Posted on 09/05/2013 10:36:52 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Back on April 2, 2013 I posted a thread titled 'Listen Up: Here Is Proof Native-Born Citizens And Natural-Born Citizens Are Separate'. In that thread I provided a link to the U.S. Citizenship And Immigration Services website page that stated the following:
The Immigration and Naturalization Service:
“Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”
Interpretation 324.2(a)(7):
“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.
The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
Interpretation 324.2:
“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status IF NATURALIZED, NATIVE, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.”
The link to the above was this: http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
When you click on it now it reads:
[404 - Requested Page Not Found on Site
The page you requested is not on our site.
Please look for related information on the USCIS Home Page.
Sorry for any inconvenience.]
The above webpage confirmed the federal government recognizes and routinely restores 3 different statuses of U.S. citizenship:
1) Naturalized Citizen 2) Native Citizen (as Obama's campaign and the DNC refer to Obama) 3) The Constitutionally eligible Natural Born Citizen that Article 2 Section 1 calls for to be Commander-in-Chief.
For some reason, that webpage has been scrubbed. The question is why?
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
It's a blog.
Aren’t there freepers who can access the “way-back” postings?
Describe who would be a native-born citizen that would not qualify for natural-born citizen status. USCIS explicitly states:
“restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship
When would one be native-born but NOT natural-born?
Note, though, that the State Dept. specifically informs us... “In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
Surprise, surprise.
....not...
I WANT MY CONSTITUTION BACK!
Natural born citizenship exists, but there is no Constitutional right to it. See Craig v. U.S., 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
It’s similar to Art II stating only persons of good moral character are eligible to be POTUS. Your definition of a person with good moral character may be different from my definition of good moral character. Since there is no Constitutional right to be judged as a person with good moral character, the definition will not be defined by the Court. In similar fashion, natural born citizenship status will not be defined.
Congress does not have authority to define natural born citizenship, only establish a uniform set of rules and regulations for immigration and naturalization.
Therefore, the only way to determine who is eligible for POTUS is to eliminate those who are not eligible. Non-U.S. citizens are ineligible. Persons under 35 are ineligible. SCOTUS has opined naturalized citizens are ineligible. Persons who have not been a resident of the U.S. for 14 years are ineligible.
the reason the founders put the wording in the document is key to it’s definition
their stated intention was to insure anyone obtaining the most powerful office in the land would not have split allegiances... at least by birth.
this is why they used the term ‘natural born citizen’. it’s the only position with such a requirement. as such, in order to insure a person does not have split allegiances... at birth... this would require no direct familial connections to another country.
flip the question around for the obvious result:
if the founders intended to allow people with multiple citizenship possibilities to be president... why did they use the term ‘natural born’? how was the term ‘natural born citizen’ connected with ‘split allegiances’ in their discussions?
to think someone with multiple choices for citizenship at birth somehow doesn’t have split allegiances is just ignoring the obvious to further a political agenda.
which comes down to something very simple:
do you support the Constitution or not
“When would one be native-born but NOT natural-born?”
There isn’t a time. The use of two terms in a manual does not mean there are separate meanings for each one. Nor does a State Department manual override the US Constitution. One is either a natural born citizen, or a naturalized citizen, or not a citizen at all.
Sorry but that argument skips entiry over the constitutional natural born citizenship requirement. Fundamental rule: It is necessary to give effect to each express constitutional provision. They cannot be left out of a valid analysis. (Especially when the founders were so concerned and careful. ). But I have bowed out of this discussion. It mostly results in partisan advocacy comments not germane to the subject. And I lack the time to respond to the sheer number of comments as so many good partisans want so much to advance the prospects of their favorite potential candidate(s). I may like a potential candidate a whole lot but that’s not the point. Thanks anyway though.
Have a look.
http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/8_types_of_citizens-33bw2.jpg
http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/types-of-us-citizenship-ds.jpg
Graphics mean nothing. Bullshit in, Bullshit out. Sorry, but preparing a slide proclaiming something isn’t the same as doing something with meaning.
Out of 50 states, none - not even the most conservative state in the Union - backs you. Out of 535 members of Congress, you have 0. No court anywhere has taken birther cases seriously. Not a single District Attorney has filed charges, anywhere. Even your beloved Sheriff Joe hasn’t done anything.
You can prepare a slide saying your poop is made from gold nuggets, but you won’t find a buyer for your poop!
Yeah.. those links are to a blog.
Do you have anything written by adults who actually went to school and stuff?
” Out of 535 members of Congress, you have 0. No court anywhere has taken birther cases seriously. Not a single District Attorney has filed charges, anywhere.”
That’s because they have been fearful of being labeled a racist by the media.
If you go to the main page that lists all the Interpretations, you'll see that none of the links work. Some of them bring up that error statement, some of them just bring up a blank page. This suggests that it's some technical glitch rather than an intentional scrub--it it were intentional, they'd have taken down the index page too.
What about those who are born via Caesarean Section instead of naturally, or whose mothers are given pain killers during the birth process?
Remember how the Obot running a legal research service scrubbed his site of at least 25 Minor v. Happersett references? I suppose that after Barry’s inauguration twice, the issue is moot regarding Barry. That is, unless Barry lied about where he is born, which would still distinguish him from Ted Cruz (whom JR is supporting in 2016) because of Barry’s underage mom compared to Cruz.
Per Donofrio:
“At this point, we do not know who committed these acts of sabotage. Since neither Obama nor McCain meet the Supreme Court’s definition of a ‘natural-born citizen’ in Minor v. Happersett, the deception might have been undertaken on behalf of either one.
“Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the ‘Full Text of Case’. This is the very definition of ‘Orwellian’ fascism. It’s propaganda. And there is no place for it in the United States. The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers.”
Parentage is the key. Two U.S. citizens produces a natural born Citizen only eligible for the presidency.
ping to Donofrio quotes reporting Justia.com scrubbing of MvH by Obot.
My comment was 100% sarcasm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
