Posted on 01/25/2012 9:12:53 AM PST by Danae
As Thomas Sowell likes to say, it's an “AH-HA!” moment.
But I don't think it neccesarilys hold up under scrutiny.
Anyhow, I am only posting exactly what is written in the INS statutory interpretations. The links are all there for full context.
It’s the first spot on the page you linked to that specifically uses the term “native-born.”
Ok, thank you. I appreciate your response and concede you may be correct vis a vis usage of the term “native-born”.
But again, what bearing can any inconsistent usage of one classification have on an entirely separate classificiation of citizenship? Are you be saying that contamination of one can necessarily contaminate another separate entity?
Let me posit this for consideration: What is the distinguishing difference in the presumed governmental definitions of native- and natural born citizenship?
Thank you for any response: will get back to you later, I am running out the door.
Each of the colonial powers called their piece of the Kenya pie by a different name.
The indigenous people always called it Kenya, and formalized the name “Kenya” upon its independence.
So it is. Then I stand corrected on that example.
I honestly don't know if there are any.
But that's a large part of the problem. Lack of a clear distinction on this matter.
So, am I a Natural Born Citizen? Both of my parents were born here, all four grandparents were born here, but under Italian law, I'm considered an Italian citizen.
I wouldn’t put too much stock in what is on the birth certificate. I have always believed that even if it is based on original data in their 1961 file, Barack Obama Sr. was probably no where near it when it was being filled out.
I think either Stanley Ann or Madelyn Dunham filled out the information as best they could, and they might not have been knowledgeable enough or picky enough to make sure it was correct.
I very much doubt Obama Sr. paid the slightest attention to the birth of his supposed son.
Arigatou for the Ping!
THREE different things: naturalized, native-born or natural-born.
If that is the interpretation, it is incorrect. Restoration of citizenship status could only mean one is re-established as a Citizen of the United States or a Natural Born Citizen.
Citizenship is a state of sovereignty. How one achieved or was awarded this citizenship is irrelevant after birth or naturalization. Citizens are one or the other, never in between.
I’ve been browsing through the uscis.gov/link reference interpretations list and came across some items which may have application to Obama’s past/present status possibilities. Not a legal eagle, so I’m not familiar with the fine points of the ‘Interpretations’. The perceptions and opinions of you who are more educated are immensly helpful, and appreciated. [Caps for emphasis]
“Interpretation 350.1 Expatriation in the absence of elective action by PERSONS ACQUIRING DUAL NATIONALITY AT BIRTH prior to repeal of 350.
(a) Before Afroyim v. Rusk
(b) Effect of Afroyim v. Rusk” [I’m guessing Afroyim v. Rusk resulted in the repeal of 350.1]
(a)(3)Benefits of a foreign nationality construed. (i)”...The Board of Immigration Appeals, notinh that the word ‘benefit’ is defined as meaning fruit, PRIVILEGE, ADVANTAGE, or profit...”
*snip*
“The Board further stated that the benefit contemplated by section 350 should be substantial and indicative of an intention to express some preference for another country in a measure inconsistant with American citizenship.”
(b)(3)(ii): “Obtaining or USING a foreign passport. Such actions (as described in (a)(3)(i), supra) continued to be regarded as claims to a ‘substantial’ benefit of a foreign nationality for former section 350 purposes.”
*snip*
[RE: a US/Greek dual national] “...used [her] Greek passport...to visit doctors in Germany...and did not know that the USE OF THE [Greek] PASSPORT COULD CAUSE CITIZENSHIP LOSS...”
Under Appendix C: Citizenship and Passports -—
(C)(1)(f) “The VOLUNTARY USE OF A FOREIGN PASSPORT would ordinarily be considered to have been a substantial benefit of the nationality of a foreign state.”
If it is discovered, or can be proved, that Obama enrolled at Oxy as an Indonesian [or British] foreign student, and/or that he traveled to Pockeeston on an Indonesian [or British] passport - would these apply? Could he have had his American citizenship yanked?
