Skip to comments.Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate forgery, subverting Obama claims (Uh-oh)
Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of fraudulent Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.
The evidence of forgery and manipulation of images of official documents, triggered by Israel Insider's revelation of the collection of Hawaii birth certificate images on the Photobucket site and the detective work of independent investigative journalists and imaging professionals in the three weeks since the publication of the images, implicate the Daily Kos, an extreme left blog site, and the Obama campaign, in misleading the public with official-looking but manipulated document images of doubtful provenance.
The perceived unreliability of the image has provoked petitions and widespread demands for Obama to submit for objective inspection the paper versions of the "birth certificate" he claimed in his book Dreams from My Father was in his possession, as well as the paper version of the Certificate of Live Birth for which the image on the Daily Kos and the Obama "Fight the Smears" website was supposedly generated.
Without a valid birth certificate, Obama cannot prove he fulfills the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, throwing into doubt his eligibility to run for President.
McKinnon, who says he is 25-30 years old, operates a website called OpenDNA.com and uses the OpenDNA screen name on various web sites and blogs, including his comments and diary on The Daily Kos. In recent years he has divided his time between Long Beach, California and Vancouver, British Columbia. He is a Democratic political activist, frequent contributor to the left wing Daily Kos blog, and a fervent Barack Obama supporter.
(Excerpt) Read more at web.israelinsider.com ...
Here is the 1952 act language
INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(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; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899
Not perfect. I needed to work in the word “honeymoon”...
“had her baby at some multi-leg turbo-prop waypoint between Kenya and Vancouver”
No problem: the law can handle this (your tax dollars at work!):
“a. Airspace above the land territory and internal waters is held to be part of the United States (Art. 1(1), 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous
Zone, 15 U.S.T. 1606, TIAS 5639). Gordon and Rosenfeld, in Immigration Law and Procedure, Volume 3, Nationality (New York: Matthew Bender, 1986), commenting on the
applicability of the 14th Amendment to vessels and planes, states:
..The rules applicable to vessels obviously apply equally to airplanes.
Thus a child born on a plane in the United States, or flying over its territory, would acquire United States citizenship at birth.
b. Cases of persons born on planes in airspace outside the U.S. coastal borders but within the U.S. territorial sea should be submitted to the Department (CA/OCS) for
I am pretty sure that is the language as modified in 1986.
no, not at all, I think yer dead wrong on this one, M’Lady... :)
The nurses and doctor who examined Obama four days after his birth would note the condition of his umbilical cord - a sure-fire way to determine the age of a newborn.
Wet: two days or less. Dry but firmly attached: three to seven days. Blackened, shriveled, dried hard, about to fall off: seven to ten days.
Maybe. I’m going by a couple of pictures. I see Malik’s face in that boy. And if I was packing all my belongings and moving to another country, while in my first trimester, I would need help. I can see Obama Sr. sending for his son to help his new wife, pregnant with his child, pack and move to Kenya.
So maybe you agree with my analysis above. Be nice to know somebody does.
I guess describing Obama as thin in the Christmas tree picture is not very accurate--he has a pot but his arms and body are narrow. And his mouth and nose are different.
And Ann is heavy.
If the story is that the boy in the Airport picture is Obama, that picture and the picture described by Obama as the "wedding picture" have to have been taken within a week or two of the Christmas Tree family picture. Same people within a few days of each other. They just are not.
The boy in the Airport picture just isn't Obama. Looks a lot like him in another picture (maybe that picture is this boy also) but it isn't Obama.
Throwing into doubt also his Senate seat!
Jim, how about sharing that sentiment with your Admin Moderators, one of which told us to quit posting that Hussein Bin Obama isn't a citizen.
BHO Sr left him in 1962, not 1963, per his own CORRECTED website. So BHO is unable as an adult man, paid to write about his upbringing to get the dates correct.
What does that say? That he's incompetent and unwillingly to fact check. Don't feel sorry for this guy at all. Many, many people have had a difficult childhood. Doesn't make them Presidential material. If anything, it continues to show his incompetence and emotional immaturity regarding his past. How can someone be able to address the issues facing this country when they are still hung up on their dysfunctional family issues? The guy refuses to set the record straight about his upbringing, and he's either scared to find out, or unwillingly.
