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 ...
If you recall in 2008 on Obama's own campaign website Fight The Smears, it stated:
'The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.'
Does Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution specifically call for a native born Citizen to be president? No it does not. It states:
'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;....'
Here is the link to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website that the above information is no longer available.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
Because we all refused to believe democrats and now republicans would ever allow the implementation of the Communist Manifesto we paid for it to happen via our public schools and now we have enough communists or Progressives (one in the same) who control our information.
We lost everything the founders created.
There still people who claim to be conservative who still send their kids to government schools and somehow are expecting a middle of the road outcome.
There no longer any information reality! We surrendered the right to have our government be honest long ago.
A president can tell a nationwide audience about his red line and a year later claims he never said it and 1/2 the country just ignores it because he is the right color.
Because we accept lying this is the best we can expect from government. Until lying is a impeachable offense NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE.
Move to chat, out of breaking news.
Ping!
I actually had a note sent from a FR poster here....
just asserting that “there is no such thing as natural born citizen”
I used to enjoy watching 3 stooges cartoons, but REALLY! our educational system has hit a new bottom!
wow!
Here WaybackMachine.
Shhhhhhhhh! Don’t tell xzins!
/Morning%20Has%20Broken%20(Dureco).jpg)
They have scrubbed much more than that specific interpretation:
Go to the USCIS website and search for:
“Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage”
When you go to many of the links that returns they have the same statement that the page no longer exists.
They did a large general scrub job.
I suggest that everyone who is interested in this issue should save a copy of this webpage to their computer because I’ve no doubt that the traces of this page will soon be scrubbed from the net.
tinfoil hat stuff. the usc has not changed and there has only ever been two forms of citizen.
try thomas.gov and look in usc.
The website ‘Obama Release Your Records’ picked up my thread back on April 3, 2013 and published it.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/04/ins-proves-obama-not-eligible.html
People the world over are carefully watching the progress of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse’s.
It is at the top of every news hour. It is the headline of every newspaper. It is the lead story of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity.
or?
Your link NEVER proved anything. Regulations and websites cover more than one term without meaning that the terms have separate definitions.
And links die all the time. When a link dies to a horse training site, I don’t accuse the owners of trying to hide some valuable training technique!
The link provides proof that native-born and natural-born are different subsets of citizen. They are not the same.
Since the beginning, Team Obama has attempted to obscure this rather simple concept with one smokescreen after another.
There is no way they could attempt to prove his constitutional eligibility, but to use the weak pretext of native birth. Hence the entire born-in-Hawaii BC nightmare.
Tell me SCOTUS, is one citizen parent enough to claim "natural born Citizen?" Is birth in the country alone enough to claim it? Tell me please exactly what "natural born Citizen" means.
No, it did not. Using “native-born or natural-born citizen” in a regulation does NOT mean the terms have separate definitions. It merely means both were in common use, as here:
“But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.”
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.
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.
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.
