Listen Up: Here Is Proof That Native-Born Citizens And Natural-Born Citizens Are Separate

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html ^

[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.”

[Kenny Bunk]

As usual, Greg, your remarks entirely miss the point.

It is difficult enough for a serious genetic researcher such as myself to get grant money without folks like yourself who, locked away in various remote cabins, have missed scientific developments and thus tend to dismiss them out of hand..

I am back in Maine. Having been promised Global Warming by Susie and Olympia, I intend to collect. Don't miss Memorial Day in Livermore Falls. Tickets are only $100 and it is for that worthiest of causes:

Placing the Lost Dauphin on the Throne of the American Colonies!

[Kenny Bunk]

Hit those keyboards, men. Operation Macho is underway.

[Rides3]

It doesn’t matter where the parents are from - the children born in America are American citizens.

Not true at all.

1883, Secretary of State Frelinghuysen determined that a man applying for a U.S. passport, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a non-citizen father.

1885, Secretary of State Bayard determined that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’“

[dalereed]

I don’t click on or read god damn blogs!!!

[This I Wonder32460]

Natural-Born citizenship status allows for no variations. You are born upon the soil of the country of which both your parents are citizens.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Perhaps you should so you can ‘get a education’ on the true meaning of what a natural-born Citizen is.

[JCBreckenridge]

Any examples in the 20th century?

[JCBreckenridge]

“but you can’t back it up with either a law nor a USSC decision”

Yes, I can. It’s called the 14th Amendment.

[rxsid]

Yes, I have (& have posted) many copies of mid/late 18th century English dictionaries.

[rxsid]

b.t.w...regarding this Congressional statute, more discussion has been had previously:

January 2013 here on FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2974808/posts?page=117#117

January of 2012 here on FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2837643/posts

And originally on Leo's blog in January of 2012: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

[rxsid]

"Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf"

Isn't that Indiana Court decision interesting?

Especially this part, regarding:

"the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:

"The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14"

What does footnote 14 say?

"We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen”

Hmmm. yeah. interesting.

[muawiyah]

That’s the fundamental law ~ it’s not a statute, and neither house of Congress has bothered writing about it yet.

[Ray76]

Ankeny is jabberwocky.

[Rides3]

Any examples in the 20th century?

Sure.

"It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country."

1920, Kwock Jan Fat v. White

Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. He was always in the country on only a temporary student visa or an approved temporary extension.

[rxsid]

"Placing the Lost Dauphin on the Throne of the American Colonies!"

Hey...speaking of Dauphin's, did you know (I know yooouuuu doooo):

If simply being born in the U.S. (born a citizen) is enough to be considered a "natural born Citizen" (which of course, the framers rejected during the convention), then the current Dauphin of France, Prince Louis Duke of Burgundy would be considered POTUS eligible.

French Royal Family
Legitimist

Prince Louis was born in New York City, 2010. Yet, his father is a French and Spanish citizen (but not a U.S. citizen) and his mother is Venezuelan.

If the French decided to have another restoration of the House of Burbon, the King of France would be considered POTUS eligible.
Or, if Louis Alphonse were to be elected POTUS 1st...and then the French decided it would be cool to restore the crown...wow!

Imagine that. The King of France and the President of the U.S. as one in the same.

Wouldn't that be something! I'm sure something like that would never happen. Especially if academia, hollywood and the state run media convinced the low information voters that electing the dauphin would be a swell idea. and hey...don't worry, he was born here everything is great. Certainly no conflict of interest there when it came to treaties and (heaven forbid) war. No, no conflict there.

Coat of arms of the Dauphin of France.

Oh...and I almost forgot to say, the current reigning King of Thailand would also be considered Constitutionally eligible to be our Commander in Chief of the military according to those here who would have us believe that the framers really didn't reject Hamiliton's suggestion of simply "born a citizen" be part of the requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej#Early_life

Anyyyywaaayyy...time for me to take leave and get back to some of my other projects.

[Nero Germanicus]

Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment there are only two types of American citizens: born citizens (same as natural born) and naturalized citizens. Born citizens can be president and naturalized citizens can’t.
Wong Kim Ark could not be a naturalized citizen due to the Chinese Exclusion Act in force at that time.
The US government’s attorneys were certin that they were dealing with a natural born citizen question. In their respondent’s brief for the Supreme Court, they wrote: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerate departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA. (See page 34 of the original document)

[Ray76]

Prior to WKA there were two kinds of citizenship: native or natural born, and naturalized.

Subsequent to WKA this is no longer true.

Broadening the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause of the 14th Amendment to include domiciled aliens which heretofore were not "subject to the jurisdiction" created a distinction between native born citizen and natural born citizen.

"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." - Sen. Trumbull, framer of 14th Amend.

The Court ignored naturalization acts and naturalized the children of domiciled aliens.

This broadened interpretation of the 14th Amendment "subject to the jurisdiction" clause naturalized the children of domiciled aliens creating a distinction where none had existed. It severed native born citizen from natural born citizen.

[ObligedFriend]

[Ray76]

Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment there are only two types of American citizens: born citizens (same as natural born) and naturalized citizens. Born citizens can be president and naturalized citizens can’t.

That was also true prior to the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment did not change this, WKA did.

See Post 297

[ObligedFriend]

A French translation