Rick
Santorum is a Natural Born Citizen
This
post is modified with corrections from similar posts that were posted
on Mario Apuzzo's blog starting on January 30, 2015 at 8:36 AM.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/01/rick-santorum-is-article-ii-natural.html
<<>>
Both
Parents...
The penultimate paragraph says it all.
The penultimate paragraph says it all.
"Rick was not yet born when Pietro and Aldo became U.S. citizens in 1930. Aldo married Catherine (Dughi) Santorum, who was a U.S. citizen. Hence, when Rick Santorum was born on May 10, 1958, to Aldo and Catherine, both his parents were U.S. citizens."
See
how simple it is to express John Jay's "original genesis
original intent" when he underlined the word "born"
in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George
Washington?
ONLY Singular U.S. Citizenship
ONLY Birth on U.S. soil
ONLY Birth to two U.S. citizen married parents
No litigation is necessary
No lawyers' fees
No obfuscation
ONLY Singular U.S. Citizenship
ONLY Birth on U.S. soil
ONLY Birth to two U.S. citizen married parents
No litigation is necessary
No lawyers' fees
No obfuscation
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- Naturalization
and Renouncing...
In Mario's post he mentioned that Rick Santorum's grandfather Pietro naturalized as a U.S. citizen on April 14, 1930 and Santorum's father Aldo derived his U.S. citizenship from his naturalized father Pietro.
The question:
When Santorum's grandfather Pietro renounced his Italian citizenship when he was naturalized on April 30, 1930, did Santorum's father Aldo derive his father's renunciation also, or did Aldo need to ALSO naturalize and ALSO renounce Italian citizenship after reaching the age of majority?
CDR Kerchner has a comment at BirtherReport saying that Santorum's father Aldo did not renounce his Italian citizenship until 1961, three years after Rick was born.
>> http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/01/attorney-rick-santorum-is-article-ii.html - "The aforementioned SCRIBD.com link and my 2012 blog post link contains my conclusion after getting the additional document showing that while Aldo Santorum was eligible for U.S. Citizenship for decades under various U.S. laws, Aldo Santorum did not perfect his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance to the United States and renouncing his foreign citizenship until 3 years after Rick was born. Thus Aldo passed his Italian citizenship to Rick when Rick was born. I do not agree with Atty Mario Apuzzo's conclusive statement that Rick Santorum is a natural born Citizen, i.e., a person born with Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance to the United States. I have not changed my position."
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This
is Mario's response on January 30, 2015 at 9:39 PM.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/01/rick-santorum-is-article-ii-natural.html
- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
- I
of II
I must respectfully disagree with Commander Kerchner. The required oath of allegiance is a red herring in the case of Aldo Santorum becoming a citizen of the United States.
The oath of allegiance is required only when an alien applies for naturalization through a naturalization petition. See Immigration and Naturalization Act, Sec. 337 [8 U.S.C. 1448] at - http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-10309.html ;
- 8 C.F.R. 337.1 at
- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title8-vol1/xml/CFR-2014-title8-vol1-sec337-1.xml ;
- http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america .
- One
must be at least 18 years old to file a naturalization petition. A
minor cannot file such a petition. Under the proper circumstances
(not applicable to Aldo Santorum), a parent can file a
naturalization petition for a minor child.
Aldo’s father, Pietro, was an adult when he became a citizen of the United States. To accomplish that, he had to file a Declaration of Intention and a Petition for Citizenship through naturalization. Before he was accepted as a citizen of the United States, he did have to take an Oath of Allegiance which he gave on May 14, 1940. He was given U.S. citizenship as of April 14, 1930. But Aldo, Pietro’s son, went through a different process to become a citizen of the United States.
Aldo did not need to perfect either citizenship or naturalization. There is no such thing as perfecting one’s citizenship. Citizenship is like being pregnant, either one is or one is not. Aldo did not receive his U.S. citizenship through a formal naturalization process as did his father. Aldo, who was only 7 years old, automatically became a citizen of the United States derivatively through his father’s naturalization. That means that he became a citizen automatically when his father naturalized and he entered the United States as a legal permanent resident on August 23, 1930. Becoming a citizen automatically upon becoming a legal permanent resident, his parents did not have to file a petition for naturalization on his behalf and he did not have to swear the required Oath of Allegiance. See Immigration and Naturalization Act Sec. 320 at - http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter4.html
(prescribes the current conditions for automatically becoming a
citizen of the United States after birth none of which conditions
include taking an Oath of Allegiance; the previous law applicable to
Aldo also did not require the Oath of Allegiance).
