Posted on 04/02/2013 9:04:27 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
The Immigration and Naturalization Service:
“Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”
Interpretation 324.2(a)(7):
“(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 as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
Interpretation 324.2:
“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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at uscis.gov ...
“... is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.”
So once an natural born Citizen is not always a natural born Citizen - correct?
Look up ‘born’ in the dictionary. As an adjective - as it certainly appears to be in the Constitution - the term means ‘from birth’. FROM birth. Not ‘AT birth’.
‘Born’ is not a single point in time status. It is an ongoing status.
Repatriation as a naturalized citizen would nullify natural born status it appears.
Given how stirred up the Fogbowers are this seems to have hit a nerve.
I agree! Thus my parenthetical “(Of course one could argue ...).”
“To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
Obama was given the opportunity to restore his natural born citizenship status within 6 months after he reached the age of majority because he was issued a CLN as a minor.
Since he chose to remain as an Indonesian National living as a Permanent Resident Alien living in America after he reached the age of majority,he lost the opportunity to restore his natural born citizenship status 6 months after his 18th birthday.
In 1983,Obama completed the process of naturalization to become a U.S. Citizen. The Department of Homeland Security is discharged with the duty of maintaining the records of U.S. Citizens issued a Certificate of Naturalization. U.S. Federal documents supercede state records,hospital records or medical personnel affidavits concerning a birth. The U.S. Federal Government says he naturalized in 1983 and that’s final. He’s ineligible to be President of the U.S.
24 posted on Tue Apr 02 2013 12:02:12 GMT-0500 (CDT) by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Bluecat6, (cold case posse supporter FYI)
So Sven asserting 0 was an NBC was wrong in this post?
Scenario 1 varies.
The earliest Naturalization Acts* state that the children of aliens naturalize upon the naturalization of their parents, whether born here or not. This has changed over time so that now under 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (a) "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a "citizen at birth" due to a broadly construed "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
The foregoing illustrates that naturalization statute controls the "any person born here" set as well as the "naturalized citizen" set.
There are two problems with this construction:
1) Obviates the necessity of the grandfather clause of Art. II, § 1
2) Art. II eligibility requirements would be subject to statute. Specifically, statutes made pursuant to Art. I, § 8 would modify Art. II, § 1, which is a violation of Art. V. Congress' power of naturalization does not extend to modifying Art. II, § 1 or any other part of the Constitution.
* The Naturalization Act of 1790 and The Naturalization Act of 1795 both specify that children of aliens naturalize upon the naturalization of the parents.
Naturalization Act of March 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=226
§1 "...And the children of persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States."
Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 414 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=537
§3 "And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States"
You have been shown "case law" and the understanding of the Penn. Supreme Court which both affirm that these Naturalization Acts mean that the children of aliens naturalize upon the naturalization of their parents whether the children are born here or not.
You continue to espouse yor crap that obfuscates context and meanjng and drown the rest of us with so much crap, that is family disproved.
You are a one subject poster and give. To given great hyperbole, at a minimum.
Outrageous and I stand by my comments, which you and others conveniently skirt around, ignore or.....whatever.
You and I agree on a few things. So I must ask why you take issue with individuals expressing their interpretations of the Constitution and citing evidence that they believe supports said interpretations? Why not simply dispute their evidence and leave it at that?
The plain and simple truth is that without a ruling on Obama’s specific situation, his eligibility will always be in question with some. It is equally true that some will twist the meaning of the Constitution if doing so results in Obama being ineligible.
But when it gets right down to it, there is only one group whose NBC status cannot be questioned: born on U.S. soil to citizen parents. Federal law operates today on the assumption that statutory citizenship granted at birth is equivalent to NBC but acknowledges that without a judicial ruling on the matter uncertainty exists. If the federal government isn’t sure that its interpretation is correct, how can you be sure that yours is?
Legally citizens of France? and we can argue about what that means or meant?
His convenient for you that someone is given homorary status that has no force of law and they could never find themselves under the jurisdiction thereof.
Why don’t you argue that someone being given the keys to the city actually is lord or potentate of said city.
They were never assigned citizenship and never took an oath of allegiance.
I don’t know if you are a lazy thinker,trying vainly to find relevance
If they didn't have natural born citizenship already, by virtue of being born here.
Whenever a person was born in any of the states, whether his parents were citizens or not, that person was a natural born citizen.
