Legislative History of INA § 301(g) Proves Mark Levin WRONG About Ted Cruz

This article was published by World Net Daily. It is an important legal memorandum and simplifies the constitutional questions of how statute affects terms of art in the original text:

Opinion: Leonard A. Daneman on Ted Cruz Eligibility

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/ted-cruzs-eligibility-tied-to-womens-rights-movement/

Legislative History of INA § 301(g)

The Citizenship of Ted Cruz Tied to Women’s Rights Movement

[Personal Note:   Why should I care? That is the $10 Trillion Question. If the Obama presidency had been blocked by the ‘birthers,’ perhaps our National Debt wouldn’t have doubled!

My response to Ms. Clemon’s comment summarizes the legal question: “So, the question is if the Harvard article or mine is in the public interest: Does the introduction of foreign nationality to a child who claims being a natural born citizen benefit the presidency viz Article II, or the singular citizenship of a child born of two U.S. citizens as it was from the beginning satisfy the intent of the framers?”

Here is another salient point: If the nationality of the father is inconsequential, then only the citizenship of the mother matters. After all, a child of a U.S. citizen father or alien father is eligible as long as the mother was a U.S. citizen!

How about Prof. Lawrence Tribe, who put so much weight on ‘native born’ that a child of two aliens, legal or illegal, is eligible to the presidency, just as long as they were born on U.S. soil.

Modern Americans have a ‘perception’ of Naturalization; not real knowledge. When you mention naturalization, they think of a courtroom with a U.S. flag and a line of new immigrants with their right hands raised giving the oath of allegiance.

Hopefully, after you read this article  (about 1700 words) on naturalization and repatriation of married women with children, you will understand that the framers would have never intended the child of an alien father eligible to the presidency; even if a so-called ‘citizen at birth.’ Alexander Hamilton proposed a version of Article II that specified a child ‘born a U.S. citizen,’ but John Jay insisted on a ‘natural born citizen,’ which cannot be created or changed by naturalization Law.

Ted Cruz’ citizenship through his mother was created by Naturalization Law. The 1952 statute separated him from Canadian citizenship upon moving to the U.S. at age four, and repatriated him through his mother. And so he is not eligible to run for the presidency.

Naturalization laws that gave Ted Cruz citizenship rights from birth were and still can be altered and changed, man-made. However, birth from two U.S. citizen parents is outside and independent of man-made law, and therefore a ‘natural’ born citizen.]

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

INA § 301 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.

Not all, but many legal professionals conclude that because Ted Cruz was a ‘citizen at birth,’ he is Article II eligible to the presidency.

However, at the time of the framers there were only four ways to become a citizen:

  1. You were a citizen of one of the states at the time of adoption of the  constitution
  2. You were born to a U.S. citizen father (more on the mother later)
  3. Your father naturalized while you were a minor child
  4. You naturalized after reaching the age of majority

Under both our First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 and the British Nationality Act of 1772, a child was the same foreign nationality as the father. Children were born with the father’s nationality through sanguinity, through blood, a legitimate and natural inheritance.

Now, consider this fact: That at the time of the framers and over 100-years of our history, Ted Cruz would have only become a citizen of the United States under #4 in the list above.

Based on both British and United States law, even if the mother was born a U.S. citizen, being married to a Canadian or British subject her child born in the United States would not be a U.S. citizen. And Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

So, I ask you the following:

  1. Would the framers and Article II as written and intended consider Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?
  2. Under 1930’s naturalization law, did repatriation to the United States of a mother with minor children, married to an alien father, revise Article II as written and intended? (See Intermediate Scrutiny Test)

The answer to both is ‘No.’

While naturalization law was once uncomplicated, the women’s rights movement unintentionally created a dichotomy in the legal doctrine of sanguinity, requiring an expansion of naturalization laws to deal with dual nationality at birth and repatriation.

What is Naturalization?

The Illinois Board of Elections decided that Ted Cruz was a natural born citizen. “The board distinguished between natural born and naturalized citizens, pointing out that Cruz did not have to take any steps to go through a naturalization process at some point after birth.”

