Official INS Documents: Native Born Does Not Equal Natural Born!

Hmm…  No wonder Obama’s defunct website “fightthesmears” (now, Attack Waaaatch!!! ) claimed only that Obama was a “native citizen of the United States” and not a natural born citizen:

The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born.
NaturalBornCitizen.wordpress.com – Leo Donofrio

I was just made privy to a very important piece of research I had not previously been aware of. It comes by way of a comment forwarded to me by the author of the h2ooflife blog:

“I had presumed that the idiom “natural born citizen” appeared nowhere in U.S. Law other than A2S1C5, but I found it in administrative law and it is contrasted with native and naturalized citizenship. I’ve never seen any mention of this fact before and wonder how many are aware of it in the ineligibility camp. Here’s the quotes:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html

He then quoted two provisions from the link provided, but there’s actually three at the official INS “.gov” site which establish official recognition by the federal government that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated. When you visit the suggested link to the Immigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”

Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:

“The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…” (Emphasis added.)

Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:

“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.

The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.” (Emphasis added.)

And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:

“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.” (Emphasis added.)

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48438.html

Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status.

The INS includes the following explanation of Interpretations:

“Interpretations were created to supplement and clarify the provisions of the statute and regulations as interpreted by the courts. These materials usually are not included in the regulations because they deal generally with procedural matters and do not deal directly with application and benefit requirements. They are still a useful tool to help you understand how the DHS Bureaus performs their different immigration services and enforcement functions. Users of the Operation Instructions and Interpretations should always consult the relevant regulations and manuals in conjunction with these materials. As the DHS Bureaus have grown, the trend has been towards inclusion of more materials in the regulations and field manuals, and the Operations Instructions and Interpretations have been updated less frequently.”

I am rather rocked by this find, having never seen it before, and it certainly comes to the attention of the nation at a critical moment […]

Read the rest of this article by CLICKING HERE

Explore posts in the same categories: Conspiracy Theories, immigration, Obama Sucks, politics, U.S. Constitution

10 Comments on “Official INS Documents: Native Born Does Not Equal Natural Born!”

  1. Ellen1 Says:

    As late as WWI American men who registered for the draft were asked whether or not they were US citizens. Then, if they were, they were asked whether they were Natural Born or naturalized. If Natural Born referred to the parents there would have had to have been three categories: Naturalized, native born to foreign parents and Natural Born. But there were only two.

    More importantly, what applies is the meaning of Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written in America (not Switzerland), and no quotation from a writer of the Constitution or other American leader at the time can be found using Natural Born to refer to parents. They only used it the same way that it was used in the common law, to refer to the PLACE of birth.

    Here is an actual example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the US Constitution was written:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”


    • How nice of you to drop by, Ellen1. Yes, I know all about you and have been reading your comments on other websites for quite some time. Still engaged in Obama fellatio, I see. How much is he paying you?

      But, be that as it may, you are in error about the founding fathers solely using your definition of “natural born.”

      John Adams would also beg to differ with you. His personal copy of Cunningham’s “A New and Complete Law Dictionary” (1771) Vol I (page 96 of the pdf, 3rd column, 3rd paragraph from the bottom), as well as his personal copy of Bacon’s “A New Abridgment of the Law” Vol. I (pg 77), both have this to say about natural born:

      “All those are natural born subjects whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our King, and whose place of birth was within his dominions.”

      Notice, there are not one, but TWO requirements mentioned for Natural Born status: Place of birth AND citizen parents (plural).

      Why is this important? Because the current Supreme Court uses both of these legal dictionaries when attempting to ascertain the original intent of Our Founding Fathers.

      In the recent D.C. vs. Heller decision, Justice Scalia, in writing the opinion of the court and attempting to determine original intent concerning the right to bear arms, said of Cunningham’s law dictionary:

      “Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771);”

      That’s a pretty glowing review Justice Scalia gives it, and if the question of what exactly the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind with the “natural born” clause ever reaches the Supreme Court, you can rest assured that Cunningham’s 1771 legal dictionary will be consulted—as will Bacon’s law book; which has also been cited by the current U.S. Supreme Court in PLIVA, INC. v. MENSING (Justice Thomas writing the Opinion for the Court) and, DWAYNE GILES, PETITIONER v. CALIFORNIA (Justice Scalia writing the Opinion for the Court).

      Bottom line, if the current SCOTUS must rule on a definition for Natural Born, they’ll be looking quite closely at those law books owned by Adams in an effort to determine original intent.

