Zullo:2 top intel people in 2 branches: "open secret" Obama NOT born in US!

Freedom Friday with Garl Gallups ^ | August 17, 2018 | Mike Zullo, Carl Gallups

[Seizethecarp]

15:50: Aside from there never being a birth certificate at Kapiolani Medical Center...and I will never reveal the sources, however they are top intelligence people in two different branches of intelligence...it has been an open secret that Obama could never satisfy the constitutional requirement of being born on American soil.

Now in our investigation we were not tasked with determining that. We were looking for evidence of a fraudulent document and perhaps the reason behind it, but the mission was never to find where he was or was not born. However, that's the open secret.

Now that's the open secret and you have John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Micheal Hayden, all these players that were in control of those entities are now empbroiled in this soft coup to destroy the presidency of the United States.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Changing laws does not change the Constitution.

Art.2 Eligibility Facts

http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

If Ted Cruz is eligible to be President, so are Anwar al-Awlaki’s kids born in Yemen to one citizen parent.

[Lurkinanloomin]

The loyalty division has not operatively been between the US and UK, but US Constitutional Government and the NWO crowd, as manifested most directly within the CIA.
**********************************

It’s too frightening for most people to consider that our government has turned against us.
They all knew Obama was ineligible.
Clarence Thomas admitted the Supreme Court was ducking addressing it.

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

Yes, you’re correct. But Slick did parse his words when asked if Hussein could be president. He said something like, “I think that anyone who is constitutionally Qualified should be able to run for the office.”

And it was the Hill/Billies PI’s that attempted to access Hussein’s Hawaiian elementary school records when they could not find any other records on him.

Incoming.

[Yosemitest]

WRONG !

Now as far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...

As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:

" ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
that Congress considers invalid.


Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

NOTE: nonjusticiable political question

Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
One scholar explained:
The political question doctrine holds
that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
- - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
A court can only decide issues based on law.
The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
The court will not engage in political disputes.

A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
of a non-legal character
or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.

Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?

"Naturalize" !
"admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Related: Naturalizing.

Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !


The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
Provided, that
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

READ IT VERY CLOSELY.

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

... Citizenship is mentioned in
Article 1, Section 2,
Article 1, Section 3,
Article 1, Section 8,
Article 2, Section 1,
and in the 14th Amendment
and several subsequent amendments.

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen?
Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
But even this does not get specific enough.
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation in
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment;
the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4,
also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"


• Anyone born inside the United States *
  * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
  This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
  
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  
• A final, historical condition:
  a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as
Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402),
Alaska (8 USC 1404),
Hawaii (8 USC 1405),
the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406),
and Guam (8 USC 1407).
Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
he was not actually qualified to be president.
However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(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."
Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

U.S. Nationals

A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.
U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

(Continued)

[Lurkinanloomin]

According to you every anchor baby and Anwar al-Awlaki’s kids, born in Yemen to one citizen parent, are eligible to be President.

You are wrong.

The founders rejected “citizen at birth”

http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

[Lurkinanloomin]

People born with multiple nationalities are not naturally Americans.

One is only naturally a citizen when they cannot be anything else.

[Yosemitest]

I didn't write and pass that LAW.
Congress did, along with the Presidents who approved those laws ! And the LAW IS the LAW !
If you want to change it, then build the support and the votes to change it !
Otherwise, get some REAL sources !

Just because YOU don't like the LAW as passed, doesn't change it, PERIOD !

[Yosemitest]

Don't let the FACTS confuse you with your failure to accept the truth !
It's the LAW !

[Lurkinanloomin]

Laws cannot change the Constitution.
Natural born citizen means born here of citizen parents.

[ml/nj]

Law Review articles are written by children.

ML/NJ

[Yosemitest]

WRONG!
The facts cannot change the minds of those who refuse to accept TRUTH !
Here are the name of the FOUNDING FATHERS that passed THAT definition of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN !

1st United States Congress
		1

Leadership

Senate

• President: John Adams (P)
• President pro tempore: John Langdon (P)

House of Representatives

• Speaker: Frederick Muhlenberg (P)

Members

This list is arranged by chamber, then by state. Senators are listed by class, and Representatives are listed by district.

Skip to House of Representatives, below

Senate

Senators were elected by the state legislatures every two years, with one-third beginning new six-year terms with each Congress. Preceding the names in the list below are Senate class numbers, which indicate the cycle of their election. In this Congress, all Senators were newly elected, and Class 1 meant their term ended with this Congress, requiring re-election in 1790; Class 2 meant their term ended with the next Congress, requiring re-election in 1792; and Class 3 meant their term lasted through the next two Congresses, requiring re-election in 1794.