By ‘process’ the board makes a common mistake, only seeing naturalization as that of an adult renouncing one citizenship (Ted Cruz renounced Canadian citizenship in 2014) and being permitted to take the Oath of Allegiance for U.S. citizenship. However, there is more to naturalization, as can be seen in the extensive body of law.

A minor’s nationality is affected by actions of parents; and which parent’s citizenship applies to the child comes under naturalization law. What happens when the child is born in another country, or to one alien parent? What happens when the child lives as one nationality, but before reaching the age of majority wishes to assume the other? This is also naturalization and includes numerous conditions and requirements as part of the legal ‘process.’

Minor vs Happersett (1875) declared, in a case involving a woman’s right to vote, it was ‘never doubted’ that the child of two U.S. citizen parents was a natural born citizen. And to this day it is still only that particular birth circumstance (even if born outside the U.S.) that produces a citizen naturally, without having to remove dual nationality of the minor with naturalization law.

The Evolution of Naturalization Law and Dual Nationality

The 14th Amendment is best-known for its ‘born in the United States’ and ‘equal protection’ clauses. However, it was written specifically for children born of freed black slaves. Because the father had no national allegiance or citizenship to confer to his children (See Dred Scott, and the 1866 Civil Rights Act) the legislature had to rely on, for the first time in U.S. naturalization law, birth on U.S. soil (jus soli).

The 19th and 20th century saw changes in the institution of marriage, racial inclusion, and legitimization of nullius fillius (children of unwed mothers) that required broader applications of sanguinity (inheritance by blood) if not a complete departure from it (1898). The application of ‘equal protection’ to sanguinity, until then only through the husband, created the previously unheard of concept of Dual Nationality.

Women’s Claims to Equal Citizenship Rights 1922-1940

Yale Law Journal Volume 123 Number 7, p. 2134-2573 ‘Illegitimate Borders: Jus Sanguinis Citizenship and the Legal Construction of Family, Race, and Nation,’ Kristin A. Collins

The reaction of some committee members to women’s claims to gender equality reveals a strong commitment to those traditional modes of regulating nationality. For example, in 1922, Richard Flournoy—then an assistant solicitor in the Department of State and later a member of the interdepartmental committee—found the idea that a married woman would maintain her American citizenship upon marriage to a foreigner “very objectionable” on the ground that it was “obviously a direct blow at the principle of family unity”—a reference to the principles of coverture[1] that resulted in women’s loss of independent civil identity upon marriage. In 1934 Congress passed a statute that gave American women the ability to transmit citizenship to their foreign-born children with no explicit racial limitations.

A Woman’s Loss of U.S. Citizenship: Laws of Coverture

Prior to modern women’s rights, when a woman married a man she assumed a subordinate legal status to that of the husband. Before today’s no-contest divorce, communal property, and intestate succession laws, inheritance laws didn’t give a woman equal rights to property; they favored the husband’s side of the family.

In the same light, if marrying an alien she lost her U.S. citizenship. So, from the time of the framers and into the 1930’s, it was understood that only a U.S. citizen husband produced U.S. citizen children, natural born through sanguinity, father and mother together.

American women who married an alien would not only lose U.S. citizenship but produce alien children (1922):

  • 369. (a) A woman who has lost her United States citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien eligible to citizenship or by reason of the loss of United State citizenship by her husband may, if eligible to citizenship and if she has not acquired any other nationality by affirmative action, be naturalized upon full and complete compliance with all requirements of the naturalization laws, with the following exceptions: . . . (Repealed by act Oct. 14, 1940)

The 19th Amendment finally extended the vote to women in 1920. The 1922 Cable Act permitted repatriation to the United States if an American woman lost citizenship by marrying a foreigner. Her children would then gain U.S. citizenship with her. Other challenges were based on the ‘equal rights clause’ of the 14th Amendment, successfully comparing Coverture to slavery.

Over time, the legal doctrine of Coverture was finally eliminated. However, the retention of pre-marital U.S. citizenship created a bifurcated marriage, a dichotomy of nationalities requiring new naturalization laws to determine the child’s nationality and citizenship throughout the course of the marriage/dissolution, until the child reached the age of majority. In fact, Obama had three nationalities from birth to reaching adulthood.