      You, on the other hand, are guilty of hyperfocusing on one sole definition just to support your belief. I, on the other hand, acknowledge your Blackstone commentary, but do not consider it to be the DEFINITIVE, SOLE definition of natural born as known to the Framers. There is also Vattel to consider…

      Ergo, unlike you, I’m pretty open-minded to the various flavors defining a Natural Born citizen in the late 1700’s and am not locked into any ONE definition.

      Now, all that being said, it’s not the definition of Natural Born that is important, it is the “Original Intent.” And, what was the Original Intent of the Framers? To help ensure that the President was free from foreign influences. Somehow, I don’t think “a Native Citizen of the United States of America” born with dual citizenship—and, has demonstrated loyalty to his Kenyan heritage by actively campaigning for Odinga—fits in with what the Framers envisioned for the Office of the President.

      Cheers

      P.S. – Since I am well aware of your propensity to prattle on and on concerning your narrow-minded interpretation of Natural Born, don’t be surprised if I suddenly ban you in the interest of our readers for being such a bore. Hey, this isn’t a Democracy, it’s a Republic. Get over it.

  2. Ellen1 Says:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

  3. Ellen1 Says:

    John Adams, like Alexander Hamilton, used the term Natural Born Citizen to refer ONLY to the place of birth in all of his writings, and there is actually two drafts of a treaty between Britain and the USA which were proposed by Adams, Ben Franklin and John Jay, in which an American citizen visiting Britain was to receive all the rights of a Natural Born British subject and a British subject visiting the USA was to receive all the rights of a Natural Born Citizen.

    Obviously Natural Born means exactly the same thing to the Americans as to the British, and under common law the term Natural Born for 300 years had referred to the PLACE of birth.

    Here is what Blackstone said about Natural Born:

    “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

    (And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

    And was that the way that the phrase Natural Born was used in America too? Yes. How do we know? Because we cannot find a single American leader who used the phrase the way that Vattel did, and many used it the way that Blackstone did, referring to the place of birth–not the parents.

    Here is an actual example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth, not to the parents.

    And here is how it was used in 1829:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    And, of course, that is the way that it was used in the Wong Kim Ark case too, which ruled (six to two, one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law, and that it refers to the place of birth, and that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born.

    What is a Natural Born Citizen? A citizen who was Natural Born, meaning one who was not naturalized.

  4. Ellen1 Says:

    Re: “under the actual obedience of our King, and whose place of birth was within his dominions.”

    Yes. That means everyone who was in the kingdom and neither actually fighting against the king nor a foreign diplomat, who was not required to obey the king. Everyone else, of course, was required to obey the king, meaning under actual obedience to the king.

    That is why Blackstone wrote:

    “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

    (And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats, AND, I forgot earlier, foreign invaders.)

    That is why Meese had this in his book:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    Notice the exceptions for enemy aliens and foreign diplomats. Those were the only exceptions. The children of everyone else, even people who were only visiting for a short time, were Natural Born.


    • Yawn. Banned.

      Can’t say I didn’t warn you.

      Cheers

      • tgusa Says:

        Many Americans suspect that Barry used a foreign identity to gain access to and special treatment within US colleges. No one hides records like these unless they have a reason. Barry’s records are like a leaky dam and leftists can only hold back the flood for so long. We are not going away so leftists had better be vigilant. Barry may as well be the man from the moon. It is a fundamental difference in ideologies and that’s ok but lets not pretend that it is something else.

        ADS and the frothing hatred brought on by Bush forced leftists to nominate a fraud. The quest to keep a fraud in office has increased the American derangement syndrome. Barry is only the tip of the iceberg. Since his election leftists have come out of the closet with their view of the rest of us. I hope they keep it up because I don’t really like leftists at all. Yes, I support the insanity of the left. I have to give leftists credit at least they have decided to come out of the closet instead of hiding behind school children.

        The entire premise of bringing Barrys dad over to America to attend college was to familiarize him with American ideals and values in the hope that he would return home and spread those values but it didn’t work did it? I would wager that at the time that Barrys father was brought over here to attend college that there were a number of natural born and native Hawaiian Americans that could have taken that slot.

      • tgusa Says:

        Some Americans and especially the young have no understanding of the backdrop of this time period. They cannot understand nor comprehend the 40 year cold war as they did not live it. The cold war was never all that cold and certainly we begin to realize that the cold war is not over. I don’t know who came up with that name to begin with, some idiot, probably.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 189 other followers

%d bloggers like this: