[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Five Women Soon To Die In 1928

How Trump Can Lose The Debate

Tucker Carlson Savagely Dismantles ‘Dumb’ and ‘Stupid’ Far-Left Reporter at Australian Freedom Conference

James Clapper, Mr. October Surprise: How Obama's Intel Czar Rigged 2016 And 2020 Debates Against Trump

Biden Campaign Balks Wont Commit to Drug Test

S-500 Prometheus: Designed To Kill Stealth Jets, ICBMs

The US military chases shiny new things and the ranks suffer

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Now in the Med, USS Theodore Roosevelt Heads to the Middle East

Lefties losing it: Rita Panahi mocks Democrat judge acting like a ‘confused simpleton’

4um Now Offers New Moonlight Skin

Almost a Year After Disastrous Fire, Residents of Lahaina in Hawaii Are Still Fighting for Chance to Rebuild

Two NASA Astronauts Stuck in Space Indefinitely as Boeing Flounders

GOP Announces They Will ARREST Biden AG Garland Citing Inherent Contempt Powers & Double Standard

The Battle that Hitler Never Expected

BREAKING NEWS: Tulsi Gabbard Outright Accuses Democratic Leadership Of 'Targeting' Christians

Ford Recalling More Than 550,000 Trucks Due to Transmission Problem

Netanyahu's ultimatums to the US (Nuclear Weapons)

00+ Illegal Aliens Have Been Brought Into U.S. By ISIS-Affiliated Human Smuggling Network:

He Turns Into A Stuttering Mess Without 'The Juice'

Greenwashing Kamala Harris: How The Veep Casts Herself As An Environmental Justice Crusader

Rep. Lauren Boebert Wins Packed Primary After Switching Districts

Hezbollah wins if it does not lose; Israel loses if it does not win.

Israel Funneled MILLIONS Into Buying Off Congress and Elite US Universities

HOUTHIS RELEASED A MUSIC VIDEO HUMILIATING ZIONISTS

Paul Joseph Watson ABSOLUTELY REVOLTING

Unveiling Plant Consciousness and Intelligence

Understanding Cancer

Global PV installations may hit 660 GW in 2024, says Bernreuter Research

FBI Wants 20 Years To Produce Records On Its Involvement W/ OKC Bombing

Trudeau Has LOST The BIGGEST Election


Miscellaneous
See other Miscellaneous Articles

Title: The Actual US Citizen By Birth Law
Source: United States Code Title 8 Chapter 12
URL Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec ... i/sections/section%5F1401.html
Published: Mar 22, 2009
Author: US Congress
Post Date: 2009-03-22 19:43:01 by war
Keywords: None
Views: 1741
Comments: 62

United States Code
TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
PART I - NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION

U.S. Code as of: 01/03/05

Section 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All Birfers (#0)

Notice that the law does not require dual US parentage for citizenship by birth nor does it bifurcates citizen by birth into "natural born" and "citizen".

war  posted on  2009-03-22   19:45:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: war (#1)

The code that applies is the code that was in effect when Obama was born. Not the 05 code.


"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life." — Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT Professor of Meteorology

farmfriend  posted on  2009-03-22   19:58:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: war (#1)

I hope you didn't actually think you were going to win this argument.

Facts are, of course, irrelevant.

Your statute listing is pretty good but not comprehensive. It doesn't include the category known as American nationals, something I didn't even know existed before the Birther controvery. I heard about it when reading the differences between natural-born and birthright citizenship as opposed to ordinary citizenship and naturalized citizenship. Also, there is an inconsistent standard for being a citizen depending on where and when you were born overseas. There are also relevant court cases and longstanding precedents not in the statutes.

We Americans like our goverment Real Big and Real Stupid. Our citizenship laws are consistent with that.

TooConservative  posted on  2009-03-22   20:01:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: farmfriend (#2)

The code that applies is the code that was in effect when Obama was born. Not the 05 code.

Don't point out the obvious, it's over his head, lol.

litus  posted on  2009-03-22   20:01:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: litus (#4)

Actually, when they change the citizenship statutes, they aren't consistent about retroactivity. Sometimes it is retroactive, sometimes it isn't.

TooConservative  posted on  2009-03-22   20:07:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: farmfriend (#2)

The code that applies is the code that was in effect when Obama was born. Not the 05 code.