Virginia, for example, made a law that all persons born on their soil were citizens. In other places, it was merely due to acceptance of the common law. It was THE WAY THINGS HAD ALWAYS BEEN DONE. And nobody saw any reason at all to change it.
And ALL of the early States of the United States generally adopted the common law in all areas in which it didn't conflict with their own statutes.
"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795)
Really? Because I can't tell you how many dozens of times already that I've gone and read the actual context of quotes provided by you and others who make the same untrue claims you make, and found that the context does NOT support the claim.
As for being a "one-subject poster," I'm not. Perhaps you missed this article that I posted yesterday, for example.
You seem to me to be a one-subject poster yourself.
I will admit, though, that too much of my time has been taken up refuting the constant flow of absolute nonsense that you and others have inundated FR with.
But as long as you spew crap, I'm going to refute it. Because as stated earlier in this thread, the Constitution is NOT something to be twisted to whatever you or someone else decides they would like it to mean this week.
+1
Article 2 to the constitution says natural-born citizen, NOT
(a)Born a Citizen
(b)Native Citizen
(c)Born Citizen
(d)Natural born subject
The constitution cannot be read by adding words or ignoring or deleting words as redundant.
Natural means passed on by blood by the parents plural.
That is essentially Vattel’s meaning in the Law of Nations, a book praised as an authority on Citizenship by the Founding Fathers.
Born means born in the country.
And by the way, I don't believe Obama was born in the US. If he was, a valid Birth Certificate and Hawaii SSN would be EASY.
Its quite possible his Father was FMD, but that was not easily provable in the early 60’s, since DNA testing wasn't invented till 1985.
Hence Obama’s citizenship problems and need to hide the use of an Indonesian passport in 1981.
If you recall in 2008 on Obama’s own campaign website Fight The Smears,it stated:
‘The truth is,Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961,a native citizen of the United States of America.’
Does Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution specifically call for a native born Citizen to be president? No it does not. It states:
‘No person except a natural born Citizen,or a Citizen of the United States,at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,shall be eligible to the Office of President;....’
It’s amazing that Obama admitted in plain sight on his own website that he was never eligible to meet the constitutional requirement to be president.
1 posted on Tue Apr 02 2013 11:04:27 GMT-0500 (CDT) by Cold Case Posse Supporter [ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse]”
This section of your post #1 needs to be highlighted; VERY important!
That is not what the naturalization statutes say, that is what YOU say.
Whenever a person was born in any of the states, whether his parents were citizens or not, that person was a natural born citizen.
The power to define a uniform rule of naturalization is given by the Constitution to the Federal government, states' citizenship statutes are immaterial.
ALL of the early States of the United States generally adopted the common law in all areas in which it didn't conflict with their own statutes.
Again: immaterial - and for the same reason.
The United States has not adopted English common law.
It is not declared by the Constitution to be a part of the law of the United States.
There is no statute declaring it to be a part of the law of the United States.
There is no judicial power to declare it to be a part of the law of the United States.
The constitution declares, that "this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." - The English common law is nowhere in sight.
“...Natural means passed on by blood by the parents plural.....”
EXCELLENT POINT.
See #113
Plausible deniability. Which is why he was never seen even holding the BC they released.
Interpretation 324.2 (b):
“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.”
It is amazing how many Fogblowers, SPs, Obots and delusional nutcases have piled into this thread to tell FReepers that up is down, black is white, and 2+2=5! It has got to be a record so early in the thread. The exposure of the NBC ineligibility of POTUS Barry based on his claimed birth narrative is really bothering some folks.
For me the best forensic evidence points to a forged BC which I can only rationalize as having been created to cover up an ineligible foreign birth. This would render moot 99% of the arguing over whether Barry was a native citizen or natural born or whether there is a difference which has been based on a presumed HI birth.
Bwahahahaha ... and the fopunders were so dumb that they repeated themselves to state qualifications for congress critters and president. You fools don’t even realize how stupid are the talking points you’re being fed! The issue is NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, not just citizen. But then you knew that and had to rush in to kiss Jeff’s troll ring.
GregNH wrote:
“Plausible deniability. Which is why he was never seen even holding the BC they released.”
So the owner has to touch it to make it “authentic”? Hmmmmm.
But then could it be turned round on him, like this:
“Look you didn’t claim THAT one back then, does that mean you STILL don’t have one you can hand to us?”
“Where’s the real one?”
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.