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 ...
According to the facts of the case, it wasn't open to question. Wong Kim Ark's parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. when their son was born in 1873. They raised him in the U.S. and didn't return to China until 1890. This is a known fact to all parties of the case; the info is contained in the case syllabus. Given that, the parties agreed upon the fact that his parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth. Gray specifically states that his ruling is based upon that and the other facts agreed upon by the parties.
Case Syllabus:
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark - Syllabus
That said, given the information we now have on Hawaii and Alaska being the only two states in which birthright citizenship is not predicated on the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement, it would appear that if Obama was born in Hawaii as presented, he is a U.S. citizen.
The question that remains, though, is if a born British citizen is a natural born U.S. citizen.
Given our Founding Fathers' break from British alliegance, I am quite sure they never intended such to be the case.
So a permanently domiciled in the US alien couple can return “home” to the nation where they are citizens and their American born child remains a Citizen of the United States at birth. As long as they were permanently domiciled when the child was born.
I’ve got it now.
New arguments for plaintiffs to try to see if they have any more success with Triers of Fact than the old arguments.
If in a Supreme Court case examining the merits of the facts you can get all parties to agree that bearing and raising a child for 17 years in the U.S. constitutes permanent domicile, yes.
In contrast, we already know Obama's father was only in the U.S. on a temporary basis. His 1961 "APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME OF TEMPORARY STAY" is a matter of public record. It's doubtful anyone would agree he was permanently domiciled in the country given that.
That's not the ruling. The ruling was that they didn't have to accept the plaintiffs claims as true, and that the governor of Indiana couldn't be legally obligated to vet presidential candidates. The footnote immediately contradicts this claim because there is no guidance to support this conclusion. And nowhere in this decision is Obama or anybody else declared to be a natural-born citizen. It's good slight of hand, but it's still nothing more than dicta.
That's not the ruling. The ruling was that they didn't have to accept the plaintiffs claims as true, and that the governor of Indiana couldn't be legally obligated to vet presidential candidates. The footnote immediately contradicts this claim because there is no guidance to support this conclusion. And nowhere in this decision is Obama or anybody else declared to be a natural-born citizen. It's good slight of hand, but it's still nothing more than dicta.
Wrong. Read it and weep.
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
There it is. A direct quote. And notice, absolutely nothing about U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which was 15 years earlier than this UNANIMOUS decision by the Supreme Court in Luria v. United States. And even though it says "native citizen," Minor exclusively defined native citizens as: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. No lower court trumps this decision. All you've shown is that judges in Indiana, Arizona and Georgia are ignorant of actual Supreme Court precedence.
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.There it is. A direct quote. And notice, absolutely nothing about U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which was 15 years earlier than this UNANIMOUS decision by the Supreme Court in Luria v. United States. And even though it says "native citizen," Minor exclusively defined native citizens as: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. No lower court trumps this decision.
Excellent point!
All you've shown is that judges in Indiana, Arizona and Georgia are ignorant of actual Supreme Court precedence.
There's been a STUNNING display of ignorance from MANY involved in this unvetted president fiasco. So much so that it's hard to believe it's only sheer stupidity and not something far more sinister.
I know of no one who disagrees that naturalized citizens are not eligible for the presidency.
If you are born in the US, where your parents were born is irrelevant to your status as a “Citizen of the United States at Birth,” (as long as your parents don’t have diplomatic immunity or aren’t members of a foreign invading military). There is not a single Justice (based on their rulings in previous cases) on the Roberts Court who believes that two citizen parents are required in order to be a natural born citizen, if you have “jus soli” status.
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
And in a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court of the United States and was denied a Writ of Certiorari: Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
Ten state or federal courts have ruled that Obama is indeed a natural born citizen with only one US citizen parent. No court has ever ruled otherwise.
“Ten state or federal courts have ruled that Obama is indeed a natural born citizen with only one US citizen parent.” Um, dismissing a case is not the same as ruling little barry bastard boy degenerate is a natural born citizen.
Anyone can check for themselves and clearly read the “Natural Born Citizen” section of the “OPINION FOR PUBLICATION” by the Indiana Court of Aopeals .
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Obviously Judge Mahili, in his “trial on the merits” in Georgia thought he was citing an opinion: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
Same with Judge John Cooper in Florida: “Voeltz v Obama” Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV
Yes, they can. Nowhere does it declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen. They had no proof of where he was born. And of course, we still don't. And second, they admitted that there was no actual precedent to support the phantom guidance they claimed to have divined from Wong Kim Ark, which never says anything remotely close to what they claim. Ark cited Minor's definiton of NBC. So, yes, please read the Ankeny decision.
Obviously Judge Mahili, in his “trial on the merits” in Georgia thought he was citing an opinion: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b).
Again, all this shows is abject ignornance on the part of an administrative judge. There was no legal proof Obama was born in the United States. And the Ankeny decision admitted it had no legal precedent to support the idea that Obama or anybody would be a natural-born citizen just by being a citizen at birth. As it turns out, Obama doesn't even meet Wong Kim Arks'requirement for satisfying the subject clause of the 14th amendment.
“In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
I've shown where the Supreme Court has said this is not the case. Again, this ignorance. There's not even a specific citation.
So the Florida court/judge agrees that the two sons of the Muslim president of Egypt who were born in the USA are ‘natural born citizens’ of the USA and eligible for POTUSA. Many Muslims are anxious to be a part of such a transformation. I don’t believe the Founders who as far as I know had no empathy with/for the Arab nations would be astounded at such a turn of events.
Depends on the parents' citizenship or domicile status when one is born. In 48 states, one still must meet the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement as defined by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull in the Congressional Record: "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."
Citing flawed decisions proves nothing except ignorance or corruption on the part of the erroneously opining judges.
edge919 is correct in citing Luria v. United States as to Constitutional presidential eligibility in post 467. That sets a precedent that trumps any lower court ruling.
Just because someone posting on a blog says that judicial decisions are flawed doesn’t make it so. Under the American system of jurisprudence, any decision can be appealed. If appellate courts don’t reverse a lower court decision, it is not “flawed,” Those on the losing side of a lawsuit always claim flawed decisions or judicial corruption.
There have been seventy state or federal appellate rulings on ineligibility appeals, none has been reversed.
There’s a Supreme Court decision specifically referencing Constitutional presidential eligibility that contradicts the lower court rulings to date. Lower courts can’t overturn Supreme Court decisions.
The obamaroid internet workers are trying desperately to establish the foundation that just being a citizen is the same as natural born citizen. It is the same old story, tell a lie often enough and it takes on credibility. Liars cannot help themselves, they lie. Obama lies. His minions lie. Satan is the father of lies a murderer from the start. America is openly becoming satan’s playground. Serving a lie is empowering to a democrip mind. We have two or three working this thread.
They start from the insanely delusional, modern-liberalism-fueled premise that the Framers wanted foreign allegiances in the WH. Their errors only multiply from there.
That IS insanely delusional. The U.S. had just declared INDEPENDENCE. They sure as hell WOULDN'T want a FOREIGN national's child who was born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign to head the federal government.
Their errors only multiply from there.
It absolutely defies logic. There really is no other way to describe it.
Brainwashing? What say you? How can they be so ignorant of historical fact?
They have been saturated in modern liberal thought the way a pickle is saturated in vinegar. It is so pervasive that most have no idea the degree to which it effects their thinking. THE foundational block of modern liberalism is nondiscrimination. It’s so effective because of course on one level discrimination IS wrong. But modern liberalism takes it to extremes.
For example, even though the homosexual lifestyle leads to demonstrably higher health risks & shorter lives, you simply cannot say a word against it. This would be ‘discriminating’ against homosexuals. Better to let them contract an array of diseases, burden the healthcare/social safety net & die premature deaths.
It is from this POV that the Framers-wanted-foreign-allegiance-in-the-WH crowd approaches the question. One thing they know for sure: the good Founders of the country wd never have discriminated against the innocent children of foreign nationals. That would be just plain wrong, bad & evil, & the Founders were none of those things. [Plus why wd the Founders be xenophobic, since they were all either immigrants or the children of immigrants.]
So this crowd knows a priori that NBC cannot be intended to exclude innocent children born in the US who had no control over whether their parents naturalized or not. Their entire ‘logic’ train moves from there, & nothing—literally nothing—will ever derail it. If a Framer came back from the dead & said, ‘Ah, actually we DIDN’T want persons of foreign allegiance in the WH; that would be gambling w national suicide, w no upside to balance the potentially fatal risk’, the crowd you are arguing w wd simply explain to the Framer how he is wrong. I.e.: how he must have misunderstood the intent of the rest of the Framers. No lie.
The worst of it is that those most irreparably steeped in modern liberalism for the most part don’t know it. It would be like trying to tell a fish it’s in water. The fish says, ‘No; this is simply what the atmosphere is like. It’s not water; it’s the normal, natural way life is’.
Otoh, I have learned a lot from your posts. I really appreciate the time you take & the expertise you bring. I’m sure I’m not alone.
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.