Walking biotch slap!!
Posted on 01/25/2012 9:12:53 AM PST by Danae
I was just made privy to a very important piece of research I had not previously been aware of. It comes by way of a comment forwarded to me by the author of the h2ooflife blog:
“I had presumed that the idiom “natural born citizen” appeared nowhere in U.S. Law other than A2S1C5, but I found it in administrative law and it is contrasted with native and naturalized citizenship. I’ve never seen any mention of this fact before and wonder how many are aware of it in the ineligibility camp. Here’s the quotes:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html
He then quoted two provisions from the link provided, but there’s actually three at the official INS “.gov” site which establish official recognition by the federal government that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated. When you visit the suggested link to the Immigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”
Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:
“The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…” (Emphasis added.)
Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:
“(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 (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.” (Emphasis added.)
And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:
“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.” (Emphasis added.)
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48438.html
Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status.
The INS includes the following explanation of Interpretations:
“Interpretations were created to supplement and clarify the provisions of the statute and regulations as interpreted by the courts. These materials usually are not included in the regulations because they deal generally with procedural matters and do not deal directly with application and benefit requirements. They are still a useful tool to help you understand how the DHS Bureaus performs their different immigration services and enforcement functions. Users of the Operation Instructions and Interpretations should always consult the relevant regulations and manuals in conjunction with these materials. As the DHS Bureaus have grown, the trend has been towards inclusion of more materials in the regulations and field manuals, and the Operations Instructions and Interpretations have been updated less frequently.”
I am rather rocked by this find, having never seen it before, and it certainly comes to the attention of the nation at a critical moment, one day before the Georgia POTUS eligibility hearings. I do have a policy of only printing comments from attorneys, but I did say in the comment rules that I would be happy to read messages from anyone. Since this research is new to me, and directly relevant to a proper analysis of the natural-born citizen clause, I have made an exception in posting this comment.
However, I must stress that I do not agree with some things at the h2ooflife blog. While I haven’t had the time to examine everything there, I must point out the following, and zealously dispute it:
“The First U.S. Congress included in the 1790 Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department to the fact that Americans born abroad are (“natural born” citizens” and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth. They were not granted citizenship via that US statute, rather their automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by immigration authorities. They were not citizens by any other means than natural law, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.”
This is not a reasonable explanation. It fails to recognize that Congress only has powers over naturalization. Congress has no power to define “natural born Citizen”, which has nothing to do with naturalization. Furthermore, if Congress wants to tell the State Department something, they don’t have to enact legislation to do it.
But more important is that all of the following naturalization acts, 1795, 1802, etc., were also passed to naturalize the children of U.S. citizens born abroad. And the words “natural born” were repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act and never returned again.
In Rogers. v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that persons born abroad are not covered by the 14th Amendment, and therefore, their citizenship can be stripped from them by Congress, whereas Congress cannot strip citizenship from a 14th Amendment citizen, whether born or naturalized here:
“Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was “declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,” so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688 . Then follows a most significant sentence:
”But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”
Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action…
Further, it is conceded here both that Congress may withhold citizenship from persons like plaintiff Bellei and may prescribe a period of residence in the United States as a condition precedent without constitutional question.
Thus we have the presence of congressional power in this area, its exercise, and the Court’s specific recognition of that power and of its having been properly withheld or properly used in particular situations.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830-831. (Emphasis added.)
Naional law has always required persons born abroad to be naturalized, whether born of citizen parents or not. Furthermore, those born abroad to citizen parents are subject to conditions precedent which Congress may impose upon them in order for them to remain U.S. citizens, whereas Congress has no such power over natural-born citizens, native-born citizens, or citizens naturalized in the U.S.
Again, not only are children of citizens born abroad not natural-born, the Supreme Court has held that their citizenship is subject to being stripped by Congress, since the Constitution does not directly provide for their citizenship, as it does for those born or naturalized in the United States.
I do not appreciate the author’s argument on this point. It is definitely wrong.
Regardless, the research provided as to the INS Interpretations is superb and greatly appreciated. Well done, sir.
Adding these official Interpretations of the INS, published at the official “.gov” site, to the Supreme Court’s opinion from Minor v. Happersett, the true Constitutional definition of a natural-born citizen, as one born in the country to citizen parents, is further reinforced.
Like the Obama administration’s prior scrubbing of the Foreign Affairs Manual, on August 21, 2009, the INS web site appears due for a cut and die at the salon.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
Like the 2 year error in the BHO Seniors age?
I agree. It took him until 1964 to acknowledge Obama II in his last gasp attempt to stay in the US.
More than one branch of the US Government is now on record disagreeing with you Sven... sorry charlie, that dog don’t hunt no mo’...
You are my hero Greg! Thank you!
I love it, Obies clown Jablonski tries to slap the SOS in the face and he gets his nose bloodied in return! Classic response from SOS!!!! WOW
I am not certain of that. That is up to British law, but as I understand it, SAD did not become an automatic British Citizen, but could have applied for it, requiring that she renounce her American Citizenship. We have no evidence that happened, and that is backed by her passport records. So I would have to that this is likely incorrect... but I cannot say for certain, it isn’t a subject I have researched personally.
Wow...
Seems almost like an Alford plea.
If they do not show and put nothing on the formal record then THAT will be the evidence examined during the appellate review that will surely happen. You do not get a new opportunity to bring facts at the appellate review level.
The SoS is making that crystle clear.
Thanks for the ping!
“Bottom line - Obama never ‘lost’ British Citizenship. He could - to this very day - claim British citizenship.”
So can his DAUGHTERS!!!! Michelle could ALSO petition, and likely GET it.
Frankly, if what I want to have happen DOES happen, they might just want to take advantage of that because they will be ETERNALLY HATED in the United States forever. Best to quit the USA for the cretin and family. That works for me.
There is only one thing I can say, there is a LOT of information out there, and much of it is conflicting. This week is NUTS for me on too many levels to talk about, so I just do NOT have time to do the intense research this deserves. Had a city training meeting for volunteers yesterday (Oh,an off topic FYI... yes, the Newberg-Dundee bypass is going through.... get this... the “interim” bypass is gonna go down SPRINGBROOK to St. Paul Hwy, then along the river to Dundee. ODOT has forwarded the plans to the Feds, decision to go ahead comes in MARCH of 2012~~~!!! That means total construction site from 99/Springbrook intersection all the way down to 219.... oh my that’s gonna get interesting isn’t it??? They are looking at starting in summer 2014, possibly 2013... can you believe it??? Only took what, 60 years? O.o). I like being really thorough in research, but this chemistry class and everything else in my life has been just tying my time in knots. I wish I could go through all those links... imagine what could be found there....!
Thanks Frog! Leo deserves nothing less. There are only a few people (Appuzzo et. al) who have dedicated as much as he has to this! He has earned not only the respect of all Americans, but is a real live American hero and Patriot. I am honored to know him and humbled by his dedication to the nation and her history.
The Judicial Branch interprets law and sets precedent (and writes a whole lot of dicta which Leo loves to cut and paste). The Executive Branch formulates policy, executes policy and signs legislation into law. The Executive Branch’s interpretation of Law is conversation about policy and nothing more.
When Leo talks about “scrubbing” the FAM, he’s talking about the Obama Administration implementing policy different from the previous administration.
If your parents were born here (Citizens) and you were born in the USA, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.
Will you marry me?
Just kidding, and my apologies to your lady wife!
I am curious about a comment you made... “after the exposure of one as a former Fannie May executive” which one was that if I may ask?
I agree with you. Donofrio deserves a real Pulitzer. The third rate burglary and Watergate have nothing on this. I find it hard to decide which is worse... just how many Americans have willing been to partake in this fallacy of Obama’s NBC status, or the outright traitorous behavior of our government (both parties) in allowing it to continue.
It frankly makes me sick.
Thank you for the cogent clarity of your thoughts. You give me hope for the future good sir!
Hearing starts early 6 am on the West coast.
“ARTICLE II SUPER PAC WILL PROVIDE GAVEL TO GAVEL LIVE VIDEO COVERAGE FROM THE 3 BALLOT CHALLENGE HEARINGS ON JANUARY 26TH IN ATLANTA GEORGIA STARTING AT 9 AM ET
The live video stream will be located at this page and on the home-page of this website.”
http://www.art2superpac.com/livevideo.html
Yeppers!!! I know someone who will be in the courtroom. OMG I am so jealous! I will be up at 4 am pacific in support if there is anything I can do to help em out.
This is better than a live episode of “Mystery Theater 3000” done in my home town!! I will get no homework done, I will not get any house work done. NOTHING will get done other than supporting my friend (NO! its not Leo (No clue what he’s doing - how could I know?...)... I know more people on the east coast that just Leo!! Sheesh) in the courtroom in what ever way I can. Ok, so I will drive the kids to school, but that will be at 8AM pacific, I would imagine the fireworks will be over by then!
Placemark!
Apparently the Supreme Court can make any law they feel like, Common Sense, is not common at all, lawyers prove that on a regular basis.
The plain truth is, the truth doesn’t matter.
But Italian law says I’m a citizen of Italy. So I can be a natural born citizen with dual allegiance?
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.