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 ...
It would better be said that there is no provision under the Constitution authorizing the SPECIFIC punishment of those who counterfeit securities of other nations.
There is, however, a GENERAL provision which authorizes Congress to punish such acts. It is the provision that authorizes Congress to punish “offences against the law of nations.”
And that phrase in our Constitution doe NOT come from Vattel. It comes from Blackstone, the writer on the English common law, who included an entire CHAPTER with that TITLE in his work.
And this is CLEAR by the other terms used in that provision of the Constitution all of which are found in Blackstone’s work on the matter, and almost none of which are covered by Vattel.
I didn’t read your post, NG. This is for two reasons. One, I devoted quite a bit of time discussing issues w you over the past several days. I came away w the realization that you are not very honest. [Think Dogs & Cats.] Worse, when you are dishonest it appears you genuinely believe you’re actually being honest. It’s hard enough to talk to a dishonest person who is sufficiently self aware & objective enough to realize their own dishonesty/twisting of the truth. It’s impossible to talk to a person who bends & breaks the truth yet believes they are being honest.
The second reason is the exchange your having w Ride. I have seen w my own eyes that you’re not being honest w him/her either. [Sorry, Ride; I have no idea which it is.] Worse, were it not for Ride constantly, relentlessly correcting you, I wouldn’t know just how dishonest you are.
So why should I read a long post from a person like that? I have no idea if the info in it is true or not. From my other experiences w you, I’d be inclined to think not. Succinctly put, I have no [further] time or patience to devote to a person who cannot be trusted. This is the risk you run when you play fast & loose w the truth. Sooner or later people tune you out.
It's not an opinion. It's a fact. We've all seen a digital image of Obama's father's actual 1961 "APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME OF TEMPORARY STAY."
When Trumbull said “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” his intent was SOLELY to exclude INDIANS, IN TRIBES.
He had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENT WHATSOEVER to exclude children born here of non-citizen parents. Such people were, according to Trumbull’s definition, SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Here’s how the issue came about. They started bandying words around that might exclude the Indians in tribes. Someone suggested “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Someone else said, that’s no good, because the Indians, EVEN IN THE TRIBES, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Trumbull replied, NO. I’m not talking about including the “wild” Indians IN INDIAN TRIBES, and that’s not what the words “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” mean. The Indians IN TRIBES may be PARTIALLY subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are NOT subject to the COMPLETE jurisdiction of the United States, in the way that anybody participating in our society and under our LAWS is.
Trumbull made it absolutely, CRYSTAL clear that he believed the children born here of NON-CITIZEN parents, of ANY nationality, were born citizens, as long as they were participating in OUR society and not some Indian tribe with its own government.
Including even Indians.
So by Trumbull’s definition, Obama’s parents clearly would have been “subject to the complete jurisdiction” of the United States.
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.
That was the very first wording they came up with, and they improved it over time.
The reason why they changed to "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" does not seem to be recorded, but they obviously had some reason.
The obvious reason is that most likely somebody raised the point that the original wording sounded like it excluded immigrants. And that was NEVER the intention, not from the very moment it was introduced on the Senate floor.
In fact, it was only MINUTES after introducing that EXACT wording that you've just quoted, that Trumbull clarified that IT DID NOT EXCLUDE CHILDREN BORN ON US SOIL OF NON-CITIZEN PARENTS FROM BEING BORN CITIZENS.
Any foreign nation can declare that anybody, born anywhere, is a citizen. Any such declaration is completely and absolutely irrelevant to whether a person is, under our laws, a natural born citizen of the United States.
On what do they base their ruling exclusive of WKA or its derivatives or the 14th Amendment?
I'll let 4zoltan speak to that question if he wants, since he's just read the case.
The federal judge who has ruled against challengers the most often in Obama eligibility lawsuits is... a Reagan Appointee.
The federal judge who sanctioned Orly Taitz $20,000 for wasting his time with nonsense was... 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 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.
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.
That's because REAL conservatives respect and preserve the Constitution instead of misrepresenting it and trying to rewrite it according to their whims of the moment.
