[[Case law views that statute as a naturalization statute, despite the fact that it contains the phrase “natural born citizen.”]]
if you ARE REFERRIGN TO THE bELLEI CASE AS THE CASE LAW- BLACKMUN ACTUALLY STATED THAT A CITIZEN CAN LOSE HTEIR CITIZENSHIP (srry cps lock) IF they don’t maintain it voluntarily- A person can lose their citizenship IF they ‘voluntarily’ forfeit their citizenship- ie treason, not meeting requirements- etc- Blackmun indicated that congress does have the right to rescind citizenship if requirements aren’t met or a citizen forfeits their citizenship via statutes enacted by congress-This was the logic used in deciding the Bellei case- The dissenting judges didn’t agree- and gave various reasons for their arguments- but this was what was used along with the now rescinded naturalization act used at the time- the claim that meeting requirements automatically makes one ‘naturalized via statute’ simply isn’t true- [[That all of those facts need to be proved is evident not only on review of the naturalization statutes,]]
[[In order to demonstrate that the child comes within 8 USC 1401, certain facts need to be proved.]]
In order to prove one is born on soil, one needs to provide evidence too- no birth certificate, no citizenship at birth-
[[Citizenship retention requirements have no effect on the source of citizenship in the first place]]
“MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under constitutional challenge here, primarily on Fifth Amendment due process grounds, but also on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, is § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 236, 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(b).
Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), defines those persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Paragraph (7) of § 301(a) includes in that definition a person born abroad “of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States” who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301(b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301(a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html
The logic by Blackmun (whether right or wrong- it’s brought up here because it is this opinion, as well as the naturalization act in effect at the time, which formed the verdict In the Bellei case) being that a person who does not meet the requirements of statute forfeit their citizenship voluntarily , or when a citizen acted in a manner to imply an intent to give up citizenship
[[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]]
While that is true, that only had to do with naturalization of a person, not with citizenship at birth- which is a separate issue-
Since the Bellei case, in a 1980 case, Vance v. Terrazas[83]—the Supreme Court ruled that a person needs to do more than just ‘imply that they intended to forfeit citizenship’ (by not meeting congressional requirements at that time), an that courts couldn’t simply infer voluntary forfeiture based on acts performeded by citizen which violated requirements designated by Congress
The Afroyim and Terrazas case made it much harder to lose citizenship by not meeting requirements meant to retain citizenship set forth by congress, and subsequent cases have reinforced this idea further
The Bellei case was a case which determined that jus sanguinis citizenship could be rescinded IF the person did not meet requirements- Blackmun found that congress did have the right to impose requirements- later cases have since basically rescinded that finding
[[At Bellei’s birth, he was a citizen by operation of a statute.]]
He was a citizen jus sanguinis
[[Bellei got his citizenship from operation of an Act of Congress.]]
Where di the court finds that in the case? The whole controversy over the case was that jus sanguinis citizenship had been violated as evidenced by the dissenting opinions-
[[and noticing that Bellei was stripped of his citizenship by the same Act of Congress that gave him his citizenship, it follows that Bellei cannot have been natural born.]]
Except that the act which found him ‘ineligible’ has since been repealed, and the opinion of those who found him ineligible has since been undermined by recent cases
[[What you are rejecting is the case law.]]
actually I’m pointing to other case law which seem to undo what was found in Bellei case
[[The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the power of Congress to specify conduct that constitutes expatriation, but the right to citizenship is so substantial that such actions must be closely related to a conspicuous movement of allegiance away from the United States. Although some courts have ruled that Congress never is empowered to deprive the native born of citizenship, this view is not in accordance with current law.
Conviction of a crime can result in a partial deprivation of rights of citizenship. Prior to the twentieth century under English and American Common Law, convicts actually lost their citizenship, which was known in some jurisdictions as civil death. Today, however, only some rights are divested, even if the applicable law is called “loss of citizenship.”
A loss of citizenship can occur by serving in the military of another nation; serving as a public official in a foreign country that requires an oath of allegiance to that country; and attempting to overthrow the U.S. government, which is established by a conviction for the crime.
Conduct that might be construed as a renunciation of citizenship sometimes is insufficient to prove voluntary expatriation. If a person merely enjoys the benefits that are available in another country, the surrender of his or her U.S. citizenship is not necessarily established.]]
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/American+citizenship
Some say congress can’t pass laws that take citizenship away- this is untrue- if people violate statutes enacted by congress they can lose their citizenship both NC and naturalized citizenship- if people show they no longer wish citizenship by performing specific acts, they lose citizenship- to suggest that statutes automatically confer a process of naturalization isn’t true, and the issue of expatriation shows that the supreme court does allow congress the right to impose requirements via statutes on all citizens which they must satisfy
some In this thread have asked about a case where a child is born over seas, of a us citizen mother after meeting requirements for citizenship here (ie: mother is citizen) and question where that child’s allegiance lies (they cited an example If I recall of a child going to Saudi Arabia, living with foreign father, but who’s mother was a us citizen) the fact that someone lives I n another country has no bearing on their citizenship if they are a US citizen because simply living abroad does not automatically mean devotion or allegiance to the other country- only when steps are taken by the child that show he or she is willingly giving up citizenship can they forfeit their citizenship status in this country -
Any citizen has a responsibility, via statute of congress, (which has changed many times down through the ages) to maintain their citizenship
That certainly held true in the Bellei case, didn't it?