Also under Appendix C, at (D)(1): The consular officer’s opinion and the Department’s decision have always been made a part of the OFFICIAL FILE RECORD IN EVERY CITIZENSHIP CASE IN WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS PERFORMED AN ACT MADE EXPATRIATING BY STATUTE. WHEN A CITIZEN IS ISSUED A PASSPORT OR REGISTERED BY A CONSULAR OFFICER UNDER THIS GENERAL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, THE CONSULAR OFFICER’S WRITTEN DECISION IS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD AND ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT’S FILES.”
Does anyone know if anyone working on all of this has filed FOIA requests regarding Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, etc, records at US Consuls in Jakarta, Hawaii, Los Angeles (Oxy) - and Vancouver, Canada? And the mother also - re: Hawaii and Jakarta. Not at all sure about this, but if I recall correctly, Stanley Ann Soetoro was for a time employed at the US Consulate in Jakarta. That may have been in Obie’s book - so may or may not be true.
Apologies for going on so - this aspect has me really curious, and keeps my mind from dwelling/sweating about tomorrow’s hearing.
Do itashi mashite!!! ;)
You just want to come over an message my feet don’t you HG? Trying to get on my good side is a fail you know, I don’t have one.
El Sordo, the adoption of the term “native-born” for a 14th Amendment citizen, inviting confusion with the word “native” used long before, including by Dr David Ramsay and Vattel’s translators, and by the entire Waite court which included many justices who decided Wong Kim Ark , continues to confuse. The definition of natural born citizen, or natural-born citizen has never, that this novice has seen, been other than “born on the soil of citizen parents,” (with which I conflate the John Bingham wording “...every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”, though it adds the terms jurisdiction and sovereignty which then need clarification).
What Donofrio has done to expose the importance of rigor, and the quality and integrity of many of our Supreme Court justices in interpreting the foundation of our Republic of laws and not men, could prevent the revolution many of the most extreme on the left are working for. Clearly, most Democrats do not understand or desire the result to which they are being led by their clever Alinsky-trained revolutionaries. As Donofrio has shown us, Justice Marshall established "uniqueness" - decisions based upon the Constitution must be mutually exclusive, and can't modify one another - of the "principles" upon which our nation was based. The principle is as an 'axiom' is to mathematical systems. Applying rigor to human behaviour is much harder than applying it in the clear and closed realm of mathematics, but both Marshall and Waite are examples of the intellectual integrity so at odds with enemies of the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Donofrio has provided the analysis using Marshall's brilliant theorem - "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it." Id. 174. Compare the clarity of Marshall and Donofrio's application of Marshall's theorem to those of Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of our House of Representatives, who exhorted citizens to "Vote for the bill so that you can find out what's in it." This is a clear contrast between governance guided by a Constitutional Republic and a dictatorship.
Barack Obama was never eligible to be president. Republicans clearly want to run the ineligible Marco Rubio because of the increase in Latin American votes he will attract. Many of those votes will be filed by illegal aliens who must believe that voting for Obama will guarantee their residence in the US. Republicans must feel that having the son of immigrants in the government will make the Republican party more attractive to socially conservative Latin voters. For political advantage, both parties deem our Constitution to be a living document. So, sadly, do our political pundits, while identifying with the founders and framers and their philosophical sources, just as long as they don't conflict with the current political hot issues.
While Leo Donofrio deserves a Pulitzer or Nobel Peace prize for journalism and for his dogged pursuit of truth, and for the brilliant analysis wherein he trusted only original sources, resulting in the exposure of the clear intent of the Center for American Progress to suppress legal precedent deploying justia.com and Google), as they did by scrubbing and corrupting claimed digital reproductions of archived Supreme Court cases. We know that the Pulitzer and non-scientific Nobel committees have long been co-opted by mandarins committed to preserving their membership in the group of the politically correct (conferring Peace Prizes upon Obama, Al Gore, The Int. Climate Change Committee, Mohhammed Elbardei, Jimmy Carter, and the Nazi nephew of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem an architect of The Final Solution, Yassar Arafat).
In this hall of mirrors where both parties intentionally stomped on our Constitution for political and financial advantage, Free Republic and a few blogs are what remain of free press exercising the 1st Amendment. The plots to silence what remains of Internet freedom abound. When we are silenced this former republic may need to follow the path of the USSR, since centrally controlled governments always create misery, and then fail.
That more and more are understanding the truth is clear in our little world. We at FR know the Obots, almost personally, though their real identities would probably surprise us (after the exposure of one as a former Fannie May executive). But we won't prevail if noone else learns the truth. Leo Donofrio has provided case law, and an ally has connected that with statute. This is very complicated to explain to those not steeped in the history of citizenship. They have the media and many pundits proclaiming "I have no doubt that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii," or "I believe Marco Rubio is a citizen, and thus eligible to be president."We need more allies, and more of the knowledgeable to absorb what Donofrio has clarified and calmly inform our families, friends, blog sites, radio talk shows, and book reviews by pundits who are afraid to touch the issue.
The Georgia hearings are up against legal resources funded by what remain of our tax dollars. Georgia's governor was the only Congressman to challenge Obama's eligibility directly, writing an open letter to the White House. Nathan Deal's answer didn't come from the White House, it came from the House Ethics Committee, which had scoured his tax returns for some issue with which to bankrupt him if he didn't desist. He resigned and became Governor of Georgia, but he knows the truth. His name has not arisen in these hearings, but it is reasonable to assume that bringing these cases in Georgia was fortuitous.
YEP!
It is precisely what we have been saying all along.
I just LOVE the smell of “RIGHT” first thing in the morning! Seeing this first thing this Am was pretty much a good way to start the day!
I am just on pins and needles waiting to see what happens tomorrow. I am afraid to hope.... but I don’t see any way it is going to turn out in Obama’s favor.... but when dealing with this cretin.... you never know.
There is good reason to believe our government recognizes a difference between native- and natural born. It doesn’t require much to suppose it does so based on a belief that each has a different definition.
This is what I believe is the better view of what our government thinks distinguishes the two terms it has used.
Native-born - perhaps universally, the term is applied to those who belong to a nation because of their birth. Certainly in the U.S. it is applied to those who those born within its limits. (Anchor babies are born to illegal entrants and thus should be viewed as born of “hostile invaders” and not entitled to citizenship.)
Natural born - this must be regarded as a higher form of citizenship.
Higher - because the founders believed it was a higher form when they applied it exclusively to the commander in chief of our nation’s defense forces, along with the vice-president, as opposed to all other elected officials.
Higher - because those two offices inherently require the utmost in allegiance and loyalty.
How was it possible to improve the chances of achieving such an elevated level of service? Our founders believed it was possible by extending the allegiance and loyalty flowing in the candidate’s bloodline, by requiring citizen parentage.
What else is there that could distinguish between the two classifications?
I just posted this on another thread. This one.
“Breaking News: Obama’s Attorney In Georgia Ballot Challenge Refuses To Appear At Hearing”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2837825/posts
Obama tried to get out of court scheduled for tomorrow, BUT he and his lawyers got quickly slapped by the GA Secretary of State. LoL.
“The Office of Secretary of State
January 25, 2012
VIA REGULAR MAIL & EMAIL
Michael Jablonski260 Brighton Road, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309michael.jablonski@comcast.com
RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings
Dear Mr. Jablonski:I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of State Administrative Hearings (”OSAH”) has handled the candidate challenges involving your client and advising me that you and your client will “suspend” participation in the administrative proceeding. While I regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to an administrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.
As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State’s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.
In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.
I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concerns, and thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,Brian P.
Kempcc: Hon. Michael Malihi (c/o Kim Beal - kbeal@osah.ga.gov)Van Irion, Esq. (van@libertylegalfoundation.org)Orly Taitz, Esq. (orly.taitz@gmail.com)
Brian P. Kemp”
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/obamas-attorney-jablonski-slapped-down.html
Google = far left liberal. Seriously. Its a liberal site. They routinely use filters to alter result sets. Not to mention tracking everything from the name of your first born to what type of books you like. They track everything. I use Bing now most of the time...
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.