Posted on 02/05/2016 8:22:26 PM PST by kathsua
further down I nthe same caser it is stated
[[Without an initial point of contact with the child by a father who knows the child is his own, there is no opportunity for father and child to begin a relationship. Section 1409 takes the unremarkable step of ensuring that such an opportunity, inherent in the event of birth as to the mother-child relationship, exists between father and child before citizenship is conferred upon the latter. ]]
This indicates citizenship is conferred by birth- he mother is not required to meet the same conditions that a father is in unwed cases-
[[Congress is well within its authority in refusing, absent proof of at least the opportunity for the development of a relationship between citizen parent and child,]]
‘Absent proof’ That is the condition they are bound by when deciding whether a person is a citizen or not o whether a person should be naturalized- It seems to me the case laws out the fact that there is a bond between mother and child, and a DNA connection that is a given, that isn’t present in a father ‘except through tests’ - hence the need for the addition of 1409 and the requirements therein regarding children who reside with unwed fathers - the following seems particularly relevant, and the last sentence seems ot be the whole crux of the Nguyen case, and whether citizenship does or does not pas from citizen mother to child
[[If citizenship is to be conferred by the unwitting means petitioners urge, so that its acquisition abroad bears little relation to the realities of the child’s own ties and allegiances, it is for Congress, not this Court, to make that determination. Congress has not taken that path but has instead chosen, by means of §1409, to ensure in the case of father and child the opportunity for a relationship to develop, an opportunity which the event of birth itself provides for the mother and child. ]]
[[Although the above discussion should illustrate that, contrary to petitioners’ assertions, §1409 addresses an undeniable difference in the circumstance of the parents at the time a child is born,]]
[[The general requirement for acquisition of citizenship by a child born outside the United States and its outlying possessions and to parents who are married, one of whom is a citizen and the other of whom is an alien, is set forth in 8 U. S. C. §1401(g). The statute provides that the child is also a citizen if, before the birth, the citizen parent had been physically present in the United States for a total of five years, at least two of which were after the parent turned 14 years of age. ]]
[[The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) 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 five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.]]
There is no naturalization process that takes place, these people are considered citizens
-——[[Oh, I will continue to call you out when you post falsehood and I see it.]]————
Mmm yes, you do that- I’ve explained the situation to you- if you insist on falsely accusing me from here on out, then whatever- I can’t force you to respond in a mature manner
(a) In general A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.
Those who need a ‘naturalization process’ because they did not obtain citizenship automatically are the following- those who fall outside of the above listed requirements of 1431 for automatic citizenship
(a) Application by citizen parents; requirements A parent who is a citizen of the United States (or, if the citizen parent has died during the preceding 5 years, a citizen grandparent or citizen legal guardian) may apply for naturalization on behalf of a child born outside of the United States who has not acquired citizenship automatically under section 1431 of this title.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1433
There is a naturalization process for these persons. They re required to submit their claim to a competent authority for adjudication.
A person who submits a foreign birth certificate in order to get a US passport, will be denied. That person has to first have his claim to US citizenship adjudicated in his favor.
Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. ... A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
So simple, even a cave man could understand it.
I think it was an RNC Elections Compliance panel or something like that; their comment was Cruz had been thoroughly vetted, and was authentically a USA Citizen, because he was born to an American Citizen (who just happened to be living in Canada). Ted’s mother was NOT a Canadian citizen.
Therefore, the issue is DEAD .. and Trump better figure that out really quickly .. because his attacks on Cruz over this is turning a lot of people away from Trump (not Cruz).
And .. What everybody should notice is how Cruz reacts if he doesn’t win New Hampshire.
Sometimes, even though you may realize that you are not going to be ahead in ONE state primary, the world had not come to an end .. but there are enough Conservatives, and or Evangelicals within the state that you can reach .. because it’s important to make every vote count.
And .. people can change their vote from the primary to the general election.
[[Citizenship can be acquired under 1409]]
When the condition warrant that-
where in post 261 and 262 is it required that they need to submit anything to prove citizenship? They are automatically citizens- 1409 has only to do with a child of a foreign mother, who resides with a father- they are the ones who must apply after birth- at birth and by birth do not-
Lol! I like it!
Well, if those posts of yours are the only source of authority ... I guess I don't understand your question, but those posts aren't any sort of authority.
-- 1409 has only to do with a child of a foreign mother, who resides with a father --
But just a couple posts ago, you thought that 1409 also applied to a foreign father. And I don't recall any requirement that the citizen-mother reside with the father, in fact, there is none.
-- they are the ones who must apply after birth --
Are you saying that 1409 foreign mothers who reside with (but aren't married to, 1409 being an out-of-wedlock provision) a father have to apply?
