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.
You STLL fail to comprehend. Native born citizens can sometimes but not always be natural born citizens. To wit:
"native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."
You have the concept, but your facts are backwards. You are at least now fully conceding that the "or" is not mutually exclusive. That is what DC and have been telling for two days. You appear to finally be convinced.
But you have also in that way completely abandoned the argument on which you have depended for the last two days. Since the two terms overlap, the USCIS rules are officially irrelevant to Constitutional eligibility for the Presidency and useless to the birther argument.
As to having the facts backward, native born is the subset, and natural born is the superset, not the other way around. Natural born citizens can sometimes but not always be native born citizens. The converse is not true.
Under which circumstance(s) would USCIS restore native born citizen status instead of natural born citizen status to a native-born citizen woman?
Never.
Restoring native born status always also restores natural born status. The converse is not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
USCIS restores either one or the other, "whichever existed prior to the loss."
This is a another lie. Here is the USCIS statement:
"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 (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."
The word "either" (which you underlined above) can be found nowhere in the rule. The phrase " either one or the other" is likewise completely absent.
You really, really, really have to stop lying about what the USCIS rules say.
And it does not say what you claim it says. You know that it does not, hence your refusal to quote and link to the evidence that would show otherwise. Ergo, your claims are lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The fact that you are too stupid to comprehend the factual information posted by USCIS is on you, not me.
It does not require any magical powers of comprehension to demonstrate that they objectively do not say what you claim they say. Ergo, your claims are lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Calling someone a liar when they are not is a violation of this forum's TOS.
Calling a lie a lie is not.And you certainly don't want to go there after having been caught editing your posts after they were responded to, lying about it, and then accusing the responder of being the one one who lied. Remember... that is not a "he said, she said" circumstance. Multiple posters caught you in the act, and the Mods have access to the technical details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Retract your post.
It would be immoral to retract a post that is true.
When would a native-born citizen not be considered a natural-born citizen?
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.
Native born citizens can sometimes but not always be natural born citizens. To wit: 