If Aldo had continued to live in Italy, his U.S. citizen father could have filed a naturalization petition on his behalf while Aldo was still a minor. In such case Aldo would have had to give an Oath of Allegiance when coming to America before becoming a U.S. citizen. But even in such case, the oath could have been waived if he was considered too young to understand it.
That Aldo took the oath of allegiance on April 24, 1961 only went to show that he did not expatriate while he was a citizen. The oath was needed to obtain proof of citizenship, the Certificate of Citizenship. Today, the oath will be waived if the applicant is too young or too disabled to understand it, or if no interview is required. The oath was not needed to become a citizen of the United States which Aldo already automatically was since August 23, 1930. This fact is plainly stated on his Certificate of Citizenship and in the recommendation of the Immigration and Naturalization Officer. The Immigration and Naturalization Service officer confirmed in his application that he had already been a citizen since 1930, concluding:
"[T]he applicant did derive or acquire United States citizenship on August 23, 1930 through on which date he was a lawful permanent resident of the United States and under the age of 21 years, his father having been naturalized on April 14, 1930, his mother being an alien. and that he has not been expatriated since that time." -
II of II
We can also see from examining Aldo’s Application for the Certificate of Citizenship that he also did not have an Alien number. His application shows: “ALIEN REGISTRATION NO. _______.” The application says: “I hereby apply to the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization for a certificate showing that I am a citizen of the United States of America.” Hence, he was already a citizen and would not have had an alien number.
If Aldo needed to take the Oath of Allegiance as he did on April 24, 1961, the United States Government would not have recognized him as a citizen of the United States since August 23, 1930. He also would not have been eligible to apply for a Certificate of Citizenship which was provided only to persons who were already citizens of the United States either from the moment of birth by being born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents or derivatively through their parents who naturalized at the time of their children’s minority and when the children entered the United States as legal permanent residents.
Lastly, Aldo served in the U.S. military during World War II. He risked his life to defend America. I would think that would be better than taking an Oath of Allegiance, for he proved his loyalty by risking his life rather than just talking about it.
A natural born citizen is a child born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Nothing more or less is required. Again, Rick Santorum was born in Virginia on May 10, 1958 to a father and mother who were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Hence, the conclusion is unshakable that Santorum is an Article II natural born citizen and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- ajtelles said...
- Clarity—Renounce
foreign citizenship...
Mario,
I have two clarifying question about today's comments.
This is from your main page post – 4th paragraph from the end - - "Aldo Santorum automatically become a citizen on August 23, 1930 through the naturalization of his father which had already occurred on April 14, 1930. This type of citizenship is called derivative citizenship. But since he was neither born in the United States nor naturalized in the formal sense after his birth, he did not have any evidence that he was a U.S. citizen. So, on April 17, 1961, he filed for a Certificate of Citizenship, not to obtain citizenship which he already had since 1930, but only to obtain evidence of that citizenship."
- This is from your comment post today – 3rd paragraph from the end, on January 30, 2015 at 9:40 PM -
- "If Aldo needed to take the Oath of Allegiance [sic – ,?] as he did on April 24, 1961, the United States Government would not have recognized him as a citizen of the United States since August 23, 1930. He also would not have been eligible to apply for a Certificate of Citizenship which was provided only to persons who were already citizens of the United States either from the moment of birth by being born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents or derivatively through their parents who naturalized at the time of their children’s minority and when the children entered the United States as legal permanent residents."
- Two
questions about today's comment:
#1-Does "citizens" in "...eligible to apply for Certificate of Citizenship...provided only to persons who were already citizens..." mean "citizens" with singular citizenship or dual citizenship?
#2-The last three words of the paragraph, "...legal permanent residents," do the three words mean that when reaching majority status the child did NOT need to naturalize and renounce foreign citizenship?
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This
is Mario's response on February 1, 2015 at 10:00 AM.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/01/rick-santorum-is-article-ii-natural.html
ajtelles,
I will answer your two questions of me at January 30, 2015, at 11:11 PM.
1. First, under the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress, meaning not under our constitutional common law, our nation has been giving U.S. citizenship from the moment of birth to children born with dual citizenship. What makes these children not natural born citizens is that they were not born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Their being dual citizens is only a consequence of not being born as natural born citizens. It is not the factor which determines whether they are natural born citizens. Foreign nations can make any law they please which can make children born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents also citizens of those nations. We cannot allow a foreign nation to determine who will or will not be a U.S. natural born citizen. Rather, we must define our natural born citizens under the applicable law to which the Framers looked for their definition and that was the common law which incorporated the law of nations and which defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
Second, and more to your point, assuming that it is relevant, even though I have asked for it at www.birtherreport.com of those who agree with Commander Kerchner that Rick Santorum is not a natural born citizen, I have not seen any evidence that Aldo Santorum was a dual citizen of the U.S. and Italy in 1958 when Rick Santorum was born. You are free to help them in their endeavor.
