Posted on 04/10/2016 4:01:46 PM PDT by JayGalt
Today I discovered that the reason I could not find a section of the Nationalization Statues is because the section had been scrubbed. This is not an accident. The section removed had confirmed that the interpretation of the State Department based on the Constitution and relevant case law was that Naturalization did not convey natural born status for Constitutional purposes.
The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and associated Handbooks (FAHs) are a single, comprehensive, and authoritative source for the Department's organization structures, policies, and procedures that govern the operations of the State Department, the Foreign Service and, when applicable, other federal agencies. The FAM (generally policy) and the FAHs (generally procedures) together convey codified information to Department staff and contractors so they can carry out their responsibilities in accordance with statutory, executive and Department mandates.
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT (CT:CON-636; 02-24-2016) is being scrubbed...
The Original Document “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency.” (Still live at Wikipedia)
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution requires that a candidate for President of the United States be a “natural-born citizen”.
According to the US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual: “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen (citizen at birth) pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”[33]
The Current Document
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(CT:CON-636; 02-24-2016)
Section 201(g) NA and section 301g) INA (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) (formerly 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth.” Accordingly, U.S. citizens who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s) are not considered “naturalized” citizens under either act.
Won’t be long and the primary sources will be scrubbed too. FAM is a secondary authority at best.
Good catch. Why did this happen?
Wow, interesting.
I remember pointing out this very section to someone a couple of months ago.
To qualify, one needs to be born in the United States of TWO US citizen parents.
7 FAM 1133.2-1 Section 301 Text as of October 25, 1994
I had found the section independently a month or so ago. When I looked for it to post for someone last night I could find it nowhere.
Today I found the trail at Wikipedia, xzins and a blog http://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/
This is a repost of xzins post which contains the fullest copy of the original I have been able to find.
The very beginning of that section explains that citizenship is by geography or by bloodline. That discussion on bloodline is here in 7 FAM 1131.
Specifically, it says about the presidency: 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... 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.‖
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.
In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes
As you can see, the pamphlet concludes that a statuatory natural born citizen is not necessarily a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Note first that it does not say: "such a person is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
Note second that in arguing "not necessarily" that the pam recognizes that a count-argument can forcefully be made that the person is a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Also note that saying "does not necessarily imply" indicates that the record does "seem to imply". Otherwise, the formulation "does not necessarily imply" would not be used. The forumulation would be: "does seem to imply that the citizen is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
So, the bottom line is that bloodline citizenship has been called "natural born citizenship" by no less than the Founding Congress and signed by President George Washington.
Okay, assuming you meant "statute" rather than "statue", this is simply wrong factually.
What you are describing is not a "statute" at all. Statutes are codified U.S. law, and they don't get "scrubbed". There are a myriad copies of the U.S. code in hardcover and all over the web. The statute relevant for citizenship is 8 U.S.C. Section 1401, and here is a direct link to it:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
The part of 8. U.S.C. 1401 relevant to Senator Cruz is subsection(g), which includes as "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" the following:
(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:
What you are claiming has been "scrubbed" is the "Foreign Affairs Manual", which is an internal guidance document for the Department of State that had zero value legally.
Why do you say it has been scrubbed?
The links on the Website have been broken for more than a year or few years now, I don’t recall just how long at present. To reach the webpages you have to know how to maneuver around to the still valid web page/s.
You are funny. If we follow the Constitution we need tin foil hats...pull the other one!
So on the RESPONSIBILITY side (tax), you are American FOREVER. Or at least until you jump through a very many expensive hoops.
On the privilege side?
Then your ancestor could have been on the Mayflower, and you were the Football Team Captain and you’re not ONE micrometer more American than the Paki trading his passport in for a BLUE one.
That is breath takingly important. Let me assure all Cruzers. Your candidate is ineligible. It is being downplayed and covered up to lure him into the nomination where he will be immediately eliminated LEGALLY!! WAKE TH UP!!
That’s why I said Fam has been scrubbed and I included the definition of Fam in the post. It is a manual for the use of the State Department. I don’t touch type I pick with various fingers and I make typing errors enjoy finding them if it floats your boat.
I find it suspicious that that particular reference has been removed and a statement substituted which conveys a totally different meaning. Inquiring minds wonder why and why now.
I say scrubbed because I found it previously and when I navigate to the specific section 7 FAM 1131.6-2 it no longer says Eligibility for Presidency it now says Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
Are you on the duty roster for the Birther Crowd? Bad luck that you caught a weekend.
People who can’t read law and don’t understand the difference between the statute and a government manual. The law has been easily found at any number of sites. I’ve seen this manual repeatedly, but haven’t bothered to visit in some time.
You might want to refer to the recent court decision in Pennsylvania and Judge Pellegrina decided that Cruz was eligible and that Citizens by birth (language in the statute) is identical to “Natural Born Citizen”. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decision and declined to hear the oral argument of the appeal. The decision of the State Supreme Court was Per Curiam which means that the Court declined to write an opinion and usually means that the decision was unanimous. These Latin words can be used when the decision is noncontroversial. The court apparently was not impressed with the original suit and even less with the appeal.
This is the first time that a court has directly ruled on Presidential Eligibility, so it will certainly be appealed and my guess, SCOTUS will not hear the dispute. That will mean that the statute will stand (U.S.C 8 Section 1401 and those citizens by birth as defined by Section 1401 will also be Natural Born Citizens.
This issue is over.
I find it suspicious that that particular reference has been removed and a statement substituted which conveys a totally different meaning. Inquiring minds wonder why and why now.
Well, I have a guess, if you'd care to hear it.
My guess is that was something that had been sitting there for awhile, and something to which nobody was paying much attention. Eventually, someone drew attention to it. And once that happened, someone made the decision to scrub it.
Why? Well, because it had absolutely no business being there in the first place. It is not the role of the State Department to determine what constitutes a "natural born citizen" -- it just has nothing to do with them. That is the business of the federal courts, or Congress, or maybe even the state courts or state officials to determine eligibility to be placed on a ballot. But it looks to me like State had a summer law clerk with a little too much time on his/her hands, so someone assigned this as a dumb project.
In any case, the State Department's view of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" is entitled to zero legal deference. So it was "scrubbed" because somebody finally asked the question "what the hell is this doing here"?
Exactly.
ON, NTSA.
Cruz also picked his feet in Poughkeepsie
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.