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

To: VerySadAmerican

Obama’s birthplace was the least of our problems with him!!!


167 posted on 04/11/2016 3:36:11 PM PDT by Elpasser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies ]


To: Elpasser

That’s not the point. Many of the same people who say it’s perfectly okay for Cruz to have been born in Canada said Obama wasn’t eligible because he was born in Kenya. The only difference is Obama would not admit he wasn’t born in the US.


173 posted on 04/11/2016 3:41:56 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican (Cruz voters: Wake up! Trump is our only chance of stopping the gopE. If not now, never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]

To: Elpasser

It is significant to note that in a more recent case, in 2001, the Supreme Court indicated that under
current law and jurisprudence a child born to U.S. citizens while living or traveling abroad, and a
child born in the geographic United States, had the same legal status.

In

Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 162

the Court explained that a woman who is a U.S. citizen living abroad and expecting a
child could re-enter the United States and have the child born “in” the United States, or could sta

abroad and not travel back to this country and have the child born abroad, and that the child in
either case would have the same status as far as U.S. citizenship: [T]he statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens
abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’
s birth and the other chooses not to return, or
does not have the means to do so.
163

Concerning the contention made in earlier cases
that everyone who is made a citizen only by
federal statute is a “naturalized” citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), it
may be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms “naturalized” and
“naturalization,” as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that
someone who is a citizen “at birth” is
not considered to have been “naturalized.”
164

Justice Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that “this kind of
citizenship,” that is, under “statutes that confer citizenship ‘at birth,’” was not intended to
“involve[ ] ‘naturalization,’” citing current fe
deral law at 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(23).
165

The Supreme Court recently recognized in
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS,
that federal law now specifically
defines “naturalization” as the “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person
after birth,”16

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf


177 posted on 04/11/2016 3:48:10 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | 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