2. A child like Aldo Santorum, who derived his U.S. citizenship from his naturalized father when he was a minor did not naturalize in the legal formal sense of how the word is used in our immigration and naturalization positive laws (not to be confused and confounded with the natural law sense). Rather, he automatically became a citizen of the United States when his father naturalized and when Aldo entered the United States as a legal permanent resident. Hence, the minor Aldo needed neither naturalization nor an oath of allegiance to be a citizen of the United States. All this occurred in 1930, well before Rick Santorum was born in 1958 in Virginia to Aldo Santorum and Catherine Santorum, both citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. You are welcome to provide evidence that Aldo needed to take an oath of allegiance in order to be a citizen of the United States since 1930.
I will answer your two questions of me at January 30, 2015, at 11:11 PM.
1. First, under the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress, meaning not under our constitutional common law, our nation has been giving U.S. citizenship from the moment of birth to children born with dual citizenship. What makes these children not natural born citizens is that they were not born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Their being dual citizens is only a consequence of not being born as natural born citizens. It is not the factor which determines whether they are natural born citizens. Foreign nations can make any law they please which can make children born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents also citizens of those nations. We cannot allow a foreign nation to determine who will or will not be a U.S. natural born citizen. Rather, we must define our natural born citizens under the applicable law to which the Framers looked for their definition and that was the common law which incorporated the law of nations and which defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
Second, and more to your point, assuming that it is relevant, even though I have asked for it at www.birtherreport.com of those who agree with Commander Kerchner that Rick Santorum is not a natural born citizen, I have not seen any evidence that Aldo Santorum was a dual citizen of the U.S. and Italy in 1958 when Rick Santorum was born. You are free to help them in their endeavor.
2. A child like Aldo Santorum, who derived his U.S. citizenship from his naturalized father when he was a minor did not naturalize in the legal formal sense of how the word is used in our immigration and naturalization positive laws (not to be confused and confounded with the natural law sense). Rather, he automatically became a citizen of the United States when his father naturalized and when Aldo entered the United States as a legal permanent resident. Hence, the minor Aldo needed neither naturalization nor an oath of allegiance to be a citizen of the United States. All this occurred in 1930, well before Rick Santorum was born in 1958 in Virginia to Aldo Santorum and Catherine Santorum, both citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. You are welcome to provide evidence that Aldo needed to take an oath of allegiance in order to be a citizen of the United States since 1930.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This
is my comment at February 1, 2015 at 8:47 PM
Implicit
vs. Explicit
or
Perpetual singular U.S. citizenship is derived from a naturalized parent
Mario and Commander Kerchner,
Does a child derive perpetual singular U.S. citizenship from a naturalized parent when:
>> http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9983.html
or
Perpetual singular U.S. citizenship is derived from a naturalized parent
Mario and Commander Kerchner,
Does a child derive perpetual singular U.S. citizenship from a naturalized parent when:
>> http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9983.html
"Sec.
320. [8 U.S.C. 1431]
"(a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
"(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization."
[...]
"(a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
"(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization."
[...]
This
INA: ACT 320 [8 U.S.C. 1431] is definitive in it's ONLY meaning, it's
ONLY purpose, and the common sense aspect of the ONLY purpose has
ONLY one implicature that can NOT allow for an alternative.
For example, consider, not the literal meaning, but consider the "implicature" of "can" in "can you pass the salt?":
"Can you pass the salt" has ONLY one literal meaning: are you "able" to pass the salt; it has ONLY one original intent, ONLY one implicature: "will" you pass the salt.
The ONLY original intent of INA: ACT 320, the ONLY implicature, allows for only one answer, not more than one answer to the question, "does a child derive perpetual singular U.S. citizenship from a naturalized parent?"
YES.
A child who immigrates to the U.S. after a parent naturalizes is a "citizen" child who has perpetual singular U.S. citizenship that is derived by the automatic naturalization of the child by simply being present on U.S. soil, not born, simply being present on U.S. soil on which the parents or parent has already naturalized and is recognized by the statute, the positive law, as a "singular" U.S. citizen.
My comment to Mario was, if a choice based on implicature is required, my choice is affirmative to Mario's proposition that Sen. Rick Santorum is an Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" because ONLY one implicature is intended and allowed by the language of Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431] clause "a".
