Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Arthur McGowan; DiogenesLamp
The Foreign Affairs manual explicitly states that citizens at birth are not naturalized. I posted the relevant text at #188.

However, in reading the 1971 SCOTUS decision in Rogers v. Bellei, I'm wondering if the FAM is incorrect in its assertion. Please read post #358 and share your thoughts.

364 posted on 08/20/2013 11:43:22 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies ]


To: BuckeyeTexan
The Foreign Affairs manual explicitly states that citizens at birth are not naturalized. I posted the relevant text at #188.

The Foreign Affairs manual derives whatever authority it claims from it's Bureaucracy which derives theirs from Congress which derives theirs from the Constitution.

They cannot override constitutional meanings by Bureaucratic or Congressional fiat.

However, in reading the 1971 SCOTUS decision in Rogers v. Bellei, I'm wondering if the FAM is incorrect in its assertion. Please read post #358 and share your thoughts.

I think you have a pretty good grasp of the ramifications of the Rogers v Bellei ruling. I have been saying for perhaps a year that Cruz and Bellei share the same legal circumstances with the difference being that Cruz complied with all the requirements whereas Bellei didn't.

My point remains though, that a "natural citizen" doesn't have conditions placed on their mother or themselves. They just are a citizen through no overt action of law.

379 posted on 08/20/2013 12:48:49 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson