|
By:
2 freaking different things all together!
|
|
By:
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
|
|
By:
The INA refers to not just an act that refers to immigrants, but also nationals. Do your own damn homework from now on!
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. |
|
By:
????
you've completely lost me now. seems to me you're proving my point. |
|
By:
off to the shop - perhaps you can explain what it is you're trying to say
|
|
By:
Not sure how an act that refers to immigration but also nationals proves your point. Guess you live in your own world and I really should know better and leave you there.
|
|
By:
wtf.
it's right there: http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html |
|
By:
there is no mention of natural born citizen within the section you have posted im afraid. its about CITIZEN.
|
|
By:
please tell me how the department of state affairs is incorrect.
a legal explanation ideally, but anything to start would be good. |
|
By:
Not sure where you say they state you are correct, but presumably that is because they don't. As explained and ask just anyone in the State Dept if there are any other types of citizens than Natural born or naturalised. The word citizen is an all encompassing word and you read waaaaaaaaaay too much into that. The state dept gives that act in the paragraph you copied to show how it gives you the right to citizenship at birth. It is not in reference to immigration or naturalisation. Give the State Dept. a call and see how far you get before they all start laughing hysterically. I honestly cannot be bothered to bang my head against the wall anymore. Really will leave you to it, but really wish you would give them a call and see what they have to say to you.
|
|
By:
another superb legal argument full of fact and legal quotations... yawn.
apologies for my arrogance there. couldnt help it. i understand your point with regard to natural born or naturalised - and will confirm upon that specifically shortly, WITH evidence, rather than rhetoric [and i cannot believe you accused me of posting rhetoric either]. further to your other comment regarding believing what i read - i believe legal documents, not opinion. i have researched the matter. i guess you are going on someone else's opinion, who has investigated the facts (or not), which is classed as hearsay last time i checked. |
|
By:
your children are only natural born in the sense of common law, through blood. since the consitution is the superceding document, and defines natural born citizen itself (albeit indirectly, but like many other legal terms), the "natural born" status offered by common law is irrelevant for americans in that particular respect. common law is generally followed, unless specifically stated otherwise.
|
|
By:
statute makes them a citizen at birth, but this is not the same as a constitutional natural born citizen. i dont see what is so hard to understand
|
|
By:
statute makes them a citizen at birth, but this is not the same as a constitutional natural born citizen. i dont see what is so hard to understand
Because it is wrong. The constitution doesn't provide a definition. It just says the words. So you read them on their plain reading. Someone naturally born in the US of US citizenship. Like, err. . . Obama. |
|
By:
few quotes for you that may help you decide.
john bingham, "father" of the 14th amendment: find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen¡[6] us department of state affairs website: http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html 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 - acquiring us citizenship doesnt sound "natural" to me - certainly doesnt sound like a natural born citizen. u can refer to the law of nations on that one. but the website clearly states persons in the catergory of prettyace's children are citizens by statute. this is the department of state affairs interpretation - the INA gives them us citizenship at birth. U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. 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. - ie someone deemed a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is a Natural Born Citizen (this is the obvious meaning of the last sentence quoted - the word "such" refers to the previous description of citizen, that being natural born citizen - "for Constitutional purposes" such as eligiblity for president! |
|
By:
Don, get some historical perspective. He was excluding native Americans.
|
|
By:
I might be wrong about that thinking about it.
However, for Obama's parents to get a US passport, won't they have been required to formally take a pledge of alliegance? |
|
By:
not sure what that has to do with it sib mate tbh - obama's father did not have a us passport when obama was born so would not have pledged allegiance. he was a kenyan citizen (and therefore actually a british citizen). obama acknowledges this himself and also acknowledges that at his birth he himself also held british citizenship.
|
|
By:
Still going , Don? I have some law for you to review.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html#328 |
|
By:
which part in particular of that document would you like my comment on?
|
|
By:
if you just want to know about elg - basically she was a natural born citizen because her parents were u.s naturalised citizens at the time of her birth. it is all about circumstances at birth.
for info: The LAW OF NATIONS - BOOK I. Chapter 19 (this document is reference time and time again by the supreme court - the most recent example i can find as yet being March 2008 when Justice Scalia referenced |
|
By:
Try this from US v Wong Kim Ark, cited in Perkins v Elg
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, "All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." |
|
By:
please point out to me where in that it refers to natural born citizen in that section you have posted. it appears to me that it speaks only of citizen. wong kim ark actually sides with my opinion i feel, because they have intentionaly only ruled on citizen, not natural born citizen.
during the wong kim ark case, justice gray quoted directly from a previous supreme court holding case, namely Minor v Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark: [i] |
|
By:
hogwash.
|
|
By:
lol elaborate if that's what you think
|
|
By:
no comment?
