I’m not going through the answers again- the answer to your question in post 69 is in my last post- You have also been answered by springfield reformer on this very issue in another thread that I pointed you to earlier- you asked the same question there and received the correct answer from him which was far more eloquent than I could do- If you wish to re-read hisp oitns, here’sd the link to the post:
“2) You have no basis for assuming that someone who is natural born is automatically outside the scope of the Naturalization Act. Foreign born children of US citizens have a presumptive claim to citizenship by descent (jus sanguinis), which is natural, but have always had a greater burden of proof regarding their connection to the sovereign, in that the presumption may be later rebutted. The Foreign Affairs Manual is explicit that this sort of claim is grounded in jus sanguinis:
7 FAM 1131.1-1 Federal Statutes (CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)
a. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is governed by Federal statutes. Only insofar as Congress has provided in such statutes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of “jus sanguinis” under which citizenship is acquired by descent (see 7 FAM 1111 a(2)).”
From this Post: http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3404633/posts?page=229#229
(In that thread you will find you answers to the issue of a statute not conferring citizenship- as well, what i stated before, the statute doesn’t grant citizenship to foreign born children of NON citizens, it simply states that they must be naturalized in a process- I also pointed otu that the law states that if a non citizen person doesn’t go through a process and in that process declare allegience, they are not a citizen except in rare circumstances which would preclude a process- but all other cases must declare allegiance in a process- The statute defining who doesn’t need to be naturalized- the child born to a us citizen offsoil is an NBC via a natural claim at birth- not via a statute- even though a statute may place extra burden on children born off soil- This extra burden is NOT granting citizenship- it can’t- the child is a citizen- an NBC at birth- Congress is fully within it’s right to demand an extra burden be placed on a child born off-soil in an effort to make sure th child is raised in an atmosphere where allegiance will be nurtured by the biological US citizen parent (who’s allegiance is automatically conferred to the child before and until the age of 18)
And “There was already a body of case and statutory law for non-14th citizens. Those categories include citizens at birth such as Cruz via jus sanguinis. Your analysis simply presumes without proof that all statutory citizens are all naturalized, when we know from Nguyen, Miller, Zivotofsky, etc., that is not the case. Naturalization happens after birth. Therefore citizens at birth are not naturalized.”
From: http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3405786/posts?page=175#175
As for The Bellei case, it was already explained earlier- (and also been explained by springfield reformer in those threads i pointed to as well) as were other cases that were based on lax interpretations of of the court of a citizen’s ‘intent to expatriate’- which incidentally laws have since been made much harder for a court to assign ‘intent to expatriate’
You are asserting that the foreign-born child of a citizen is a citizen when the parent does not meet the requirement of the statute, is that correct?
To: Bob434 > [[Naturalization statutes can and do confer citizenship AT birth. ]]
>
> Not on people who are already citizens- only on those who are foreigners and no citizen parent
Is the foreign-born child of a citizen a citizen when the citizen parent does not meet the requirements of this statute?
[1] Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. No. 82-414 § 301(a)(7), 66 Stat. 163, 236 (1952)
> As for The Bellei case, it was already explained earlier- (and also been explained by springfield reformer in those threads i pointed to as well) as were other cases that were based on lax interpretations of of the court of a citizen’s ‘intent to expatriate’- which incidentally laws have since been made much harder for a court to assign ‘intent to expatriate’
Bellei was not about expatriation, he had no desire to expatriate. He did not desire to lose citizenship yet he did because he did not comply with the terms of naturalization statute.