Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
7 FAM 1131.2 Prerequisites for Transmitting U.S.
Citizenship
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) Since 1790, there have been two prerequisites for transmitting U.S. citizenship to children born abroad:
(1) At least one natural parent must have been a U.S. citizen when the
child was born. The only exception is for a posthumous child.
(2) The U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically present in the United States for the time required by the law in effect when the child was born.7
U.S. citizenship? Yes. Natural born U.S. citizen status for the purpose of Constitutional eleigibility for the Presidency? Not necessarily; confirmed as not yet definitively decided by any court by the U.S. State Department.
Not sure why you're erroneously conflating U.S. citizenship with natural born citizen status as it pertains to the Constitution's eligibility clause. The U.S. State Department recognizes that they're distinctly different statuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
The US doesn't care what citizenship a citizen may earn by being born in another country. We are afforded to have dual/triple/quadruple citizenship in the US. The US recognizes those born here in America, to a British citizen parent and US Citizen parent, will earn both Birtish and American citizenship. Again, how does one being born abroad differ from those born on US soil to a parent who isn't a citizen?
It may not in regard to multiple citizenships. That's the point. That's why the U.S. State Department casts doubt on the Constitutional eligibility for Presidency in such a case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
As long as US Citizenship is in the mix, the US law doesn't care.
Incorrect. To wit:
Quote:
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.
Spiro Agnew was born to immigrants, his father didn't naturalize till Spiro was at least 10 years old.
False. Agnew's father's WWI Draft Registration record shows he was a naturalized U.S. citizen as of September 12, 1918, before Spiro Agnew was born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Chester A Arthur was born to an immigrant father, who didn't naturalize till after Chester was born.
That wasn't known until years after his death for a very sinister reason. Chester Arthur knew he had something to hide; he never let anyone see his personal papers, and he deliberately had them burned when he was near death:
Quote:
During his lifetime, my father would never let anyone see them—not even me. When they finally came into my possession, I was amazed that there were so few. At my father's funeral in Albany, or rather at the interment of his ashes which took place several months after his death [July 17,1934], I enquired of all the cousins there assembled—the nieces and nephews of my grandfather, as to what had happened to the bulk of the papers. Charles E. McElroy, the son of Mary Arthur McElroy who was my grandfather's First Lady, tells me that the day before he died, my grandfather caused to be burned three large garbage cans, each at least four feet high, full of papers which I am sure would have thrown much light on history.
So wrote Chester A. Arthur III to Dr. Thomas P. Martin, then Acting Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, on April 15, 1938.
tens of millions were quietly threatened !!??!! how is that physically possible? honestly. give me a scenario how this evil entity could threaten tens of millions of people without the rest of the country/world knowing. did they go by people's home? did they send out an email? write a note on the bottom of starbucks cups? what and how could you possibly imagine this going down?
good to know.
that honestly made sense to you? tens of millions of people were somehow threatened into silence and not a single other person in the US is aware of this intimidation?
the demagoguery and humiliating anybody that dares to question Obama's qualifications took care of most of the populace. They don't know any better, you've dumbed them down to that extent.
wrecking ball takes his assignment very seriously, you will not find him on any other threads of C-D. Then there is your Lexus Nexus expert, Historian Dude, who works overtime with legal maneuvering to make the Constitution meaningless. It's just an old piece o paper, right wrecker?
U.S. citizenship? Yes. Natural born U.S. citizen status for the purpose of Constitutional eleigibility for the Presidency? Not necessarily; confirmed as not yet definitively decided by any court by the U.S. State Department.
and it isn't the US STATE DEPARTMENT that determines qualification of the President. That resides solely on the US Supreme COURT (and they've already ruled) and the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
The State Department only WORRIES about just citizens in general. Whether naturalized or born a citizen. they are not in the business nor is it their TASK to determine the qualifications of the President.
The US Supreme Court does not belong to the US State Department court system
Quote:
Not sure why you're erroneously conflating U.S. citizenship with natural born citizen status as it pertains to the Constitution's eligibility clause. The U.S. State Department recognizes that they're distinctly different statuses.It may not in regard to multiple citizenships. That's the point. That's why the U.S. State Department casts doubt on the Constitutional eligibility for Presidency in such a case.Incorrect. To wit:US State Department Services Dual Nationality
Im' not conflating anything. Its been DETERMINEd through sEVERAL COURT cases (of which I linked ot EARLIER) that being born on US soil = Natural Born, That US CITIZENSHIP has only TWO types of citizens, Thsoe born here and those who are naturalized.
