Originally posted by Mercenary2007
the laws that you will find online are the most current laws on the books. most of those laws have been amemded since the 1960's thus the amended
Sections of those laws go into effect after they were amended.
It might be so, but the laws that I linked (Naturalization Act 1940) were in their original form. It was the Act, without amendments, in it’s
original form, scanned from an “actual law book”. I used the Act of 1940, because that’s what Berg was citing, and I showed that it couldn’t
be used to take away Obama’s citizenship.
Ok what they did here was grandfather in a group that wouldn't be covered by this law. so they would be covered under the new law.
OK.. and? It still didn’t apply to Obama’s mother.
his arguments aren't without merit because they are based on outdated legislation as you put it.
I’m not saying they were without merit because he was citing outdated legislation. I was deducing it from your statement.
You said: “
since most of those laws have been amended or repealed since 1961. you have to go to an actual library to find the laws that were in
place in 1961.”
What I pointed out was, Berg doesn’t cite the laws that were in place in 1961, as you said I was required to check. He cites the Naturalization Act
of 1940 mostly, and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
Although, I concede that the INA would apply in 1961, but certainly the Act of 1940 wouldn’t, and it’s what Berg uses as basis for his
argument.
Moreover, as far as I’ve been able to find out, since the enactment of the INA, there were minor amendments in 1956 and 1957, that added provisions
for citizens who were serving abroad in the Armed Forces, and for native Americans, respectively.
And in May 1961 (3 months before Obama’s birth), there was a SCOTUS case,
Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, where the Court ruled that a
child born abroad
prior to 1934, to an American citizen mother, did
not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at the time,
citizenship at birth was only transmitted by a citizen father.
But again this doesn’t apply to Obama, the INA of 1952 does. And the INA, contrary to the previous legislation, conferred upon American women the
power to transmit citizenship to their children born abroad.
I then argue that the INA of 1952, and subsequent amendments up until 1961, apply to Obama.
what most people don't understand is yes the laws may be out dated but you have to use the laws that were in effect at the time of the case
question.not today's laws. In Bergs court case it deals with Obama's 1961 birth. So the federal Courts have to use those laws to determine if he was
a natural born citizen, a naturalized citizen. or if he's not even a U.S. Citizen.
if you still don't understand why the judges have to use 1961 laws i'll try to explain better.
Oh, I understand it perfectly, and never claimed otherwise.
It is exactly because of this that I say Berg’s case has no merit, since practically all the laws he cites to argue that Obama lost his US
citizenship are from the Naturalization Act of 1940, and you’ve admitted that we can only go by the laws that were in place at the time. And
that’s the INA of 52, not the Act of 1940.
So let’s look at the Act of 52.
Here is Title 3
Chapter 1 (“Nationality At Birth and by Collective Naturalization”), and
here is Title 3 Chapter 3 (“Loss of
Nationality”) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, scanned from an “actual law book”, in their original form of 1952. I hope this is
to your satisfaction.
I will now quote you from Section 349 of Chapter 3, that deals with loss of nationality:
Sec. 349
(a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his
nationality by -
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly
authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by
any person under this section as the result of naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as a
result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such
person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fith birthday
Since none of these things happened, Obama couldn’t have never lost his US nationality and citizenship.
So, Obama couldn’t have lost his citizenship by the Act of 1940 (which Berg uses as his main argument), nor by the Act of 1952, that was the Act in
effect at time of Obama’s birth.
I say again: Berg’s legal arguments have no merit.
[edit on 6-12-2008 by danx]
