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 ...
INS rules required that ~ the same INS that was administratively making the babies born to the illegal aliens into citizens (if they were asked).
Outside of the disparity of treatment of those here on visas versus those not here on visas, if those babies were American citizens why would INS require they be added to the family visa? Americans, after all, do need a visa to be here!
mark.
HAHAHHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!
So now "native-born" are those born in the United States and those born citizens abroad are "MERELY NATURAL-born"?
This is EXACTLY opposite your previous claim, "I simply don’t think there’s any doubt historically that those born on US soil are natural born citizens."
"What ever it takes" right? It is your credo.
Not really. What it proves, at best, is that whatever bureaucrat was tasked with writing those regulations thought they should say both to cover every eventuality. The government's not monolithic--there's no central Manual of Style with definitions everyone's supposed to use. Do you really think there was some long discussion in the INS offices about Minor v Happersett and Ark and Ankeny and Ramsay vs. Rawls and what those two terms actually meant? Does the document explain the differences anywhere?
See this portion of post #51, my point in quoting the part 7) in the ins rule was to show that there was a difference between “native-born citizen” and “natural -born citizen” .
.”..and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
What category of citizenship existed for a man , but not for a woman (or vice versa )?
Prior to the Nineteenth, citizenship for women!= citizenship for men, the two had distinct legal structures and status.
After the Nineteenth - this was eliminated. The document you’ve uncovered concerns a very specific class of American citizen - American women who married and lived abroad, and were married to non American citizens who would be considered aliens.
It also mentions what to do about American women married to those who were not eligible for immigration privileges (due to race restrictions), and how after the war - all of them were offered to restore their citizenship when they returned to the United States.
Your document does not contain:
1, your interpretation of the law
2, any references to anyone save women
What you would need is the document which defines both terms - which this document does not provide. NBC - refers to the voting class, which back then - would not have included all women.
They are citizens - born in the United States per the Fourteenth.
Constitution is above the law right?
So to my mind, the words of the constitution cannot be defined or changed by a law.
Their meaning stands regardless of what any law says. If the law could establish or change their meaning, it would be an easy bypass to hard to pass constitutional amendments.
So pointing at a law is no evidence of what the words of the constitution mean.
“Where is the proof of your assertion?”
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an allegation is made against someone and the Court assumes it’s true until the defendant successfully defends against it by a preponderance of the evidence.
The allegation is Obama naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983. Prove me wrong.
JCB, pinging cold case posse supporter on this one, since the doc was posted by him/her.
Cold case posse supporter,
I wonder if that Ins doc archive has in any other location the phrase “natural-born citizen”, you have done a great job with this find :)
Godspeed and good hunting :D
The ads were fraud, never published, but added to the files when Obama began his run.
No. It has been pointed out to you that the junk you have been posting has NOT been relevant to the US Constitution, nor to the original intent of the framers.
Speaking as someone who has tried to draft military regulations on a subject, the goal is often to provide ‘one stop shopping’. I wouldn’t hesitate to list terms with identical meanings, because those terms exist somewhere and I want anyone looking for the regulation to see it applies.
I assume the INS would do the same thing.
In any case, an INS instruction is NOT a legal analysis. If you go to court and use this argument, you will be laughed at. And if that is the best you’ve got, you’ll be tossed out of court. In matters of constitutional law, an INS guidebook written by an anonymous author is NOT authoritative. US Supreme Court rulings ARE. If there is any conflict, guess who prevails?
In Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), for example, the court wrote:
“”We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
Notice the mixing of native born and natural born. Both terms were in use, but the Supreme Court used them interchangeably.
Excellent work!
“The document you’ve uncovered concerns a very specific class of American citizen - American women who married and lived abroad, and were married to non American citizens who would be considered aliens.”
Not true. This is portion of a detailed interpretation of the Law by USCIS. It’s similar to the FAM used by the State Department in that it provides guidance to government employees.
At the link, click “previous document” and you’ll see ...
“A similar loss of United States citizenship was sustained by a citizen woman who married a United States citizen before September 22, 1922, if, during the subsistence of the marriage and within the captioned period, the citizen husband acquired a new nationality by naturalization in a foreign state, the citizen wife established residence abroad with the naturalized husband prior to September 22, 1922, and through his naturalization acquired the nationality of the foreign country in which he was naturalized. 13a / Expatriation of the wife in these circumstances constituted loss by naturalization in a foreign state, 14/ a subject that is discussed further,in terms of the husband’s naturalization after September 21, 1922, in INTERP 349.2(a)(3)(x).”
Anyone can move out of the country, naturalize in a foreign state, and may or may not be issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality by the current SoS. It’s discretionary on the part of the SoS.
“Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961”
He was born in Kenya, he was adopted and became an indonesian citizen and immigrated to the US with an indonesian passport and has never been naturalized.
He’s an illegal alien!
I’m not here to prove you wrong you jerk!
I asked a fair question. You made an assertion that I wasn’t arguing with but, asking for, at a minimum, a link.
So, you made the assertion without proof and I was axing merely for proof, not challenging you.
Now, however....
get lost you communist troll!!!
“Not true. This is portion of a detailed interpretation of the Law by USCIS. It’s similar to the FAM used by the State Department in that it provides guidance to government employees.”
Yes, and it applies to a very specific circumstance.
1922 is crucial because of the ratification of the Nineteenth.
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.