The only ones doing any conflating are birthers, by inventing a made up third type of citizen, when none exist
Nothing in your link supports your claim btw. It just an explanation of what dual citizenship is, that the US allows citizens to have it, and that that citizen may have to follow the laws of both countries. Doesn't have anything to do with POTUS eligiblity, since its NOT their job to determine it. That soley resides on Congress, the Supreme Court and the Electoral College.
Quote:
False. Agnew's father's WWI Draft Registration record shows he was a naturalized U.S. citizen as of September 12, 1918, before Spiro Agnew was born.
His CENSUS report says otherwise.
Spiro's father immigrated to the US in 1887 and was listed as a non-citizen (Al = Alien) on the 1920 census
Quote:
That wasn't known until years after his death for a very sinister reason. Chester Arthur knew he had something to hide; he never let anyone see his personal papers, and he deliberately had them burned when he was near death:http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/mss/ea...9/ms009139.pdf
It was very well known before Chester was considering the run for the US. His opponent wanted to cast doubt on WHERE he was born, not whom to he was born to.
That was the issue on Chester's eligibility. His opponent wanted people to believe that he was born in Canada, and not in the US (and birthers don't want to focus on the fact that his opponent never brought up the issue of his father's citizenship; ONLY on where Chester may have been born).
the demagoguery and humiliating anybody that dares to question Obama's qualifications took care of most of the populace.
obama announced his candidacy for POTUS on feb 10, 2007. for a vast number of people to be in general fear of humiliation would require widespread ridicule of people questioning his eligibility long before that. i can find no evidence of it being questioned or ridiculed. do you have any evidence claud ?
Quote:
They don't know any better, you've dumbed them down to that extent.
i was able to dumb-down everyone with an advanced study of the US constitution and take away all motivation to express a simple opinion? talk about not knowing one's own strength.
Quote:
wrecking ball takes his assignment very seriously, you will not find him on any other threads of C-D.
actually when things slowed down in the birther realm i may have hit another thread or two. but not many. this is the topic ( and the personalities ) that interest me the most.
Quote:
It's just an old piece o paper, right wrecker?
yep. very old. and i'm defending the ideas expressed on that old piece of paper from delusional conspiracy theorists.
again claud, why did you personally not express the "2parent" theory during the 2008 campaign?
and it isn't the US STATE DEPARTMENT that determines qualification of the President. That resides solely on the US Supreme COURT (and they've already ruled)
No, they have NOT ruled. Hence, the U.S. State Department's statement confirming they have not ever ruled on such in the case of questionable citizenship status.
Quote:
His CENSUS report says otherwise.
There's earlier and more detailed information on the WWI Draft Registration Card. Look it up. Agnew's father was indeed a naturalized U.S. citizen before Agnew's birth.
Quote:
It was very well known before Chester was considering the run for the US.
No, it wasn't known at all.
What people thought the issue was is exactly what you yourself state below:
Quote:
That was the issue on Chester's eligibility. His opponent wanted people to believe that he was born in Canada.
Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen when he was born, even going to the extreme lengths of never letting anyone see his personal papers and having them burned shortly before his death.
No, they have NOT ruled. Hence, the U.S. State Department's statement confirming they have not ever ruled on such.There's earlier and more detailed information on the WWI Draft Registration Card. Look it up. Agnew's father was indeed a naturalized U.S. citizen before Agnew's birth.
YEs. they have.
A case called US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Please read it. the Supreme Court UPHELD a lower court ruling that Wong was born a citizen. Born a citizen = Natural Born. Read the opinions on the case.. Even the minority opinion agreed taht Wong, if he wanted could run for the office of the POTUS.
Wong Kim Ark has been cited in over 1000 court cases concerning citizenship in the US.
1920 Census says otherwise. What's easier to lie on? A draft card (of which many people have done so) or the Census?
Quote:
No, it wasn't known at all.
Yes, it was.
Quote:
What people thought the issue was is exactly what you yourself state below: Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen when he was born, even going to the extreme lengths of never letting anyone see his personal papers and having them burned shortly before his death.