I've brought up my own situation a few times in these threads. My great grandfather emigrated from Italy 100 years ago last month. He became a US citizen, renouncing his Italian citizenship in 1943, less than a year before one of his sons was killed in Normandy. In the meantime, my grandfather was born in 1920. Now, according to Italian law, because my grandfather was born before my great grandfather renounced, Italian citizenship passed to him. He never knew this, and never made a point of renouncing it. Then my mother was born and under that same law, citizenship passed to her, and from her to me. If I provide a bunch of documentation--birth certificates, marriage certificates, etc.--I can get an Italian passport. This is not the same as applying for citizenship and naturalizing as an Italian. Under their law, I already AM an Italian citizen.
So here's the question: I'm three generations native born. Am I a natural born citizen? Or does a quirk of Italian law disqualify me? By way of contrast, if my great grandfather was say, Spanish, none of this would apply. They are strictly jus soli.
Is American law subject to and subservient to foreign law?
And I should care which posts you choose to read, why?
What you care about doesn’t concern me in the least. You shot your own credibility, & if you are fine w that then more power to you.
Because you say so?
It's actually an interesting claim you're making, and not one I've heard before. Courts seem to find precedent in Supreme Court decisions beyond the specific case at hand, even when the conclusion restates the facts of the case. For example, the conclusion of Heller vs. DC reads
we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.Nevertheless, most observers have concluded that the decision had broader reach than just the District, just as lots of courts have concluded that WKA didn't just apply to Chinese people. I hope you get the chance to test your theory in court someday.
We know that's not true by reading the Civil Rights Act of 1866 on which the 14th Amendment was based (according to the Senate Judiciary Committee's own website) which refers to both foreign power AND Indians not taxed:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 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"
The 14th Amendment merely treats Indian and foreign nations the same as in being a power other than the U.S. We know this because instead of stating "not owing allegiance to an Indian Nation," Trumbull INSTEAD said:
"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."Senate Judiciary Committee website that explains the relationship between the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment:
Statements of fact are not “snarky”. I had to explain semicolons and still you dispute.
Yes, all persons born in Virginia had to swear a loyalty oath.
That is a really, really good example. Thanks.
But statements like "it's basic English" and "perhaps you're not good at your trade" are. Believe me, you did not have to explain semicolons to me.
Yes, all persons born in Virginia had to swear a loyalty oath.
So do you have any pointers to a historical record of that actually happening? I find it an extraordinary claim. The population of Virginia at the time was nearly 700,000; surely if all those people had to go to court to make an affirmation of loyalty, there would be some record of it.
Yet I did have to explain semicolons.
No matter.
Hening’s Statutes At Large Vol 9, page 281
May 1777- 1st of COMMONWEALTH
CHAP. III.
An act to oblige the free male inhabitants of this state above a certain age to give assurance of Allegiance to the same, and for other purposes.
WHEREAS allegiance and protection are reciprocal, and those who will not bear the former are not entitled to the benefits of the latter: Therefore, BE it enacted by the General Assembly, that all free born male inhabitants of this state, above the age of sixteen years, except imported servants during the time of their service, shall, on or before the tenth day of October next, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation before some one of the justices of the peace of the county, city, or borough, where they shall respectively inhabit; and the said justice shall give a certificate thereof to every such person, and the said oath or affirmation shall be as followeth, viz. I do swear or affirm, that I renounce and refuse all allegiance to George the third, king of Great Britain, his heirs and successours, and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the commonwealth of Virginia, as free and independent state, and that I will not, at any time, do, or cause to be done, any matter or thing that will be prejudicial or injurious to the freedom and independence thereof, as declared by Congress; and also, that I will discover and make known to some one justice of the peace for the said state, all treasons or traiterous conspiracies which I now or hereafter shall know to be formed against this or any of the United States of America. And the form of the said certificate shall be as follows, to wit: I do hereby certify, that..........hath taken and subscribed the oath or affirmation of allegiance and fidelity, as directed by an act of General Assembly intituled An act to oblige the free male inhabitants of this state above a certain age to give assurance of allegiance to the same, and for other purposes. Witness my hand and seal, this..........day of..........A. B.
AND be it farther enacted, that the justice of the peace before whom such oath or affirmation shall be subscribed shall keep fair registers of the names of the persons so sworn or affirmed, and the time when; and shall, on or before the first day of January in every year, transmit, in writing, under his hand and seal, to the clerk of the court of the county, city, or borough, a true list of the names of those who, within the same year, have so sworn or affirmed before them respectively.
