Posted on 01/25/2012 9:12:53 AM PST by Danae
I was just made privy to a very important piece of research I had not previously been aware of. It comes by way of a comment forwarded to me by the author of the h2ooflife blog:
I had presumed that the idiom natural born citizen appeared nowhere in U.S. Law other than A2S1C5, but I found it in administrative law and it is contrasted with native and naturalized citizenship. Ive never seen any mention of this fact before and wonder how many are aware of it in the ineligibility camp. Heres the quotes:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html
He then quoted two provisions from the link provided, but theres actually three at the official INS .gov site which establish official recognition by the federal government that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated. When you visit the suggested link to the Immigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.
Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:
The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien (Emphasis added.)
Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:
(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 (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired. (Emphasis added.)
And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:
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. (Emphasis added.)
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48438.html
Three times in this official INS Interpretation currently published by the Obama Administration native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example from Interpretation 324.2(b) the INS clearly states that each delineation, naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, is a separate status.
The INS includes the following explanation of Interpretations:
Interpretations were created to supplement and clarify the provisions of the statute and regulations as interpreted by the courts. These materials usually are not included in the regulations because they deal generally with procedural matters and do not deal directly with application and benefit requirements. They are still a useful tool to help you understand how the DHS Bureaus performs their different immigration services and enforcement functions. Users of the Operation Instructions and Interpretations should always consult the relevant regulations and manuals in conjunction with these materials. As the DHS Bureaus have grown, the trend has been towards inclusion of more materials in the regulations and field manuals, and the Operations Instructions and Interpretations have been updated less frequently.
I am rather rocked by this find, having never seen it before, and it certainly comes to the attention of the nation at a critical moment, one day before the Georgia POTUS eligibility hearings. I do have a policy of only printing comments from attorneys, but I did say in the comment rules that I would be happy to read messages from anyone. Since this research is new to me, and directly relevant to a proper analysis of the natural-born citizen clause, I have made an exception in posting this comment.
However, I must stress that I do not agree with some things at the h2ooflife blog. While I havent had the time to examine everything there, I must point out the following, and zealously dispute it:
The First U.S. Congress included in the 1790 Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department to the fact that Americans born abroad are (natural born citizens and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth. They were not granted citizenship via that US statute, rather their automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by immigration authorities. They were not citizens by any other means than natural law, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.
This is not a reasonable explanation. It fails to recognize that Congress only has powers over naturalization. Congress has no power to define natural born Citizen, which has nothing to do with naturalization. Furthermore, if Congress wants to tell the State Department something, they dont have to enact legislation to do it.
But more important is that all of the following naturalization acts, 1795, 1802, etc., were also passed to naturalize the children of U.S. citizens born abroad. And the words natural born were repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act and never returned again.
In Rogers. v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that persons born abroad are not covered by the 14th Amendment, and therefore, their citizenship can be stripped from them by Congress, whereas Congress cannot strip citizenship from a 14th Amendment citizen, whether born or naturalized here:
Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law, so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688 . Then follows a most significant sentence:
But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.
Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action
Further, it is conceded here both that Congress may withhold citizenship from persons like plaintiff Bellei and may prescribe a period of residence in the United States as a condition precedent without constitutional question.
Thus we have the presence of congressional power in this area, its exercise, and the Courts specific recognition of that power and of its having been properly withheld or properly used in particular situations. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830-831. (Emphasis added.)
Naional law has always required persons born abroad to be naturalized, whether born of citizen parents or not. Furthermore, those born abroad to citizen parents are subject to conditions precedent which Congress may impose upon them in order for them to remain U.S. citizens, whereas Congress has no such power over natural-born citizens, native-born citizens, or citizens naturalized in the U.S.
Again, not only are children of citizens born abroad not natural-born, the Supreme Court has held that their citizenship is subject to being stripped by Congress, since the Constitution does not directly provide for their citizenship, as it does for those born or naturalized in the United States.
I do not appreciate the authors argument on this point. It is definitely wrong.
Regardless, the research provided as to the INS Interpretations is superb and greatly appreciated. Well done, sir.
Adding these official Interpretations of the INS, published at the official .gov site, to the Supreme Courts opinion from Minor v. Happersett, the true Constitutional definition of a natural-born citizen, as one born in the country to citizen parents, is further reinforced.
Like the Obama administrations prior scrubbing of the Foreign Affairs Manual, on August 21, 2009, the INS web site appears due for a cut and die at the salon.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
It isn’t a matter of Italian law unless you personally swear allegiance to Italy and renounce your American Citizenship. If you have not done so, then you haven’t.
I sincerely disagree.
stop asking stupid questions that you already know the answer to. Your situation is NOTHING like Obongo’s.
And yet we frequently hear how foreign law—British, Kenyan or Indonesian— denies Obama NBC status here because of their claim on his allegiance. Why doesn’t foreign law that says I’m an Italian citizen mean that I’m not NBC? Is it possible that foreign laws have nothing to do with the matter?
Neither of which are required for me to obtain an Italian passport. Italy already considers me a citizen (although they don't know I exist), so there's no need for me to swear allegiance. And the US doesn't require me to renounce my citizenship if I apply for an Italian passport. It appears, then, that I can be both a Natural Born Citizen of the US and a passport-carrying citizen of another country.
Listen Obongo boot licker, stop pretending you don’t see the difference. BOTH of your parents were citizens when you were born. Who gives a rats a$$ what your heritage is. Barry Hussein’s ‘supposed’ baby daddy was not a citizen. It’s clear that in Dreams he felt an allegiance to a “father” he never really knew simply because he was African.
Want to talk about the Odinga incidents? What was he doing over there?
Crawl back under your bridge troll, your luck will run out.
Bubba boy, you can be anything you want, you're not trying to be president.
Are you saying that foreign law has nothing to do with who is or isn't a Natural Born Citizen?
Thanks for posting your photo, but you don’t seem to want to answer the question. Can I be a Natural Born Citizen with dual nationality? The fact that I’m not running for President is irrelevant to the answer.
Not my photo troll, you BFF... or maybe your BFF and you are really one and the same.
Not my photo troll, you BFF... or maybe your BFF and you are really one and the same.
Of course it’s relevant if you are running for president. Presidents should not have divided loyalties which Obongo does.
Again, you’re not answering the question: Can someone be a Natural Born Citizen of the US while holding dual citizenship?
So you’d rather mock up graphics that answer the question.
So, am I a Natural Born Citizen? Both of my parents were born here
_____________
Yes. Obongo’s supposed sire was not born here, therefore he is not and he is blatantly obvious in his book that he has a strong allegiance to Africa. Don’t forget Odinga and Obongo too. He has no loyalty to America other than “to fundamentally transform it”.
So you agree that British, Kenyan and Indonesian law have no relevance to the matter.
Download, save and PRINT that page before the INS mysteriously decides to take it down!
Let's make this very, very clear: it is OBAMA'S FATHER'S CITIZENSHIP which he (Obama) has well-documented as KENYAN which is what disqualifies HIM from the "natural-born" citizen status. Unless he is willing to say his birth certificate is a fake or his Kenyan father is in fact, NOT his father, and he somehow dreams up an American father and new birth certificate, Obama has no where else to go on this.
Likewise, Mitt Romney, whose father was born in Mexico, and Rick Santorum, whose father may or may not have been an American citizen at the time of his birth, need to prove their eligibility on these grounds as well.
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.