OHB appears to lack emotional intelligence. A Critical factor in the position of President. Maybe he's too young, look at who his Father figure has been for the past 20 years - Rev Wright. Yikes. Think about your own lives, remember back to 1988, where you were. BHO has been under that teaching for 20 years.
Emotional intelligence (EI) is one of the most important ideas to hit the business world in recent years. It is based on the notion that the ability of managers to understand their own emotions, and those of the people they work with, is the key to better business performance.
Obama’s defenders try to give the impression that he's owed this win. But Obama and his supporters come across as feeling sorry for themselves. The antithesis of conservatism.
I don’t think the Christmas Tree and Airport picture is the same timeline. Obama Jr. is an ectomorph, pot belly doesn’t matter. Malik is an endormorph.
Obama Sr, although not a good picture is definitely OLDER in the Christmas Tree Picture.
Ann, looks like she may be pregnant again? Definitely heavier than the airport photo.
The boy in the airport, looks like Malik’s eyes and mouth. I can see Obama Sr. sending for Malik to help with the move. I don’t think it is crazy considering he would have one of his son’s help with a move.
endormorph = endomorph
Quit playin’ already. Those are pics of obama. Next
Why? Is it unusual for a son to be at an airport with his father?
Obama looks like this in the christmas tree pic.
Keep going - we got your back, sis.
Or he's lying.
I first linked that photo in the airport of BO, Sr. and whom I thought was BO, Jr. but now I’m wondering too.
Not that we can necessarily rely entirely on anything BO,Jr. wrote in his book but this is interesting:
We stand together in front of the Christmas tree and pose for pictures, the only ones I have of us together,
He says the Christmas tree pics are the only ones they have together.
We stand together in front of the Christmas tree and pose for pictures
I think we are getting far far away from the issues - why was the number of the FILED BY REGISTRAR certificate blocked out, (if a number ever existed) AND is the document presented on the obama website sufficient PROOF of the candidates bona-fide ability to stand for POTUS?
If the answer is NO to these questions, IMO the documentation, such as it is, REQUIRES TO BE CHALLENGED.
quit being such a douche...it’s obviously obama with his dad in both pics - and you know it.
What you are saying is that Obama could have as many as 4 legitimate birth certificates issued by governments following their own "modification" rules.The real question is of course could any of them exclude him from being our president and quite possibly from being even a citizen.
If all those documents (or copies thereof) were on file in Hawaii, with the information on them making up part of the data base accessed to produce a modern, up to date "certificate", you could easily get multiple certificates issued at different times responding to different requests for certification. They would all be legitimate and different.
Under Hawaiian law Obama didn't need to be a born in the state or even the United States to get a Hawaiian birth certificate.
Since the Constitution doesn't delve into the question of citizenship or the forfeiture of citizenship of minor children, legitimate or legitimate we are left with The Laws passed by congress as our guide....
If Obama ever had an Indonesian Passport or was considered an Indonesian citizen by the legal process of adoption in that country based upon his mother's age where he was born(if it was outside the United States as has been suggested) and he didn't reaffirm his rights as a citizen at 18, is he a US citizen? or eligible to be president based upon dual (US and Indonesian) or even triple citizenship (Kenyan, US and Indonesian)?
A great many conservatives believe that this is some sort of trap by the Obama campaign.
I beg to differ(I been wanting to use that pic as an eye catch ever since I found it) The whole issue of Obama's citizenship as well as his birth certificate has them doing things they shouldn't have to do or say if there was nothing to hide.
INA: ACT 309 - CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK
Sec. 309. [8 U.S.C. 1409]
(a) The provisions of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 301, and of paragraph (2) of section 308, shall apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if-
(1) a blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence,
(2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the persons birth,
(3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and
(4) while the person is under the age of 18 years-
(A) the person is legitimated under the law of the persons residence or domicile,
(B) the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
(C) the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 405, the provisions of section 301(g) shall apply to a child born out of wedlock on or after January 13, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, as of the date of birth, if the paternity of such child is established at any time while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation.
(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such persons birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
Yeah, I really think I am. Although I now find that you are the person who initially raised this so you better tell me why you don't think so.
What you have posted is Sec. 309 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act which is also codified as 8 USC Sec. 1409.
This section got enacted and amended in a number of different parts over the years so to decide when a particular provision was effective, you need to identify the provision you are looking at; find the Public Law that enacted it; and then find the effective date of that provision.
Here, I assume you recognize that the provision you might be looking at is Sec. 1409(c). Now the provisions of (c) applicable to mothers after December 23, 1952 got added by section 8 of the Immigration Technical Corrections Act of 1988 [Pub. L. 100-525], which according to the notes under 8 USC 1101 is from Section 309(b)(15) of Pub. L. 102-232 which provides that "The amendments made by section 8 of the Immigration Technical Corrections Act of 1988 [Pub. L. 100-525]shall be effective as if included in the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986 (Public Law 99-653)". As we all know, Public Law 99-653 was effective only with respect to persons born after November 24, 1986.
This is not an opinion with respect to any given person or set of facts or events and is set out only as a basis for analysis of the law applicable to the possible claim of lack of citizenship of Barack Obama.
If you have a different view, let me know why. This is one of the more complicated issues here and although I have looked through my prior notes and believe I am correct, I would consider any contrary analysis. I am not an immigration lawyer--I am a tax lawyer and read statutes much more complex than this but that doesn't mean I can't be wrong.
I noticed during my google searches for obama childhood images, the majority come from the possession of his half sister, like this one:
Caption:Barack Obama rides a tricycle during his childhood in Hawaii. (Photo courtesy of Maya Soetoro-Ng)
Yes, I agree. The source seemed to indicate it was the orginal code.
Cut it out, man.
But to do that, you need to analyze the data you have to figure out what the ultimate facts are. Here, the timeline is one of the significant considerations and I think points us in a direction.
If I had sufficient resources to do so, I would look at the airline records in December, 1960, and January, 1961 to see if I could see who flew and when. I doubt records remain available but I would check the National Airlines in Kenya, Egypt, and perhaps British Overseas.
I would also look for marriage records in Kenya in the area where Obama Sr. and his family lived and in the principal British administrative locations there.
I also want to know what the birth records look like but I believe someone else has already beaten us there and hope we will have access to them in the US next week or the week following.
There should be a record somewhere.
Malik IS an Obama. Why wouldn’t he be at an airport with his dad?
//This is just paving the way for a similar resolution for BHO. And As far as I can tell it was purely unnecessary as JSMjr was military.//
I can put my hair up and look like that. Buns were stylish then. ::shrugs::
I’m convinced the boy in the school photo is the same as the boy with mother and father by the christmas tree:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or
a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to
the Office of President; neither shall any Person be
eligible to that Office who shall not have attained
to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States
I don’t think we are getting far from any issue. I merely commented on pictures others posted to this thread. I’m pursuing the DHS option on Monday. That is the only way to find out about the registrar certificate.
I am taking steps to have Obama and McCain fill out this form.
We all are the employers.
No precedent needs to be set by prior Presidents because DHS didnt have an E Verify program then.
American Citizens Abroad
5 rue Liotard, CH-1202 Geneva, Switzerland
Fax: (+41-22) 340 0233
U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW
AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS
AN HISTORICAL SUMMARY
1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).
1802 Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).
1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.
“All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.”
1878 Section 1993, Revised Statutes of 1878. (Same general provisions as 1855 Act).
1907 Act of March 2, 1907, Section 6, 34 Stat. 1228, 1229.
“That all children born outside the limits of the United States who are citizens thereof in accordance with the provisions of section nineteen hundred and ninety-three of the Revised Statutes of the United States and who continue to reside outside the United States shall, in order to receive the protection of this Government, be required upon reaching the age of eighteen years to record at an American consulate their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States and shall be further required to take the oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining their majority.”
