Listen Up: Here Is Proof That Native-Born Citizens And Natural-Born Citizens Are Separate

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html ^

[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.”

[Rides3]

Okay. I may have overstated the case VERY SLIGHTLY by using the word "SOLELY."

You overstated your case MUCH MORE than very slightly.

The intent was to exclude: * Indians IN TRIBES (but NOT Indians who had left their tribes and joined "civilized" American society) * AND those who had always been HISTORICALLY regarded as being outside of the rule of citizenship, and who therefore had always BEEN excluded: the children of foreign ambassadors, foreign royalty, and invading armies. It is also clear that Trumbull regarded the children born here of non-citizen parents as US citizens. He understood that to be United States law.

Children born here of permanently domiciled parents, as confirmed by the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling.

Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. He was always only in the country on a temporary basis.

[Ray76]

Good point!

The Wong Kim Ark ruling confirmed children born here of permanently domiciled parents are citizens.

Since Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the United States, was always in the country on a temporary basis, and his "Application to Extend Time of Temporary Stay" is public, WKA does not apply to BHO II.

[Jeff Winston]

Cite the exact statement and provide a link to the Congressional Record in which this supposedly appears.

On January 30, 1866, on the floor of the Senate, Senator Trumbull proposed introducing the citizenship provision that would be slightly amended to become the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment. He proposed adding the words,

"All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color..."

Just a few minutes later:

Mr. TRUMBULL: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?

Mr. COWAN: I think not.

Mr. TRUMBULL: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.

Mr. COWAN: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.

Mr. TRUMBULL: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.

Here's the link.

Trumbull also says that the Indians in tribes aren't citizens, but the Indians who have left their tribes and joined American society, in general, are already US citizens.

And he says that although his provision does not embrace the tribes, he is happy to add language to clarify that:

Mr. Trumbull: Our dealings with the Indians are with them as foreigners, as separate nations. We deal with them by treaty, and not by law, except in reference to those who are incorporated into the United States as some are, and are taxable and become citizens, and then it would be desirable that it should apply to the Indians so far as those who are domesticated and pay taxes and live in civilized society are concerned. In reference to the other tribes, they will not be embraced by this provision. If the Senator from Kentucky thinks the language would embrace them, I should have no objection to changing it so as to exclude the Indians. It is not intended to include them.

[Jeff Winston]

The Wong Kim Ark ruling confirmed children born here of permanently domiciled parents are citizens.

Since Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the United States, was always in the country on a temporary basis, and his "Application to Extend Time of Temporary Stay" is public, WKA does not apply to BHO II.

I actually think that IF both of Obama's parents had been in that situation, here on temporary student visas, then there would be at least some argument in favor of that.

But with one of his parents an American citizen? Not a chance.

[Jeff Winston]

See my comment at 424.

[Rides3]

Is American law subject to and subservient to foreign law?

In regards to citizenship, its allegiance, and obligations, I'll defer to the U.S. State Dept's information on that:

"Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice.

The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad.

...dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there."

US State Department Services Dual Nationality

[Tau Food]

It's complicated.

Clearly, anyone born by caesarian delivery cannot be considered a "natural born citizen." However, there remains a great deal of uncertainty about some modern births. For example, if childbirth is assisted by an episiotomy, can the child still be viewed as a "natural born citizen" at birth? How about a ventouse delivery?

In 1738, Mary Donally, an Irish mid-wife, performed the first caesarian section in the British Isles. Just a few decades later and likely because of Donally's breakthrough, our Founders enshrined in our Constitution the requirement that our presidents be natural born citizens.

Most of our current uncertainty stems from the fact that there is no clear evidence that Donally was able to foresee the advent of episiotomies and ventouse deliveries. Thus, it will be necessary for us to guess whether Donally would have considered some of our modern procedures consistent with a natural birth.

[Ray76]

I think there’s a good chance.

[Ray76]

“caesarian”

A sense of humor.

[Rides3]

I actually think that IF both of Obama's parents had been in that situation, here on temporary student visas, then there would be at least some argument in favor of that.

But with one of his parents an American citizen? Not a chance.

Based on what? There is no U.S. law that states that a child born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen parent is even a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen.

The problem Obama has is that any claim to U.S. citizenship he thinks he has is clouded by his non-citizen father's temporary stay status in the U.S.

The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to him. Neither does the 14th Amendment as he and the DNC have already admitted that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed (exact quote) his citizenship status at birth.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Thanks. (And no you didn’t.)

[Nero Germanicus]

I’m fine with that.

[Seven_0]

So by Trumbull’s definition, Obama’s parents clearly would have been “subject to the complete jurisdiction” of the United States.

Would "complete jurisdiction" include the draft?

[Jeff Winston]

Based on what? There is no U.S. law that states that a child born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen parent is even a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen.

Yes, there is. The same American common law that makes a child born in the US to two citizen parents a citizen.

Our Founders did not rely on a statute to set the standard for natural born citizenship. Which means they didn't pass a law defining that the child born on US soil of two citizen parents was a citizen, either.

That was set by the rule of American common law.

And by the rule, which is an ancient rule that we adopted, the child born on the soil of the country, whether of two citizen parents, one citizen parent, or NO citizen parents (with very limited exceptions for the latter) was ALWAYS a natural born subject or citizen.

This is not in dispute by anybody except people who post on web sites, who simply don't like the current President and consequently DON'T LIKE the actual RULE that our Founders set up.

But historically legally, there is no case here, WHATSOEVER.

It doesn't matter whether you like it. It doesn't matter whether I like it. That's how the Founders and Framers and their generation set things up, and that is the simple fact.

The problem Obama has is that any claim to U.S. citizenship he thinks he has is clouded by his non-citizen father's temporary stay status in the U.S.

That's simply not true. Since his mother was an American citizen, whether his father was permanently resident or not simply doesn't matter.

Again, you or I might WISH that it did. But it's just not the case. Real conservatives accept the law as it is. They don't twist the Constitution and our history to argue that the law is something that it isn't.

The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to him. Neither does the 14th Amendment as he and the DNC have already admitted that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed (exact quote) his citizenship status at birth.

Legally speaking, it doesn't matter one whit what they "admitted." They could have stated that he was born in Moscow, a citizen of the USSR, and unless it was actually true, it wouldn't matter one bit.

As for dual citizenship, again, legally speaking it doesn't matter. 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens, WHILE serving as President. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.

Whether another country grants a person citizenship or not is irrelevant. There is no provision for someone to "lose" their natural born US citizenship simply because another nation said they were born a citizen of that nation as well.

The United States is ruled by United States law, not the law of France or the UK or Kenya.

You can say that's sad. Fine. Thne it's sad, but true.

Continuing to make unconstitutional claims doesn't get us anywhere except having a reputation for being kooks.

[wingtip]

433 comments just on this thread and 93 are yours. Do you get paid by the word or just by the post?

[Jeff Winston]

Would "complete jurisdiction" include the draft?

"Complete jurisdiction" meant that a person was in United States society and subject to the laws of the United States.

Indians in tribes weren't. They were PARTIALLY subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Indians who had left tribes and joined United States society WERE subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, whether they had naturalized or not. Immigrants were also subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, whether they had naturalized or not.

[Nero Germanicus]

Yep, amen.

[Jeff Winston]

433 comments just on this thread and 93 are yours. Do you get paid by the word or just by the post?

Hey, I would be happy to get paid by either, as long as I retain full control of content.

What are you proposing?

[Ray76]

Careful Jeff, your true purpose might slip out.

[Ray76]

Since his mother was an American citizen, whether his father was permanently resident or not simply doesn't matter.

This claim is not supported by law. Remember, BHO II is not covered by WKA.

8 USC § 1401

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401