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 ...
Ping to post #139
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.
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.
Gray cleverly misapplies Manuel.
“....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?
“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.
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.
“Congressional statue?”
Where is it, in DC?
Likely at the bottom of an outhouse.
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.
I forgot to give you the link:
I can't say I blame you.
False.
Nothing Unusual about States Denying Citizenship to Children Born to Aliens
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.
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.
The court had the opportunity to declare Wong a natural born citizen - they did not.
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.
WKA held that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.”
Gray used ECL to broaden “subject to the jurisdiction” to include domiciled aliens.
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!
Butterdezillion ping to #149 and #150.
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.