1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.
“Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.”
1940 The Nationality Act of 1940, Section 201, 54 Stat. 1137.
“Section 201. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
“(g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years’ residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years’ residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.
(h) The foregoing provisions of subsection (g) concerning retention of citizenship shall apply to a child born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934.”
1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).
“Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
“(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
“(7) 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.
(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.
(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, who, prior to the effective date of this Act, has taken up a residence in the United States before attaining the age of sixteen years, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this Act, complies or shall comply with the residence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsections (g) and (h) of section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended.”
1956 Fee v. Dulles (236 F.2nd 855 (C.A. 7, 1956), (355 U.S. 61)). A child born abroad on or after May 24, 1934, who acquired U.S. citizenship through one citizen parent had to comply with certain conditions for establishing American residence in order to retain his American citizenship. In Fee v. Dulles, the lower courts upheld the original administrative position that a person who had not complied with the conditions prescribed by previous statutes had lost his citizenship and derived no benefit from the more generous retention provisions of the 1952 act. However, upon consideration of this issue when it reached the Supreme Court the Solicitor General confessed error, taking the position that a person who could comply with the terms of section 301 (b) and (c) would retain his American citizenship, even though he had not fulfilled similar provisions of the earlier statutes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, and thus adopted the view projected in the Solicitor General’s confession of error.
1956 The Act of March 16, 1956, (70 Stat. 50), provided as follows:
“That section 301 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall be considered to have been and to be applicable to a child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions after January 12, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has served in the Armed Forces of the United States after December 31, 1946, and before December 24, 1952, and whose case does not come within the provisions of section 201 (g) or (i) of the Nationality Act of 1940”.
1957 Act of September 11, 1957 (71 Stat. 644), provides as follows:
“Section 16. In the administration of section 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, absences from the United States of less than twelve months in the aggregate, during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required, shall not be considered to break the continuity of such physical presence.”
1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruled that a child born abroad prior to May 24, 1934, to an American citizen mother did not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father. Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children born abroad, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.
See also: Wolf v Brownell (253 F.2nd 141 - (C.A. 9, 1958)-certiori denied (358 U.S. 859)). and D’Alessio v. Lehmann (289 F.2nd 371 - (C.A. 6, 1961)-certiori denied (368 U.S. 822)).
1964 Schneider v. Rusk (377 U.S. 163 (1964)). Mrs. Schneider, a German national by birth, acquired United States citizenship derivatively through her mother’s naturalization in the United States. She came to the USA as a small child with her parents and remained there until she finished college. She then went abroad for graduate work, was engaged to a German national, married in Germany, and stayed in residence there. She declared that she had no intention of returning to the United States. In 1959, she was denied a passport by the State Department on the ground that she had lost her United States citizenship under the specific provisions of Paragraph 352 (a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Paragraph 1484 (a)(1), by continuous residence for three years in a foreign state of which she was formerly a national. The Court, by a five-to-three vote, held the statute violative of Fifth Amendment due process because there was no like restriction against foreign residence by native-born citizens. The dissent (Mr. Justice Clark, joined by Justices Harlan and White) based its position on what it regarded as the long acceptance of expatriating naturalized citizens who voluntarily return to residence in their native lands; possible international complications; past decisions approving the power of Congress to enact statutes of that type; and the Constitution’s distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens.
1966 Act of November 6, 1966 (80 Stat. 1322), amended Section 301 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to read as follows:
“Section 301 (a) (7) 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 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.
1967 Afroyim v. Rusk (387 U.S. 253 (1967)). Mr. Afroyim, a Polish national by birth, immigrated to the United States at age 19 and after 14 years in the USA acquired United States citizenship by naturalization. Twenty-four years later he went to Israel and voted in a political election there. In 1960, he was denied a passport by the State Department on the ground that he had lost his United States citizenship under the specific provisions of Section 349 (a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. Section 1481(a)(5), by his foreign voting. The Court, by a five-to-four vote, held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizenship was significant; that Congress has no “general” power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his assent,” (387 U.S. at 257); that Congress’ power is to provide a uniform rule of naturalization and, when once exercised with respect to the individual, is exhausted, citing Mr. Chief Justice Marshall’s well-known but not uncontroversial dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States (9 Wheat. 738, 827 (1824)); and that the “undeniable purpose” of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make the recently conferred “citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure” and “to put citizenship beyond the power of any government unit to destroy,” (387 U.S. at 263). Perez v. Brownell (356 U.S. 44 (1958)), a five-to-four holding within the decade and precisely to the opposite effect, was overruled. In dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Clark, Stewart and White) took issue with the Court’s claim of support in the legislative history, elucidated the Marshall dictum, and observed that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment did not deprive Congress of the power to expatriate on permissible grounds consistent with “other relevant commands” of the Constitution. (387 U.S. at 292).
1971 Rogers v. Bellei (401 U.S. 815 (1971)). Bellei challenged the constitutionality of Section 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provided that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. A three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, held that Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in the country on Bellei, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States”, and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary or unlawful. Justice Black filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Douglas and Marshall joined. Justice Brennan filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Douglas joined.
1972 Act of October 27, 1972 (87 Stat. 1289), amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 by changing section 301 (b) to the new text below; by repealing Section 16 of the Act of September 11, 1957; and by adding the new section 301 (d) below.
“Section 301 (b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States under paragraph (7) of subsection (a) shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless (1) he shall come to the United States and be continuously physically present therein for a period of not less than two years between the ages of fourteen years and twenty-eight years; or (2) the alien parent is naturalized while the child is under the age of eighteen years and the child begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years. In the administration of this subsection absences from the United States of less than sixty days in the aggregate during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required shall not break the continuity of such physical presence.”
“Section 301 (d) Nothing contained in subsection (b) as amended, shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person who has come to the United States prior to the effective date of this subsection and who, whether before or after the effective date of this subsection, immediately following such coming complies or shall comply with the physical presence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsection (b) prior to its amendment and the repeal of section 16 of the Act of September 11, 1957.”
1978 Act of October 10, 1978 (92 Stat. 1046) repealed subsections (b), (c) and (d) of section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, effective as of October 10, 1978. It also struck out “(a)” after “Section 301” and redesignated paragraphs (1) through (7) as subsections (a) through (g) respectively.
1980 Vance v. Terrazas: upheld the constitutionality of Section 349(c) of the INA. Under this provision, the party claiming that citizenship has been lost has the burden of proving such loss by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, a person who commits a statutory act of expatriation is presumed to have committed the act voluntarily, but the presumption may be overcome upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act was not performed voluntarily. The Court expressly rejected the contention that expatriation must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed and explained its holding in Afroyim v. Rusk that in order to find expatriation, “the trier of fact must...conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship”. The court declared that it would not be consistent with Afroyim “to treat the expatriating acts specified in the statute as the equivalent of or as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen”. As the Court explained: “In the last analysis expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct.”
1986 Act of November 14, 1986 (PL 99-653) amended section 301(g) (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) by striking out “ten years, at least five” and inserting in lieu thereof “five years, at least two”. This reduced the prior residence time in the United States necessary for a U.S. citizen married to an alien to be able to automatically transmit U.S. citizenship to a child born abroad from the former period of ten years, five of which after the age of 14, to five years, two of which after the age of fourteen years.
This act also: (a) amended Sec 340(d) of the code reducing the period of time after naturalization before a naturalized citizen can reside abroad from five years to one year; (b) amended section 349 of the code so that a child who obtained a foreign nationality upon the application of the parent before the child reached age 21 years, no longer has to return to the United States to establish permanent residence in the United States prior to age 25; (c) amends section 349 so that a U.S: citizen who is a national of a foreign country and who performs an expatriating act under the provisions of section 349 is no longer presumed to have acted “voluntarily” if the individual has resided in this foreign country more than ten years. This reinforces the importance of the individual’s intent in performing such an act as a deliberate intent to lose U.S. citizenship, rather than a mere automatic presumption that such intent existed.