However, to this day a ‘natural born citizen’ must be interpreted how the framers chose it to mean, and why; children of U.S. citizens without alienage had no possible foreign allegiance or affiliation. As specifically expressed by John Jay to George Washington, this was to avoid ‘foreign intrigue’ from the highest office of the land. Only a U.S. citizen ‘naturally born’ was immune from changes in naturalization law, natural law versus naturalization.

1933 Statute for Child Born Outside the United States Not a ‘Citizen at Birth’

Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United Sates previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and reside therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Labor. Am. June 10, 1933, Ex. Or. 6166, § 14; and May 24, 1934, c. 344, § 1. 48 Stat. 797. [emphasis added]

The term ‘citizenship at birth’ was not yet applied in the law.

Ted Cruz was Born December 22, 1970

Finally, the phrase ‘citizen at birth’ is used in the law.

The laws grew to accommodate women giving birth to children with dual nationality; specifically the 1940 statutes were repealed and replaced in 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(7) [INA § 301(a)(7)] as originally enacted by Act of June 27, 1952;

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

[A] person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents, one of whom is a non-citizen, 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 totally not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

That law was liberalized and codified in 1986 as INA § 301(g); 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g).

Through women’s rights and equality protection under the law, the concept of sanguinity was extended through the mother as it was, previously, only through the father; however dual nationality was a concept completely foreign to the framers and is, as you can see, the reason for the vast body of naturalization law necessary to remove any alienage created in a child at birth, or even temporary loss of citizenship due to unintentional expatriation of the mother. Only a natural born citizen, a child of two U.S. citizen parents, is immune from and undefined by naturalization law.

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses to “Legislative History of INA § 301(g) Proves Mark Levin WRONG About Ted Cruz”

  1. slcraignbc Says:

    Very well done reconciliation of the Laws governing the status of a foreign born child of a US Citizen parent.

    However I would caution you on one small, but significant, detail.

    You stated; ” … Under both our First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 and the British Nationality Act of 1772, a child was always the same foreign nationality as the father. Children were born with the father’s nationality through sanguinity, through blood, a legitimate and natural inheritance. …”

    Which is only true of the British Law.

    Jus Sanguinis has NEVER been used as the statutory component used to devolve US Citizen upon a child, at birth or otherwise.

    ONLY the existence of US Citizenship upon the parent creates the Right of Citizen onto the child, at birth or otherwise, as expressed in the 1790 Act and it is that which serves as the “established uniform Rule of US Citizenship naturalization, as visited onto the Founding Generation upon it passage and invested in every US Citizen since, at birth or otherwise.

    Both blood and soil are left as incidental attending circumstances which then serve to limit or expand the breadth that US Citizenship may take and is obvious when its first expression in the 1790 ACt id fully analyzed under the lense of Statutory Interpretation;

    ” … Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: ..”

  2. paraleaglenm Says:

    Sorry. The 1790 Act and citizenship by birth required a U.S. citizen father, PERIOD. The 1772 British Law was similar to our 1790 Act in that way. Jus Soli played ZERO role for the first 76 years of U.S. history, being invoked in the 1866 Civil Rights Act only as a resort to compensate because freed slaves having no nationality to devolve to their children. Place of Birth had no part of the law except U.S. residency requirements for the father.
    I checked and rechecked . . . this legal memo is Bulletproof.

    • slcraignbc Says:

      Yes, but it was not by the blood of the father that the Citizenship of the child was obtained, it was FROM the fathers CITIZENSHIP that the child receives its US Citizenship.

      Look at the provision of the 1790 Act and consider that it is not the “blood” of the father that expired, but rather his US Citizenship for the cause of not being resident in the US during the life of the foreign born child.

      Justice Rutledge described it by saying that US Citizenship is “communicable”(*), so it that sense it is as if “blood”, but the distinction is crucial in understanding US Citizenships uniqueness when 1st established.