Most of the above law has been in effect since at least the 1940's, doof. And the actual section "a" part of the law, that language goes back to the original mid 19th century Civil Rights Acts and as far back as 1824 in McCreery v. Somerville, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 354 (1824) the SCOTUS determined that children born in the state of an alien were native-born citizens of the United States.

A bit of research may have stopped youn from being stupid but it's pick 'em as to whether it actually would have.

war  posted on  2009-03-22   20:09:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: TooConservative (#3)

Your statute listing is pretty good but not comprehensive. It doesn't include the category known as American nationals, something I didn't even know existed before the Birther controvery.

Post its existence in US law.

Thanks.

war  posted on  2009-03-22   20:10:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: war, all (#0)

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Correct.

This baby illegal alien felon should be deported along with his/her illegal alien felon parents.

If parents didn't get here legally, neither did the womb-load.

Iran Truth Now!

Lod  posted on  2009-03-22   20:17:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: lodwick (#8)

This baby illegal alien felon should be deported along with his/her illegal alien felon parents.

Wha....huh?

war  posted on  2009-03-22   20:21:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: war (#7)

Post its existence in US law.

You can find it at Google Books: Pacific Nations and Territories by Reilly Ridgell, Hawaii Pacific Region Educational Laboratory Honolulu.

Of course, this could be another evil plot by Hawaiian supremacists so take it all with a grain of salt.

American nationals can only be American Samoans who have not applied for citizenship.

You should also read some of the info at Wikipedia: Birthright Citizenship. Lots of info and background, laws and court cases for further reading.

TooConservative  posted on  2009-03-22   20:27:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: war (#9)

If the parents are not here legally, neither are any children that came with them, in or out of the womb.

They are all here outside the law, and should be immediately deported.

Iran Truth Now!

Lod  posted on  2009-03-22   20:31:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: TooConservative (#10)

You can find it at Google Books: Pacific Nations and Territories by Reilly Ridgell, Hawaii Pacific Region Educational Laboratory Honolulu.

Which is what Title and Chapter of the US code?

war  posted on  2009-03-22   20:34:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: TooConservative (#10)

You should also read some of the info at Wikipedia: Birthright Citizenship. Lots of info and background, laws and court cases for further reading.

Over the last year I have read the equivalent of Story's Commentaries... on US citizenhip law. I have yet to find anything that bifurcates USA citizen by birth into a catagory separate from natural born.

war  posted on  2009-03-22   20:36:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: lodwick (#11)

If the parents are not here legally

Obama's mom was natural born and his father was here on visa. IIRC, their marriage at the time made him, BArack Sr - eligible for citizenship.

war  posted on  2009-03-22   20:37:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: war (#12)

Which is what Title and Chapter of the US code?

Not everything in the body of American law is written in statute.

There are court cases and their precedents going back to the Founders and to the English common law. And there are treaties, as with American Samoa. Those are not found in mere statute listings.

Given your claim to extensive reading on citizenship issues, I find it difficult to believe this is the first time you've encountered non-statutory citizenship court decisions or this treaty issue with the Samoans.

There are quite a few court cases involving the territorial islanders and American Indians that are relevant to citizenship.

TooConservative  posted on  2009-03-22   20:48:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: war (#13)

Over the last year I have read the equivalent of Story's Commentaries... on US citizenhip law.

What do you mean, the "equivalent"?

Either you have read Story's 1833 book or not. There is no "equivalent". Regardless, there have been many changes to citizenship since that time.

TooConservative  posted on  2009-03-22   20:53:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: war (#13)

You might review:

TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I, § 1408.

All citizens are nationals. But American Samoans are nationals without being citizens by birth. You can see there is a place on your passport to allow for exactly this situtation.

Just ask The Rock, a Samoan. So are some other pro wrasslers and some NFL guys.

Samoans are an interesting bunch of islanders.

TooConservative  posted on  2009-03-22   21:16:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: war (#0)

We have all heard of citizenship issues for McStain and Yomama and that Nicaraguan who has been the Socialist candidate in the last two elections.

However, no one ever mentioned Bill Richardson. I saw him describe on TV how he was born as a citizen. He said his father sent his mother to live in America when she was about six months pregnant just so he could be born an American citizen. A few weeks after he was born, she returned with baby Bill to Mexico.

