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 ...
What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant.
The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. [It also ignores the history of the fedearl convention itself].
If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’.
So it is clear they intended something else."
In fact, during the convention, Alexander Hamilton suggested that "born a citizen" be the requirement. That suggestion was obviously rejected.
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
So there you have it. Proof from during the convention itself, that the framers and founders of our country did NOT believe that "born a citizen" is the same thing as a "natural born Citizen."
They CLEARLY determined he was a NATURAL BORN citizen, because the rule that they said ALWAYS applied quite clearly made him that.
You can claim the contrary all you like. But the understanding that I have enunciated here is the way the case is understood by every significant legal authority in the entire country, by every court, and by every literate reader who goes through the case carefully and does not have some birther axe to grind.
Anyone of any age can renounce their U.S. Citizenship. It’s a freedom all Americans enjoy. The freedom to disassociate if they are willing to leave the country and express their intent to give up their U.S. Citizenship.
Citizenship is not lost until the CLN is signed by the SoS. The SoS maintains discretion on whether or not to sign the CLN. If the SoS refuses to sign or places certain conditions on the renunciant; such as, must convince a consular affairs officer they are renouncing voluntarily, then the renunciant can sue in U.S. District Court for a writ of mandamus for the SoS to sign the CLN.
A recent court case on the matter was Fox v Clinton, Court of Appeals for DC Circuit. Fox sued SoS Clinton after he was denied a CLN because he would not visit the closest U.S. Embassy to him and make a convincing argument he was renouncing his U.S. Citizenship voluntarily and he had naturalized through prescribed naturalization process.
Fox obtained Israeli citizenship through right of return. His intent to renounce was established by mailing a letter to the State Department and informing them he obtained Israeli citizenship, he intended to renounce and requested a CLN. SoS Clinton refused because their policies and procedures were in force for good reason and the renunciant must come in to make a convincing argument to the CAO.
The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit agreed with Fox.
FOX v. CLINTON et al
Share|
Plaintiff:
KENNETH R. FOX
Defendants:
HILLARY R. CLINTON and EDWARD BETANCOURT
Case Number:
1:2010cv00553
Filed:
April 5, 2010
Court:
District Of Columbia District Court
Office:
Washington, DC Office
County:
88888
Presiding Judge:
Rosemary M. Collyer
Presiding Judge:
Judge Rosemary M. Collyer
Nature of Suit:
Other Statutes - Other Statutory Actions
Cause:
28:2201 Declaratory Judgement
Jurisdiction:
U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By:
None
Memorandum and opinion
One is that the claim is simply false, and I will admit that it annoys me somewhat...
"Somewhat?" I don't pay much attention to these threads, but it seems like every time i click on one, here you are. And judging from your profile page, i think this is more than an "annoyance" for you. Just an observation. You seem to have the same obsession with this topic that you accuse others of having. I don't have a dog in this fight; in fact, i don't even know your position on this topic. It's your behavior I'm commenting on, not your opinions or viewpoints. But then again, posters who appear obsessed with an issue, whatever the issue may be, always HAVE stood out to me around here.
... they make conservatives look like idiots and nutjob conspiracy theorists.
Seriously? Go get on social media sites and look around. Most conservatives' comments nowadays indicate the opposite. They operate on a day-to-day basis under the assumption that anyone who is conservative understands that obama is in office illegally. But more importantly, most Constitution-lovers on social media seem to think that any conservative who gets all hot and bothered by other conservatives who research Constitutional law MAY not be a conservative at all.
I've actually looked for a Facebook group whose belief would match yours, but i can't find any. Maybe I'm not using the right search words. You know, a group whose name would be something like "Conservative-Birthers-R-Nutwings!" or "Conservatives Who Hate Birthers."
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.
Why are you so certain it would be litigated?
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 domicile 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.
I said it would probably be litigated.
Look how many cases birthers have brought already. I think they would probably file a case against Cruz. Such a case would stand a much better chance of getting reviewed by the USSC than the Obama ones.
Good point.
Yes. They restated the question put before the Court. Then they stated that the answer to the question is “yes.”
This is normal behavior.
And the core reasoning of the case is also legally binding precedent, along with that final “yes” to whatever the original question was.
There’s nothing difficult about it at all.
As far as “obsession” goes, once I make a comment in a thread (which usually consists of posting some actual, real, relevant EVIDENCE) I tend to find myself immediately attacked by a variety of individuals. The rest of my time in that thread is generally spent responding to numerous replies.
“Such a case would stand a much better chance of getting reviewed by the USSC than the Obama ones.”
What is your rationale for that statement?
“As far as “obsession” goes, once I make a comment in a thread (which usually consists of posting some actual, real, relevant EVIDENCE) I tend to find myself immediately attacked by a variety of individuals. The rest of my time in that thread is generally spent responding to numerous replies.”
Which is the point, no? Instead of letting a subgroup of conservatives have their own discussion that’s important to them and leaving them alone, here you sit, serving as a useful distraction, both to the serious-minded researchers and to the inquisitive Bing user who stumbles on their research.
Do not waste your time on this garbage book.
It is garbage.
The author was slaughtered by true experts in a debate.
Using this book for any sort of serious debate is ridiculous.
The author gave the book away online. Rightfully so. Its crap.
Unlike the case of a person with at least one US citizen parent, it has at least some merit. And unlike the case of a person with immigrant parents, it hasn't been decided already by the Supreme Court.
My link didn’t go to a book. It went to an article.
The article points out that the Cold Case Posse made claims that were completely untrue. It includes links to claims made by the Posse, links to absolute proof that they tried to pass off images from documents dated 1968 and 1969 as being from the 1961 manual, and a link to an article by a fellow FReeper who actually found the actual manual they claimed to have, and showed that it didn’t say any such thing as what they claimed it said.
The children of aliens, born within the U. S. are aliens; they do not acquire citizenship by birth
Evidence which you dismiss.
So in your opinion it’s perfectly fine for people to misrepresent the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, and anyone who doesn’t like people misrepresenting our Constitution should just let such people deceive others?
Bluecat6, (cold case posse supporter FYI)
So Sven asserting 0 was an NBC was wrong in this post?
________________________________________________________________
I believe that was based being born in Hawaii. I am not sure I would agree with that.
But the key point is that it would not matter if O had to naturalize.
Naturalization is opposite of natural born. They can not and do not intersect or overlap.
The Constitution says you must BE a natural born Citizen. It does not say you qualify if you WERE a natural born Citizen.
A naturalized citizen is not natural born.
Simple way to address this - show the passport records.
Because such evidence is clearly outweighed by an enormous amount of better evidence, which YOU dismiss.
The first of those we have gone through in some detail already. It was by a judge who was over several counties in Pennsylvania. There are far better authorities, and a great many of them, from early America, who absolutely contradict this several-counties judge's opinion.
Including Rawle, who carried a great deal of authority, who (unlike the little judge you prefer) was quoted by the US Supreme Court on the matter, and who was extremely clear that the child born on US soil of non-citizen immigrant parents was a natural born citzien.
The second case you mention was also the opinion of a single judge, in 1868. It is clear that some folks in that era (which was about 100 years after the Constitution was written) were making a case that the children of at last some immigrants were not citizens. They made the case in the instance of Wong Kim Ark. It reached the Supreme Court, which went back to the founding principles, and, again, found that Wong was a natural born citizen.
It's a matter of having a pound of evidence on one side of the scale, and 20 pounds of evidence on the other side of the scale. You adamantly claim that a pound of evidence outweighs 20 pounds of evidence.
It just isn't so.
Find the manual the list ‘African’ as a race and there may be something of a discussion.
The primary purpose of the information on birth certificates was for statistical collection. Hence why most states LFBCs look amazingly alike. It is also why there are hand written numbers in the fields of most LFBCs from most states from the period. These were keypunched onto IBM punch cards for statistical collection. Clerks could not make up things for the fields. Only the codified could be used.
The article is another hit job by a proven fraud.
The statistics were collected over time and the fields were the same for long periods. African was never a codified race in the statistics during the period.
The 9’s of the fake LFBC are very telling. They tell us no father was really listed if those marks are correct. The 9’s are a serious, serious problem. They prove fraud by themselves.
I asked you on another thread if you'd care to post a link that wasn't to Doc Conspiracy or Fogbower material to back your claims that the CCP are a bunch of frauds. You blew me off then, and yet here you are, on this thread, posting a link to exactly that type of suspect source.
One would think that a Conservative would be in favor of the most restrictive interpretation of NBC possible (on US soil to TWO US Citizens) so as to aim for the highest degree of presumed loyalty in the individual entrusted with the levers of Executive power, and yet you vociferously and unceasingly advocate a looser, more, I dare say liberal qualification threshold.
I think you're a Fogb(l)ower, Jeff. You can deny it if you wish, but it seems pretty clear to me. Heck there are even links to the cited "Obama Birth Book" site back to Squeeky Fromm's! And we all know what happened to Squeeky Fromm on FR. You're more sophisticated in your tactics than she was, but I think it's only a matter of time before you get canned from this site.
Courtesy Pings to people connected to cited link, and the OP of this thread.
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.