine anybody is as stupid as some of Obama’s defenders appear to be. Then again modern liberalism’s biggest by-product is stupidity. Numerous books have been written about it. When the first generation of truly liberalized/dumbed-down-kids hit college, some profs tried to figure out why the sudden drop in IQ/intelligence. They traced it back to the thought processes [or lack thereof] instilled by liberal indoctrination. So sadly, your conclusion may be right.
Don’t prove it on a blog, prove it to a judge.
Then perhaps you are not very good at your trade.
I’ve explained in painstaking detail my position.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3003325/posts?page=345#345
I’m sorry, NG, but that is just a very stupid statement. Look at the liberals on the SC today & tell me you can prove anything by any one of them. They are ideological rubber stamps. This is the case today w most judges. The few that venture off the liberal plantation get pounded by the MSM till they see the light. Proving anything by a judge in this environment is an idea only a liberal could embrace.
But you knew that already, didn’t you.
The problem with your analysis is that the WKA decision doesn't state "permanently domiciled" as a requirement, only as part of the description of the case. You might as well say the decision doesn't apply to anyone who's not of Chinese descent.
I don't have a blog.
Point me to a judge who isn't corrupt like you and the all the other Obama sycophants, and the U.S. may just have a chance at justice after all.
Yes, and you're wrong. I've tried to get you to see why you're wrong by pointing out some of the implications of your position--e.g., that all white persons born in Virginia had to go swear a loyalty oath at some point--but you've ducked all my questions, instead choosing to hide behind snarky comments about semicolons and "basic English." In other words, you're arguing like someone who's already lost.
WRONG.
In fact, it DOES state "permanently domiciled" as an agreed upon fact on which the decision is rendered:
"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."
There it is, in plain English. Non-citizen parent permanent domicile is an agreed upon fact on which the decision is rendered.
Right, it's an agreed-upon fact. That doesn't make it a requirement. Look at the other agreed-upon facts in the same sentence: born in the US, parents of Chinese descent, subjects of the Emperor of China, and are in the US carrying on business. Are those all requirements, too? Like I said before, does the WKA decision only apply to people of Chinese descent?
Yes, with the British government, overseas.
Again, British citizens here, in the United States, are SUBJECT TO OUR LAWS. Just like Trumbull was referring to.
Likewise it was Indians IN INDIAN TRIBES that Trumbull was referring to. That was what the entire discussion of "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" was all about:
The exact same Congressmen talked about Indians NOT in Indian tribes. And THOSE people were subject to our full jurisdiction, whereas the Indians in TRIBES were NOT subject to our full jurisdiction, because they were under their own governments, which we made treaties with.
The 14th Amendment was a more solid codification of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared,
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States
On January 30, 1866, on the floor of the Senate, Senator Trumbull proposed introducing the citizenship provision that would be slightly amended to become the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment. He proposed adding the words,
"All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color..."
In response to the question:
Mr. Guthrie: I will ask the Senator if he intends by that amendment to naturalize all the Indians of the United States?
Trumbull replied:
Mr. Trumbull: Our dealings with the Indians are with them as foreigners, as separate nations. We deal with them by treaty, and not by law, except in reference to those who are incorporated into the United States as some are, and are taxable and become citizens, and then it would be desirable that it should apply to the Indians so far as those who are domesticated and pay taxes and live in civilized society are concerned. In reference to the other tribes, they will not be embraced by this provision.
Indians in American society were within the scope of the Civil Rights Act and the subsequent 14th Amendment, and their children would be born citizens of the United States, whether they themselves had actually naturalized or not. Indians living as a part of Indian tribes were NOT within the scope of the CRA and the 14A, and their children were NOT born US citizens.
Note that this did not automatically naturalize people simply because they were living in and participating in American society. But they were subject to our jurisdiction, and unlike the Indians in tribes, their children were born citizens.
Germans, Norwegians, English, Chinese, and Mongolians in American society were within the scope of the Civil Rights Act and the subsequent 14th Amendment, and their children would be born citizens of the United States, whether they themselves had actually naturalized or not. Germans, Norwegians, English, Chinese, and Mongolians living as a part of their own nations - Germany, Norway, England, or China - were NOT within the scope of the CRA and the 14A, and their children were NOT born US citizens.