      Also, Jus Soli STILL has no statutory effect on US Citizenship in spite of the misinterpretations emanating from WKA & the 14ths “collective naturalization(**) declaratory born Citizen provision” which was devised so as to cure the condition of “statelessness”, which the emancipated & freed blacks remained in post Scott v Sandford, insofar as a National Political Character was concerned.

      (*) Talbot v Janson 3 US 133 1795

      (**) 8 U.S. Code Subchapter III –
      NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION –
      PART I – Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization (§§ 1401 to 1409)

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        Let’s make this easier. Read Wong Kim Ark in its entirety, and find for me the Naturalization law, or any valid law, that gave Wong citizenship merely for being born in the U.S.? I’ll save you time and effort, even the Supreme Court associate justices had no case law or statute to rely on.

      • slcraignbc Says:

        That’s right, there was NO LAW and Justice penumbra zone Gray “MADE LAW” when he RULED that Lil’ Wong was born a US Citizen, contrary to the intent of Article VI of the Burlingame Treaty and the intent of the “collective naturalization declaratory born citizen provision”.

        In other words, Gray’s finding is, was and always has been unconstitutional and contradictory to the intents of the 14th and the Burlingame Treaty and the COTUS.

        I clearly stated that the 14th is, was and always has been a COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION provision that initially worked in retroactive fashion to make US Citizens of those persons who were born STATELESS, ie, no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the ancestral African homelands.

        The “anchor baby” policy citizenship is NOT in keeping with the intent of the 14ths words, “subject to the jurisdiction” in that alien foreign Nationals are SUBJECT to the jurisdiction of their Countries in which they hold NATIONALITY, whether present in the US legally or otherwise.

        Gray, in WKA, used FOREIGN LAW in order to justify his desired outcome and could easily be discredited for having done so. Nothing in the 14th requires Jus Soli and its actual words forbid it, unless the US condones the kidnapping of foreign national children.

  3. paraleaglenm Says:

    It is called ‘sanguinity.’ As for the ‘dual citizenship’ case cited, see also the Venus case. The courts entered into issues of treaty and maritime law in order to justify seizure of foreign ships and their cargo. It has nothing to do with citizenship by place of birth (jus soli). Jus soli first appeared in U.S. law in the 1866 Civil Rights Act and subsequently the 14th Amendment in 1869, as long as the father had no foreign allegiance; that clause edited to read ‘under the jurisdiction thereof.’ In 1898 the court unconstitutionally changed U.S. naturalization law creating a pure jus soli right to children of two alien parents. Finally, one must apply the ‘reasonableness test’ to discuss if a child with sanguinity from only the mother is comparable, and analog, to a natural born citizen born of two U.S. citizens. The existence of an alien nationality was what the framers were intending to avoid. Obama had British (Kenyan/Muslim/Marxist) allegiances by sanguinity, and Cruz Canadian by birth and blood. Donald Trump was born of two U.S. citizens.

  4. Joyce Clemons Says:

    Fascinating. Just about when I thought I had read all of it…but this does deal with the question of illegally present and not truly domiciled aliens, as well as visa-visitor birth tourism.

    Another topic
    I understand that someone wrote a rebuttal to Clements and Katyal. Who was that and did they do a credible job. Aming the many things that made me furious about that paper, was their failure to give a right reading of their already wrong cherry-picking of Blackstone. Naturalized foreign born (alien) babies of British fathers were so by specific statutes, certainly not by Common Law,and no statute would be passed to naturalize if it did not have the element that aliens naturalized (including these “jus sanguinis” would be treated as denizens were, i.e. incapable of high offices.

    Yeah, they didn’t mention that. St. George Tucker did, of course.

    How well verifiable is the Pinkneye (full name?) story behind the repeal of the Naturalization Act of 1790? John Jay was just too damned quiet between 1787 and 1795, but I can visualize him making damn sure that got done before he left the Court.

    And, of course, that was another omission of C & K .

    After I read 7 FAM 1130, especially the 2013 revisions, I needed a drink.

