Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Listen Up: Here Is Proof That Native-Born Citizens And Natural-Born Citizens Are Separate
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: afterbirfturds; aliens; birftards; birthers; certificate; congress; corruption; illegalalien; immigration; mediabias; nativeborn; naturalborncitizen; nbc; obama; obamatruthfile; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 521-526 next last
To: butterdezillion

Ping to post #139


141 posted on 04/02/2013 5:16:35 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Same as Jerome Corsi and Phil Berg. All opportunistic publicity hounds chasing documents that have been long destroyed. I know Obama is a usurper because he has not proven otherwise. These jerks that confuse the issue and lie about it only detract from the actual message or point.
I hate them for constantly getting my hopes up only to produce jack shiite when the chips are down.


142 posted on 04/02/2013 5:17:41 PM PDT by JerseyDvl (Cogito Ergo Doleo Soetoro, ABO and of course FUBO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Gray made his citizen=subject assertion based in part on State v. Manuel.

In that North Carolina case Judge Gaston's references to "our law" and "our constitution" are references to the statutes and Constitution of North Carolina. As North Carolina has a reception statute the cited sentence is true in North Carolina. The same can not be said for the federal government which does not incorporate common law via Constitution, reception statute, or any other method.

You misunderstand and are being mislead.

143 posted on 04/02/2013 5:18:14 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

Gray cleverly misapplies Manuel.


144 posted on 04/02/2013 5:20:18 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

“....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......”

What is the minimum age a person can be, in order to do this?


145 posted on 04/02/2013 5:21:00 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57

“So the owner has to touch it to make it ‘authentic’?”

It creates one additional protective layer against a charge of participating in criminally forging the LFBC if Barry were to be proved to have actually held the forged document.

It would place him in the link of custody of the forgery subjecting him to having to testify to who gave it to him...which a prosecutor could then possible trace back from Barry to the forger.


146 posted on 04/02/2013 5:24:27 PM PDT by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

The holding of the United State Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.


147 posted on 04/02/2013 5:27:25 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“Congressional statue?”

Where is it, in DC?

Likely at the bottom of an outhouse.


148 posted on 04/02/2013 5:33:11 PM PDT by Huskerfan44 (Huskerfan44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57
Can you synposize your objections to the Sheriffs findings, please.

I haven't followed butterdezillion's stuff lately. There was a time when I did. So I can't speak on anything she's said that's terribly recent, but during the time I followed her stuff, I never saw anything that indicated any real fraud.

I haven't seen anything from anybody else that did, either.

With one exception: Fraud on the part of the Cold Case Posse.

Here's one of the better pages out there that talks about that fraud.

In a nutshell, they very clearly claimed they had a 1961 manual that said something very specific. And that specific thing was supposedly proof that Obama's birth certificate was a fake.

And in the press conference where they announced this, they showed the public images that turned out not to be AT ALL from the manual they claimed they had, but were from one manual dated 1968 and another manual dated 1969.

Then, when the real manual turned up (found by a FReeper), it directly contradicted what they claimed it said.

149 posted on 04/02/2013 5:35:15 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57

I forgot to give you the link:

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/07/exposed-sheriff-joe-arpaio-corsi-birther-scam-heres-the-proof-that-arpaios-posse-fabricated-evidence-and-lied-to-the-nation/


150 posted on 04/02/2013 5:35:55 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: JerseyDvl
I hate them for constantly getting my hopes up only to produce jack shiite when the chips are down.

I can't say I blame you.

151 posted on 04/02/2013 5:37:35 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Whenever a person was born in any of the states, whether his parents were citizens or not, that person was a natural born citizen.

False.

Nothing Unusual about States Denying Citizenship to Children Born to Aliens

152 posted on 04/02/2013 5:39:46 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

I know what they said at the end of the case. The question they were asked was, “Is Wong Kim Ark a citizen?” So at the end, they pronounced, “Yes, he’s a citizen.”

I also know that that conclusion was based on the dozens of pages of core reasoning that went before that final proclamation.

And that core reasoning is binding precedent. And the binding precedent is all to do not just with “citizenship,” but whether such a person is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Don’t you ever wonder why the Supreme Court would fail to take up such an important case?

The standard birther answer is, “They must have been paid off,” or “They must be intimidated.”

I guarantee you there are several Supreme Court Justices on that bench that flat-out hate this President. I don’t think they would hesitate for a minute to find him ineligible, if he really was.

But they don’t take up the case because THE SUPREME COURT ALREADY DECIDED THE QUESTION BACK IN 1898.


153 posted on 04/02/2013 5:41:20 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

I’ve said before that I think there’s a case to be made against children of illegal aliens.

There MIGHT be a case to be made against children of persons only TEMPORARILY in the United States.

There is NO case to be made against children of immigrants. That case was decided in 1898.


154 posted on 04/02/2013 5:43:56 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

The court had the opportunity to declare Wong a natural born citizen - they did not.


155 posted on 04/02/2013 5:50:04 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: rockabyebaby

Stupid to who? The liars? The ignorant? To hell with them. We need to keep up the pressure, and like you say, get a Republican (I would change that to say Conservative) in the WH and as a majority in Congress.


156 posted on 04/02/2013 5:53:26 PM PDT by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

WKA held that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.”


157 posted on 04/02/2013 5:53:41 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Gray used ECL to broaden “subject to the jurisdiction” to include domiciled aliens.


158 posted on 04/02/2013 5:55:58 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2997228/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3000349/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3001493/posts

Above three links to her latest three articles.

Excellent research!


159 posted on 04/02/2013 5:57:02 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; butterdezillion

Butterdezillion ping to #149 and #150.


160 posted on 04/02/2013 6:01:25 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 521-526 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson