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 ...
Through my extensive laboratory research, I was able to prove conclusively that everyone on FReep is dead wrong ... again ... about The Hawaiian. He is actually
That is N/S. He is our rightful King! And unless I miss my guess, also our Queen.
There are a few reasons.
One is that the claim is simply false, and I will admit that it annoys me somewhat to have people continually posting things that are false as if they are true.
My gut reaction is that it cheapens FreeRepublic to have people constantly making false Constitutional claims and posting conspiracy-theorist cr*p here.
And it seems that most conservative hosts and forums that would agree with me on that. Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh don't give birthers the time of day. National Review has officially panned the birthers, multiple times. And RedState has pretty much of a no-birthers policy.
It would be different if their arguments had any merit. But they don't.
Another reason is that they are so absolutist and adamant about their false theories. And if anyone takes the view of 99% of America, conservatives included, then that person is "an Obot," "a troll," etc.
So to some degree I think they themselves have created the opposition by being so absolutist and ugly to anyone who doesn't buy into their nonsense.
Another reason is that I don't like seeing the Constitution misrepresented, especially on a site where people claim to value the Constitution.
Another reason is I don't like seeing people led astray. Birtherism is basically sort of a con job, supported by a bunch of fallacious arguments.
Another reason is that I fully believe these people are damaging conservatism, in two ways. First, they stir up a huge pile of nonsense and divert people's energies away from things that might make a positive difference, and into arenas in which we don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of prevailing.
Second, they make conservatives look like idiots and nutjob conspiracy theorists.
The plain and simple truth is that without a ruling on Obama’s specific situation, his eligibility will always be in question with some.
Those rulings have been issued, in multiple courts, specifically regarding Obama. The courts have ruled that Obama's birth in Hawaii is all that it took to make a natural born citizen. And birthers have had absolutely zero success in appealing those court rulings. The Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals on such cases. So the rulings have been made, and there is legally no doubt. Not that there was before the specific rulings were made on Obama, because there wasn't, even then.
But still the birthers go on and on. They will never stop.
So I don't have any plans to ever stop debunking their horse manure.
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.
It's clear to virtually everyone in the legal profession that the born-on-US-soil-of-immigrant-parents question was settled decisively in 1898. Such people are natural born citizens and eligible to be elected President. Period.
People like Ted Cruz are MOST LIKELY also eligible. That's the general consensus, but such a candidacy would probably be litigated, and that's a case the Supreme Court most likely WOULD take.
And that power to define a uniform rule of naturalization has never been held to apply to any person born in the United States and subject to United States jurisdiction.
“Everything in your ‘source’ mentions women and not men. And yes, back then, there were women with a different status than men.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States “not subject to any foreign power.” The United States does not recognize seperate classes of citizenship unless your discussing eligibility for POTUS or VP.
U.S. Citizens who obtained their citizenship by completing the naturalization process are ineligible for POTUS because their Certificate of Naturalization could be revoked if it was obtained with fraud. Statutory citizens cannot be POTUS be their Certificate of Citizenship could be revoked if it was obtained with fraud. A natural born citizen does not have a certificate issued by a Federal agency to be revoked. Consequently, their citizenship cannot be revoked unless their action indicates, by a preponderence of the evidence, they have renounced with intent to renounce.
In all other situations, you’re either a U.S citizen or not
That's certainly true in a broad and general sense, on the federal level, although most states have adopted a good deal of the common law.
But Alexander Hamilton and the Supreme Court have both told us that the Constitution was written in the language of the legal system that was in place at the time, and the terms in it were derived from our English heritage and the English common law.
And Vice Chancellor Sandford in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) would disagree with that statement in regard to natural born citizenship.
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
The United States Supreme Court approvingly quoted Sandford's decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and they said essentially the same thing: That the same rule had always applied, first in England, then in the Colonies, then in the United States after Independence, then in the United States after the establishment of the Constitution.
I thought that was spelled q-u-ee-r-ee-n. I’m so behind the times. ... And shrooms you say?
Do you like going overboard?
Fine words followed by a lie!
the born-on-US-soil-of-immigrant-parents question was settled decisively in 1898. Such people are natural born citizens and eligible to be elected President
Mr. Wong was determined to be a citizen. You lie when you assert he was determined to be a natural born citizen.
You do what you accuse others of all while spouting high sounding rhetoric.