This brings to mind a famous court case:


In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
  • is born in the United States
  • of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
  • whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
  • whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.


It would appear to me to be black-letter law that Richardson is ineligible, by his own admission, to become president.

Both Richardson and the Nicaraguan socialist should have been challenged in every state for eligibility.

TooConservative  posted on  2009-03-22   21:32:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: farmfriend, war (#2)

The code that applies is the code that was in effect when Obama was born. Not the 05 code.

American Samoa and Swain's Island are considered "Outlying possessions of the United States" and are not territory of the United States for citizenship purposes under the 14th Amendment. They are inside the jurisdiction and outside the territory of the United States, a status akin to that of the Canal Zone in 1936.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 (aka the McCarran-Walter Act) was applicable at the time of Obama's birth.

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title3 Chapter1 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title3 Chapter1 0x2f551e6371

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Fiction & Literature Other literature university

nolu_chan  posted on  2009-03-22   22:01:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: nolu_chan (#19)

So, is 44 legal, or not? In your opinion?

Thanks.

Iran Truth Now!

Lod  posted on  2009-03-22   22:08:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: lodwick (#8)

This baby illegal alien felon should be deported along with his/her illegal alien felon parents.

If parents didn't get here legally, neither did the womb-load.

The sperm donor--assuming that baby daddy is who they insist he was--is dead. So is the ho that carried the little felon.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-03-22   22:22:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: nolu_chan (#19)

Where do the Feds get the power to buy and run private companies? I can't find that power anywhere.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-03-22   22:29:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: war (#14) (Edited)

their marriage at the time made him, BArack Sr - eligible for citizenship.

I'm sorry, but that answer is incorrect. Thank you for playing.

The correct answer is "eligible for permanent residency" - but still does not automatically grant it (it must be applied for and can be denied).

Citizenship comes after meeting qualifications including residency and must be applied for AFTER permanent residency and it can be denied.

Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
Depression is when you lose your job.
Recovery is when Obama loses his job.

Atlas is now shrugging.

mirage  posted on  2009-03-22   22:51:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: TooConservative (#5)

Actually, when they change the citizenship statutes, they aren't consistent about retroactivity. Sometimes it is retroactive, sometimes it isn't.

That may be so; otoh, each state determines their own requirements. What goes in Hawaii isn't the same as in Arizona. And whatever the laws are in Hawaii, from what I read, have only taken effect fairly recently. Back around the time Obama was born...there were also statehood issues, so it's possible the laws then were vastly different than they are now.

litus  posted on  2009-03-23   0:33:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: litus (#24)

The Fourteenth Amendment is not considered subject to any state's laws.

I do grasp your point but I don't think you can find much in the way of differences between states on citizenship since a few years after the War Against Southern Independence.

TooConservative  posted on  2009-03-23   2:06:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: TooConservative (#25)

Hawaii was not a state until 1959. Whatever laws were in place prior to statehood were different; some may have been grandfathered as part of whatever agreements were arrived between the US and Hawaii.

"Until legislation shall be enacted extending the United States customs laws and regulations to the Hawaiian Islands the existing customs relations of the Hawaiian Islands with the United States and other countries shall remain unchanged."

Joint Resolution Annexing Hawaii to the United States Approved July 7th, 1898.

litus  posted on  2009-03-23   2:13:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: TooConservative (#25)

Until Congress shall provide for the government of such islands all the civil, judicial, and military powers exercised by the officers of the existing government in said islands shall be vested in such person or persons and shall be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States shall direct

http://www.hookele.com/non-hawaiians/newlands.html

litus  posted on  2009-03-23   2:15:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: litus (#26)

Ah, you make a good point.

Hawaii came late to statehood/citizenship.

If you check, all the other U.S. island possessions came earlier though the attempt by Congress to annex the Filipinos failed to pass. I've never studied it that much but I suspect trying to swallow such a huge overseas colony was more than Congress could tolerate. It's not some dinky island with a few thousand people on it and it was very near some possibly hostile powers like Japan proved itself to be.

At any rate, the Usurper is generally considered to have been born after Hawaii became a state.

TooConservative  posted on  2009-03-23   2:51:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: lodwick (#20)

So, is 44 legal, or not? In your opinion?

As just an opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.

The publicly available information is insufficient to prove, or disprove, his status.

nolu_chan  posted on  2009-03-23   6:10:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Old Friend (#22)

Where do the Feds get the power to buy and run private companies? I can't find that power anywhere.

Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, and the Radical Republicans of the WBTS era. The all-powerful executive created by Lincoln was -- all powerful. The power was established from the point of a gun, and given the forms of law. The existing federal union was effectively destroyed and replaced with a national union.

nolu_chan  posted on  2009-03-23   6:23:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: litus, TooConservative (#24)

[TooConservative #5] Actually, when they change the citizenship statutes, they aren't consistent about retroactivity. Sometimes it is retroactive, sometimes it isn't.

[litus #24] That may be so; otoh, each state determines their own requirements.

U.S. Const., Amdt 14: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

The amendment took away the power of a state to determine who was, or was not, a citizen of a state. The effect was to smash the idea of state sovereignty.

Retroactivity would not seem to affect natural-born citizen status. If not born a citizen, a law with retroactive effect would bestow citizenship but could not make someone a citizen at birth. Opinions may vary.

nolu_chan  posted on  2009-03-23   6:34:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: TooConservative (#15)

There are court cases and their precedents going back to the Founders and to the English common law.

Justies have long been loathe to apply the Common Law to constitutional issues to he point of one justice observing, in a co-joined majority opinion, that there is no Constitutional common law.

And while I will stipulate that the Court has heard cases that were based in common law and thus decided in common law, I have yet to see one in which they decided a case by using common law to override statutory law.

In this case, the statute makes no bifurcation in US citizen by birth. Unless you are advocating an activist judiciary, there is no material basis for a court to do so.

war  posted on  2009-03-23   8:08:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: TooConservative (#16)

What do you mean, the "equivalent"?

"Size of..."

war  posted on  2009-03-23   8:09:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: TooConservative (#17)

All citizens are nationals. But American Samoans are nationals without being citizens by birth. You can see there is a place on your passport to allow for exactly this situtation.

Hawaii was a state in th Union at the times of Obama's birth. Your point, while midly interesting, is moot in regards to this issue.

war  posted on  2009-03-23   8:11:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: mirage (#23)

The correct answer is "eligible for permanent residency" - but still does not automatically grant it (it must be applied for and can be denied).

Citizenship comes after meeting qualifications including residency and must be applied for AFTER permanent residency and it can be denied.

You rebuttal is "he was not eligible for citizenship as he was eligible for citizenship"? "Eligible" means what to you?

war  posted on  2009-03-23   8:14:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: war, TooConservative (#32)

one justice observing, in a co-joined majority opinion, that there is no Constitutional common law.

I believe you may be thinking of Brandeis who wrote a majority opinion saying there is no Federal general common law.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/304/64.html

U.S. Supreme Court
ERIE R. CO. v. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)
304 U.S. 64

Argued Jan. 31, 1938.
Decided April 25, 1938.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

304 U.S. 64 at 78

Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. And whether the law of the state shall be declared by its Legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern. There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be local in their nature or 'general,' be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts.

nolu_chan  posted on  2009-03-23   16:26:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: nolu_chan (#36)

And Braneis occupied his seat on the Supreme Court thru blackmail.

Not hardly a man to be quoting on law.

Cynicom  posted on  2009-03-23   16:31:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: nolu_chan (#36)

nolu, I missed your reply the last time you visited; please tell us the names of the bureaucrats who have actually seen Obush's b/c?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2009-03-23   16:36:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: nolu_chan. all (#29)

The publicly available information is insufficient to prove, or disprove, his status.

Since he's the one who is withholding the information, I'll have to go with 'not legal.'

I believe his Kenyan grandmother.

But that's just my opinion.

Iran Truth Now!

Lod  posted on  2009-03-23   16:46:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: war (#35)

"Eligible" means what to you?

Eligible means that he meets all the criteria for acceptance AND the application is not able to be denied.

If there is any way that the application can be denied, then you have a person eligible to file an application, but not one that can lay claim to what the application grants.

You should know this; if its not a 'done deal' then its not set.

Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
Depression is when you lose your job.
Recovery is when Obama loses his job.

Atlas is now shrugging.

mirage  posted on  2009-03-23   21:00:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 62) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]