AND be it farther enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that within one month after the passing of this act, or at the next succeeding court, the court of every county in this commonwealth shall appoint some of their members to make a tour of the county, and tender the oath or affirmation aforesaid to every free born male person above the age of sixteen years, except as before excepted; and that in the certificate directed to be returned, of those who take the oath or affirmation, shall be mentioned the names of such as refuse. And the justices tendering such oath or affirmation are hereby directed to deliver a list of the names of such recusants to the county lieutenant, or chief commanding officer of the militia, who is hereby authorised and directed forthwith to cause such recusants to be disarmed.
PROVIDED, that the person so disarmed shall, nevertheless, be obliged to attend musters, but shall be exempted from the fines imposed for appearing at such musters without arms, accoutrements, and ammunition.
AND be it farther enacted, that every person above the age before mentioned, except as before excepted, refusing or neglecting to take and subscribe the oath or affirmation aforesaid, shall, during the time of such neglect or refusal, be incapable of holding any office in this state, serving on juries, suing for any debts, electing or being elected, or buying lands, tenements, or hereditaments.
AND be it farther enacted, that all persons coming from any other of the United States into this state are hereby required to apply to one of the nearest justices after he enters this state, and take or subscribe an oath or affirmation, renouncing all allegiance to the king of Great Britain, and promising that he will not do any thing prejudicial to the independence of the United States of America, as declared by the General Congress; and upon neglecting so to do, he shall be liable to be taken before a justice, who shall tender him the said oath or affirmation, and upon his refusal to take and subscribe the same, the said justice shall, and is hereby required, to commit him to the jail of the county, city, or borough, there to remain without bail or mainprize, until he shall take and subscribe the said oath or affirmation, or give bond and security immediately to depart this commonwealth, which bond shall be payable to the Governour for the time being, for the use of the commonwealth.
PROVIDED nevertheless, that prisoners of war, regular officers and soldiers in the pay of the continent or of this state, merchants and mariners trading in the ports of this state from foreign powers in amity with the United States, and not become resident, are declared not to be within the intent and meaning of this act.
AND be it farther enacted, that this act shall be publickly read by the sheriff of every county in this commonwealth at the door of the courthouse of his county, on some court day, on or before the first day of September next, and also by every minister of the Gospel, or reader, immediately after divine service, at every church or meeting-house where they officiate, on some Sunday within the said time. And every sheriff, minister, or reader, failing so to do, shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten pounds; to be recovered, with costs, by the informer, before the court of the county where the offence shall be committed.
Cite the exact statement and provide a link to the Congressional Record in which this supposedly appears.
We know that's not true by reading the Civil Rights Act of 1866 on which the 14th Amendment was based (according to the Senate Judiciary Committee's own website) which refers to both foreign power AND Indians not taxed:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 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"
Okay. I may have overstated the case VERY SLIGHTLY by using the word "SOLELY."
The intent was to exclude:
* Indians IN TRIBES (but NOT Indians who had left their tribes and joined "civilized" American society)
* AND those who had always been HISTORICALLY regarded as being outside of the rule of citizenship, and who therefore had always BEEN excluded: the children of foreign ambassadors, foreign royalty, and invading armies.
It is also clear that Trumbull regarded the children born here of non-citizen parents as US citizens. He understood that to be United States law.
And he never, ever expressed any intention whatsoever to change that law in regard to children born on US soil to non-citizen parents.
In fact, he argued that those born here of "Asiatic" races (who were regarded by some as being "uncivilized") were every bit as much United States citizens as the children of good Germans and Englishmen.
And none of those who argued against blacks or Asians being citizens EVER argued that the children of Germans or Englishmen or Frenchmen or Norwegians were anything other than United States citizens.
The Constitution-twisters have never produced a quote of any of our Congressmen ever making that argument during the course of the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. It apparently doesn't exist.
But they FREELY reproduce quotes from Trumbull and others that they can twist to make their case, all the while ABSOLUTELY IGNORING the quotes where Trumbull and others make clear that they regarded the children born here of European non-citizen parents to be United States citizens.
That being the case, it is clear what our Congressmen understood the law to be.
They understood that there was no parental citizenship requirement for children born here to be US citizens.
No, because GRAY himself said so:
"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."
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.