Natural Born Citizen

a reply to: MotherMayEye

That is why they have both and then can decide if they want to keep the US citizenship even if they loose under Ugandan law.

I don't even know what you are arguing about anymore.

I never said Uganda was a tribe I said Ugandan law applies to the Luo tribe because the are within the jurisdiction of Ugandan law and US law applies to the American tribes, like the Navajo.

Ugandan law does not apply to the american tribes and US law does not apply to the Luo.

Seems too simple to get wrong but here we are.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MotherMayEye

That is why they have both and then can decide if they want to keep the US citizenship even if they loose under Ugandan law.

I don't even know what you are arguing about anymore.

You are talking about Ugandan law, again. It's irrelevant to the hypothetical discussion of a tribe located within Uganda. It's the tribal law -- pertaining to tribal property ownership -- that is relevant.

AND STILL, none of it negates the fact that not all people born on U.S. soil acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.

You are roiling over Obama and can't see the forest for that tree.

Moving on, because I know you will get it eventually. You cannot be this dumb.

originally posted by: daskakik
...and US law does not apply to the Luo.

THIS part is correct. Thank you. And that is why the law reads as it does.

The U.S. federal government does not confer citizenship on child born on U.S. soil, and also into an aboriginal tribe located in Uganda -- OR ANYWHERE -- if the U.S. citizenship will affect the child's right to own tribal property.

Geez.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
You are roiling over Obama and can't see the forest for that tree.

I'm not even american so I can care less about obama. Nice red herring.

Moving on, because I know you will get it eventually. You cannot be this dumb.

You are the one that doesn't understand what that law really means. Anyone can be born anywhere and not accept the citizenship, if offered.

What that law provides is protection from the government denying citizenship to the person born on US land. Anyone or their legal guardians can reject US citizenship at any time, if they choose to.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
You are roiling over Obama and can't see the forest for that tree.

I'm not even american...

Ok. So you clearly have no business trying to tell U.S. citizens they MUST confer citizenship to children born to aboriginal tribes, located outside the U.S., to the deprivation of those children's rights to own tribal property...just because they were born on U.S. soil.

It makes sense now why you would argue such a stupid position.

originally posted by: daskakik
You are the one that doesn't understand what that law really means. Anyone can be born anywhere and not accept the citizenship, if offered.

Newborn infants cannot renounce their citizenship.

I can't believe I have to point that out to you.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Ok. So you clearly have no business trying to tell U.S. citizens they MUST confer citizenship to children born to aboriginal tribes, located outside the U.S., to the deprivation of those children's rights to own tribal property...just because they were born on U.S. soil.

I'm not telling anyone they must do anything. You seem to have a reading comp problem.

US citizens don't confer citizenship to anyone. The law does.

It is up to the individuals or their legal guardians to choose but the government can't deny them.

It makes sense now why you would argue such a stupid position.

Nobody is arguing that position. That is something you made up because you can't wrap your head about the limited scope of that law.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Their legal guardians can do so on their behalf. It was right in the next sentence that you left out.

ETA: And why are you replying to one post with multiple posts and leaving out the context of the rest of the post?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Ok. So you clearly have no business trying to tell U.S. citizens they MUST confer citizenship to children born to aboriginal tribes, located outside the U.S., to the deprivation of those children's rights to own tribal property...just because they were born on U.S. soil.

I'm not telling anyone they must do anything. You seem to have a reading comp problem.

US citizens don't confer citizenship to anyone. The law does.

It is up to the individuals or their legal guardians to choose but the government can't deny them.

It makes sense now why you would argue such a stupid position.

Nobody is arguing that position. That is something you made up because you can't wrap your head about the limited scope of that law.

Obviously, I meant through our laws.

Let's recap, ok? You wrote this:

US law only applies to tribes in US territories and not other countries.

Your argument is effectively mine.

Whether the law that I quoted applies only to babies born on U.S. soil as members of aboriginal tribes located within the U.S. OR it applies to any aboriginal tribe, anywhere...they DO NOT acquire U.S. citizenship at birth when it affects the child's rights to tribal property.

Agree?

originally posted by: daskakik
And why are you replying to one post with multiple posts and leaving out the context of the rest of the post?

Just responding to the thoughts that I think are worth responding to. Typically, if I see something ridiculous on its face or unworthy of response, I don't bother.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No it isn't the same argument because people from Uganda whether Luo or not are just Ugandan, foreigners under us law .

The reason why the law you brought up even exists is because the US tribes and US law overlap. It wasn't written for foreigners whether part of a tribe or not because they don't need it to refuse US citizenship on behalf of their children born in the US.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Their legal guardians can do so on their behalf. It was right in the next sentence that you left out.

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL OR INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES

Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who lack sufficient capacity to do so. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily, without undue influence from parent(s), and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship. Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent to relinquish citizenship; children under 18 are provided additional safeguards during the renunciation process, and their cases are afforded very careful consideration by post and the Department to assess their voluntariness and informed intent. Unless there are emergent circumstances, minors may wish to wait until age 18 to renounce citizenship.

U.S. State Department

It's interesting to me how many non-U.S. Citizens, on ATS, like to take up the issue of 'natural born citizenship' and defend it as being very broad and inclusive.

I think it was intended to be very exclusive so as to avoid all conflicts of interest and divided loyalties.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Again you are misconstruing who that is directed at. That is for American parents and their children not foreigners.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No it isn't the same argument because people from Uganda whether Luo or not are just Ugandan, foreigners under us law .

The reason why the law you brought up even exists is because the US tribes and US law overlap. It wasn't written for foreigners whether part of a tribe or not because they don't need it to refuse US citizenship on behalf of their children born in the US.

If a child acquires U.S. citizenship at birth, then it is a U.S. citizen and subject to U.S. renunciation laws. And neither a parent, nor guardian can renounce that citizenship for them. (See link in previous comment).

Let's face it...you are just kind of making stuff up as you go along and its a waste of my time. You haven't cited a single authority for any of your opinions. I really do need to move on. I've stated my case and am confident in it.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Again you are misconstruing who that is directed at. That is for American parents and their children not foreigners.

Just .

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sure they can. They appeal to the laws of their country but Native american tribes in the US can't do that, which is why that other law was put on the books.

Sorry, but you are the one that is reading the laws how you wish. Like I said grasping at straws.

pls correct . my browser tricked me