-- at birth and by birth do not [have to apply] --
8 USC 1409 is an at birth statute.
1409 -- The provisions of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 1401 of this title, and of paragraph (2) of section 1408 of this title, shall apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if ...
And to complete the statutory reference for "at birth" purposes, here are 1401 and 1408 ...
1401 -- The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person; ...
(g) 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 five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
Provided ...1408 -- Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth: ...
(2) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have had a residence in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of such person
So, do 1409 parents (father, mother, either, both, you tell me what you think, if there is any distinction) have to apply, or not? You seem to be saying they do, and then that they don't because citizenship at birth and by birth do not [have to apply].
You've cited state department manuals in the past. What is the correct reference in those manuals for birth under 1401(g)? The first blockqote below IS NOT THIS REFERENCE, I cite it only because it is interesting, and states the effect of the language in the US constitution.
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:At any rate, in order to prosecute a claim for US citizenship, the person born abroad must establish certain facts to the satisfaction of the competent governing authority. The claim is adjudicated, meaning evidence must be presented, and "the judge" (who can be a consular officer) makes findings based on the evidence.(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person's birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person's citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called "citizenship by descent" or "derivative citizenship", is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed. ...
See 7 FAM 1131.4-1 for Establishing Blood Relationship. Using the same link, see too 7 FAM 1131.5 Suspected False or Fraudulent Citizenship Claim of Minor Child, which touches on the potential extent of the proceeding and evidence that can be brought to bear.
Fir birth in wedlock, the evidence includes a marriage certificate and birth certificate, where the names of the husband and wife on the marriage certificate have to match the names of the father and mother on the birth certificate. That isn't conclusive, see the sections of manual at the link.
Even so-called "automatic naturalization" involves a procedure.
Thank you, friend.
“No alien needs to be naturalized.”
This debate is reaching the height of futility.
Do you intend to parse language worse than Bill Clinton? Does it depend what “is” is? I am not even talking about the law or the Constitution. I am talking about dissecting the words of our conversation rather than simply comprehending the message. I am using plain English.
We are not discussing nomenclature. We are not in an imaginary world where we can pretend how certain phonemes strung together ought to mean according to our preference. I am not contemplating navels.
Okay? So now you get where I am coming from hopefully. Naturalization is ALWAYS something that happens to an alien. That is what it means. If someone is a citizen already they do not “need” to be naturalized [to become a citizen. Do I really have to add this?]
“The 1790 act operated the same way. A person born abroad needs to be naturalized”
I am not sure if you get it. Maybe you get it but are pretending not to because you think that helps your case. It doesn’t. Do you know what that act says? Can you look it up with a few keystrokes and see without me needing to copy an paste for the millionth [not literal, okay?] time. The act specifically categorizes children born abroad to US citizen parents to be “natural born citizens”. A citizen can only be a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen. You can not be both. And there is no other kind. Not according to the Constitution or according to Vattel.
I agree with that. Obviously, you have a bug up your butt. The proposition I intended to state was that if Congress chose to naturalize nobody, that would be constitutional. "No alien needs to be naturalized" is another way to say that. Not naturalized, they stay an alien.
I know what the 1790 act is, I know how to find it, I've linked it numerous times, and discussed it numerous times. It is not a definition, despite your belief that it is. The phrase "shall be considered as" operates to create a legal fiction.
-- A citizen can only be a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen. You can not be both. And there is no other kind. Not according to the Constitution or according to Vattel. --
I disagree with most of that. I do agree that an NBC and a naturalized citizen are mutually exclusive. But, discussion between us is pointless. We both think the other is an idiot, and that suits me fine.
“There you have it - his birth status is conferred by a naturalization act, NOT by NATURE!”
You’re ridiculous. Do you even comprehend your own words?
Do you suppose that the citizenship fairy appears out of the ether whenever a baby is born and stamps its bottom with its natural born citizenship status?
citizen - a legally recognized member of a nation
born - what happens at birth
natural - conveyed naturally (in this case from the parents)
A natural born citizen is a citizen at birth where the citizenship is conveyed by virtue of the citizenship of the parents.
You and half of the members of this forum are way over complicating things.
It is not magical. The phrase can be expressed other ways. It is just a simple way of putting it.
The first naturalization act in 1790 conveyed citizenship to children of US citizens born abroad. This fact demolishes your legal theory. Otherwise you have to argue that the founders who ratified the Constitution 18 months earlier passed an unconstitutional naturalization act.
Well, many of those same founders rescinded that Act and replaced it verbatim minus natural born with the 1795 Act, so there's some legitimacy to thinking that they indeed recognized and corrected an error. How can you naturalize a natural born citizen via a Naturalization Act?
