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 ...
He wasn't running for President. If he had been, they clearly would have declared him eligible, because they clearly found him to be a natural born citizen.
WKA held that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.”
They also stated that the 14th Amendment affirmed the ancient rule of citizenship, and that this same rule applied in England, in the Colonies, and in the United States. By that rule, children born the country were natural born citizens/ subjects, unless the children of diplomats or invading armies.
It's really not complicated. And every legal authority that matters agrees that this is what they found.
Even the dissent in the case recognized that the ruling said children born here of resident aliens were eligible to be President.
Ping to #159 too
As such, there is a case against Obama. His father was only in the U.S. on a temporary student visa. The Wong Kim Ark decision was based on the agreed to fact that Ark's non-citizen parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth.
Such is not true of Obama.
I would actually agree that there is at least some case against Obama, if both of his parents had been students here on a temporary visa.
With a parent who was an American citizen, Constitutionally and legally, no case at all.
Based on what?
You mind read too.
Historically and legally, the only exceptions to the "natural born" rule were the children of royalty, ambassadors, and invading armies.
Based on the history and the law, I think even the case for a child of students on student visas would be very weak. But it's at least possible to make, as the Wong case dealt with a child of immigrants.
Anyone who had a citizen parent, or even a RESIDENT parent, would clearly be good to go.
Rides3,
See this post by IMR 4350, it pegs the whereabouts of the mom better; I didn’t realize the limits on travel after the baby was born.
Non citizen, “just passing thru” dad...
Foreign birth of kid...
Mom a few months shy of her 19th birthday...
IMHO kid isn’t a citizen.... at least not one whose nationality is unquestionable.
To: Eye of Unk
More than likely Canada.
His mother is placed in Washington state just a few weeks after the date of his birth.
It would be virtually impossible for her to be in Washington just a few weeks after his birth even if Zippo was born in Hawaii.
A friend of mine said after her daughter (now 15-16) was born,she wasn’t allowed to fly on any plane with pressurized compartment for something like 6 weeks because a baby can’t clear their ears and it could cause their ear drums to rupture.
Unless Zippo is several months older than what is reported,and the woman in Washington is wrong about his age being just a few weeks when she first saw him in Washington,it couldn’t be Kenya.
21 posted on Tue Apr 02 2013 11:56:57 GMT-0500 (CDT) by IMR 4350 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
No, there’s no mind reading involved. Have you never read the case?
The Court was quite clear in their rationale.
Again, even the dissent understood that the ruling was that Wong, on reaching age 35 and living 14 years in the US, would be eligible to run for President.
You know, I'm not sure. I will research that for you (being a Die-No-Mite Web researcher mysef) but I cannot get back to you right now. It's cold here, and I must gather a few faggots to throw in the woodstove. They are not hard to find.
Once again: the court did not declare Wong to be natural born. They could have but they didn’t.
Totally false. I already posted a link discussing states that denied citizenship to children born to aliens.
Based on the history and the law, I think even the case for a child of students on student visas would be very weak. But it's at least possible to make, as the Wong case dealt with a child of immigrants.
Anyone who had a citizen parent, or even a RESIDENT parent, would clearly be good to go.
You may think so, but is there a federal law or Constitutional Amendment that supports your belief?
If you have a question about it, refer to our own government’s explanation at:
The explanations at the above site have changed over the past 4-years. In March of 2009 they had three divisions: native born (jus solis); derived (jus sanquinis); and naturalized. You are correct when you state that derived citizenship is a form of naturalization, but due to the definition of ‘Natural born Citizen’ supplied by the Minor Court in 1875, I keep it simple to dampen confusion.
Confusion on this issue is why this Regime keeps rearranging the USCIS descriptions of citizenship, as it is to their advantage to cultivate chaos.
Let’s get one thing straight right from the beginning - Natural born Citizen is NOT a type of citizenship. It is only an eligibility requirement to serve as President of the U.S., and referred to in the past by SCOTUS as a ‘class of citizens’ born in the U.S. of citizen parents. There is no question that a baby born here, in this nation, to parents who are both citizens is also a citizen.
Neither Sen.John McCain nor BHO2 is eligible to be President. The Supreme Court does not have the power to remove a President from office; only Congress has that power.
So, we have a situation in which the very wealthy and
internationally prominent want to control the U.S., and it is too difficult to achieve that goal with a NBC.
