Posted on 09/05/2013 10:36:52 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Geebus! They didn’t scrub anything. They completely revamped their website. Says so on the home page. Here are the new links to what you need.
The information in the op is not listed in your links.
This is the best evidence you can come up with for the existence of multiple types of US citizenship beyond natural born and naturalized?
Thanks, I will try that.
No the USC has not changed. But the Interpretation seems to have disappeared.
That is not tinfoil. It may be that it is being “revised”, but I also found no trace of that on the Thomas.gov site.
Thomas generally has the law, but I do not remember references to “Interpretation” of the law.
I can assure you that distrust of the reporting of new public legislation is not tin foil hat stuff. I have seen with my own eyes attempts to hide the actual votes by reading the bill into the number of an existing bill, making it almost impossible to track. In one case the only place I could find the text of the law was at the government printing office. That one was no accident. My own congressman could not find the text. He later emailed me the link to the GPO, which I had already found. Pure stealth legislation.
Our Congress critters are not to be trusted. Ever. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are few.
“FILE ARCHIVED ON 15:34:13 Jan 20, 2010 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 8:19:32 Sep 6, 2013.”
Yes, it is. The link you posted on April 2, 2013 was to an old policy manual from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The INS was abolished on November 25, 2002 when its functions were transferred from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
As I said, the USCIS has reorganized its website. Here is the old Adjudicator's Field Manual, which has been replaced by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12: Citizenship & Naturalization.
Here is the current service law book on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website for section 324 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The text exactly matches that of Title 8 - Section 1435 of the U.S. Code and the text of the original Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which is as follows:
Such person, or any person who was naturalized in accordance with the provisions of section 317(a) of the Nationality Act of 1940, shall have, from and after her naturalization, the status of a native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States, whichever status existed in the case of such person prior to the loss of citizenship:The INA of 1952 repealed the Nationality Act of 1940. In 1940, the text read as follows:
Such person shall have, from and after the naturalization, the same citizenship status as that which existed immediately prior to its loss.Whoever wrote the relevant interpretation of Section 324 of the INA in the Adjudicator's Field Manual added "natural born citizen" on their own. The actual law says "native-born" and has since it was passed in 1952.
“Whoever wrote the relevant interpretation of Section 324 of the INA in the Adjudicator’s Field Manual added “natural born citizen” on their own.”
Yea and it was reviewed and approved by the USCIS before it went to print.
The link I posted from April was working as of last month around August 11th. It clearly confirms that the federal government recognizes 3 subsets of Citizens. Natural-born, Native-born and Naturalized Citizens.
“restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (WHICHEVR EXISTED prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship
No, it was not reviewed by the USCIS. It existed prior to the creation of that agency. The Adjudicator’s Field Manual was developed by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The Adjudicator’s Field Manual is still there. It’s just in a different place. Additionally, it has been superceded by the new policy manual.
The AFM text did not prove that there are three types of citizens. It proved that someone added the words “natural-born” to a policy interpretation of the original INA text which said (& still says) only “native-born.”
If the original INA text said native or natural, you might have a point, but it doesn’t.
I forgot to ping you to #47. This does not appear to be the same as what happened with Donofrio.
website opinions are not law.
we still have law professors spewing colectivism on secon amendment civil rights regardless of the supreme court.
OK. Thanks for the clarifications!
As per USCIS Website.
Not just some website.
Team Arpaio: Obots Persons Of Interest In Obama ID Fraud Case; Obot Calls Team Arpaio
video link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnjmm5do7xc
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/09/team-arpaio-obots-suspects-in-obama-fraud.html
Bump
Cold Case Posse Supporter has been shown the door.
Gee, I didn’t see that one coming! /s
Wild accusations, day after day after day.
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.