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.
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.
So what you want is a NEW policy, creating a NEW class of citizens, native-born citizens that cannot become President.
You do realize that this NEW policy would not be retroactive? It wouldn't change President Obama from a natural-born citizen to a native-born citizen. It wouldn't change the status of anchor babies that have already been born.
then that's the law until the SCOTUS says differently or congress amends the constitution.
SCOTUS ruling is that WKA is a citizen. The Constitutional requirement is more than that. One must be a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark wasn't ruled a natural born citizen. Question asked and answered. Look it up.
SCOTUS ruling is that WKA is a citizen. The Constitutional requirement is more than that. One must be a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark wasn't ruled a natural born citizen. Question asked and answered. Look it up.
You yourself acknowledge that the current policy is that anyone born in the United States is considered a natural-born citizen. What you are wanting is to change the current policy.
So what you want is a NEW policy, creating a NEW class of citizens
How can it be a new class if it already existed? USCIS has the class of native born citizen but not natural born citizen existing as early as the early 1900's, if not earlier.
How can it be a new class if it already existed? USCIS has the class of native born citizen but not natural born citizen existing as early as the early 1900's, if not earlier.
I don't think the USCIS has a class of "native-born but not natural-born". I think the USCIS has a class of natural-born but not native-born. As has been explained previously, natural-born is the superset. Native-born is the subset.
You yourself acknowledge that the current policy is that anyone born in the United States is considered a natural-born citizen.
That's policy, not law. Therefore, it's not legally legitimate.
Quote:
What you are wanting is to change the current policy.
No, what I want is to adhere to the actual law. The 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement is quite clear. At least it was until some began to twist and bastardize it.
I can go further into why those born in the U.S, to alien parent(s) who have therefore acquired automatic foreign citizenship at birth are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. as intended by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which proceeded to pass the 14th Amendment in the Senate.
That's policy, not law. Therefore, it's not legally legitimate. No, what I want is to adhere to the actual law. The 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement is quite clear. At least it was until some began to twist and bastardize it.
I can go further into why those born in the U.S, to alien parent(s) who have therefore acquired automatic foreign citizenship at birth are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. as intended by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which proceeded to pass the 14th Amendment in the Senate.
What actual law defines a natural-born citizen and says that any native-born citizens aren't natural-born citizens?
You can go as far as you like in expressing your opinion. Your opinion of what the law says is irrelevant. It's a court's opinion of what the law says that is relevant.
I don't think the USCIS has a class of "native-born but not natural-born". I think the USCIS has a class of natural-born but not native-born.
Logic fail. If that were true, there would never be a need for a separate native born citizen distinction as native born citizenship status precludes one from Constitutional eligibility and would therefore never be restored as such unless one failed to meet the criteria required for natural born citizen status.
ETA: Note also that USCIS was specifically referring to only native-born citizens to begin with. USCIS then further classified native born citizens as native born OR natural born.
USCIS specifically states:
"native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."
One can be a native born citizen but not a natural born citizen. Hence, the OR and WHICHEVER in USCIS's statement.
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.
