Posted on 02/05/2016 2:59:26 AM PST by RC one
“That wasn’t bragging. that was just me setting you straight.”
I have this and I have that and I have this and I have that. Ok, you weren’t bragging. . . . You didn’t set me straight. All you did was brag about something that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Meanwhile, you’re still focused on a dead end issue, which makes you a dead-ender.
They left out Jeff Davis. He was born in KY.
“But he was not naturalized. He was born a citizen. He did not achieve it through some naturalization process, taking an oath, and all the rest.”
That is where the fraud is. I’m short on time now. If you are really interested in understanding, read my past posts quoting the actual laws and the U.S. State Department manual administering the law. The only way possible for Ted Cruz to acquire U.S. citizenship was by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Read the excerpts from it. also note how the U.S. Supreme Court wrote the only way such a child born abroad can acquire U..S. citizenship is by naturalization, and that is the exact law even you used to justify his citizenship, a naturalization law. The so-called “process” you are looking for is automatic naturalization at birth as clearly stated in the U.S. State Department manual and the U.S. Code.
In the case you cited, the father, while a naturalized US citizen and an active duty service member at the time of Thomas’s birth, his father did not meet the physical presence requirement of the statute in force at the time of Thomas’s birth. If his father had met the physical present requirement or had been born a US citizen, the ruling would have been different.
I agree with your interpretation, but what can we do? Cruz and Rubio are going along on their merry way, running for President. It looks like they’ll get away with it, unless one of them becomes the nominee and the Dems pounce on it. People are arguing this issue to death, but it needs to be settled somehow, once and for all.
The best outcome that Thomas could have had, if his father met the physical present requirement or had been born a US citizen, would be becoming a naturalized citizen by operation of an act of Congress. Thomas was arguing to get out from that "Act of Congress" means to citizenship. His argument was that he was born in the US, because US military bases is no different of that of one who was born on US 'soil'. The court rejected his argument.
Your statement, "birth [on a US military base abroad] and 'natural born' citizenship is no different of that of one who was born on US 'soil'." is false.
So having been born in Germany while your US born citizen and patriot father was serving our country makes you a less loyal citizen?
It’s not a dead end issue. This is never going to go away.
“It’s not a dead end issue. This is never going to go away.”
And it’s never going anywhere either. AKA, Dead-Ender.
neither is Ted Cruz. AKA: also a dead ender.
I wish you luck on your never ending pursuit of something that’s not going anywhere. Truly I do.
What I said was under the presumption that her father and perhaps her mother both were US born citizens (not a recently naturalized citizen as Thomas’s father was) and while the poster said she was born in Germany, it was while her father was stationed there as a US service member, her father and perhaps her mother also having met the physical presence requirement. So yes, in that case the poster would be a US citizen at birth and a NBC.
Your restatement is also false, but you aren’t open to reason. A person who is a citizen solely by operation of an Act of Congress is natrualized. This is black letter case law.
So it went to another internet post? LOL. Ok.
“But he was not naturalized. He was born a citizen. He did not achieve it through some naturalization process, taking an oath, and all the rest.”
You are acting like the kind of person who adamantly denies a cliff is a cliff and obstinately walks right off of the cliff to his doom. Examples:
66 Stat. Public Law 414 - June 27, 1952. . . . (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at lest five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: TITLE III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION. Chapter 1 - Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization. NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH. Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth....”
The U.S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual used to administer the naturalization law today says it is the authority for the “naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic” acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.
So, now you are trying to tell us “a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents” does not mean what it says, “naturalization”?
Also explain to us what part of the following U.S. Supreme Court statement did you fail to understand: “United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
What is there about “can only become a citizen by being naturalized” that you fail to understand and comprehend?
What if they chose a non-citizen to carry the baby?
No. It is not. You have a very poor understanding of case law.
There are only two types of US citizens - citizens at birth and naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens have to go through a legal naturalization process and are issued naturalization papers, were as citizens at birth do not have to go through such a process nor are they issued naturalization papers. It is really that simple. There are no asterisks on some US born citizen's birth certificates indicating that they are only partial citizens at birth.
However, there are often legitimate and legal questions as to citizenship for those born abroad such as the case you cited up thread; in that case BTW where the plaintiff's father was a naturalized US citizen and an active duty US service member, but who very importantly as it should be noted, had not met the US residency requirements and the plaintiff as a child he did not enter the US after his birth on a US Passport but on visa form that listed his nationality as Jamaican. His father might have attempted to registered his son's birth with the US Consulate in Germany, which may not have been issued because of the residency requirement, but for whatever reason seemed to choose not to and brought his son into the US on a Visa.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." While the original Act of 1790 was later repealed, that part of the Act was not as it was repeated, upheld and restated in all the subsequent Naturalization Acts that replaced it and later further expanded to citizenship based on the mother's citizenship as long as she meets the residency requirements.
But to say that a child born to a US born citizen parent or parents while one or both parents are active duty service members and or are employed by a US company and stationed overseas, that if they conceive and give birth to a child while stationed there, that this child suddenly has an allegiance to the "soil" on which the child was born, regardless of the allegiance of his or her parents has to the US, is quite frankly stupid and against the spirit of the law and what the Founding Fathers intended and had to say on the subject.
FWIW, my nephew's wife was born in Germany while her US born, a US citizen from birth father was stationed there, serving his country as an active duty military serviceman/ career officer and he brought his US born citizen wife and their US born citizen daughter with him. Her "older" sister was only 6 months old when he got his transfer orders and as they were stationed there for over 10 years, she spent most of her earliest and formative years in Germany. She attended a school where both English and German were spoken and became very fluent in German - something that has served her well later in life as she later served as a translator for the State Department and then when back to Germany for several years on a contract with the US military to teach English to German soldiers and contractors working with the US military.
My nephew's wife was born seven years later and in Germany (she has a German Certificate of a Live Birth but her birth was also registered with the US Consulate and she has had a US Passport nearly since birth) but since her father was transferred back to the US when she was only 3 years old, she has very few memories of living in Germany and aside from knowing a few words and phrases, she does not speak German unlike her US born older sister.
But according to you, my nephew's wife is not a NBC but her older sister however is.
Think about how irrational that is. And think about how no US service member or contractor or a US citizen temporarily working overseas, who is married would ever accept an overseas assignment if it meant that any child he and his wife gave birth to while serving overseas would have some sort of "second class" or in any way a limited citizenship.
Brief Summary of Rogers v. Bellei: 01/16/2016 6:14:49 PM
That Katyal/Clement article is false and misleading. The 1790 act is no definition, it is a "legal fiction." The phrase "shall be considered as" is a common way to create a legal fiction - see, for a modern example, Social Security regulation that says a 21 year old shall be considered as a child.
-- But to say that a child born to a US born citizen parent or parents while one or both parents are active duty service members and or are employed by a US company and stationed overseas, that if they conceive and give birth to a child while stationed there, that this child suddenly has an allegiance to the "soil" on which the child was born, regardless of the allegiance of his or her parents has to the US, is quite frankly stupid .. --
It is also a straw man. I never said that, and there is no case law that says that.
-- You have a very poor understanding of case law. --
Right. Sure I do. Just because you say so, eh? Let's see you demonstrate your case law prowess.
And there is absolutely no doubt I am MORE loyal to the Constitution than either ineligible GOP candidates. Reality is really hard for some to face.
Are you one of those ‘Drs without Borders’ kind of person?
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.