[[So, do 1409 parents (father, mother, either, both, you tell me what you think, if there is any distinction) have to apply, or not? You seem to be saying they do, and then that they don’t because citizenship at birth and by birth do not [have to apply].]]
This question of yours shows, I think, where the whole issue between you and I of misunderstanding stems from- The mother in 1401 is not an alien- the mother in 1409 is an alien- she obviously would have to apply for citizenship, and her child would not be an NBC if the father did not meet the requirements of 1409, and the child was I nthe custody of the father either- I never said an alien mother, or father hwo didn’t meet requirements laid out in 1409 didn’t need to apply- never- The child of a mother as outlined in 1401 does not have to apply- They are autromatically citizens as outlined in my posts 261 and 262
-——(a) In general A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.-———————
[[So simple, even a cave man could understand it. ]]
Yeah, so simple the supreme court and lower courts have already settled the issue and cleared up any ambiguity over the terms of the issue- oh wait.............
[[Even so-called “automatic naturalization” involves a procedure. ]]
Courts disagree with that hence the reason this issue which seems ‘so simple a caveman could understand it’ hasn’t been settled yet- You and I can disagree as to why- but if it’s so simple- and so cut and dried, then no person not born on soil to 2 us citizen parents should be allowed to run- period-
[[Fir birth in wedlock, the evidence includes a marriage certificate and birth certificate, where the names of the husband and wife on the marriage certificate have to match the names of the father and mother on the birth certificate.]]
But this is where it gets tricky- and it’s the point where the ‘Ted is legal’ advocates assert that this ‘act’ isn’t to confer citizenship upon the child but to confirm it- The child is born a citizen- and this only applies in cases where there is Suspected False or Fraudulent Citizenship Claim of Minor Child.
Both 1401(g) and 1409 account for one citizen parent. The one citizen parent can be the mother, or in the alternative, the one citizen parent can be the father. That makes four possibilities.
By the reckoning of the Supreme Court, none of the children would be NBC, and all of them (assuming the statutory conditions are satisfied) would be naturalized.
But, you see it different. So, which of these combinations requires "an application," and which do not?
-- so simple the supreme court and lower courts have already settled the issue and cleared up any ambiguity over the terms of the issue --
I see no precedent that uses any other rule. The fact that case law is too dense for you to understand does not make the case law confusing to others.
Congress is empowered by the Constitution to 'establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,' Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.
-- and this only applies in cases where there is Suspected False or Fraudulent Citizenship Claim of Minor Child. --
What is the "this" you are referring to? I contend that the parents have to go through the process of submitting to an examination relating to the circumstances of birth; and that the claim is adjudicated. Some cases are easy, some are not so easy, but all are adjudicated. If the process is never followed, the child is an alien as far as the law is concerned. See foreign birth certificate.
[[What is the “this” you are referring to?]]
The law you posted about- I posted the blurb from the act “Suspected False or Fraudulent Citizenship Claim of Minor Child”
[[But, you see it different. So, which of these combinations requires “an application,” and which do not?]]
I already explained which and backed it up citing the law I posted the words from- The Nguyen case and the federal case cited In the CRs report both show what I explained- 1409 is not speaking to a citizen mother who gives birth off soil UNLESS them other gives up custody to the father- then the father must meet requirements outlined in 1409 in order for child to be citizen
[[The fact that case law is too dense for you to understand does not make the case law confusing to others.]]
That is a true statement- but I understand it fine- and courts both supreme and federal have found that a citizen mother giving birth to child off soil is the same as one giving birth on soil because of jus sanguinis
IF you can show that there is a recent case showing jus sanguinis doesn’t confer citizenship by descent, then ok- but you just keep stating 1409 confers the same requirements onto 1401-
[[I contend that the parents have to go through the process of submitting to an examination relating to the circumstances of birth; and that the claim is adjudicated]]
The point beign that not all parents do have to - only those where it is suspected that there is fraudulence taking place- That was the ‘this’ that I was referring to
That's nonsense, literally, and I don't have the patience to sort out your gibberish. By way of example, NOTHING in the law speaks to "gives up custody to the father." You are deliberately fogging things up.
Just go back to the list of 1-4, and say which ones have to apply, and which don't.
-- and courts both supreme and federal have found that a citizen mother giving birth to child off soil is the same as one giving birth on soil because of jus sanguinis --
There you go with that lie again.
-- IF you can show that there is a recent case showing jus sanguinis doesn't confer citizenship by descent, then ok --
That isn't even the question. The question is whether citizenship by jus sanguinis is naturalization.
-- The point beign that not all parents do have to - only those where it is suspected that there is fraudulence taking place- That was the `this' that I was referring to --
"Do have to" what? Is it your contention that a foreign birth certificate, on its own, is evidence of United States NBC?
please refrain from posting you spam to the thread- thanks-
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.