Ping to the Usual Suspects!
Maybe you should print it out, march up to the White House and smack Obama in the face with it.
Then frog march him right on out of there.
Let me know how that works out for you.
The Plaintiffs v. Obama in the Georgia court could use this information tomorrow.
And, it explains why Obama’s “fightthesmears” website (now, “attackwatch”) NEVER claimed Obama was “natural born,” only “NATIVE born.”—Even Obama, himself, knows that he isn’t a natural born citizen.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080922222958/http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
Cheers
“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”
- MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL
See Osborn v. Bank of the United States - 22 U.S. 738 (1824)
Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to legislate the definition or the recapturing of Natural-born citizenship status.
The last line of the quote, “The law makes none[,]” is a reference to the fact the Court does not recognize a difference between a native born and a naturalized citizen.
Natural-born citizenship status can only be defined by a Constitutional Amendment.
The woman ``X`` came back to USA with her Mexican mother and later, woman ``X`` married, when she was 19, an American-born U.S. citizen in the USA.
Every year, before and after her marriage, the woman ``X`` had to register as a RESIDENT ALIEN. She had the option always, to renounce her Mexican citizenship and become naturalized by INS then, but opted instead for the Mexican citizenship. Her children, both born in USA, are American citizens claimed through their birthplace and through the American father.
Here is what I want to know. I have Google alerts for certain things and natural born citizen is obviously one of them. I have had that alert for over 3 years. The blog that Leo mentions above is loaded with that phrase yet I have never seen it before! How many other great sites are being blocked by this very phrase?
I really thought you should see this thread by Leo
Distinction made by the INS on Natural, Native, Naturalized citizen.
Wow. Well there you go.
What are the odds that this web page gets a thorough scrubbing by the Mahili court case hearing times tomorrow??
* scratches head in confusion *
This, in addition to the material set out in his amicus brief, is exactly the sort of material that will support an issue not previously resolved by the USSC. The material should give serious pause to lower courts and judges inclined to rule against the hisorical meaning of NBC.
Assuming Leo has the option at this date to amend his amicus brief, I hope he will decide to find the time to do so.
Leo points out that Interpretation 324.2(b) provides a clear delineation of each status.
Arguably, there also a clear distinction between native- and natural born in Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) ...the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to…)(emphasis added).
For example, Interpretation 301.1 United States citizenship doesn't make this same distinction.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-45113.html#0-0-0-22819
(a) Birth in the United States . (1) Statutory development . Prior to 1866, absent any statutory or constitutional provision, it was generally held, under the common-law principle of jus soli (the law of the place), that a person born in the United States acquired citizenship at birth; this principle was incorporated in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, and, two years later, found expression in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that all persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.
The above constitutional provision has remained in effect ever since, and is restated in this section. 1/
(2) “United States” defined . Prior to January 13, 1941, the term “United States” included the continental mainland, Hawaii after August 11, 1898, 2/ Alaska, upon its formal incorporation into the Union on March 30, 1867, 3/ but not Puerto Rico. 4/ The Philippine Islands have never been deemed to be part of the United States within the purview of the 14th Amendment. 4a/
The territorial limits of the United States were extended on January 13, 1941, to include Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, 5/ and the current statute has added Guam to this definitive grouping 6/
In addition to the land areas mentioned above, ports, harbors, bays, enclosed sea areas, and a three-mile marginal belt, along the coasts thereof, form a part of the territorial limits of the United States. 7/
Notwithstanding the position taken in the second paragraph under INTERP 316.1(b)(2)(i) and in INTERP 329.1(c)(3)(ii) , Midway Islands is not and never has been considered a part of the “United States” in the sense that United States citizenship is or was acquired at birth therein under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or any of the various statutory provisions which have conferred citizenship upon such basis.
(3) Effect of parents’ status . Alienage of a child's parents does not preclude his acquisition of citizenship jus soli nor did their racial ineligibility for naturalization under former laws have such result. 8/
Additionally, acquisition of citizenship is not affected by the fact that the alien parents are only temporarily in the United States at the time of the child's birth.
Additional example of inconsistency.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-10369.html
INA: ACT 349 - LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN
Sec. 349. [8 U.S.C. 1481]
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality-
Etc.
More:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-49904.html
Of similar significance are the words of other committees 20f/ stating, in effect, that the [ new naturalization of oath section ] is designed to place the naturalized citizen in the same position as the native-born citizen with respect to the responsibility for bearing arms, performing noncombatant service, and performing work of national importance under civilian direction.
And:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-51376.html
(xii) Under doctrine of election; origin of doctrine (Perkins v. Elg) . As early as 1875, the Attorney General of the United States asserted that a native-born United States citizen minor, who acquired dual nationality after birth through a parent’s resumption of foreign citizenship, could elect to retain United States citizenship upon attaining majority, 137/ a viewpoint subsequently approved by the United States Supreme Court in Perkins v. Elg, 138/ although not without prior dissident opinion. 139/ The Elg decision established that a right to elect United States nationality upon attaining majority existed under the circumstances stated, and that expatriation did not result when the dual national exercised such right by resuming residence in the United States. Upon the facts, the case did not decide any question as to the consequences of continued foreign residence and a failure to otherwise make an election, 140/ although the decision expressed the view that an election of foreign nationality by affirmative action could have been made by the dual national with expatriative effect. 141/
Based upon the decision in Perkins v. Elg, it was well established that a United States citizen, who after birth and during minority acquired a foreign nationality involuntarily through his parent’s naturalization, and the right to choose between nationalities on attaining majority. Upon an affirmative election of foreign citizenship, the dual national was deemed to have lost his United States nationality by foreign naturalization, pursuant to section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1907. 142/ The effect of Afroyim v. Rusk upon this rule is considered in INTERP 349.2(b)(2)(ii), infra.
-snip-
Pursuant to an interpretation of the second paragraph of Article XII of the Italian nationality law of 1912, a minor child born outside Italy of Italian parents did not lose Italian nationality when the parent having legal custody was naturalized in the country of the child’s birth, if the child already possessed the citizenship of that country. Thus, a minor child who was both a United States citizen by native birth and an Italian citizen at birth through his parents did not lose Italian nationality upon t he naturalization of his father in the United States. It further follows that since such child initially was and thereafter remained an Italian citizen, he could not and did not acquire anything more in the way of Italian nationality under the first paragraph of Article XII of the Italian statute when his father resumed Italian citizenship in accordance with Article IX(3) of that statute. Accordingly, such child did not acquire dual nationality after birth, the doctrine of election had no application, and e xpatriation thereunder by foreign naturalization pursuant to section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1907, could not and did not take place. 148/
Placemark!
Download, save and PRINT that page before the INS mysteriously decides to take it down!