-- In order to prove one is born on soil, one needs to provide evidence too- no birth certificate, no citizenship at birth- --
Much discussion has centered on your ...
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-
... which you still haven't resolved yourself, but from your muddled responses, I think you were claiming that some children born abroad don't have to prove anything to get their citizenship.
Do you still maintain that "at birth and by birth do not [have to apply]"?
The burden of production of evidence (proof) for a person born abroad is remarkably different from producing only a birth certificate from a jurisdiction in one of the 50 states.
There is no need to produce your "US birth certificate" to an adjudicator, who in turn will issue a separate document saying you are a US citizen. You don't have to apply for a document that says you are a US citizen. Your birth certificate from a jurisdiction in the US is that document.
A person born abroad has to produce evidence that their birth meets the statutory requirements, and has to submit it to an adjudicator. Their foreign birth certificate is not evidence of US citizenship. It is evidence that they are an alien.
If they don't produce that evidence, they remain aliens. If they HAVE that evidence, and don't produce it, they remain aliens as far as getting anything done that requires evidence of US citizenship. If the circumstances of birth give them a claim to US citizenship, they are aliens for practical purposes, until they submit the claim for adjudication, and the adjudicator finds them to be citizens.
On his Canadian birth certificate, Ted Cruz is an alien. He has produced no evidence of being a US citizen. If he produces a FS-545 Certification of Birth, that is evidence that he or his parents submitted his claim to a State Department adjudicator, who found Ted to be a US citizen solely by operation of an Act of Congress. This is usually done while the child is still abroad, before entering the US.
If he produces a Certificate of Citizenship from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services branch of the Department of Homeland Security), that is evidence that he or his parents submitted his claim to an Immigration adjudicator, who found Ted to be a US citizen solely by operation of an Act of Congress. This process is followed if the parents neglected to have the citizenship claim adjudicated while the child was young. More particularly, this process is followed typically after the child is 5 years old, and positively certainly after the child is 18 years old.
-- that only had to do with naturalization of a person, not with citizenship at birth- which is a separate issue- --
Well hell bells. Then why are we even having a discussion? Nevermind the fact that the Bellei case says both, Bellei acquired United States citizenship at his birth, and Bellei is a naturalized citizen. Bob says they are separate issues. Ok, Supreme Court, or Bob, which is the legal authority? I guess I'll go with Bob! Hahahahah. you are a real hoot, I gotta hand it to you.
-- He was a citizen jus sanguinis --
So what? Citizens jus sanguinis can't be naturalized? Citizens jus sanguinis are all natural born citizens? I mean, I agree he was a citizen jus sanguinis, and the Bellei case finds that Bellei acquired his citizenship solely by operation of an Act of Congress. Those positions aren't contradictory or mutually exclusive - they run hand in hand. If a person's citizenship is solely jus sanguinis, the person is a naturalized citizen. The case doesn't say so in those words (it refers to "citizenship by descent"), but that is what the case stands for.
The [Wong Kim Ark] Court concluded that 'naturalization by descent' was not a common-law concept but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment.
-- Where di the court finds [Bellei got his citizenship from operation of an Act of Congress] that in the case? --
That is in the set of stipulated facts, #3 ...
He [Bellei] also acquired United States citizenship at his birth under Rev.Stat. S: 1993, as amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, S: 1, 48 Stat. 797, then in effect.
-- Except that the act which found him `ineligible' has since been repealed, and the opinion of those who found him ineligible has since been undermined by recent cases --
I explained why the changes to the naturalization act have no bearing on the question of the citizenship being of the naturalized variety. I am not surprised that you don't comprehend the explanation.
You have yet to produce a case that undermines a central premise of the Bellei case, a premise that is necessary for the case to even exist, that premise being that Bellei was naturalized. If it weren't for the Act of Congress being in force, he would have been born an alien. "Naturalization" is the legal act of changing an alien into a citizen, no matter what form that legal act takes.
-- actually I'm pointing to other case law which seem to undo what was found in Bellei case --
The fact that some parts of the Bellei case have been undone (all by Congress, I believe), does not mean that a person who acquires citizenship solely by operation of a statute is not naturalized.
You wasted your time talking about how people lose or give up their citizenship. The issue is how people GET their citizenship, not how they GIVE IT UP.
Voluntarily? Excuse me, VOLUNTARILY? What are you smoking, drinking, ingesting or shooting up?
Bellei did not meet the requirements of the statute.
Bellei's citizenship was taken from him against his will.
He sued to get it back.
The dissent in the Bellei case said this ...
The holding [in Afroyim] was clear. Congress could not, until today, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment enact a law stripping an American of his citizenship which he has never voluntarily renounced or given up. Now this Court, by a vote of five to four through a simple change in its composition, overrules that decision.
For those of you in Rio Linda, what that says is that the majority decision in this case upholds a statutory provision (since removed by Congress) that strips an American of his citizenship which he has never voluntarily renounced.
Your posts are so riddled with errors, misstatements and fabrications, that it would be impossible to do so by accident. It has to be deliberate on your part. Why don't you get serious and conduct an adult conversation?