IF the United States Supreme Court Rules Obama Is Ineligible To Be POTUS (lawyers, insurance)
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.
finally you link to it, and you failedto read the bill, only parts of it (that you think apply):
Information Center - Child Citizenship Act (http://eaci.com/info-center/child-citizenship.htm - broken link)
The child would be a NATURALIZED citizen.
the child would STILL need to go through the motions of nautralization. A 2 year old cannot be able to take the oath, they'd have to wait until they are able to speak on their own to do so. So no, they do not become automatic citizens when they are adopted.
A child who is adopted at an older age, also doesn't become an automatic citizen. he/She still must go through the naturalization process.
What part of this dont you understand?
The retroactive conferral of citizenship on adopted children would create differences between adopted children and other persons who acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization.
They are not NATURALIZED, they are DIFFERENT
And your quote says that it cant place overseas, no one said it could.. A baby also cant consent to being adopted but it happens everyday, doesnt it?
H.R. 2883 would amend the current law regarding the acquisition of citizenship by the adopted children of U.S. citizen parents. The bill would automatically extend citizenship to the adopted alien child of a U.S. citizen in the following circumstances:
Its obvious you didn't read the actual bill in its final. you linked to a discussion of the bill, not the ACTUAL text of the bill
This site explains it quite well, and it does not support your claim:
Information Center - Child Citizenship Act (http://eaci.com/info-center/child-citizenship.htm - broken link)
In part this section as it pretty much destroys your claim:
Quote:
[SIZE=2]Is Automatic Citizenship Provided for Children (Including Adopted Children) Born and Residing Outside the United States?
In order for a child born and residing outside the United States to acquire citizenship, the United States citizen parent must apply for naturalization on behalf of the child. The naturalization process for such a child cannot take place overseas. The child will need to be in the United State temporarily to complete naturalization processing and take the oath of allegiance.
To be eligible, a child must meet the definition of “child” for naturalization purposes under immigration law[SIZE=1]3[/SIZE], and must also meet the following requirements:
The child has at least one U.S. citizen parent (by birth or naturalization);
The U.S. citizen parent has been physically present in the United States for at least five years, at least two of which were after the age of 14 – or the United States citizen parent has a citizen parent who has been physically present in the United States for at least five years, at least two of which were after the age of 14;
The child is under 18 years of age;
The child is residing outside the United States in the legal and physical custody of the United States citizen parent;
The child is temporarily present in the United States – having entered the United States lawfully and maintaining lawful status in the United States;
An adopted child meets the requirements applicable to adopted children under immigration law[SIZE=1]4[/SIZE];
If the naturalization application is approved, the child must take the same oath of allegiance administered to adult naturalization applicants. If the child is too young to understand the oath, INS may waive the oath requirement.
[/SIZE]
It essentially says, that no, the child does NOT obtain automatic citizenship through adoption. That the parent MUST go through the naturalization process on behalf of the child. And that the CHILD must take the oath in order to become a citizen.
Can a 2 year old do this?
Quote:
You dont know what the hell you are talking about. Call your cousin and maybe they can educate you on something
As proven through the actual law and bill, the only one who does not know what he/she is talking about is you. Her child can't complete the naturalization process since he is only a little more than a year old. Can a 1 year old recite the Oath?
Quote:
They are NOT the same.. its ANOTHER CLASS of citizens
that was the DISCUSSION of what the bill proposes. In the end the child becomes a NATURALIZED citizen.
The retroactive conferral of citizenship on adopted children would create differences between adopted children and other persons who acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization.
Please tell us where in this bill that is says this:
You're resting your entire ARGUMENt on a DISCUSSION of the bill NOT the FINAL TEXT of the bill.
do YOU know the difference? Have you EVER had any class on US History?
Quote:
They are not NATURALIZED, they are DIFFERENT
wrong. the Bill specifically states that they go through a naturalization process. Unless you've been in a coma since 3rd grade, naturalization is the process by which a foreign person obtains citizenship. They become naturalized.
did you miss the part where said child must take the oath?
Tell me how a 2 year old can recite oath? The INS may waive it, but they are not required to do so. They may decide that the child must take the oath.
Quote:
And your quote says that it cant place overseas, no one said it could.. A baby also cant consent to being adopted but it happens everyday, doesnt it?
Threads like this test my faith. I am stronger for it.
Thank you.
As the classics put it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmund Blackadder
It is said that civilised man seeks out good and intelligent company, so that, through learned discourse, he may rise above the savage and closer to God. Personally, however, I like to start the day with a total d*ckhead to remind me I'm best.
Hopefully, a pack of five star leaders, the really old folks in the Pentagon will "grow a pair" and handcuff BO before we even get a reply from the S. Court. They sure have sound, Constitutional authority to do so.
In fact, there was as the case was about Constitutional rights. Hence, SCOTUS declaring:Minor v. Happersett
Tsk, tsk, tsk... selective quotations are a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty.
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
They specifically addressed that Wong was born a citizen, since through the Chinese Exclusion Act, no CHINESE could naturalize. Since there are only two (and ONLY 2 ways) to become a citizen in the US, he was found to be a natural born citizen based on the language of the 14th Amendment, by virtue of being born on US Soil.
You better read the decision again. WKA was ruled "a citizen"only, not a "natural born citizen."
Here, I'll help...
Quote:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
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.