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: 1863
Comments: 62
United States Code 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:
TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
PART I - NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
(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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 44.
#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".
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.
Post its existence in US law. Thanks.
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.
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.
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.
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 Argued Jan. 31, 1938. Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court. 304 U.S. 64 at 78
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?
I do not know of anyone named Obush. There were two presidents named Bush but I know of no bureaucrat who has seen the birth certificate of either one of them, nor any other president or candidate. I know of no federal bureaucrat appointed and empowered to act as birth certificate czar.
#53. To: litus (#44)
The earliest appearance I have seen of your purported McCain BC is in a blog entry at the Dallas Morning News. It is attributed to Donald Lamb in Panama. He was the source of other documents produced in the case of Hollander v. McCain (dismissed). The Panama News reported in 2006 that Donald Lamb claimed Colon as his very own and notified businesses that they had to pay rent to him. His previous attempts to claim ownership of large parts of the canal zone met with the same success as his BC efforts. Lamb and his associates wound up accused of falsifying documents, usurping lands, fraud, extortion and illicit association. The Lamb document you exhibit was not provided by McCain, nor by any representative of McCain. McCain has refused to provide any birth records to the public. In Michael Dobbs' article in the Washington Post, Friday, May 2, 2008, he wrote "A senior official of the McCain campaign showed a reporter a copy of the senator's birth certificate issued by Canal Zone health authorities, recording his birth in the Coco Solo "family hospital." www.washingtonpost.com/wp...1/AR2008050103224_pf.html McCain has publicly maintained for decades that he was born on base and has not said otherwise. The Lamb documents purport that he was born in the Colon hospital in the Republic of Panama. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a U.S. Navy "family hospital." The Navy Hospital in Coco Solo was constructed in 1941. The Colon hospital was about 100 yards outside the line separating the CZ from Colon. - - - dallasmorningviewsblog.da...8/06/mccains-citizen.html McCain's citizenship still in question Dallas Morning News Blog We thought this issue was resolved, but it's now a matter for the courts, and McCain is required to defend his citizenship before a U.S. district judge. (Click on the photo to the right to view his birth certificate from Panama -- courtesy of Don Lamb in Panama.) dallasmorningviewsblog.da...s.com/mccain%20birth.html [photo] - - - moritzlaw.osu.edu/electio...ion/hollanderv.mccain.php Hollander v. McCain - - - Birth Certificate documentation as filed by Hollander, provided by Donald Lynn Lamb. moritzlaw.osu.edu/electio...in-SurreplyEx-7-21-08.pdf - - - www.obamaconspiracy.org/2...certificate-is-a-forgery/ Questioned authencity of documents provided by Donald Lynn Lamb. One note: Dr. Conspiracy asserts "McCain’s mother confirmed where he was born." I hve heard McCain's mother (on video) speak of whiskey bottles set up in the nearby club, but the Colon hospital was nearby. The Coco Solo base hospital was not constructed until 1941. - - - www.thepanamanews.com/pn/...e_02/business_briefs.html The Panama News Donald Lamb claims Colon It’s a matter of historical fact that a number of shareholders were cheated in the financial maneuvers by which the United States government acquired the French canal company and the Panama Railroad in the early years of the 20th century. The smaller shareholders in these two enterprises in many cases received nothing, and records were then destroyed. In recent years one Donald Lamb has come along, purporting to represent shareholders in the old Panama Railroad and on that basis claiming title to vast parts of the former Canal Zone and filing many nuisance suits that in the long run have not prospered in Panama’s courts. One major reason for Lamb’s notable lack of success is that the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties had as their main subject matter the ownership of the former Canal Zone and arguably supersedes all prior laws and assertions of legal rights with respect to the real estate. But Lamb persists, and recently he’s been serving businesses in Colon with notices that the Panama Railroad’s lease of what is now the city has expired and that people there now have to start paying rent to him. This is a bit different than the other cases, in that ownership of the city of Colon was not at issue in the treaties. - - - www.thepanamanews.com/pn/...issue_02/news_briefs.html The Panama News Colon property owners file criminal charges against Lamb The Urban Property Chamber of Colon, a group of business and land owners in the Atlantic side province, has filed criminal charges against Donald Lamb and several of his associates. Lamb heads a group of individuals who claim to own stock in the old Panama Railroad Company, which was taken over by the US government in the early part of the 20th century as part of the construction of the Panama Canal, and which was transferred to Panama under the 1977 Carter-Torrijos Treaties. Lamb and his followers claim that the 1904 and 1977 transfers were illegal and that they thus own vast stretches of property in the former Canal Zone. They have asserted their claims to such real estate as the ports of Cristobal and Coco Solo Norte by filing numerous lawsuits and registering claims to many properties. While in a few cases Lamb and his followers have prevailed in lower courts, such favorable judgments have been overruled on appeal. Last year, in response to Lamb's activities, the Supreme Court ordered the Registro Civil to eliminate all deeds in the former Canal Zone that do not derive from ARI's master deed. One provision of the controversial concession for Colon's multi-modal transport center requires the Panamanian government to indemnify the Consorcio San Lorenzo for any legal problems that Lamb's claims cause for the development. Now attorney Alberto Navarro has begun a legal counter-offensive on behalf of the Urban Property Chamber, accusing Lamb and his associates of falsifying documents, usurping lands, fraud, extortion and illicit association in their attempts to get money or land titles from chamber members Attia & Attia, Colon 2000, Rada SA, Nirzvi SA, Oficina Quijano, Victor Lum Lee and the Panama Canal Railway Company. - - -
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: war (#1)
#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.
#10. To: war (#7)
Post its existence in US law.
#12. To: TooConservative (#10)
You can find it at Google Books: Pacific Nations and Territories by Reilly Ridgell, Hawaii Pacific Region Educational Laboratory Honolulu.
#15. To: war (#12)
Which is what Title and Chapter of the US code?
#32. To: TooConservative (#15)
There are court cases and their precedents going back to the Founders and to the English common law.
#36. To: war, TooConservative (#32)
one justice observing, in a co-joined majority opinion, that there is no Constitutional common law.
ERIE R. CO. v. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)
304 U.S. 64
Decided April 25, 1938. 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.
#38. To: nolu_chan (#36)
#42. To: Jethro Tull (#38)
please tell us the names of the bureaucrats who have actually seen Obush's b/c?
#44. To: nolu_chan (#42)
nor any other president or candidate.
Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!
Replies to Comment # 44.
4:14 PM Fri, Jun 20, 2008
Tod Robberson
Vo. 12, No. 2
Jan. 22 - Feb. 4, 2006
Vol. 8, No. 2.
Jan. 26 - Feb. 8, 2002
End Trace Mode for Comment # 44.