You are a liar.
Lynch v Clarke - New York state.
State law. You just can’t help yourself can you?
Actually, natural means what the Founders and Framers meant by it.
And what they meant by it was what it had meant for centuries.
EVERYBODY, or at least everybody who had any legal education at all, knew what the term meant.
"NATURAL BORN" was a STANDARD LEGAL TERM. And it had a specific meaning.
And yes, that meaning came from NATURAL LAW.
Just not the natural law that a bunch of historically uninformed 21st-century folks claim.
It came from the historical English understanding of natural law.
England was our mother country. All thirteen Colonies were ENGLISH COLONIES.
So where did the term come from?
England was a Christian country, and as such, embraced philosophies, including legal philosophies, based on the Bible.
The Bible teaches that all governmental authorities, such as kings, ultimately derive their authority to govern from God. It therefore teaches that one should be subject to the governing authorities. The Bible teaches that one should render to Caesar that which is due to Caesar, and render to God that which is due to God.
From this, English legal philosophers concluded that all persons born within a realm were, by natural and divine law, intended to be subject to, and subjects of, that particular realm. It made no difference whether the person so born was born to a citizen or to an alien who was legally there under the protection of the King. If you were born under the King’s protection and within his realm, then you were a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT of that particular king.
As time went on, the natural law origin of the concept became somewhat obscure. But the precedent remained - that every person born within the realm, whether that realm was England or America, and whether that person’s parents were citizens of the realm or not, was a “natural born subject” or a “natural born citizen” of that realm.
The only exceptions were those who were not under the protection of and “subject to the jurisdiction of” that realm. The very rare exceptions always included the children of foreign ambassadors (who were regarded as being born subjects of the country their parents were officially representing), foreign royalty, and members of invading armies - all for similar reasons. And in the United States, two additional exceptions were added: Indians born in tribes, because Indian tribes were quasi-foreign nations that we made treaties with just as we made treaties with other foreign nations such as England or France, and slaves, who were legally considerd to be property and not people.
Of all the doctrines which have ever been broached by the federal government, the novel one, of the common law being in force and cognizable as an existing law in their courts, is to me the most formidable. All their other assumptions of un-given powers have been in the detail. The bank law, the treaty doctrine, the sedition act, alien act, the undertaking to change the State laws of evidence in the State courts by certain parts of the stamp act, &c. &c. have been solitary, unconsequential, timid things, in comparison with the audacious, barefaced and sweeping pretension to a system of law for the United States, without the adoption of their legislature, and so infinitively beyond their power to adopt.
Madison letter to Jefferson, Jan 18, 1800
Madison states that admitting the common law as legal federal law of the United States "would confer on the judicial department a discretion little short of a legislative power" since federal courts would "decide what parts of the common law would, and what would not, be properly applicable to the circumstances of the United States" and thus would "erect them [judges] into legislators"
Instructions To Virginia Senators, January 11, 1800.
The House proceeded to consider the instructions from the General Assembly of Virginia, to STEPHENS THOMPSON MASON and WILSON GARY NICHOLAS, senators from the state of Virginia, in the Congress of the United States. The instructions are as follows:
The General Assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia, though it entertains no doubt of your punctual performance of your duty, or of your faithful adherence to the great principles of constitutional law, and national policy, deems it incumbent on it to communicate its opinions, formed after the most mature deliberation, on certain subjects essentially connected, as it solemnly believes, with the dearest rights, and most important interests of the people.
...The General Assembly of Virginia would consider themselves unfaithful to the trust reposed in them, were they to remain silent, whilst a doctrine has been publicly advanced, novel in its principle and tremendous in its consequences: That the common law of England is in force under the government of the United States.
...Deeply impressed with these opinions, the general assembly of Virginia instruct the senators, and request the representatives from this State, in Congress, to use their best efforts —
To oppose the passing of any law, founded on, or recognising the, principle lately advanced, ‘that the common law of England is in force under the government of the United States,’ excepting from such opposition such particular parts of the common law as may have a sanction from the Constitution, so far as they are necessarily comprehended in the technical phrases which express the powers delegated to the government; .... and excepting, also, such other parts thereof as may be adopted by Congress as necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers expressly delegated.”
There you have it - “Our dearest rights and our most important interests are threatened by the idea that the common law of England is in force under the government of the United States.