|
|
By:
[i]In Minor, they clearly established who was a
|
|
By:
to further clarify
The Court in Minor refused to say that a person born in the US to parents who were foreigners was a " natural born citizen" but the Minor court also refused to say whether such a person was even a "citizen" at all. Minor doesn't really support the holding in Wong Kim Ark, it's just that Gray's opinion makes it look like it does. i can provide further detail as to a possible reason for this opinoin if needed, it is just a bit longwinded and a whole subject on its own. For the purposes of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court didnt need to reach the |
|
By:
imo they have effectively ruled on what natural born citizen means in wong kim ark, through omission and therefore implication. i fully believe this is why the department of state affairs appears to concur with my interpretation within their manual and on their website. law is not always plain and obvious as you can see :)
|
|
By:
imo they have effectively ruled on what natural born citizen means in wong kim ark
Well, you could be right there, Don, because the two dissenting judges argued that if the court were to allow Ark's appeal, ... excessive reliance on birthplace as the principal determiner of citizenship would lead to an untenable state of affairs in which "...the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not". Ark became eligible to be President :) |
|
By:
the response to that is that there were only two dissenting judges supporting that view - nevertheless the case was ruled upon with that in mind and refuting it, and therefore a ruling on nbc exists.
surely by now you accept there is AT MINIMUM a subject here that the supreme court should readdress and clarify. we obviously cannot use obama himself as precedent for the issue since his is the eligibility in question and the court continues to refuse to hear any cases on this, thus far, although it's "hotting up" so to speak now imo. |
|
By:
all this of course is with regard to the natural born citizen clause. some court cases still allege he was not even born in the us, and some that he wasnt even a citizen, including one in the district court which actually ruled against obama before the dnc refiled declaring that the district court did not have the jurisdiction.
he is likely ineligible for present for a number of reasons |
|
By:
the response to that is that there were only two dissenting judges supporting that view - nevertheless the case was ruled upon with that in mind and refuting it, and therefore a ruling on nbc exists.
The majority of judges (6) who found in Ark's favour were obviously aware of the 2 dissenting judges argument. Nowhere in their decision do they disagree with the dissenting judge's conclusion that finding for Ark will make Ark eligible to be President. |
|
By:
they dont need to specifically mention it to disagree with it. their disagreement is implicit given the ruling. imo of course. but like i said - it looks to be the department of state affairs opinion also. care refute what it says in their manual?
i accept what you are saying - but you are not providing any evidence to say that if they did accept the appeal that they would have ruled wong an nbc. therefore where there is doubt on a constitutional matter such as this, surely the scotus should investigate and rule on the matter once and for all for clarification. so, the scotus are clearly avoiding their duty, or have done to this point at least - they are there, and swear, to uphold the constitution. if there is a possibility that obama is ineligible and in breach of the constitution, they should of course investigate and rule - and in fact should have answer the questions before the popular vote took place (which is why court cases were originally submitted before this date). instead, the court denied a number of cases based on standing - essentially throwing it out for not taking the right approach rather than investigating the actual issue at hand. |
|
By:
fyi also, this is a copy of the order granted at district court level which was later filed against as irrelevance by the dnc on jurisdictino terms
http://einshalom.com/info/Berg-PAdistcrt-OrdersObamaRemoved.pdf |
|
By:
they dont need to specifically mention it to disagree with it. their disagreement is implicit given the ruling. imo of course
No, it isn't. In fact, the reverse is true. Berg's case in Pennsylvania was eventually dismissed, which I think is why he's at the Supreme Court now. And that's my lot on this, Don. I will give you something for the 'Obama oath' thread: You might want to check if Bush rescinded the last knockings of the Clinton administration in similar fashion. You know, it might be just a thing new Presidents do. You might also want to check whether the order Bush issued actually applies to the President. |
|
By:
Hysterical that this documents proves the 4 consulates, my cousin and myself absolutely correct. Thanks for finally doing your own homework! This document was also dismissed, so completely irrelevant.
[i]Under the laws in effect between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 (Obama was born in 1961), a child born outside of the United States to one citizen parent could acquire |
|
By:
with all due respect prettyace that is why i asked for your particular circumstances before - it was impossible for me to make a judgement without dates etc as surely you realise.
the section you have highlighted does not apply obama regrettably, which is the issue we are discussing. assuming there is no reason why this quote cannot be applied (and i cannot really be bothered to spend the time finding out if it is but probably will end up looking into it for my own sanity now), i must say i am actually pleased that you have been able to confirm this in respect of your own family and i hope it continues to hold up. back to obama then. |
|
By:
all that said prettyace, i keep forgetting the depart of state affairs quote:
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. this confirms that your children could well be natural born citizens but not considered as such in terms of presidential eligiblity, ie constitutional purpose. |
|
By:
To be completely honest I saw no reason to explain/prove myself to you or do your homework for you. I had it from 5 officials. One of which is a career diplomat who is now an Ambassador. No idea about the others as they were not relatives. That was good enough for me and I did not owe you anything more. It was a different scenario, as I stated from the very beginning, so irrelevant to Obama's case as he was born in the USA. Spending time trolling the net would have been a pointless exercise to prove something that had nothing to do with your case. I have better things to do with my time.
Alright, time for you to continue your constitutional trainspotting. You would be better spending your time on something useful though, imo. |