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 ...
You are the second person who’s told me how good that site is. I’m planning to start spending more quality time there. Thanks!
WXRGina, many thanks for that link!
Here’s an excerpt that should prove interesting:
“Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them. But after our Founding Generation was gone, their successors were required to be born as citizens of the United States –not merely born here (as were our Founders), but born as citizens.
And do not forget that the children born here of slaves did not become “citizens” by virtue of being born here. Their parents were slaves; hence (succeeding to the condition of their parents) they were born as slaves. Black people born here did not become citizens until 1868 and the ratification of the 14 Amendment.
So! Do you see? If Our Framers understood that merely being born here were sufficient to confer status as a “natural born citizen”; it would not have been necessary to grandfather in our first generation of Presidents; and all the slaves born here would have been “natural born citizens”. But they were born as non-citizen slaves, because their parents were non-citizen slaves.”
Sums it up quite neatly.
sfl
Ping to #322
“EXTREMELY authoritative. Like William Rawle”
William Rawle quotes Vattel in his “View of the Constitution”.
Yes, he does. Once in a discussion of how countries relate to the consuls of other nations, and once for saying that a country needs to a really good constitution.
Thanks for the ping. I agree w you about that site. It looks to be a treasure trove. I liked the quote about how much Ben Franklin cherished his copy of Vattel. I hadn’t seen that reported elsewhere. File under, ‘learning new stuff every day’.
It does indeed, and I've now bookmarked it. Thanks!
I liked the part about ‘if being born in the u.s. made one a citizen, then why did they need the 14th amendment? ‘
William Rawle discusses “offenses against the law of nations” in his View of the Constitution.
Vattel’s Law of Nations is referenced on the same pages (224 and 225).
http://archive.org/stream/aviewconstituti00rawlgoog#page/n248/mode/2up/search/Vattel
“to establish a supreme tribunal to judge all disputes, independently of the prince”
Rawle? Vattel?
You’re welcome, WildHighlander. I really appreciate Ms. Publius Huldah. Her video speeches are excellent, too.
It doesn’t need to. There has been no judicial holding on the Citizenship clause of Article 1 of the 14th Amendment which says that a born citizen and a natural born citizen are separate categories. Also there has been no act of Congress which specifies such a distinction.
Not separate "categories" but separate classes. That was the holding in Minor v. Happersett and it's why Wong Kim Ark was NOT declared to be a natural-born citizen.
Except to the children of resident aliens. It's why WKA said the 14th amendment included those children.
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.
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.
You accuse others of what you do Jeff.
In Post 223 you used ellipsis to modify the meaning of the 1779 citizenship law in Virginia. You changed it to "all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth... shall be deemed citizens" which is not what the law says.
That law in relevant part:
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.
The meaning is clear. It's plain English. It's basic rules of construction: the specific terms of a statute override the general terms, however inclusive may be the general language of a statute
So with regard to minor children:
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 motherExcept for foundlings which become citizens, the citizenship of the minor child follows that of the parents.
If the parents where not citizens and did not become citizens then the infant was not a citizen. That is what the law says.
Except Minor v Happersett was a women’s suffrage case and citing it in Article II, Section 1 context has not been persuasive for any judge or Justice.
For example: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
An explicit rejection of the relevance of Minor v Happersett.
And: Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin
An implicit rejection of the relevance of Minor v Happersett to Article II, Section 1 eligibility.
And: Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
A later Supreme Court ruling than Minor v Happersett, US v. Wong Kim Ark implicitly cited as stare decisis on Article II, Section 1 eligibility
Search Results from Historical Records
No records found for > Name: Barack Obama, Country: United States, Event: Birth, Place: Hawaii, Event Range: 1960-1961
At the Declaration of Independence, there was a distinction made between free inhabitants and citizens of the states. Loyalist refused to become citizens of the state of their inhabitation and refused to state an oath of allegiance to the state of their inhabitation. Consequently, some inhabitants did not become citizens of the state.
At the time of the U.S. Constitution, citizens of the united States became citizens of the United States. Noncitizens continued to be inhabitants. The children of inhabitants did not become citizens of the United States because they followed the citizenship of their father, or their mother if the father was dead.
At the founding of the country, the offspring of citizens at the time of the Declaration of Independence became natural born citizens of the U.S. because they followed the citizenship of their father. Natural born citizens were not required to state an oath of allegiance.
Yeah, because some bureaucrat writing guidance documents at the INS is an infallible interpreter of the Constitution.
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.