And as all can see, Woodpusher is a verbose spreader of disinformation.
Fact: A “natural born Citizen” of the United States is a person born in the country to parents who were both Citizens (born or naturalized Citizens themselves) of the country when their child was born in the country.
See: Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.” Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
“But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
Source: Article II facts: https://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
P.S. There may be someone in the far-left operations center using Sock Puppet tactics in this forum using very similar verbose style and language.
That you would claim this after your disingenuous citation of Wong Kim Ark (as demonstrated in post #44) is laughable. Remove the beam from thine own eye!
P.S. There may be someone in the far-left operations center using Sock Puppet tactics in this forum using very similar verbose style and language.
Because anyone who disagrees with you (and provides numerous legal/judicial citations to make their point) is a "far-left sock puppet", I'm sure.
Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
The lower court did not rule that Elg was born a natural born citizen. That was not a contested fact before the court to be decided. Elg was born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. That was simply a fact of the case. The lower court ruled that Elg was, in the present, a natural born citizen, overruling the State Department claim that she had lost her citizenship. The failed claim that she had lost her citizenship affirmed that she had been born a citizen and was still a natural born citizen. It would have been the same had she been born to two aliens.
Fact: A “natural born Citizen” of the United States is a person born in the country to parents who were both Citizens (born or naturalized Citizens themselves) of the country when their child was born in the country.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
See: Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.” Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
Might as well give the original source on that load of crap, and it's not the Court. The lower court overruled the State Department claim that she had lost her citizenship, and therefore, she continued to be the natural born citizen she was born as. Her birth citizenship status was not at issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkins_v._Elg
The source was laundered through the Art2 Super PAC site, but here it is straight from Wikipedia.
Perkins v. ElgPerkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties."[1]
[...]
Holding: A child born in the United States to naturalized parents and raised abroad retains U.S. citizenship until the age of majority, and at that point continues to retain U.S. citizenship if he or she elects to retain it, and elects to return to the United States and assume the duties of a U.S. citizen.
A child born in the United States to two illegal aliens and raised abroad obtains and retains natural born citizenship. However, as also shown in Elg, if the child obtains nationality of the country where they are living, and he or she gets drafted for military service, they are obliged to serve in that foreign military. Elg at 307 U.S. 330. But they can still become President of the United States!
"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries, and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of twentyone years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father.
Elg at 307 U.S. 345
"The statute does, however, make a distinction between the burden imposed upon the person born in the United States of foreign parents and the person born abroad of American parents. With respect to the latter, section 6 of the Act of March 2, 1907, lays down the requirement that, as a condition to the protection of the United States, the individual must, upon reaching the age of 18, record at an American consulate an intention to remain a citizen of the United States, and must also take an oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining his majority."The child born of foreign parents in the United States who spends his minority in the foreign country of his parents' nationality is not expressly required by any statute of the United States to make the same election as he approaches or attains his majority. It is, nevertheless, believed that his retention of a right "to demand the protection of the United States should, despite the absence of statute, be dependent upon his convincing the department within a reasonable period after the attaining of his majority of an election to return to the United States, there to assume the duties of citizenship. In the absence of a definite statutory requirement, it is impossible to prescribe a limited period within which such election should be made. On the other hand, it may be asserted negatively that one who has long manifested no indication of a will to make such an election should not receive the protection of the United States save under the express approval of the department."
It thus appears that as late as 1925, when the Department issued its "Compilation" including the circular instruction of November 24, 1923, it was the view of the Department of State that the Act of March 2, 1907, had not taken away the right of a native citizen on attaining majority to retain his American citizenship, where he was born in the United States of foreign parents. We do not think that it would be a proper construction of the Act to hold that while it leaves untouched the right of election on the part of a child born in the United States, in case his parents were foreign nationals at the time of his birth and have never lost their foreign nationality, still the statute should be treated as destroying that right of election if his parents became foreign nationals through naturalization. That would not seem to be a sensible distinction. Having regard to the plain purpose of § 2 of the Act of 1907, to deal with voluntary expatriation, we are of the opinion that its provisions do not affect the right of election, which would otherwise exist, by reason of a wholly involuntary and merely derivative naturalization in another country during minority. And, on the facts of the instant case, this view apparently obtained when in July, 1929, on the instructions of the Secretary of State, the Department issued the passport to respondent as a citizen of the United States.