    Great work, here.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      The Clements/Katyal Harvard article began on the right track, but when they interpreted the revision of 1790 by the 1795 as a ‘repeal’ of natural born foreign born U.S. citizens, they ignored subsequent acts. Then, yes, the elimination of the legal doctrine of Coverture started in the 1800’s, but as applied in Immigration and Naturalization Acts did not treat husband and wife as ‘citizens or citizen,’ both or just one required for a U.S. citizen child, until the 1933 Act. Those are cited in this article’s legislative history. Women’s Rights is important in the history of Marriage Contract, in fact the most cited if not only supreme court case mentioning ‘natural born citizen’ is Minor vs Happersett, one of the earliest cases discussing a woman’s right to vote. However, when a woman’s pre-marital citizenship bifurcated sanguinity of nationality to a child, it created a dichotomy which some legislators called a ‘hybrid’ citizenship. As you read the naturalization acts, they deal with easing repatriation of former U.S. citizen women who married foreigners, and granted citizenship to their children. The term ‘citizenship at birth’ was not used right away. There is something called Intermediate Scrutiny, which examines a statute to determine if its conflict with existing constitutional law satisfies the public interest. So, the question is if the Harvard article or mine is in the public interest: Does the introduction of foreign nationality to a child who claims being a natural born citizen benefit the presidency viz Article II, or the singular citizenship of a child born of two U.S. citizens as it was from the beginning satisfy the intent of the framers?

  5. arnash Says:

    Was Jesus a

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      Just read the blog post. It isn’t that complicated . . . for Christ’s sake.

      • arnash Says:

        I’m confused. Where exactly is my “comment”? If you have selfishly deleted it, why do you not have the intellectual honesty to admit that? And if you did delete it, why? Where is you explanation?
        As for reading your post, why in the world would you assume that I, of all people, would not have read and understood it? You KNOW that I read it and understood it. Otherwise I would not have taken the time to correct the misconceptions that it contained.
        And where are your rebuttals to the points that I illuminated about Rafael Cruz and his stateless status? Did you even read my comment? It would seem that you did not, otherwise you would have felt compelled to refute its “errors”.

        Instead, you take the high-and-mighty Olympus position of being the only adult in the room, one worthy of scowling others of lesser worth. How does such an attitude facilitate discussion and discovery?

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        Cruz and Rubio’s fathers were exiles, refugees, a political condition. The communist Cubans would call them ‘gusanos.’ However, they were not stateless per se unless you can provide refugee laws that prove otherwise. Eventually, the fathers naturalized, but were not stateless. As to cutting your comments, brevity and facts are preferable to speculation.

      • arnash Says:

        Your “facts” are not facts. Rafael Cruz was not an exile nor a refugee. He was a foreign student on a Visa with a Batista government passport. His government ceased to exist in the future and along with it his citizenship ceased to exist also. He was stateless because he did not embrace the Communist revolution and dictatorship of Castro, as I already wrote previously in my invisible comment.

        That brings up two points: 1. The Cuban Socialist Constitution embraces the American principle of self-determination and the right of self-expatriation. Cruz did not have to expatriate himself because he never embraced communist Cuban citizenship.

        2. If the Spanish Armada had successfully invaded Britain, and overthrown its government, what nationality would the American colonists have had at that point; Spanish? or stateless? Would they have viewed themselves as subjects of the King of Spain even though they were British by descent?
        They would not have accepted such a status in a million years. They would have viewed themselves as stateless, -as they almost were in effect when the British government withdrew its protection from their trading ships.

        You say that being an exile or refugee is a political condition; which it is, but what is the name of that condition? It is called being stateless. Without a government possessing sovereignty over you. Sovereignty does not exist in the Western post-American Revolution world unless you consent to it or fail to renounce it.

        As for the fathers eventually naturalizing, that is irrelevant to their condition before naturalization, so you comment is illogical as it makes a non-sequitur implication or conclusion that because they naturalized they therefore were not stateless ever.

        As for speculation, you’ve shown that your views contain quite a bit of it while all I did was point out facts that gave you a bit of cognitive dissonance which prompted you to not share even a single sentence of my in-depth analysis. You ought to check your bias before being so dismissive.

