1787 English Dictionary
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 ...
I dealt specifically with the citizenship of minor children, which according to the law follow the citizenship of the parents.
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.
Exactly! It's plain English.
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.
This whole discussion is a great example of how determined those who make the arguments you're making are, to force things that simply don't say what you want them to say, to fit into your untrue theory.
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 minor child follows that of the parents.
"and all others not being citizens of any the United States of America shall be deemed aliens"
Just like US Naturalization Acts, just like the Penn. Supreme Court, just like the cases I've cited.
Hey - nice ellipsis.
Not clever enough.
Additionally, minor children born outside of Virginia were ALSO counted as citizens, IF they met the specified conditions.
In other words, if a child was born outside of Virginia to a Virginian, that child was also a citizen of Virginia.
If a non-Virginian became a citizen of Virginia, his or her children born elsewhere became citizens too.
Waiting for your refutation of post 205
Which is jus sanguinus.
You contradict your assertion in post 209 This is STRAIGHT JUS SOLI
Hey "whatever it takes" right? It's your credo.
There’s no point in re-refuting something that’s already been refuted.
It doesn’t matter how many times you claim it takes citizen parents for a person born on US soil to be a natural born citizen. Repeating claims that have been debunked doesn’t make them so.
I claim????
It is the claim of the Penn Supreme Court. It is the claim of international commission deciding citizenship disputes.
You haven’t refuted 205 because you can’t.
1787 English Dictionary
From Minor v Happersett:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SOLVE THESE DOUBTS.
This only shows that natural-born is a subset of native-born. Way to argue against yourself yet again.
What he i.e.Obama was telling people sounded so qualifying and real, at least to 50%+or-. Apparently the same proportion remains but enforced by those with the thoughts it doesn’t matter now.
You are a disruptor.
Here is the statement in the holding of Wong Kim Ark that has you so excited:
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’”
And as usual, you use the same argument OBOTS use to try and justify BHO2 - that ‘citizen’ equals ‘Natural born Citizen’. How lame! It doesn’t work because that is not what Justice Gray said in the holding.
Justice Gray compares and contrasts the two children:
- he mentions the US born child of resident alien(s)
- he compares that child to the “natural-born” child of a citizen
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being a Natural born Citizen.
The Wong Kim Ark Court does NOT say that the child of the alien is a Natural born Citizen.
Try getting it right next time, eh!
I went back and looked at the page, and did a couple of screen captures.
I also went and looked at the original sources (both the Arpaio Posse's official video, and the 1968 manual on the site of the National Bureau of Economic Research). And the site does show correct images.
Here's the image from the Arpaio Posse's official video:
And here's the image from the original 1968 manual hosted at the NBER:
I can see where it would be easy to get confused from that graphic, but it is in fact the document on the National Bureau of Economic Research site that is clearer and more detailed, and it does appear to be the original.
Those who keep posting false Constitutional claims, dividing conservatives and making us look like a bunch of rubes, are the disruptors.
The fallacy in your post is that you equate “citizen” with “natural born citizens.”
Must you be reminded that while all natural born citizens are citizens not all citizens are natural born citizen.”
You do know that but choose to ignore it in total.....
If what you are trying to prove is correct....that all citizens are Natural born citizens, then what would be the purpose of the Article II requirement for natural born citizenship.....simple citizenship would do.
Rule of law, Jeffy. All you post is nonsense.
The holding of Minor v. Happersett 1875 is precedent. It is law.
I know it outrages OBOTS like you, but the day is coming when the criteria set out by the Minor Court will exist at the several States level, and you and other communists, excuse me - Democrats - are going to be SOL in your attempts to subvert the U.S.Constitution.
But nice try. I’m going to shoot you down whenever you pop up with the crapola you’re been spreading here today.
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.