Note that this did not automatically naturalize people simply because they were living in and participating in American society. But they were subject to our jurisdiction, and unlike the Germans, Norwegians, English, Chinese, and Mongolians in foreign nations, their children were born citizens.
The Senate also records the following exchange:
Mr. TRUMBULL: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?
Mr. COWAN: I think not.
Mr. TRUMBULL: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
Mr. COWAN: The honorable Senator asumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
Mr. TRUMBULL: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.
Now he got one small thing wrong. It wasn't the "naturalization laws" that made children born in the US of non-citizen parents citizens. It was the ancient rule of citizenship, adopted throughout the country. Otherwise, he was right on target, and in full agreement with every real authority of early America.
It is abundantly, absolutely, crystal clear: Contrary to the false assertions of those who would twist the words both of our history and our Constitution, Senator Lyman Trumbull clearly understood that the children born here of non-citizen parents were themselves born citizens of the United States.
And even the Senator that he argued the point with admitted that the children of German non-citizens were themselves citizens. He just didn't want to admit it in regard to the Chinese, on the basis of their race.
I’m of a like mind with this “liberal:”
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=y15Q9MEr3ws&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dy15Q9MEr3ws
The defendant in the most cited Obama eligibility challenge (Ankeny v Daniels) to date was Mitch Daniels, the Republican Governor of Indiana and George W. Bush’s Director of Management and Budget. Governor Daniels defended Barack Obama’s right to receive Indiana’s electoral votes.
The federal judge who has ruled against challengers the most often in Obama eligibility lawsuits is Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the District of Columbia District Court, a Reagan Appointee.
The federal judge who sanctioned Orly Taitz $20,000 for wasting his time with nonsense was Clay Land of Columbus, Georgia, a George W. Bush appointee and a former Republican state Senator in Georgia. Dr. Taitz appealed to Justice Clarence Thomas to stay her sanction, Justice Thomas denied her Application for a Stay, as did the full Court.
Every single Republican Secretary of State approved Obama for their
state’s ballot in 2008 and 2012.
Not one conservative Republican member of the House or Senate submitted an objection to certifying Obama’s electoral votes in 2008 or 2012.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has not held one second of Congessional hearings on the natural born citizen requirement or Barry’s eligibility.
“The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there, that’s good enough for me.”—Rep. John Boehner, R-OH., Speaker of the House.
“He was born here, and that’s just a fact.”—Governor Linda Lingle, R-HI
“The 44th President of the United States was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”— House Res. 593 (2009) 111th Congress, passed on a vote of 378-0.
Not one of the people with perfect standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility because they can show direct injury from him receiving electoral votes:
McCain, Palin, Romney or Ryan has filed suit, joined a class action suit as a plaintiff or submitted an amicus brief in support of any eligibility challenge.
No criminal charges for election fraud, forgery, fraud, identity theft or any other crime have been filed with any local, state or federal prosecutor.
There are about twenty well known conservative law firms/legal foundations who regularly argue originalist issues before the Supreme Court. Not one of them has taken up the Obama ineligibility cause or submitted an amicus brief in support of any civil action.
In fact, it does.
Look at the other agreed-upon facts in the same sentence: born in the US, parents of Chinese descent, subjects of the Emperor of China, and are in the US carrying on business. Are those all requirements, too? Like I said before, does the WKA decision only apply to people of Chinese descent?
It would appear so as Justice Gray specifically made this statement at the conclusion of his ruling:
"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.Words have meaning.
Trumbull's statement:
"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."By Obama's and the DNC's own admission, Obama was SUBJECT to and "GOVERNED" (exact quote) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Obama was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. at birth. The U.K. had jurisdiction over his citizenship status at birth via his own and the DNC's admission.
That is where Obama fails to meet the requirements. He and the DNC have already admitted that he was subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948 at birth via his non-citizen father.
“Obama doesn’t meet the conditions of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling, and he doesn’t meet the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” requirement as defined by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull in the Congressional Record.”
That may be your opinion, but until you get a court to agree with you, that’s all it is.
The understanding of everyone in Congress is that Obama is eligible, just as everyone in Congress agreed that ObamaCare was the law until the courts ruled on it. You may be right and you may be wrong, until the SCOTUS says you are right, the lower court rulings make the case law.
You will see those same lower court cases cited, if Senator Rubio or Governor Jindal runs in the future and someone challenges them.
On what do they base their ruling exclusive of WKA or its derivatives or the 14th Amendment?
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.