Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Yashcheritsiy
Nguyen v INS (2001) appears to recognize two categories, citizen at birth, and citizen due to some event that comes after birth, although said event may be applied retroactively to the time of birth. The latter category is naturalization. But where no action is required after birth to secure citizenship, that is arguably a "natural born citizen" scenario.  

More specifically, in the Nguyen case, the father did not show sufficient connectedness to the child for years after the child was born to provide a basis for a retroactive transfer of citizenship to the child (child not naturalized). The mother was an alien, and could not transfer citizenship at birth (child not born directly into citizenship).  The key thing in Nguyen is that it recognizes naturalization as requiring some event after birth to secure citizenship.  Birth that requires no such post-natal event is NOT naturalization.  Is there any other non-naturalized category besides "natural born?" I am not aware of any.

Peace,

SR
40 posted on 01/30/2016 6:56:21 PM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Springfield Reformer

[[The mother was an alien, and could not transfer citizenship at birth (child not born directly into citizenship). The key thing in Nguyen is that it recognizes naturalization as requiring some event after birth to secure citizenship. Birth that requires no such post-natal event is NOT naturalization. Is there any other non-naturalized category besides “natural born?” I am not aware of any.]]

If you don’t mind, I’d like to ping you over to the following thread briefly, as I am in a discussion that that follows almost to a T what you have stated about the Nguyen case- only I’m not explaining it as well as you are- I’m saying essentially the same thing, but in a more convoluted manner unfortunately

The counter argument in the thread is that the Nguyen case is that the case doesn’t make an equivalency between a mother who is a citizen who has a child on soil and a citizen mother who has a child off soil because the case is only about 8 us code 1409

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3390723/reply?c=219

Perhaps He’s not communicating a point that he is trying to make well, or maybe I’m just not seeing his point- I can’t tell which- you don’t have to jump into that thread, but Your ability to word arguments cohesively is better than mine I’m afraid-


133 posted on 01/31/2016 10:45:33 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson