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.
USCIS In reference to native-born women citizens' reacquisition of citizenship: "native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."
Not all native born citizens are natural born citizens. Only some native born citizens will have the status of natural born citizen restored.
The fact that you are too stupid to comprehend the factual information posted by USCIS is on you, not me.
No. It does not. It never says anywhere that native born citizens are not also natural born citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Not all native born citizens are natural born citizens.
Yes they are. But the converse is not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Only some native born citizens will have the status of natural born citizen restored.
Wrong. 100% of the native born citizens will have their natural born status restored because the former cannot be restored without the latter. The converse is not true.
When would a native-born citizen not be considered a natural-born citizen?
That's exactly the question... More needs to be done to investigate the history of USCIS's statement, U.S. Secretaries of State citizenship decisions, federal nationality law, states' citizenship laws before there was a federal nationality law, the inaccuracy of Gray's passage in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, etc., etc.
All seem to indicate that one's parents must be citizens in order for one to acquire birthright citizenship at all, in the strictest sense, or natural born citizen status, in the most lenient.
USCIS In reference to native-born women citizens' reacquisition of citizenship:"native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."
I have highlighted in red the part that turns your partial quotation into a lie. It is not a statement that can be found anywhere in the rules. And it directly contradicts what the rules say elsewhere (see quotation below).
The USCIS absolutely does not say that in reference to native-born women. In fact, the USCIS is crystal clear that they are referring to both native and natural born women. They write:
Quote:
Under the 1936 enactment, any woman, irrespective of her race or that of her husband, who had acquired citizenship at birth within or without the United States, but who, on June 24, 1836, no longer had such status because of expatriation prior to September 22, 1922, under the conditions specified in INTERP 324.1,was restored to citizenship on June 25, 1936, if her marriage had terminated on or before that date; or upon the termination of her marriage thereafter, on a date prior to January 13, 1941.
Those born within the United States are both native and natural born. Those born without the United States are only natural born.
This is not complicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Not all native born citizens are natural born citizens. Only some native born citizens will have the status of natural born citizen restored.
The USCIS ruled never say that. They can't say that because it would not be true.
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.
Comprehension has nothing to do with it. You are claiming the USCIS rules say something that they objectively do not say.
All seem to indicate that one's parents must be citizens in order for one to acquire birthright citizenship at all, in the strictest sense, or natural born citizen status, in the most lenient.
All except for the Supreme Court decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark and the 23 subsequent cases that have used it as binding precedent.
That's exactly the question... More needs to be done to investigate the history of USCIS's statement, U.S. Secretaries of State citizenship decisions, federal nationality law, states' citizenship laws before there was a federal nationality law, the inaccuracy of Gray's passage in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, etc., etc.
All seem to indicate that one's parents must be citizens in order for one to acquire birthright citizenship at all, in the strictest sense, or natural born citizen status, in the most lenient.
I don't know why there is any need to investigate the State Department, as it is part of the Executive Branch and neither makes law nor interprets it. States, likewise, have no bearing as the courts have long upheld that the matter of national citizenship is solely a matter that the federal government can decide. And your opinion of the Wong decision is also irrelevant.
But you still haven't answered the question---Which native-born citizens would not be considered natural-born citizens?
Which native-born citizens aren't natural born citizens?
That's what needs to be determined. Based on an initial look at a lot of evidence, some of which I've posted on city-data, it would appear that those born in the U.S. but not to two U.S. citizen parents would be native born citizens if their parents were permanently domcicled in the U.S. at the time of their birth, but would not be natural born citizens.
The belief currently held by some that all born in the U.S. are natural born citizens is an evolved belief that actually has no basis in legal fact. It is just current political policy, the negative effects of which are anchor babies with their consequent influx of immigrants short-cutting the usual immigration procedures thereby rewarding lawbreakers and penalizing those who actually adhere to immigration law, and birth tourism.
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
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.