This audacious, barefaced and sweeping pretension to a system of law for the United States, a system not adopted by the legislature, a system beyond judicial power to adopt, would make judges into legislators since they would decide what parts of the common law would, and what would not, be properly applicable to the circumstances of the United States.”
No, I'm afraid not.
The entire case that he was a citizen was based on the precedents for NATURAL BORN citizenship, and those were based on the precedents for NATURAL BORN subjectship in both England and the early United States.
And the Court quite specifically said that the terms "citizen" and "subject" were CONVERTIBLE terms. In other words, what had always applied to "subjects" when we used that term, later applied to "citizens" when we swapped the term "citizen" for "subject."
Here's what the Court said, after DOZENS of pages of discussion of natural born subject/citizen:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"
Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:
The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."
In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:
"ALIENS, WHILE RESIDING IN THE DOMINIONS POSSESSED BY [THE UNITED STATES], ARE WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE, THE OBEDIENCE, THE FAITH OR LOYALTY, THE PROTECTION, THE POWER, THE JURISDICTION OF [THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE], AND THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN [THE UNITED STATES] IS A NATURAL-BORN [CITIZEN] UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN."
That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.
First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."
Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."
And they also told us that the sovereign, or KING has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well, when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.
All of this is very elementary use of the English language. It is unavoidable. It is inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is absolutely disingenuous.
“.... The courts have ruled that Obama’s birth in Hawaii is all that it took to make a natural born citizen. ....”
Sheriff Arpaio and his investigative team, including a forensic lab, has evidence that the Hawaii birth cert is a forgery.
What is your response to him, his team, and the lab?
I agree with you that the common law did not generally enter into force in the United States federal government.
But the terms in the Constitution came from the common law and are to be understood in that light.
And every single state adopted the same rule (which was the same as the common law rule) for natural born citizenship.
NOWHERE was the rule adopted that you argue for.
NOWHERE.
He can have at it. If he can prove Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii, good for him.
However, I personally think he has absolutely nothing at all. And it's been pretty definitely shown that the Cold Case Posse actually lied about their previous evidence that they said they had. So they are known frauds, and I doubt they have anything at all.
I had some of this discussion earlier with Cold Case Posse Supporter. I never could get him to explain, given the evidence, how it was possible that the Posse had NOT lied and put forth a fraud.
Never could get an answer on that. You can look back through the comments and find the discussion.
And every single state adopted the same rule
You have a pathological fixation on state laws. State laws are not incorporated into Federal law - they are immaterial.
“So Sven asserting 0 was an NBC was wrong in this post?”
Obama’s birth record and nativity biography are irrelevant. In 1983, the U.S. Federal Government issued him a Certificate of Naturalization to become a U.S. citizen. The Federal document supersedes any document any state can produce on Obama’s birth record.
Citizenship is not held in perpetuity for individuals who move out of the country, commits acts which are deemed to have renounced their citizenship and express an intent to relinquish their U.S. Citizenship.
For example, Laurence Terrazas was born in Maryland to a U.S. Citizen mother and a Mexican National father. Terrazas was considered a U.S. Citizen and Mexican National at birth. In his early 20’s, Terrazas moved to Mexico to attend the university. University officials told him had to renounce his U.S. Citizenship and state an oath of allegiance to Mexico or he would be suspended from the univerity.
Terrazas told Mexican authorities he renounced his U.S. Citizenship and pledge his sole allegiance to Mexico. U.S. Sec of State Cyrus Vance issued Terrazas a CLN based on his renouncement and pledge to Mexican authorities. Terrazas sued and SCOTUS upheld the issuance of the CLN to Terrazas.
See Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court decision that established that a United States citizen cannot have his or her citizenship taken away unless he or she has acted with an intent to give up that citizenship. The Supreme Court overturned portions of an act of Congress which had listed various actions and had said that the performance of any of these actions could be taken as conclusive, irrebuttable proof of intent to give up U.S. citizenship. However, the Court ruled that a person’s intent to give up citizenship could be established through a standard of preponderance of evidence (i.e., more likely than not) — rejecting an argument that intent to relinquish citizenship could only be found on the basis of clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence.
Can you synposize your objections to the Sheriffs findings, please.
Also, What is your response to butterdezillion’s painstaking research
Example:
the b.c. numbering discrepancies
“Synposize” should be “synopsize”
><
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.