1994 The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 amended several sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and took effect on March 1, 1995.
Amended Section 322 permits children born overseas of a U.S. citizen parent to be eligible for a certificate of citizenship if either their U.S. citizen parent or a U.S. citizen grandparent had been physically present in the United States for at least five years, two of which after the age of 14, prior to the child’s birth abroad. This provision also applies to a child adopted abroad.
Amended Section 301 (h) gives back U.S. citizenship to a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
Amended Section 324 (d) (1) allows former U.S. citizens who lost their citizenship through failure to meet the former conditions of physical presence in the United States to retain their citizenship to regain their citizenship without having to file an application for naturalization.
The law also allows U.S. citizen parents to apply for U.S. citizenship from abroad for their foreign-born children under the age of 18, provided the child is physically present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission when the citizenship is granted.
1998 In Miller vs Albright (decided April 22, 1998), the Supreme Court in a 6:3 decision held that it was constitutional for Section 309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Section 1409) to give U.S. citizen mothers more rights to transmit U.S. citizenship to a child born out of wedlock abroad than to U.S. citizen fathers. There were three separate opinions on the majority side and two opinions on the dissenting side.
2000 PL 106-365, “The Child Citizenship Act of 2000” (or Delahunt Act) signed on 30 October 2000, and which takes effect on 27 February 2001 modifies the Immigration and Nationality Act by making it easier for minor children of US citizens (both foreign-born and adopted abroad) to become citizens of the US. The law has the following effects: (a) A child adopted abroad becomes a US citizen immediately upon entry into the US as a lawful permanent resident; and (b) A child born abroad to parents, one or both of whom are US citizens, but who is not recognized as a US citizen for various reasons, can also benefit from the new law, i.e. that child also becomes a US citizen immediately upon entry into the US as a lawful permanent resident. In the case of US parents residing permanently abroad with no immediate intention of returning to the USA with their children (either natural or adopted), it is also possible to file from abroad for immediate naturalization under a revised Section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (also modified by the new law). This procedure enables Americans abroad to obtain US citizenship for their children, not otherwise eligible to be citizens at birth abroad, through a special naturalization procedure, which does not require that they move back to live permanently in the United States. All the papers are filed from abroad, and the American parent and child/children then travel to the chosen District Office in the United States to finalize the process on the day of a previously arranged appointment.
* * * * *
I’m trying desperately to re-find a photo of Obama that would definitely date him within 6 months.
Damned job I have. I can only do Obama 20 hrs/wk.
And every day I come home expecting him DQ’d and dropped out!
Keep trucking, everybody. There’s a reason Hillary declared him ‘unelectable’ and Bill told him to ‘kiss his ass’ a couple days ago.
If it is effective for births after 1986, why include language that contradicts the effective date?
Do not forget Ted Olson, Freeper BKO Barbara Olson’s (killed on 9/11) husband analyzed McCain’s eligibility as authorized by Claire McCaskill on Apr. 30.
That kid in the airport photo with the father is not Malik.
ICE/DHS new DHS E Verify program program should answer our questions about all of this. ;)
And don’t forget Danny Pearl got beheaded doing a story on Obama’s Luo Tribe. Or it was just coincidence.
And well might they make those comments, they have access to information that will never be available to us - such as what nationality is stated on his passport, for example.
Obama’s people are horrible. His campaign, I mean. It’s the worst of both Chicago and Muslim thug murderers combined.
Pissant, what’s new?
Show me where I asked you a question. I made a statement to you and you didn't want to accept it. Instead you were the one who asked a question back and I knew if I tried to answer we would just be in the example of what my great-granddaughter and grandson were in a couple of days ago.
Sorry if you didn't find that amusing.
Darn...I picked the wrong weekend to be away from a computer. Trying to catch up with the thread now...excellent work, Mom. ;)
cute baby. Anyone I know?
Finally a summary of the law
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:
1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant’s birth;
3) the father (unless deceased) had agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and
4) while the person is under the age of 18 years —
A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,
B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
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.