But, in continuation of the 'taking the condition of the father', minor children become naturalized citizens when the father becomes a naturalized citizen....just like Rubio was.
Interesting. I’ll have to look again at my father’s naturalization document, I’ll pull it out of the safe deposit box when I have time. But I do not recall seeing anything in that document regarding my brother. You would think that if my brother was indeed an alien resident at birth, he would have some sort of naturalization papers in his own right and in his possession as legally it would be important for him to prove his citizenship if he didn’t have it from birth. And if my mother had been the resident alien and my father the born US citizen, are you saying that my brother would have been a born citizen and wouldn’t require any sort of naturalization after birth? I don’t see that, the paternal vs. maternal clause anywhere in the Constitution or in the 14th Amendment.
What you are referring to as to “the minor children become naturalized citizens when the father (parent or parents) becomes a naturalized citizen” pertains only to the minor children of the naturalized citizen who were born outside of the US before the parent’s naturalization, not those of the children born in the US. Those born in the US do not require naturalization. Yes, if my brother had been born in Norway and while he was still a minor, when my father became naturalized, then yes my father’s naturalization would apply to his non-US born children and in that case, my brother would possess his own naturalization documentation and papers to that effect.
No, that's one thing that naturalized AND natural born citizens have in common....ALL their children are natural-born.
But what if my father wasn’t naturalized until after my brother got married and had children and grandchildren or my father never became naturalized or died suddenly before the naturalization process was complete. In that case, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that my brother, his children and all his grandchildren and all their children and so on would all be resident aliens and would all have to apply for US citizenship?
Because your brother was born with his father's natural born citizenhip (jus sanguinis), your brother was born with a natural obligation of allegiance and loyalty to the sovereign of Norway, but the man-made naturalization laws of the United States also granted your brother man-made or statutory U.S. citizenship at birth which only at the age of majority your brother could affirm as a U.S. Citizen or repudiate as a Norwegian Citizen.
BS! My brother was never a Norwegian citizen. And if you insist that he was then kindly describe in detail and with references to US law (and not just the typical birther navel gazing and quotations from Vatell, a Swiss philosopher who may have had some influence on the founders but did not write nor sign the US Constitution), exactly how my brother at the age of majority (21 at the time) should have gone about affirming his US citizenship and repudiating his supposed Norwegian citizenship. Would that have required him to swear an oath in front of a judge? Swear a notarized affidavit? Placed an ad in the local newspaper stating he really, really, really didn’t want to be a Norwegian anymore? Travel to Norway in person and personally refute his Norwegian citizenship? And if he traveled outside the US before this supposedly required affirmation of his US citizenship, would he have had to get a US passport or a Norwegian passport or both? When he got his draft notice during Vietnam at the age of 20, could he have gone to the draft board and claimed that as a Norwegian citizen and not yet attained the age of majority, that he was exempt? I somehow think that wouldn’t have worked.
This whole argument reminds me of what I experienced after my father died. His entire estate was valued at less than $10,000 and my attorney advised me that as a “small estate” and being that I was a signatory on my father’s account and his executor, I didn’t have to open an “estate account” with his bank. He even warned me that the bank might try to make me open one as there were some pretty hefty bank fees associated opening one, but that I didn’t have to and shouldn’t be pressured into doing so.
When I went to the bank to deposit an insurance settlement check (from a previous car accident unrelated to his death), the bank teller insisted that I couldn’t deposit the check as it was made out to the “estate of” and that I had to open a special estate account that my attorney warned me about. I presented the paperwork my attorney provided, the court filing that stated it was a “small estate” and explained to her why I didn’t have to open an “estate account”.
She just looked at me with a blank stare for at time and then said, “No, you have to open an estate account”. When I asked her to explain why, she said, and I quote, “Well, like it’s sorta, like kinda like a law”.
I politely schooled her on the fact that there is no such thing as “sorta, like kinda like a law”; it’s either a law or it isn’t, there is no grey area. And then I requested to speak with the bank manager. After she looked at the paperwork, she agreed that I was correct and that didn’t have to open an estate account.
Here is a pretty good explanation of citizenship.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
The whole “birther” argument pinges on the “sorta, like kinda like a law”, but not on the actual law.
And furthermore, when my father took the oath of enlistment, IMO he became a citizen and the judge who presided in his naturalization, thought the same, saying it was merely a “formality” as my father proved and affirmed his US citizenship with his military service:
Oath of Enlistment:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
No wonder you're so screwed up in your thinking.
See comment at 398 pertaining to www.usconstitution.net.
Try visiting @www.usconstitution.org instead.
It is unfortunate that you would rather spew “birther” insults and your ignorance rather than some common decency and respect. It is nonetheless a fact that Norway’s citizenship laws provided for jus sanguinis citizenship laws for the children of Norwegian citizens born in other natons with competing eligibility for jus sanguinis rights of citizenship through the mother and/or jus soli citizenship for the palce of birth. There are limitatoins to the right to claim this Norwegian citizenship based upon a short time after reaching the age of majority and residency requirements to name just two such requirements. You can confirm by reading the Norwegian Government’s websites and/or the Wikipedia article on the subject of Norwegian citizenship.
Norway does require the renunciaton of another citizenship, whenever possible, when claiming Norwegian citizenship by jus sanguinis descent.
Assuming your father was a Norwegian citizen and your mother was a German citizen at the time your brother’s birth, he may also have had a right to claim German citizenship by right of jus sanguinis from your mother, but I would have to check the German laws egarding it. Since you are non-receptive to such information, I’ll let you decide whether or not you want to continue on in ignorance and deny the information.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 080 DUAL NATIONALITY
(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005) (Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI)
7 FAM 081 SUMMARY
(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005)
e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person. A foreign country might claim you as a citizen of that country if (a) you were born there; (b) your parent or parents (and sometimes grandparents) are or were citizens of that country[....]
Side note: when I used to quote this State Department handbook in the years before 2009, it unequivocally noted that the U.S. Government did not recognize a right to dual citizenship, but it did acknowledge that other natons did so and U.S. Citizens claimed dual citizenship without U.S. Government recognition of such a practice. After the Obama Administration was inaugurated and Hillary Clinton became the new Secretary of state, the wording was changed to what you presently see. The old wording appears to have disappeared down the memory hole.