I am going to quote the first two paragraphs from a 26-page report by Sarah P. Herlihy, originally published by Kent Law Review in 2006, which details the belief and attitude Globalists have towards our eligibility requirement for President:
[The American Justice Foundation - This article was written in 2005 by an attorney affiliated with the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis (that has ties to Mr. Obama) promoting the idea of doing away with the “natural born citizen” requirement for serving as president.]
Chicago-Kent Law Review
2006
81 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 275
STUDENT NOTE: AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE
NAME: Sarah P. Herlihy*
SUMMARY:
… The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly un-American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision. … Additionally, considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a “foreigner” coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland. … Even though this concern is not a legitimate reason to vote against abolishing the natural born citizen clause because many natural born Americans are Muslims, many Americans may oppose a Constitutional amendment because of the possibility that a naturalized citizen would be more likely to be a Muslim, Hindu, or some other religion besides Christian. … Accordingly, Americans may rely on their belief that globalization is effectively eating away at “America” by lessening the strength of symbols such as the presidency to justify their decision to leave the natural born citizen requirement in place. …
TEXT:
[*275]
Introduction
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly unAmerican,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.” Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policymakers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
[snip]
The above paper is no longer available online. But I think the brief introduction gives a flavor of the superior arrogance of these people and their drive to enfold the U.S.A. into a Global One World government.
Once again: They stated quite clearly enough that persons in Wong's situation were natural born citizens. And that was the entire core reasoning of the case.
“...even the dissent understood that the ruling was that Wong, on reaching age 35 and living 14 years in the US, would be eligible to run for President.”
Careful, Ray. This is flat-out false.
Jeffy, you are spreading disinformation again. What’s a’ matter? Think I don’t come back and check up on you, just to make sure you’re not spreading lies again?
Minor’s essential reasoning to the case:
“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
By using ECL to broaden the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of the 14th Amend. to then apply it to domiciled aliens WKA resolved the doubts about “[including] as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
The court could have determined that Wong was natural born but they did not. They determined that he was a 14th Amend. citizen.
JW is a natural chronic liar, cut perhaps from the same cloth as his little barry bastard demigod.
The article you reference begins with multiple fallacies:
Senator Lyman Trumbull never made the case that the children of resident aliens were not natural born citizens. His words quoted referred to INDIANS born into their own tribes, which were always regarded as nations separate from and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Likewise, Senator Jacob Howard was referring to Indians as well. His quote in the article referenced clearly does not mean what the author claims it means.
All of this, so far, has been discussed, discussed, and re-discussed.
The author then misuses another quote, from 1873:
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this [fourteenth] amendment . . . Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.
The same jurisdiction that that Attorney General refers to applied both to citizens and resident aliens.
When he speaks of "aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad," it is clear that he is referring to persons born US citizens in the United States, who have gone off and naturalized into another country.
In fact, the author of those words specifically SAYS THAT, just before he says the quote misused by your author:
So does your author quote the Attorney General when he says, "ACTUAL NATURALIZATION ABROAD WOULD SEEM TO BE NECESSARY TO MAKE A PERSON BORN IN THE UNITES STATES AN ALIEN?"
No. Of course not. He quotes him from the next paragraph, where he can twist his words into saying something that the Attorney General did NOT say.
This is typical birther-style word-twisting BS.
Wilson's quote about temporary sojourners is the kind of thing that makes me say that there is SOME case (albeit weak) regarding children of aliens TEMPORARILY in the country. And by TEMPORARILY, I don't mean "RESIDENT."
However, he MISQUOTES WILSON:
The bogus author's quote of Wilson:
"We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments."
What Wilson ACTUALLY SAID, on the floor of the House, on March 1, 1866:
""We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: 'Every person born within the United States, its Territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.'"
So even Wilson, MISquoted in your article, says that the children born on US soil of resident alien parents, are natural born citizens and eligible to the Presidency!
And he says it MAY be that the children of temporary sojourners are an exception.
I've said pretty much the same thing.
As far as States passing laws, the author doesn't even mention any other States than New York and the District of Columbia - which is not a State. New York passed such a law in 1859, some 72 years after the adoption of the Constitution and LONG after our practices regarding natural born citizenship was established. The author presents no evidence at all that any other State passed a law regarding the children of transient aliens at any time earlier than the law passed by New York.
No kidding.
Your claiming something is a lie doesn't make it one.
Here's the quote from the dissent:
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
It's clear enough that the dissent understood the majority's ruling to mean that Wong would be eligible to run for President.
And since you have falsely accused me of "lying," it is clear that YOU are the LIAR.
So every person reading this thread, from this point on, can clearly understand that anything you say can't be trusted, since you LIED in what you just said.
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.