Connecticut[edit] 1. Oliver Ellsworth (P) 3. William S. Johnson (P) Delaware[edit] 1. George Read (P) 2. Richard Bassett (A) Georgia[edit] 2. William Few (A) 3. James Gunn (A) Maryland[edit] 1. Charles Carroll (P) 3. John Henry (P) Massachusetts[edit] 1. Tristram Dalton (P) 2. Caleb Strong (P) New Hampshire[edit] 2. Paine Wingate (A) 3. John Langdon (P) New Jersey[edit] 1. Jonathan Elmer (P) 2. William Paterson (P), until November 13, 1790 Philemon Dickinson (P), from December 6, 1790

New York[edit] 1. Philip Schuyler (P), from July 27, 1789 3. Rufus King (P), from July 25, 1789 North Carolina[edit] 2. Samuel Johnston (P), from January 29, 1790 3. Benjamin Hawkins (P), from January 13, 1790 Pennsylvania[edit] 1. William Maclay (A) 3. Robert Morris (P) Rhode Island[edit] 1. Theodore Foster (P), from June 25, 1790 2. Joseph Stanton, Jr. (A), from June 25, 1790 South Carolina[edit] 2. Pierce Butler (P) 3. Ralph Izard (P) Virginia[edit] 1. William Grayson (A), until March 12, 1790 John Walker (P), April 26, 1790 – December 6, 1790 James Monroe (A), from December 6, 1790 2. Richard Henry Lee (A)

Senate President John Adams Senate President pro tempore John Langdon

House of Representatives[edit]

The names of members of the House of Representatives are listed by their districts.

Connecticut[edit] See also: List of United States Representatives from Connecticut All representatives were elected statewide on a general ticket. At-large. Benjamin Huntington (P) At-large. Roger Sherman (P) At-large. Jonathan Sturges (P) At-large. Jonathan Trumbull, Jr. (P) At-large. Jeremiah Wadsworth (P) Delaware[edit] See also: List of United States Representatives from Delaware At-large. John Vining (P) Georgia[edit] See also: List of United States Representatives from Georgia 1. James Jackson (A) 2. Abraham Baldwin (A) 3. George Mathews (A) Maryland[edit] See also: List of United States Representatives from Maryland 1. Michael J. Stone (A) 2. Joshua Seney (A) 3. Benjamin Contee (A) 4. William Smith (A) 5. George Gale (P) 6. Daniel Carroll (P) Massachusetts[edit] See also: List of United States Representatives from Massachusetts 1. Fisher Ames (P) 2. Benjamin Goodhue (P) 3. Elbridge Gerry (A) 4. Theodore Sedgwick (P) 5. George Partridge (P), until August 14, 1790, vacant thereafter 6. George Thatcher (P) 7. George Leonard (P) 8. Jonathan Grout (A) New Hampshire[edit] See also: List of United States Representatives from New Hampshire All representatives were elected statewide on a general ticket. At-large. Abiel Foster (P), from June 23, 1789 At-large. Nicholas Gilman (P) At-large. Samuel Livermore (A) New Jersey[edit] See also: List of United States Representatives from New Jersey All representatives were elected statewide on a general ticket. At-large. Elias Boudinot (P) At-large. Lambert Cadwalader (P) At-large. James Schureman (P) At-large. Thomas Sinnickson (P)

New York[edit] See also: List of United States Representatives from New York 1. William Floyd (A) 2. John Laurance (P) 3. Egbert Benson (P) 4. John Hathorn (A), from April 23, 1789 5. Peter Silvester (P), from April 22, 1789 6. Jeremiah Van Rensselaer (A), from May 9, 1789 North Carolina[edit] See also: List of United States Representatives from North Carolina 1. John Baptista Ashe (A), from March 24, 1790 2. Hugh Williamson (A), from March 19, 1790 3. Timothy Bloodworth (A), from April 6, 1790 4. John Steele (P), from April 19, 1790 5. John Sevier (P), from June 16, 1790 Pennsylvania[edit] See also: List of United States Representatives from Pennsylvania All representatives were elected statewide on a general ticket. At-large. George Clymer (P) At-large. Thomas Fitzsimons (P) At-large. Thomas Hartley (P) At-large. Daniel Hiester (A) At-large. Frederick Muhlenberg (P) At-large. Peter Muhlenberg (A) At-large. Thomas Scott (P) At-large. Henry Wynkoop (P) Rhode Island[edit] See also: List of United States Representatives from Rhode Island At-large. Benjamin Bourne (P), from December 17, 1790 South Carolina[edit] See also: List of United States Representatives from South Carolina 1. William L. Smith (P), from April 13, 1789 2. Aedanus Burke (A) 3. Daniel Huger (P) 4. Thomas Sumter (A) 5. Thomas Tudor Tucker (A) Virginia[edit] See also: List of United States Representatives from Virginia 1. Alexander White (P) 2. John Brown (A) 3. Andrew Moore (A) 4. Richard Bland Lee (P) 5. James Madison (A) 6. Isaac Coles (A) 7. John Page (A) 8. Josiah Parker (A) 9. Theodorick Bland (A), until June 1, 1790 William B. Giles (A), from December 7, 1790 10. Samuel Griffin (P)

Speaker of the House Frederick Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania

Changes in membership[edit]

There were no political parties in this Congress. Members are informally grouped into factions of similar interest, based on an analysis of their voting record.^[2]

New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, were the last states to ratify the U.S. Constitution, and because of their late ratification, were unable to send full representation at the beginning of this Congress. Six Senators and nine Representatives were subsequently seated from these states during the sessions as noted.

