Posted on 04/24/2011 8:22:20 PM PDT by impimp
A child was born in US after both parents commenced H1B VISA, but prior to receiving Green card, and prior to parents receiving citizenship. But citizenship and Green card are likely to be received within a few years.
Ireland knows who belongs to them.
Winner! Your son and I are in the same category.
Yep. The commie charlatan rises to fame, his legend bolstered by a ghost-written book about his foreign, non-citizen father. The sheeple elect him President. Congress counts the electoral votes. Chief Justice John Roberts swears him in. Twice.
And the birfers expect all that to be walked back on the strength of the writings of a guy named Emmerich that nobody ever heard of? LOL!
If this natural born
thing ever makes it before the Court, they will rule it means citizen by by birth
, nothing less, nothing more.
Birtherism is a waste of time!
Really? So all of a sudden at age 47 I could be president?
No way.
Despite your imperfect knowledge of constitutional law, I'm sure you would be a great improvement over the incumbent. Go for it!
Later....Tater...
Frankly, if Obama can occupy our White House, then Gaddafi can be “president”. Frankly, I suspect that our Libyan enemy would do a better job, since he would want his country to succeed if he took power here.
Wrong. Under international law and the principles of natural law, a foreign nation attempting to claim the allegiance of newborns without a substantive basis in the citizenship of either of the parents or the place of birth of the newborn child lacks jurisdiction and validity. Acceptance of a foreign passpaort is acceptance of allegiance to a foreign sovereign. Whosoever voluntarily accepts a foreign passport thereby accepts a foreign allegiance that forever bars eligibility to the Office of the President and service as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
If you refuse to recognize, respect, and abide by the U.S. Constitution, you are effectively choosing to breach the social contract it represents and thereby forfeit the rights and protections it provides.
Róger Calero was a communist Socialist Workers Party candidate on the ballots of a number of states as a candidate for President of the United States in the last two presidential elections. Róger Calero is a citizen of Nicaragua and cannot claim to be a U.S. citizen. This past history demonstrates it is possible for a person who is not even remotely eligible to the Office of the President to run for election to that office when the Democrat Party has majority control of one or both houses of Congress and the election.
Nonetheless, the power to commit the illegal act of running an ineligible candidate for the Office of the President does nothing whatsoever to make it legal or unpunishable when the unlawfully wielded power is lost. This was also demonstrated when a Governor was removed from office for ineligibility and the governemnt of the rebellion of the Confederate States of America was suppressed and its legislative, judicial, and executive acts weere voided.
That is your opinion. We don't differentiate right now between jus solis and jus sanguinis citizenship. If you qualify under either one, you can vote, get a passport, etc. We need to go to SCOTUS and get this settled once and for all. The only real distinction now is between naturalized citizens and those who gain citizenship automatically thru either blood or place of birth.
I would differ and say that holding two passports would and should be challenged if such a person ran for President. Obviously, it would be a political liability—at least for now.
So, you are saying that “natural born” is not an issue for Zero?
The U.S. Government does not recognize dual citizenship. Any person who currently holds two passports is ineligible to serve in the Office of the President, Office of the Vice President, and any other Federal or State elected office.
Undivided allegiance is a prerequisite to holding an elected office and taking the oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Wrong. US State Department Services Dual Nationality
"The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct. The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship. Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.
Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country's embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.
I suspect that Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago, holds dual citizenship.
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
Beys Afroyim (born Ephraim Bernstein in Poland in 1893) immigrated to the US in 1912 and became a naturalized US citizen in 1926. In 1950, Afroyim moved to Israel. He tried to renew his US passport in 1960, but the State Department refused on the grounds that he had lost his citizenship by voting in an Israeli election in 1951. Afroyim sued the State Department, and the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that he was still a US citizen.
The basic point of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk was that the “citizenship clause” of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution — while originally intended mainly to guarantee citizenship to freed Negro slaves and their descendants, and subsequently interpreted in Wong Kim Ark as conferring citizenship at birth to virtually everyone born in the US — had effectively elevated citizenship to the status of a constitutionally protected right. Hence, Congress had no right to pass a law which had the effect of depriving an American of his citizenship without his assent.
Thus, the court ruled, a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act mandating automatic loss of citizenship for voting in a foreign election was invalid. Other, similar provisions providing for loss of citizenship for serving in a foreign army, or even swearing allegiance to a foreign country, were similarly invalid unless the action was accompanied by an intent to give up US citizenship.
The Supreme Court noted that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already tried to confer citizenship on all persons born or naturalized in the US. However, proponents of the 14th Amendment had expressed fears that this provision could be repealed by a later Congress, and so they insisted that the new amendment should contain its own definition of citizenship that Congress could not change later on.
Further, the court pointed to a proposed (but never ratified) constitutional amendment, early in the 19th century, which would have revoked the US citizenship of anyone who accepted a foreign title or gift, as evidence that Congress was not believed at that time to have the power to do such a thing via ordinary legislation. (Incidentally, this is the same proposed amendment which some foes of the federal income tax allege was in fact duly ratified, then suppressed by lawyers who supposedly feared their “foreign” title of “Esquire” would result in the loss of their US citizenship and their positions of power in the government.)
By ruling as it did in the Afroyim case, the Supreme Court explicitly threw out the principles held nine years earlier in Perez v. Brownell.
The Supreme Court’s Afroyim ruling did not definitively throw out all prohibitions against dual citizenship in the US. Although the court clearly stated that loss of citizenship required the individual’s assent, some uncertainty remained as to whether an actual swearing of allegiance to a foreign country would, by itself, constitute such assent. (The question of how, or even whether, Afroyim had become a citizen of Israel, or sworn allegiance to Israel, did not come up in his case.)
Also, the court did not address the issue of what standard of proof would be required in citizenship cases — i.e., whether intent to give up citizenship had to be proved clearly and convincingly (as in a criminal trial), or by a preponderance of evidence (as in a lawsuit). This question would not be resolved until Vance v. Terrazas (see below).
It should additionally be noted that the Afroyim case did not deal with Congress’s right to require new citizens to renounce their prior allegiances as a prerequisite for naturalization.
The statutory provision calling for loss of US citizenship for voting in a foreign election, struck down by the court in this case, was repealed by Congress in 1978 (Public Law 95-432).
If Bobby Jindal ran for office, received the Republican nomination and was elected President, do you not believe he would be sworn into office and handed the keys to the White House?
I and my wife have passports going back years. My wife who is natualized USA citizen and I both had to give birth certificates that had place of birth and parents. So for us it is not just an opinion. I have also had employment,private and government that required showing birth/nationality of my parents and their citizenship, they were not citizens. The SC apparently doesn’t want to touch the issue with any length of a Constitutional pole. The best bet as for me is at the state level. I am hoping there are more than one state which can hold to what the Founding Fathers expressed as their intent as to securing allegience to the USA and It’s Constitution. All branches of the Federal government apparently are numbed by that intent.
Rubbish. You birthers are the ones who are dishonoring the Constitution, which contains not a single word about the citizenship of the parents of a potential President. There are only two kinds of citizens, those who are citizens at birth (i.e. natural-born), and those who are naturalized later.
I will enjoy having a horse laugh at your expense if this ever makes it to the Supreme Court. I guarantee you that the child of at least one American parent born anywhere in the world will qualify, as will any child born on American soil, no matter what their parentage. You people are hopeless.
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.