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 ...
The the USA is a constitutional republic, and the constitution is the supreme law of the land.
That in itself is a total rejection of the old system in which the King still influenced the law directly and appointed prime ministers at his own whim, with elections just a guide from a tiny electorate.
The fact that some of the original eastern states kept old colonial laws on the books proves nothing, since they are all low level laws which were gradually replaced anyway.
British Ideas on the status of British subjects were always totally different to US ones about citizenship after the revolution.
As an ex-redcoat and current natural born subject of Queen Elizabeth the Second, I find your idea that the US republic has English common law as its basis comical at best.
The Founding Fathers took what was best in the World in 1776 and created the greatest charter of Freedom in all Human history, the Constitution of the United States of America.
People like you seem to long for an absolute Monarch, a great leader, a political messiah. It never works, just ask the ghost of Charles I, if it can find its head.
I've given many of those reasons myself. Whether you are correct or not, you will never convince some here to accept your arguments. Those who will listen already have. Those who won't listen aren't.
Carry on.
Well, the article gives links to the evidence. You can see the original sources for the 1968 and 1969 documents. There's really no denying that the Posse showed everybody stuff from 1968 and 1969 claiming it was from 1961.
There's really no denying that they claimed to have a very specific manual from 1961. There's no denying what they claimed it said.
And there's no denying that the real 1961 manual, found by a FReeper, absolutely contradicts what they claimed it said.
I don't know what you'd call that. I'd call it getting caught in a lie.
One would think that a conservative would be in favor of upholding, not misrepresenting, the Constitution.
Many of your claims are premised on state law. Law which is immaterial to US citizenship law.
Your petty attempts at belittlement are hillarious, "about 100 years after the Constitution was written" - like WKA?
I've shown "case law" and the understanding of the Penn. Supreme Court which both affirm that these Naturalization Acts mean that the children of aliens naturalize upon the naturalization of their parents whether the children are born here or not.
This was the case until WKA which, by using ECL to broaden the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of the 14th Amendment, resolved the doubts mentioned in Minor.
“...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.”
Using that broadened interpretation the Court applied it to domiciled aliens, thus resolving the doubts about “[including] as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
Wong was "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and was declared a citizen.
Prior to Ark the children of aliens where themselves alien. Subsequent to Ark the US born children of domiciled aliens where "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefor citizens.
Wong was not determined to be a natural born citizen.
The definition of an Art. II natural born citizen, US born children of citizens, has not been modified by Ark and was recognized by Minor.
He didn't have to. It's common knowledge that several states did not recognize children of aliens to be citizens. For example, Virginia law in 1779 deemed infants wheresoever born to non-citizens to be aliens.
The U.S. didn't even have a birthright citizenship law until 1866, which clearly states: "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"
We know for a fact the intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment's 'subject to the jurisdiction' requirement because Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull, who played a pivotal role in the passage of the 14th Amendment according to the U.S. Senate's own history, declared it as such: "the provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Absolutely, like WKA.
There's a difference, though, between a single judge making a statement 100 years after the Constitution was written, and the United States Supreme Court speaking on a matter 100 years after the Constitution was written.
“making a statement”
Enough azzhattery. Cases where decided.
Like so many other things claimed by those bent on twisting the Constitution, this is simply not true.
Fallacy: A 1779 citizenship law authored by Thomas Jefferson implies people born in Virginia had to have citizen parents in order to be citizens.
Truth: Jefferson's citizenship law, applied to every person born in Virginia, was straight law-of-the-soil. All persons born in Virginia were citizens of the Commonwealth, without regard to any citizenship requirement of their parents.
Here's the part that's relevant:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly,
that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth
and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act,
and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth;
and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother,
shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed:
And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
So Jefferson lists a bunch of categories of people who all get to be citizens. Let's take out all the superfluous categories and cut to the chase:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly,
that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth...
shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed.
Now have I done any violence to this text? No, I have not. I just removed a bunch of categories to focus on the one category that's really relevant.
Jefferson says ALL WHITE PERSONS BORN IN VIRGINIA get to be citizens of Virginia.
This is STRAIGHT JUS SOLI. Absolutely no citizen parents required. ALL WHITE PERSONS born in Virginia were citizens.
This of course is a decent argument that I'm wasting my time. There's certainly something to be said for that.
The question is whether there's really value in debunking all of the nonsense being put forth. So far, I think there is.
More attempts to belittle.
Refute post 205
I don’t know what there is to refute there that I haven’t refuted already.
All infants wheresoever born shall be deemed citizens if:
the father - or if he is dead, the mother - are citizens;
OR
the father - or if he is dead, the mother - become citizens;
OR
migrate hither without father or mother
Except for foundlings which become citizens, the citizenship of the infant follows that of the parents.
Look, it’s obvious to anyone who isn’t completely dedicated to your bogus doctrine that the Virginia citizenship law said that everyone born in the Commonwealth of Virginia was a citizen.
And there were no qualifications put on that.
NBC concerns only those who are eligible for the presidency and able to vote, neither of which applied to women prior to ratification of the Nineteenth.
It doesn’t matter where the parents are from - the children born in America are American citizens.
If the parents where not citizens and did not become citizens then the infant was not a citizen.
That’s what the law says.
That’s what the law says.
An infant is a child who is already born. Actually, legally, it referred to minor children as well as what we today would call infants.
In other words, "infants" were not necessarily sitting in a rocker or crawling on the floor.
Did you not even read the part of the law that said all persons born in Virginia were citizens?
Children born to non-citizens do not meet the criteria and were therefore considered aliens.
The law prescribes several conditions which must be met in order to qualify for citizenship, noted by the conjunction "and." When "or" is present in the law, it identifies an alternate acceptable condition.
At 129: Virginia citizenship law, 1779
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.