Arthur did nothing of the sort and that wasn't the FOCUS of Arthur's eligibility.
I don't know how many times this must be stated:
HIS OPPONENT only brought up the issue that Arthur may have been BORN in Canada. He didn't bring up Arthur's father's citizenship, since it wasn't GERMANE to his argument.
BTW, why do you ignore that Thomas Jefferson chose to become a nationalized FRench Citizen (after the US Constitiution made him a US CITIZEN) yet he was good to run for POTUS (that means he had dual citizenship). and yet Obama, who was born with British Citizenship, who never affirmed it when he was 21 years of age (which is required under British law), thereby losing it, and has kept his US citizenship all his life, isn't qualified? How does that make sense?
Please read it. the Supreme Court UPHELD a lower court ruling that Wong was born a citizen.
A "citizen." NOT a natural born citizen. The only U.S. Supreme Court case that even mentions what a natural born citizen is in the ruling is Minor v. Happersett:
Quote:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Hence, the U.S. State Department's casting of doubt on whether anyone born a foreign citizen is Constitutionally eligible to be President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
A 1920 Census says otherwise. What's easier to lie on? A draft card (of which many people have done so) or the Census?
The census isn't even completed by the individual. People went door to door asking questions of who knows who and filling in blanks.
The earlier-filed WWI Draft Registration contains much more information than the census. Look it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
HIS OPPONENT only brought up the issue that Arthur may have been BORN in Canada. He didn't bring up Arthur's father's citizenship, since it wasn't GERMANE to his argument.
No, he didn't bring it up because he didn't know about that. Neither did anyone else.
Quote:
BTW, why do you ignore that Thomas Jefferson chose to become a nationalized FRench Citizen (after the US Constitiution made him a US CITIZEN) yet he was good to run for POTUS (that means he had dual citizenship
Pop quiz... which part of the Constitutional requirement did Thomas Jefferson become eligible under? And why is it that he would remain eligible regardless of any subsequent citizenship status?
wrecking ball:
again claud, why did you personally not express the "2parent" theory during the 2008 campaign?
I did, nobody cares what I have to say, but you. You find this topic so fascinating it consumes you day n night huh? No other subjects to grab your attention! Why do you hate birthers so much, have we posed a threat to your master? Perhaps the threat is to you rewriting the interpretation of the Constitution - we stand in your way. Get used to it. We aren't going anywhere. Arguing with the likes of you is futile, we need the Supreme Court to hear this case and settle the issue.
Til then, I do hope States will verify what they are told. I wait to see what Arpaio comes up with. I don't think he can be bought.
Again, you and the birthers are creating a fictitious third type of citizen. It doesn't exist.
You are either born a citizen or you are naturalized. The only difference that a naturalized citizen and a person born with citizenship is that the latter can run for POTUS. The courts as well as every legal scholar and lawyers, have said this much.
---
An illegal alien asked the US Court of Appeals to overturn his deportation back to Mexico. The Court refused but in their decision acknowledged that his two US born children were "natural born citizens."
700 F.2d 1156: Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Board Of immigration Appeals, Respondents
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. - 700 F.2d 1156
Argued Sept. 15, 1982. Decided March 1, 1983
The relevant section:
¶12
The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States. He also has relatives in Mexico. Petitioner has a good job in Chicago and presumably, due to his lack of formal education and current economic conditions in Mexico, would have a difficult time finding similarly good employment in Mexico. Deportation would be very disruptive of the life which he and his second wife have built in Chicago, as well as psychologically distressing to them.3 Considering all of these factors, however, we are nonetheless constrained to conclude that the BIA was within its discretion in finding that petitioner would not succeed in obtaining suspension of deportation under section 244 and in therefore denying his motion to reopen.
"Therefore, every person born in the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense of the Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 5)"
"Anyone aspiring to the highest office in the land must have been born in the United States, and he must be at least thirty-five years of age. To ensure the fact that his interests really lie within the country, the Constitution also demands that the candidate have lived for fourteen years prior to his election in the United States."
"The law has always been understood to be, if you are born here, you're a natural born citizen," said Thomas Goldstein, founder of the Scotusblog.com Web site and a lawyer who has argued numerous cases before the high court. "And that is particularly true in this case, when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama's mother."
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges
As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation
... but two thirds of their number is sufficient to vote. Q. May any person be chosen President of the United States ? A. Not every person ; none may be chosen unless he has been born in the United States, or was a citizen
I can go on and on and on .. Over 1000 cases and books on the subject, yet birthers want to cling onto a fictional third citizen.
Quote:
The only U.S. Supreme Court case that even mentions what a natural born citizen is in the ruling is Minor v. Happersett:Hence, the U.S. State Department's casting of doubt on whether anyone born a foreign citizen is Constitutionally eligible to be President.
the State department doesn't make that decision (again Congress and the Electoral colleges does and any challenges, then the US Supreme court does)
And Minor was about voters rights for a woman; the court distinctly stated that they weren't going to address how one obtains citizenship because Minor's citizenship wasn't in question: They already knew that she was a citizen because she was born one.
Quote:
The census isn't even completed by the individual. People went door to door asking questions of who knows who and filling in blanks.
Speculation on your part. I for one believe that the Census was filled out by his father.
Unless you can prove otherwise, you're just making an accusation of wrong doing with no support.
Quote:
The earlier-filed WWI Draft Registration contains much more information than the census. Look it up.
and how many draft cards are often not filled out correctly because the person was too young (and wanted to serve). Many
Look up his Census. clearly states he wasn't a citizen but an Alien in 1920. The draft card doesn't check on the validity of a persons' citizenship (since foreigners could serve in the military). The Census does since it goes to determining political representation based on population (legal citizens who are registered to vote).
Quote:
No, he didn't bring it up because he didn't know about that. Neither did anyone else.
so unknown that a well known newspaper proudly stated that Arthur was an Irish man? (before he was going for the presidency?)
Quote:
PRESIDENT ARTHUR’S MESSAGE SEVERELY CRITICIZED BY
A ST. PETERSBURG JOURNAL-EXCEPTION TAKEN TO
THE CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN RUSSIA.
(By cable to the Herald.) London, December 12, 1881.
…Arthur even refrains from making comments
on English home affairs–the Irish rebellion, for instance,
which is agitating millions of American citizens, who are
also born Irishmen like the President.
Page 88
And A.P. Hinman knew of Arthur's parentage since HE quoted the damn journal in his book.
AP Hinman wrote to Senator Bayard questioning Arthur's citizenship, and this was the Senator's reply:
Quote:
Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution
and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of
the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child
attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
such minor.
Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD.
Page 89.
He was Arthur's fiercest critic and HE knew that Arthur's father was naturalized AFTER he was born.
Quote:
Pop quiz... which part of the Constitutional requirement did Thomas Jefferson become eligible under?
Pop quiz, when was the Constitution ratified? Thomas Jefferson became a Naturalized French Citizen after its ratification.
Quote:
And why is it that he would remain eligible regardless of any subsequent citizenship status?
And why wouldn't Obama, who earned dual citizenship at birth (not by his hand, but because of his father) differ from Thomas Jefferson who got dual citizenship by HIS choice, yet TJ was eligible, but Obama is not (even though Obama lost his British Citizenship because he didn't affirm it when he turned 21)?
great! please give a link or some other evidence. if it was more than a week before the 2008 election you'd be the first ( beating out leo denofrio )
Quote:
....nobody cares what I have to say, but you.
what about your mom?
Quote:
You find this topic so fascinating it consumes you day n night huh?
i wouldn't say consumes but i've definitely got an ample serving of obsession.
Quote:
No other subjects to grab your attention!
as far as politics go.....not to the extent that bitherism does.
Quote:
Why do you hate birthers so much,....
i don't. is there anything i've posted that you consider hateful?
Quote:
Perhaps the threat is to you rewriting the interpretation of the Constitution
i've yet to give any personal interpretation of the constitution. i've quoted others.
Quote:
We aren't going anywhere.
ain't that the truth.
Quote:
I wait to see what Arpaio comes up with. I don't think he can be bought.
it's coming up on six weeks since arpaio put the cold case posse on an inquiry to see if there was enough evidence for an investigation. still no word from the sheriff on something that should have taken a couple work days. i don't think sheriff joe is going to give you your investigation. sorry claud.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was very well known before Chester was considering the run for the US. His opponent wanted to cast doubt on WHERE he was born, not whom to he was born to.
