Scrubbing of 7 FAM 1130 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT

Free Republic

Today I discovered that the reason I could not find a section of the Nationalization Statues is because the section had been scrubbed. This is not an accident. The section removed had confirmed that the interpretation of the State Department based on the Constitution and relevant case law was that Naturalization did not convey natural born status for Constitutional purposes.

The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and associated Handbooks (FAHs) are a single, comprehensive, and authoritative source for the Department’s organization structures, policies, and procedures that govern the operations of the State Department, the Foreign Service and, when applicable, other federal agencies. The FAM (generally policy) and the FAHs (generally procedures) together convey codified information to Department staff and contractors so they can carry out their responsibilities in accordance with statutory, executive and Department mandates.

ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT (CT:CON-636; 02-24-2016) is being scrubbed…

The Original Document “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency.” (Still live at Wikipedia)

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution requires that a candidate for President of the United States be a “natural-born citizen”.

According to the US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual: “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen (citizen at birth) pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”[33]

The Current Document

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”

(CT:CON-636; 02-24-2016)

Section 201(g) NA and section 301g) INA (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) (formerly 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth.” Accordingly, U.S. citizens who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s) are not considered “naturalized” citizens under either act.

Source: https://fam.state.gov/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1130.html#M1131_6_2

Pic of the Day

via Facebook/Right Bias

What Does the FBI Have on the Obama Gang?

Judicial Watch

 

The Fight over Financial Aid to Illegal Alien Students Continues

Too often, politicians at every level will ignore the clear language of a law if it doesn’t let them do as they wish.  This is evident on two fronts this week: in California and here in the District of Columbia.

First California.  You will recall that we filed a taxpayer lawsuit in August 2014 challenging a decision by the University of California Regents to give up to $27.1 million in non-resident tuition waivers and financial aid to illegal alien students in their schools.

A lower California state court upheld their action, and we’ve now completed the briefing for the appeal of the lower court ruling with the filing of a reply brief this week.  We brought this litigation on behalf of Earl De Vries, a legal resident and taxpayer of California (Earl De Vries v Regents of the University of California (BC555614)).  Under California law, taxpayers have the right to sue government officials to prevent unlawful expenditures of taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources.

In our August 2014 lawsuit on behalf of De Vries in the L.A. County Superior Court, we asked the court to halt the estimated annual $19.6 million in non-resident tuition waivers; $4.3 million in taxpayer-funded grants and scholarships; and $3.2 million in state loans the Regents have started giving illegal alien students.

Under the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act” passed by Congress in 1996, unlawfully present aliens are ineligible for state or local public benefits.  The only exception to this federal law is when a state “affirmatively provides for such eligibility” to illegal aliens, which states may do “only through the enactment of a State law …