![](https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/255294_3934173709781_1142957528_33759418_1720164925_n.jpg")
In my best Elaine, “It’s statUTE!”
Cheers.
bump
there’s a statue near staten island...I think its stationary...maybe you meant which fed staten number was in effect. I think there also might be a staten near statue island, but I’m not for sure. I think I’d look for a statue on statue island first, then if no luck, try staten island. But watch out for the moose, they roam free amongst both the statens AND the statues. If the moose don’t get ya, the medusa will...and then YOU will be a stationary staten...or a statue...not sure if you’ll be a fed statue tho.
>The fact that she could not confer natural born citizenship due to the fact that she was not five years a citizen after her 14th birthday.<
.
Here we go again — Obozo CANNOT and NEVER WILL become a NBC simply because his old man NEVER was nor became a US citizen.
The smoke and mirrors game just doesn’t let up, does it?
I well recall the statute you’re speaking of. Per my recollection, it only came into force if the child was born outside the territorial jurisdiction of the US to an American mother and a non-US citizen father.
If she was five years past the age of fourteen, the law at the time said that she could legally convey US citizenship to her child. If the child were born on US soil, their citizenship was automatically secured.
This is what made the issue of Obama’s actual place of birth so important. It’s a documented fact that Stanley Ann Dunham was just shy of her nineteenth birthday when Barry Jr. was born. If she gave birth to him outside the territorial jurisdiction of the US, then he’s not even a US citizen, much less, a Natural Born Citizen.
This provision of law only applies if he was not, in fact, born in Hawaii.
That is an Immigration Law, so, it would only apply if Obama was born outside of the United States.
See the Immigration and Nationality Act, TITLE III, Section 301, Paragraph(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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date”
The law has been changed, but, the law that was in effect at the time of his birth, would still apply. It used to read, “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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods....”
This is why I love vanities: one can always count on a misspelled word in the title. Yeah, I’m a vet, too. Cheers!
A single US citizen parent cannot obtain “natural born citizenship” for their child. To be a “natural born citizen”, you have to be born within the United States and have two US citizen parents.
Go to the Department of State website.
Just look for the instructions on a passport application.
Reminds me of the story about the newly arrived elderly immigrant from Italy. Told the carpenter he wanted a little shelf in the living room for his hallow statue.
The carpenter assumed he meant a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary, so he was surprised when the old guy put his telephone on that shelf.
Just as he was groping in his mind how to ask the old man who spoke limited English why the telephone instead of the BVM, the telephone rang.
The old man grabbed the phone out of its cradle and yelled,”Hallow! Statue?!
And the jokes just go downhill from there!
Statue you requested is:
The McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Public law 82-414 Chapter 1 Section 301 (7)
(Page 236)
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf
note: sorry but the document is not scanable and you cannot copy the text.
They would all be WRONG!!!
Look, if all you needed was to be born on U.S. soil, then there would be no need for the specific term “NATURAL BORN” citizen. Were they just trying to fill up space in the constitution? There is no doubt, in the “original intent”, of the framers. The John Jay letter, the changing of the language to incorporate NBC into Article II. And for the “case law” people, there is; Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875). “
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Think about it.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
Page 17:
7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301On a side note, why is this issue no longer valid?(CT:CON-317; 12-08-2009)
a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952,section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children.
It is still valid. This is critical to understanding why it was so important for Obama to provide the best available documentation of his birth, yet the MSM steadfastly refused to report it.
I wonder how many Americans now understand that Obama's mother, at age 18, was one year too young to have transmitted her citizenship to her son if she gave birth outside the United States? Do even five percent of Americans know that?