Senate[edit]

See also: List of special elections to the United States Senate

There was 1 resignation, 1 death, 1 replacement of a temporary appointee, and 6 new seats. The Anti-Administration Senators picked up a 1-seat net gain and the Pro-Administration Senators picked up 4 seats.

State (class)	Vacator	Reason for change	Successor	Date of successor's formal installation
New York (3)	New seats	State legislature failed to choose Senator until after Congress began.	Rufus King (P)	July 25, 1789
New York (1)			Philip John Schuyler (P)	July 27, 1789
North Carolina (3)		North Carolina ratified the constitution on November 21, 1789.	Benjamin Hawkins (P)	Elected November 27, 1789
North Carolina (2)			Samuel Johnston (P)
Virginia (1)	William Grayson (A)	Died March 12, 1790.	John Walker (P)	Appointed March 31, 1790
Rhode Island (1)	New seats	Rhode Island ratified the constitution on May 29, 1790.	Theodore Foster (P)	Elected June 7, 1790
Rhode Island (2)			Joseph Stanton, Jr. (A)
Virginia (1)	John Walker (P)	James Monroe was elected to the seat of Senator William Grayson.	James Monroe (A)	Elected November 9, 1790
New Jersey (2)	William Paterson (P)	Resigned November 13, 1790, having been elected Governor of New Jersey.	Philemon Dickinson (P)	Elected November 23, 1790

House of Representatives[edit]

See also: List of special elections to the United States House of Representatives

There was 2 resignations, 1 death, and 6 new seats. Anti-Administration members picked up 3 seats and Pro-Administration members picked up 2 seats.

District	Vacator	Reason for change	Successor	Date of successor's formal installation
New Hampshire At-Large	Benjamin West (P)	Declined to serve	Abiel Foster (P)	June 23, 1789
North Carolina 1st	New seats	North Carolina ratified the constitution on November 21, 1789.	John Baptista Ashe (A)	March 24, 1790
North Carolina 2nd			Hugh Williamson (A)	March 19, 1790
North Carolina 3rd			Timothy Bloodworth (A)	April 6, 1790
North Carolina 4th			John Steele (P)	April 19, 1790
North Carolina 5th			John Sevier (P)	June 16, 1790
Rhode Island At-large	New seat	Rhode Island ratified the constitution on May 29, 1790.	Benjamin Bourne (P)	December 17, 1790
Virginia 9th	Theodorick Bland (A)	Died June 1, 1790.	William B. Giles (A)	December 7, 1790
Massachusetts 5th	George Partridge (P)	Resigned August 14, 1790.	Remained vacant until next Congress

[Lurkinanloomin]

Naturalization act of 1790 was repealed.

[Yosemitest]

Have you any knowledge of WHY those changes were made ?
Don't you realize that this changes only CLARIFY the definition given by our Founding Fathers, and do it for the good of our Country ?

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW, a good start at the background and the reason for the changes, can be read at Act of March 26, 1790 eText.

... What happened next ...

The 1790 act mentioned nothing about the attitudes of new citizens toward government policy in the new democracy.
Soon after the 1790 act was passed, however, politics became an important consideration in giving immigrants the right to vote.
During the two terms of the nation's first president, George Washington (1732-1799; served 1789-97), two distinct political parties had begun to emerge.
... One party, led by Washington's successor, John Adams (1797-1801; served 1797-1801), was known as the Federalists.
The Federalist Party included Washington, Adams, and the nation's first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755-1804).
The Federalists supported a strong central (federal) government and were generally sympathetic to the interests of merchants in the cities.
An opposing faction, the Anti-Federalists (also called the Democratic-Republicans), were led by the country's third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826; served 1801-9).
The Anti-Federalists opposed giving the federal government more power than was absolutely needed.

In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law.
The new law required immigrants to wait five years (instead of two) to become a citizen
and to make a declaration of intention to become a citizen three years before becoming naturalized.
An immigrant who failed to make the declaration might have to wait more than five years after arrival in the United States to become a voter.
The 1795 law also required naturalized citizens to renounce any noble titles they might hold (such as "duke" or "countess")
and to promise not to be loyal to any foreign king or queen.
These measures were intended to ensure that new citizens would not secretly want to restore a king and an aristocracy, or individuals who inherit great wealth and special political privileges.

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law were restored except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

For More Information

Books

Franklin, Frank G. The Legislative History of Naturalization in the United States. New York: Arno Press, 1969.

Jasper, Margaret C. The Law of Immigration. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 2000.

LeMay, Michael, and Elliot Robert Barkan, eds. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.

Periodicals

DeConcini, Christina, Jeanine S. Piller, and Margaret Fisher. "The Changing Face of Immigration Law." Social Education (November-December 1998): p. 462.

Web Sites

History, Genealogy and Education, U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/ (accessed on January 22, 2004).

[WildHighlander57]

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/obamas-birth-certificate.htm

Repost of British National Archives story