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        Cruz was on a student visa; his opposition of Castro came later making him an exile after the fact. Rubio was a ‘gusano.’ Your analysis is futile in the face of the fact that upon the fall of Castro they could return without repatriation. (That fall unfortunately failed.) Therefore, Ted and Marco are not ‘natural’ born. Just stick to the law and what actually happened and we’ll be fine.
        What this article is about is not ‘what could be’ but what IS. The women’s movement created the dichotomy of nationality which had to be sorted out with new naturalization laws, the first easing the woman’s repatriation (1922). Eventually, that became automatic (1952) and the child having citizenship ‘at birth.’ The LEGAL QUESTION before us TODAY is if the 14th Amendment Equal Protection applied to male and female sanguinity extends to Natural Born Citizenship, not just nationality and access to citizenship ‘from time of birth.’ The FACT that a child of two U.S. citizens has no need for application of ANY naturalization law is the point; only that child’s citizenship is ‘natural born.’ (See ‘Natural Law.’)
        I would appreciate you not gallivanting all over history and imagined legal conditions and concentrate on the analysis of the History of INA § 301(g). Cruz was not a citizen at all under previous marital conditions (coverture) and the argument follows evolution of repatriation of women who married foreign men . . . until that repatriation eventually created the ‘citizen at birth.’
        In the final analysis, a ‘natural born citizen’ is a ‘citizen at birth,’ but not vica versa. Therefore, equal protection of law does not apply; a child who gains citizenship by naturalization law is not a natural born citizen.

      • arnash Says:

        I think that what you are failing to realize is that the US Code does not consider that the child of an American woman whose co-procreation partner has died before their child’s birth, or who was a stranger, or who was stateless, is a citizen by naturalization instead of solely by natural political inheritance. -aka; by right of descent…via the mother alone.
        Why or how could the government, aka Congress, view such an American child as in need of being transformed, (natural-ized, or made natural) into a US citizen when it would naturally have been a member of its mother’s nation, when there would have been no foreign alienage due to the father being deceased, unknown, or stateless?
        I can’t recall having found such an implication, intent, or pointed statement in US law that says that such an American child is an alien in need of the beneficence of US law. Absent such language it can be assumed that Congress either did not address those rare situations or that it left the issue to logic and natural law.

        If you can see the huge question mark over the issue of citizenship by right of descent as it applies to mothers with no foreign-citizen partner/father, and how it is much more a matter of natural law than extrapolation and interpretation squeezed out of naturalization law, then the real issue is whether or not you, and everyone else, are incorrect regarding the political status of Rafael Cruz at the time of Ted’s birth.
        At that time, he was NOT a subject of Castro, not a member of Cuban society, NOT a citizen of Communist Cuba, NOT subject to the Cuban socialist constitution, and not submissive to the socialist government of Cuba, which made him a man without a nation that was his nation and his government. No Western government on Earth would have considered him subject to the jurisdiction of Castro, which meant that the son he produced was born without Cuban alienage since he, his father, was politically invisible, -an invisible man politically speaking. Neither the father nor the son were subject to Cuban jurisdiction.

        Do you not comprehend those facts? It is like adding zero to any number; the number is unchanged. It is like comparing US citizenship to colored glass, say blue. with all other nations having a different color. To reproduce a new American pane of glass requires two parent-panes that are blue, or… one that is blue and one that is CLEAR, -no color, akin to no foreign nationality.

        That describes Ted Cruz. His father was devoid of alienage if he was stateless. I’ll leave it to your logic center to determine in your own mind exactly why he was or was not stateless, but I hope you plume the depths of the issue and avoid giving it the usual cursory dismissal.

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        There is law concerning fathers who die during gestation, which is now extending to frozen semen and other aided fertilizations, they being naturalization law and not a natural born citizen . . . §1431 if I recall correctly is the statute. My article stands on its own in history of legislation and why a natural born citizen is the only birth citizenship not requiring process of naturalization law. You can take it to court and have some judge decide in your favor, but the judge would be violating jurisprudence. It is established that the courts have no jurisdiction over natural law.

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


%d bloggers like this: