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 ...
You noted no such thing.
I can come up with the original French
That would certainly be preferable to your derviative English lies and bullshit.
Well, just to be totally accurate and complete, the court did note that there were doubts as to the other’s status, and then quickly noted that it was not necessary to resolve those doubts in this case.
You can keep dragging your nonsense to Free Republic, Jeffy, but it isn’t discouraging me, or anyone else. It is after midnight here on the West Coast, and unlike you, no one is paying me to post. I’m going to bed.
But before I go I want you to know that you’re not successful in the least at frustrating true Conservatives at this site.
I’m looking forward to the day when traitors trying to destroy the Constitution are hung from light posts. Sure hope the Globalists are paying you well for the garbage you put out.
I don’t know Jeff so I can’t speak for him but no, I don’t work for the Democrat Party. It is my personal opinion that the presidential ineligibility movement does more harm to conservative goals than good. So I oppose it.
The only case that matters TO YOU was decided in 1874. That particular case, however hasn’t mattered to any of the literally hundreds of judges who have ruled on presidential eligibility in original jurisdiction courts, state and federal appeals courts, state Supreme Courts, or among the nine Justices who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court bench.
so Jeff is still unemployed?
Of course I did. I even showed you where I noted it. In red.
That would certainly be preferable to your derviative English lies and bullshit.
French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):
“Personne, à moins d’être citoyen-né, ou d’avoir été citoyen des États-Unis, au moment…”
“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”
French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):
“Nul, excepté un naturel né Citoyen, ou un Citoyen des Etats-Unis,à l’époque del’adoption de cette Constitution, ne sera éligible à l’office de Président.”
“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)
French translation, (translated, 1799):
“Nul ne sera éligible a l’office de président, s’il n’est pas né citoyen des États-Unis…”
“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”
From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):
“El presidente es elejido entre todos los ciuidadanos nacidos en los Estados Unidos, de edad de treinta y cinco años…”
“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”
French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):
“Aucun individu, autre qu’un citoyen né dans les États-Unis…”
“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”
French books on the Constitution:
“Le président doit être citoyen né des États-Unis…”
“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)
“Nul, s’il n’est citoyen natif…”
“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)
Another French translation, 1837:
“Nul ne peut être Président, a moins qu’il ne soit né dans les États-Unis…”
“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”
From Spanish-language books on the Constitution:
“No podrá ser presidente nadie que no haya nacido ciudadano delos Estados-Unidos, ó lo sea al tiempo de adoptarse esta constitucion…”
“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)
“El presidente debe ser ciudadano nacio en los Estados-Unidos…”
“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848) Born in the United States. No mention of parents.
But Jefferson's point was that Christianity itself was never made a part of the common law.
And Jefferson himself says that Christianity arrived around the year 600. In this he is not, strictly speaking, correct.
Quoting from an article on the history of Christianity in England:
The first evidence of Christianity in England is from the late 2nd century AD. (There may have been Christians in Britain before then, we cannot be sure). Roman Britain was a cosmopolitan place. Merchants from all over the empire settled there and soldiers from many countries served there so we will never know who first introduced Christianity to England.
At that time England and Wales were ruled by the Romans. The native people were Celts. They were polytheists (they worshipped many gods). The Romans too were polytheists and they were willing to allow the Celts to worship their old gods.
However the Romans were not tolerant of Christianity. At times waves of persecution crossed the empire. St Alban the first British Christian martyr was executed in a town called Verulamium in 304 AD. Much later an abbey was built there dedicated to St Alban and it gave its name to the town of St Albans.
In 313 the Emperor Constantine granted Christians freedom of worship. So persecution ended and during the 4th century Christianity became widespread in England.
In 314 three British bishops attended a church council in Arles in France, Eborius bishop of York, Restitutus bishop of London and Adelius bishop of Caerleon (Gwent). So by that time [314 AD] there was a flourishing and organised church in England.
In Hinton St Mary, Dorset a 4th century mosaic was found with the face of Jesus and the Greek letters chi rho, which stand for christos (Greek for Christ) showing Christianity was a popular religion in England. [again, in the 300s.]
Christianity in Anglo Saxon England
In 407 the last Roman soldiers left Britain. Over the following decades Roman civilisation broke down. In the 5th and 6th centuries Saxons, Angles and Jutes from Germany and Denmark invaded southern and eastern England and gradually conquered most of England.
However Christianity continued to thrive in Wales and by the early 5th century it spread to Ireland. In the 5th and 6th centuries Scotland was converted. Cut off from the Church in Rome Celtic Christians formed a distinctive Celtic Church.
According to tradition Pope Gregory saw boys on sale in the slave market in Rome. He is supposed to have asked about them and when told that they were Angles he replied ‘not Angles but angels' When he became Pope he was keen to convert the Anglo-Saxons. In 596 he sent a party of about 40 men led by Augustine to Kent. They arrived in 597.
Aethelberht permitted the monks to preach in Kent and in time he was converted. (The king of Kent was married to a Christian princess named Berta. It may have been partly due to her influence that Kent was converted to Christianity). Furthermore his nephew, Saeberht, the king of Essex was also converted.
Meanwhile in 627 King Edwin of Northumbria (the North of England) and all his nobles were baptised. (He may have been influenced by his wife, Ethelburgh, who was a Christian). Most of his subjects followed.
Even if Jefferson were correct about the date Christianity arrived in England, the common law most certainly continued to evolve LONG after the 600s. It was not simply complete and set in stone from the time that the Sacons arrived (which Jefferson puts as being around 450 AD).
In fact, Encyclopedia Brittanica (which seems a fairly authoritative source for things Brittanic) says that the English common law system really came about in the Middle Ages:
"The common-law system originated in England in the Middle Ages."
Wikipedia sheds more light on how this came about:
Medieval English common law
In the late 800s, Alfred the Great assembled the Doom book (not to be confused with the more-famous Domesday Book from 200 years later), which collected the existing laws of Kent, Wessex, and Mercia, and attempted to blend in the Mosaic code, Christian principles, and Germanic customs dating as far as the fifth century.
Before the Norman conquest in 1066, justice was administered primarily by what is today known as the county courts (the modern "counties" were referred to as "Shires" in pre-Norman times), presided by the diocesan bishop and the sheriff, exercising both ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction. Trial by jury began in these courts.
In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalized common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies and reinstating a jury system – citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems.
Yes. Absolutely.
The case you cite, Ludlam v. Ludlam, like so many cases cited by those who insist on a twisted interpretation of the Constitution, had nothing at all to do with a child born on US soil of non-citizen parents.
In the absence of any law of the United States governing the particular case, the question whether one born out of the United States is a citizen, is to be determined by the common law, as it existed, irrespective of English statutes, at the adoption of the Federal Constitution...
Held, accordingly, that where a citizen of the United States went to Peru at the age of eighteen years, with the intention of indefinite continuance there for the purpose of trading, but took no steps to be naturalized in Peru, or to indicate an intention of a permanent change of domicil, otherwise than as before stated, his child born to him in Peru of a wife the native of that country, is a citizen of the United States.
This case is also abundantly clear on what law its citizenship determination rested: the common law.
Once again, this case, like all of the others, is consistent with everything I've said, and everything said by every real legal authority of the early United States.
Aren’t you charming?
Are you female?
And of course I don't either.
And I certainly agree that it's doing more harm to conservatives than good. That's one of the reasons why I oppose it as well. Others are: I just don't like people deceiving others with untrue tales, and I just don't like people trying to bend the Constitution from what it says to what they wish it would say.
That's not a conservative approach. A conservative approach respects the Constitution and accurately understands what it means.
Not too long ago ~ the reign of Jorge Bush II in fact, when the US still allowed foreign visitors to use a family visa, the offspring born here WERE NOT TREATED AS US CITIZENS!
So why did they do that?
My opinion or your opinion isn't the issue i addressed. I simply made an observation on your behavior, which is either obsessional in nature, or purposeful obstruction.
I don't.
By-the-word, hourly, or straight salary, I wonder?
I usually pass over many posts, like those posters whom name begins with Jeff or Sven and end in crap, or is that carp, I need to look. But yours I will always stop and read, thanx for the yuks my FRiend. (Are we still fishing in FL or are you back enjoying the global cooling here in the NE?)
Read the link:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/04/ins-proves-obama-not-eligible.html
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.