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

Obama Was Hand-Picked & NOT a Natural Born Citizen – Congress Knew It & Protected Him

413795304_obama_shreds_constitution_answer_1_xlarge
Freedom Outpost
The further I travel down this rabbit hole, the more I feel divorced from the good conservative people that I choose to call my own. I hold some stories back from our readers. My thought is that people have a hard enough time embracing the basic fact that our government is corrupt on both sides of the aisle. If you knew how corrupt I thought these people really were, I feel like you’d rush to the phone and soon bad men would show up to haul me off in a straitjacket.

Do they still do that?

Regardless, today I want to show you something that might leave you questioning everything around you.

Welcome to my world.

In 1975 a representative named Joe Bingham introduced an amendment to remove the “natural born citizen” constitutional requirement to become President.

Why is that important?

Because it was not until almost 30 years later that the issue would be addressed again. And it was not addressed only once, but multiple times. This is all part of congressional record.

Remarkably, it just so happened to coincide with the meteoric rise of a man named Barack Obama who currently sits in the People’s House.

I am about to share with you a brilliant piece of research from the Article II Political Action Committee. After reading it the foremost question on my mind is, “If the natural born citizen definition only requires one citizen parent then why did they seemingly try so hard to change the law for Barack Obama?”

Continue reading

Does Ted Cruz Have a “Natural Born Citizen” Issue When It Comes to His Presidential Bid?

Comments by: 1 Dragon

First of all, I am not a Constitutional Lawyer and I don’t play one on TV but since Sen, Ted Cruz announced he was running for President, I have listened to the radio talk jocks and they have talked around the Natural Born Citizen (NBC) issue. Mike Gallagher stated yesterday that Ted Cruz is a NBC because of the Nationality Act of 1940.

We Mike may talk a good game and remember, I am not a Constitutional Lawyer but I find no where in the Nationality Act of 1940 that says anything about a Natural Born Citizen. It does talk about American citizenship and naturalization but not Natural Born Citizens.

After the past 6 years of lies, cover-up, corruption and tyranny from 0bama and his StormTroopers, the ONLY ONE I trust is God.

 

ConstitutionFlag

Freedom Outpost

Many conservative Americans are probably celebrating today and enjoying an “in your face, Democrats” honeymoon phase. At midnight last night, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) officially announced he will seek the office of the President of the United States. This makes it official and from comments perused on various articles across the internet media, people are taking out their checkbooks to contribute to his campaign.

Before delving any further, a few things need to be made clear. I am not a Democrat nor a Republican. I have no party affiliation. I am an equal opportunity criticizer and a constitutional conservative Christian. My allegiance resides with the Supreme Law of the Land – the Constitution of the united States of America. Regardless of how popular, conservative or constitutional supporting a candidate or elected official claims, they reap criticism when they choose to deviate from their publicly acclaimed stance for any reason.

The issue at hand remains the eligibility of Ted Cruz to run for President under the “natural born citizen” requirement. Yes, Ted Cruz has released his birth certificate indicating he was born in Canada to a US citizen mother. His father, however, was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. Interestingly, claims emerged suggesting Cruz could have dual citizenship – Canadian and US. Cruz stated he would renounce his Canadian citizenship assuming he had dual citizenship.

Continue reading

Barack Obama Citizenship Scandal: 10 Key Quotes From the Birth Certificate Controversy

Before you laugh about this, check out these links……….

https://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/hospitals-in-hawaii-to-obama-you-were-not-born-here/

 

https://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/flashback-2004-kenyan-newspaper-innocently-reported-that-senator-obama-was-born-in-kenya/

 

https://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/obamas-sealed-background-documentation/

 

https://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/the-great-obama-swindle-of-2008/

 

 

Newsmax

The scandal involving the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate pales in comparison to the many scandals that have developed during his first and second terms as president.

President Obama released the long-form of his Hawaii birth certificate in 2011. However, despite this effort by the White House to put the birth certificate scandal to rest, doubts about his citizenship still linger.

obama-birth-certificate-kenya-dees1-300x245

Here are 10 quotes about Barack Obama’s citizenship scandal:

Continue reading

Breaking Report: Judy V. Obama, Article II Ineligibility Case In Conference, Before Panel Of Judges

Birther Report
As Americans are settling themselves after the Christmas Season of gift giving, one of the most important gifts may yet be unwrapped and under the tree addressed in waiting to: “The American People” in the form of a U.S. Court of Appeals Case that today was confirmed to be “in conference” and “submitted to the Panel of Judges in chambers for written opinion” at the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado.

Constitutional scholars would call the gift staggering to even contemplate. What indeed are the stakes that could affect every single person in the United States of America as well as future generations for the next ten generations that are found in Cody Robert Judy v. Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro et. al., Case No. 14-3146?

Canadian TV Goes Birther: 62% Say Obama is Not an American Citizen

 Freedom Outpost

There are two definitive schools of thought within the “birther” movement. However, more often than not, you are exposed to only one. Not all “birthers” believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. In fact, many believe that this is somewhat irrelevant. Many, like myself, believe that since Barack Obama, Sr. was not a citizen of the United States when Barack Obama, Jr. was born that our President may be a “citizen” but that he is a not a “natural born citizen” and thus ineligible to hold the office of President.

Though it is doubtful that you will see any American owned media outlets devoting programs to this debate (seems highly unlikely six years later), Richard Syrett of The Conspiracy Show decided to go where American media refuses to. He devoted an entire episode of his program to this debate and it aired Monday on Canadian television.

Our friends at Birther Report summarize the broadcast:

As reported here Canadian broadcaster Richard Syrett interviewed Attorney Mario Apuzzo, Attorney Phil Berg, computer expert Karl Denninger and Allenna Leonard of Democrats Abroad. The show focused on Obama’s forged birth certificate and the Article II natural born Citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution. Full show below…

The host says Birthers that conclude a natural born Citizen is one born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents (Vattel) stand on pretty solid ground but notes the other side could provide a compelling counter-argument (Blackstone). Syrett said to dismiss Birthers as racist is extremely unfair. He also believes evidence suggesting Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery is not conclusive but says it deserves further investigation and serious media scrutiny. Syrett warned viewers that if Obama is not eligible and he forged his birth certificate the United States would be plunged into a constitutional crisis unparalleled in its history. His full conclusion excerpted here


You can watch the entire episode here. .

The debate over the definition of “natural born citizen” has largely been in trying to determine the intentions of our founders. Both sides can roll out historical court decisions to seemingly support their case, but I prefer to start at the beginning. What is perceived as true in 2014 was not necessarily true in 1790. I always encourage people to do their own research. However, in the course of that research I would suggest that you start with our first congress. My interpretation is that BOTH parents must be citizens to create a “natural born citizen.” If not, then why the distinction between a simple “citizen” and a “natural born citizen?”
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/canadian-tv-goes-birther-62-say-obama-american-citizen/#3aWFlEQUDz8vwExK.99