Replies

I never implied otherwise.

I never claimed that. You need to take a class in reading comprehension.

Having read your other posts on the subject not posted to me but to others, I see that you do not necessarily think that a child born to US citizens abroad are not U.S. citizens at birth and NBC’s (like Ax’s children – that you claim not to be a “birther” – that the question remains unsettled by court decision and that you believe that Ax’s children would be eligible to be POTUS and in that we do not disagree.

However I think perhaps you are still confused about what is meant regarding birth on U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities – that differentiates children born on such U.S. facilities abroad whose parents do not meet any of the requirements of parental U.S. citizenship and residency, it does not mean to say anything about the children born abroad by a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the U.S. residency requirements as their citizenship is not predicated on whether or not they were born on a U.S. facility abroad or as you stated, to children born on U.S. soil.

Here is the entire section of which you quoted with nothing skipped and with key words highlighted:

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.‖

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Note that, and I think you probably agree, that the words “does not necessarily imply” does not mean that it is implicit or settled law. I am not saying this for your benefit but for others who may misunderstand what the U.S. State Department Manual is saying. The U.S. State Department is basically saying that the law is very complicated and they are not in the position and rightly so, to rule on the Constitutional eligibility question. I think this last statement is more of a CYA than it is their opinion on the subject.

Here is a link to the entire manual:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

7 FAM 1132 EVOLUTION OF KEY ACQUISITION STATUTES

7 FAM 1132.1 March 26, 1790

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. The First Congress enacted "An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization" (1 Stat. 103,104) that stated, in part, that: the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

b. This Act was repealed by the Act of January 29, 1795.

7 FAM 1132.2 January 29, 1795

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. This Act (1 Stat. 414) repealed the Act of March 26, 1790, but in section 3, adopted essentially the same provision for acquiring U.S. citizenship by birth abroad.

b. This Act was repealed by the Act of April 14, 1802

7 FAM 1132.3 April 14, 1802

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. Section 4 of this Act (2 Stat. 153,155) stated, in part, that: ―the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.

‖ b. This Act’s formula of permitting transmission of citizenship by ―persons who now are, or have been citizens raised a question whether persons who subsequently became citizens by birth or naturalization could transmit citizenship to their children born abroad. The right of such persons to transmit was clearly provided in the Act of February 10, 1855.

7 FAM 1132.4 February 10, 1855

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. On this date, Congress enacted "An Act to Secure the Right of Citizenship to Children of Citizens of the United States Born Out of the Limits Thereof," (10 Stat.604).

b. It stated, in part, that: ―persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.‖

c. The Act of February 10, 1855 did not repeal the Act of April 14, 1802.

FAM 1132.5 Section 1993, Revised Statutes of 1878

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. The provisions of the Act of 1802 and the Act of 1855 were codified as Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1878. From 1878 to 1934, Section 1993, Rev. Stat., stated that: All children heretofore or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.

b. Section 1993 permitted the transmission of citizenship only by U.S. citizen fathers until it was amended prospectively on May 24, 1934, to permit transmission by U.S. citizen mothers. (The similar rights of women were also addressed by the 1994 amendment to section 301 INA (see 7 FAM 1133.2-1).)

It goes on…and on and on…

But the key point is that the "Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization" (1 Stat. 103,104) that stated, in part, that: the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States., while repealed by the Act of January 29, 1795, that act “in section 3, adopted essentially the same provision for acquiring U.S. citizenship by birth abroad.” Subsequent acts only clarified or liberalized residency requirements or expanded the right of citizenship to the children of U.S. citizen mothers or to the children born out of wedlock. But the essence and spirit of the first act of 1790 did not change, although some may disagree.

And I agree with you that the Constitution and the 14th Amendment only classifies two types of citizenship; those who acquire it by birth and those who acquire it through “naturalization” and I agree with you that there are retention requirements placed upon citizenship at birth for those born overseas that are not conditions required of those born on U.S. soil.

I find the whole argument regarding the definition of NBC interesting because of my family history. My father was born in Norway and was brought to the U.S. around the age of 6 by his widowed mother several years after she came here legally and established permanent residency and remarried another Norwegian legal immigrant who adopted my father but neither of whom became naturalized citizens until some years later.

My father being so young quickly assimilated and considered himself an American. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entered WWII, my father, like a lot of other patriotic young American men, at age 18 went to voluntarily enlist to fight for “his” country but was refused to enlist voluntarily as he was a not citizen nor were his parents at the time, so he applied for naturalization. But ironically a year later and before he became a citizen he was drafted by the U.S. Army. Even more ironically, at the time he was drafted, he was working for the NY railroad and as it was considered “essential war work” and he was entitled to a deferment but refused. He served with honor and distinction in the SPT earning two Purple Hearts and several metals for valor in battle. After the war, he came back to his home in New Jersey and met and married my mother and they had a child, my older brother. After my brother was born, my father finally got his naturalization papers - something that would have happened prior to my brother’s birth had the U.S. Army not lost for a time his records and his discharge papers and even then made mistakes on them such as saying he served in the ETO that delayed his application. During the time my father was serving in the Army during the war, his parents were naturalized but since my father was over 21 by then, their citizenship did not confer to him.

When my father appeared before the judge presiding over his naturalization swearing in ceremony two years after my brother was born, he told my father that this was a “mere” formality and that in his opinion; my father became for all intense purposes a U.S. citizen when he took the military oath and proved his allegiance to this county by his military service.

I was born 12 years after my brother, after my father’s naturalization. Both my brother and I were both born on U.S. soil, but since my father was not yet “officially” naturalized, some say that my brother is not a NBC and would be ineligible for the office of POTUS, were as I would be.

Some would argue that since my father was not a naturalized citizen at the time of my brother’s birth, that my brother retained some sort of dual allegiance to the county of my father’s birth. But nothing could be farther from the truth. My father was a Red White and Blue American through and through – a true American patriot in both words and deeds. He loved this country with all his heart¸ was proud of his service to this country and knew more about American history than most who were born here, and while proud of his “Viking” heritage (as I am), never considered himself a Norwegian or a Norwegian-American (BTW, he hated those hyphenations, often saying “either you are an American or you are not, I am an American) and would often say “Love America or Leave It”. He didn’t even speak any Norwegian at home except when my grandparents came to visit and even then he would tell them – speak English or get out!) He had no tolerance for anti-American sentiments especially during the anti-war movements of the late 1960’s, he was a member in good standing with the VFW, the American Legion and the NRA, was a Conservative and a registered Republican.

I like to kid my brother about what the “birthers” say, telling him he is not a NBC; that he is not as much as a citizen as I am. Of course I’m only doing this to rib him because that’s what little sisters do but I consider my big brother just as much as an American and NBC as I am.