Replies

You can backtrack it from this info:

Thanks for the link. That, in practice, really should shoot down any of the positions of the "birthers"

However, there is a disparity between what is said in this web page and what is said in the law.

As I said in my previous posts, the term "national" and "citizen" are not synonymous. 8 U.S.C. §1101 defines a "national of the united states" as follows:

The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

8 U.S.C. §1409(c) speaks about an illegitimate child acquiring "nationality" through his mother.

8 U.S.C. §1401(g) speaks about a child acquiring "citizenship" through a parent without regards to the marital status of the parent (nowhere in §1401 does it mention the marital status of the parents at all).

The web page states:

A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

But the law doesn't say that.

So the webpage shows how the State Department does its business. But the law says what it says.

It sure would be easier if he just released his birth certificate from Hawaii, wouldn't it?

I haven't got a handle on the disparity.
Is there a definition somewhere in the sections that defines parents as married?

I understand where you are coming from..but there must be something out there that reconciles the info..because it is pretty established in cases I have looked through etc...about the one year if out of wedlock.

I did just see something from a public defender that said this..but I am not sure it is right

"The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 added the requirement that the citizenmother must have been continuously physically present in the United States or a possession for twelve months prior to the child’s birth"

If that is true, then it could come into play.

Alright..let’s back up a minute and rethink.

I think that those laws are presumed to talk about married people because there is a specific out of wedlock provision.

Seen here.
http://www.the-immigration-attorney.com/index.php?/Immigration-and-Nationality-Act/Section-309-INA-Children-born-out-of-wedlock-8-USC-1409.html

In otherwords, out of wedlock - this section

if not out of wedlock meaning married - another section

They don’t state the word married..but you gather that from the provision specifically addressing out of wedlock.

You have to read the statutes as a whole.