When, precisely there occurred a change in the departmental attitude is not clear. It seems to have resulted in a conflict with the opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of Labor in the case of Ingrid Therese Tobiassen, and the Secretary of Labor because of that conflict requested the opinion of the Attorney General, which was given on June 16, 1932. "It appeared that Miss Tobiassen, aged 20, was born in New York in 1911; that her father, a native of Norway, became a citizen of the United States by naturalization in 1912; that in 1919 Miss Tobiassen was taken by her parents to Norway where the latter had since resided; that at the age of 18 she returned to the United States and took up her permanent residence in New Jersey. The question arose when she asked for a return permit to visit her parents.
The Department of State refused to issue a passport on the ground that Miss Tobiassen had acquired Norwegian nationality and had ceased to be an American citizen. The Attorney General's opinion approved that action. His opinion quoted the provisions of the treaty with Sweden and Norway of 1869 and referred to the Norwegian Nationality Law of August 8, 1924, and to the provisions of the Act of Congress of March 2, 1907. The opinion noted that the claim that Miss Tobiassen had ceased to be an American citizen did "not rest upon the terms of the Naturalization Treaty with Norway, but upon a law of that country, as a result of the renunciation by her father, a native of Norway, of his American citizenship, and the resumption of his Norwegian nationality in pursuance of the terms of that treaty." The law of Norway was deemed to be analogous to our statutes "by virtue of which foreign-born minor children of persons naturalized in the United States are declared to be citizens of this country"; and hence the conclusion that Miss Tobiassen having acquired Norwegian nationality had in consequence ceased to be an American citizen was said to be correct.
The opinion does not discuss the right of election of a native citizen of the United States when he becomes of age to retain American citizenship and does not refer to the repeated rulings of the Department of State in recognition of that right, the exercise of which, as we have pointed out, should not be deemed to be inconsistent with either treaty or statute. We are reluctant to disagree with the opinion of the Attorney General, and we are fully conscious of the problems incident to dual nationality and of the departmental desire to limit them, but we are compelled to agree with the Court of Appeals in the instant case that the conclusions of that opinion are not adequately supported and are opposed to the established principles which should govern the disposition of this case.
Nor do we think that recent private acts of Congress for the relief of native citizens who have been the subject of administrative action denying their rights of citizenship, can be regarded as the equivalent of an Act of Congress providing that persons in the situation of the respondent here have lost the American citizenship which they acquired at birth and have since duly elected to retain. No such statute has been enacted.
We conclude that respondent has not lost her citizenship in the United States and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of that citizenship.
Clearly in the Tobiasson case, she was born in the United States in 1911 and her father was naturalized in 1912. The Supreme Court noted that case did not discuss the right of election of a native citizen, and the Supreme Court stated, we are compelled to agree with the Court of Appeals in the instant case that the conclusions of that opinion are not adequately supported and are opposed to the established principles which should govern the disposition of this case.
The U.S. Supreme Court found that the child born in the United States of alien parentage obtained native born citizenship at birth, and the subsequent Attorney General finding that she had lost her citizenship during her age of minority was unsupported by law, and contrary to law.
P.S. There may be someone in the far-left operations center using Sock Puppet tactics in this forum using very similar verbose style and language.
Some clowns on this site prefer Wikipedia and a ridiculous Super PAC over statute laws, codified law, and court opinions. The even try to dress up Wikipedia nonsense as a court opinion. And for convenience sake, they prefer to have Euroweenie international law dictate who is, and is not, a United States citizen. As a part of sovereignty, every sovereign nation has the sole authority to determine who are its citizens. It is called self-determination. A nation that gives that away is not very sovereign.