For example, consider, not the literal meaning, but consider the "implicature" of "can" in "can you pass the salt?":
"Can you pass the salt" has ONLY one literal meaning: are you "able" to pass the salt; it has ONLY one original intent, ONLY one implicature: "will" you pass the salt.
The ONLY original intent of INA: ACT 320, the ONLY implicature, allows for only one answer, not more than one answer to the question, "does a child derive perpetual singular U.S. citizenship from a naturalized parent?"
YES.
A child who immigrates to the U.S. after a parent naturalizes is a "citizen" child who has perpetual singular U.S. citizenship that is derived by the automatic naturalization of the child by simply being present on U.S. soil, not born, simply being present on U.S. soil on which the parents or parent has already naturalized and is recognized by the statute, the positive law, as a "singular" U.S. citizen.
My comment to Mario was, if a choice based on implicature is required, my choice is affirmative to Mario's proposition that Sen. Rick Santorum is an Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" because ONLY one implicature is intended and allowed by the language of Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431] clause "a".
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So, back to my original post here on January 30, 2015 at 8:36 AM:
See how simple it is to express John Jay's 1787 "original genesis original intent" in underlining the common sense word "born" with only one implicature in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington?
And
in Sen. Santorum's case:
ONLY Singular U.S. Citizenship
ONLY Birth on U.S. soil
ONLY Birth to two U.S. citizen married parents
No litigation is necessary
No lawyers' fees
No obfuscation
ONLY Singular U.S. Citizenship
ONLY Birth on U.S. soil
ONLY Birth to two U.S. citizen married parents
No litigation is necessary
No lawyers' fees
No obfuscation
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- Spammer Angela Navejas said on February 2, 2015 at 8:55 AM...
Nice
Info! This is very nice blog and it helps many people so keep posting
and thanks for sharing it.
Citizenship with Italy | Italian Records ( http://eu-italianpassport.com/ )
Citizenship with Italy | Italian Records ( http://eu-italianpassport.com/ )
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here
is my comment on February 3, 2015 at 8:17 PM about Sen. Santorum
being a "natural born Citizen" spinning off of spammer
Angela's text on the Italian Passport page.
- ajtelles said...
"Do
I qualify"—"You qualify if"
Mario,
Your response to "Poor, poor Bob" over at Cafe Con Leche Republicans was right on. Before I saw your comment there, I read the promo copy on the Italian Dual Passport site, and I noticed the language to obtain a simple Italian Dual Passport was similar to the language of the current INA: ACT 320, and it got me thinking about Sen. Santorum's father Aldo and whether or not Aldo Santorum had perpetual singular U.S. citizen by naturalization derived from his father Pietro.
To "poor, poor Bob": "About the comment that I approved, did you even bother to open the link and read the information. It is highly relevant. "
Below is the first Case Scenario from the promo copy posted by the pretty, uh, by the spammer on your blog promoting the Italian Dual Passport website ( http://eu-italianpassport.com ).
Mario,
Your response to "Poor, poor Bob" over at Cafe Con Leche Republicans was right on. Before I saw your comment there, I read the promo copy on the Italian Dual Passport site, and I noticed the language to obtain a simple Italian Dual Passport was similar to the language of the current INA: ACT 320, and it got me thinking about Sen. Santorum's father Aldo and whether or not Aldo Santorum had perpetual singular U.S. citizen by naturalization derived from his father Pietro.
To "poor, poor Bob": "About the comment that I approved, did you even bother to open the link and read the information. It is highly relevant. "
Below is the first Case Scenario from the promo copy posted by the pretty, uh, by the spammer on your blog promoting the Italian Dual Passport website ( http://eu-italianpassport.com ).
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Do
I Qualify?
"You
qualify if at the moment of the birth of your Italian ancestor’s
child, your Italian ancestor ( i.e. grandfather, father, grandmother,
great-grandfather etc.) was still an Italian citizen."
The
important relevant words of contrast for my purpose here to clarify
the singular U.S. citizenship of Sen. Santorum are "you
qualify if ... moment ... birth ... child ... ancestor ...
still..."
Briefly, the relevance of the language of a simple time frame, "moment of the birth...still," if the language is important for simply getting an Italian Dual Passport, well, concerning the "natural born Citizen" status of Sen. Rick Santorum, the language of a time frame in a naturalization act in the 1930s and the language of an INA ACT in 2015 is more important for determining who is a singular U.S. citizen by naturalization and by birth—and who is not—and if the singular U.S. citizenship is perpetual beyond reaching the age of majority—and if it's not.
"Case Scenario 1
Briefly, the relevance of the language of a simple time frame, "moment of the birth...still," if the language is important for simply getting an Italian Dual Passport, well, concerning the "natural born Citizen" status of Sen. Rick Santorum, the language of a time frame in a naturalization act in the 1930s and the language of an INA ACT in 2015 is more important for determining who is a singular U.S. citizen by naturalization and by birth—and who is not—and if the singular U.S. citizenship is perpetual beyond reaching the age of majority—and if it's not.
"Case Scenario 1
"Applying
through your grandfather
"Let’s
say your paternal grandfather came from Italy. You qualify if at the
time of your father’s birth, your grandfather was still an Italian
citizen (not yet naturalized American). The reason being is the
citizenship is a right that is transferred at birth by the parent."
So,
"you qualify if ... time ... birth ... still ... reason ...
citizenship ... right ... transferred ... birth ... parent."
In Sen. Santorum's case, although the application of the words on the Italian Dual Passport website do not apply to Sen. Santorum, the words of similarity that are relevant become clear when his name and his father's and grandfather's names are inserted in the text:
In Sen. Santorum's case, although the application of the words on the Italian Dual Passport website do not apply to Sen. Santorum, the words of similarity that are relevant become clear when his name and his father's and grandfather's names are inserted in the text:
"Let's say[ Rick ] your paternal grandfather [ Pietro ] came from Italy. You [ Rick—grandson ] qualify if at the time of [ Aldo ] your father's birth , your grandfather [ Pietro ] was still an Italian citizen (not yet naturalized American). The reason being is the citizenship is a right that is transferred at birth by a parent."
So,
to acquire a simple Italian Dual Passport, the citizenship passes
from grandfather Pietro to son Aldo to grandson Rick.
Simple to understand—a birth "right" passes by
birth.
The question about Sen. Santorum is in two parts. (1) Does grandfather Pietro, with a perpetual positive law naturalized "right" of U.S. citizenship, pass perpetual U.S. citizenship automatically to his son Aldo, naturalized with an oath, not an oath of words by simple immigration onto U.S. soil? (2) When the son Aldo reaches the age of majority, does the son Aldo pass on perpetual U.S. citizenship to his son Rick who is born on U.S. soil and born to two U.S. citizen married parents?
The answer is simple. Yes—if the implicature of the language of the naturalization act allows it. If there is no language in the naturalization act requiring formal naturalization by oath, the ONLY implicature answer is yes, the singular U.S. citizenship of the grandfather Pietro passes to the son Aldo and to passes to the son Rick.
The words of contrast in the previous quote that are relevant to Sen. Santorum's eligibility to be POTUS concern his grandfather Pietro being already a naturalized U.S. citizen with singular U.S. citizenship when his son Aldo arrived in America, as expressed in the current INA: ACT:
>> http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9983.html
The question about Sen. Santorum is in two parts. (1) Does grandfather Pietro, with a perpetual positive law naturalized "right" of U.S. citizenship, pass perpetual U.S. citizenship automatically to his son Aldo, naturalized with an oath, not an oath of words by simple immigration onto U.S. soil? (2) When the son Aldo reaches the age of majority, does the son Aldo pass on perpetual U.S. citizenship to his son Rick who is born on U.S. soil and born to two U.S. citizen married parents?
The answer is simple. Yes—if the implicature of the language of the naturalization act allows it. If there is no language in the naturalization act requiring formal naturalization by oath, the ONLY implicature answer is yes, the singular U.S. citizenship of the grandfather Pietro passes to the son Aldo and to passes to the son Rick.
The words of contrast in the previous quote that are relevant to Sen. Santorum's eligibility to be POTUS concern his grandfather Pietro being already a naturalized U.S. citizen with singular U.S. citizenship when his son Aldo arrived in America, as expressed in the current INA: ACT:
>> http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9983.html
"Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431]
"(a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
"(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization."
The
positive law singular U.S. citizenship of Pietro, although not
a natural law citizenship as in Case Scenario 1—the "reason
being...citizenship is a right that is transferred at birth by the
parent"—Pietro's positive law U.S. citizenship,
according to the implicature of the language in the current INA: ACT
Sec. 320, if it is essentially similar to the 1930s language, the
positive law citizenship language of clause "a"—"...becomes
a citizen"— this language indicates a positive law "right"
created by the U.S. Congress that is transferred by positive law oath
and naturalization by the parent Pietro to son Aldo.
If Sen. Santorum's grandfather Pietro's positive law singular U.S. citizenship was not perpetually derived by his son Aldo in the 1930s, meaning that at the age of majority Aldo would need to formally naturalize with an oath, explicit clarifying language would probably have been inserted in the same clause or a succeeding clause that would require naturalization by children of a naturalized parent when the naturalized children reached the age of majority.
Since no such language is inserted in the current INA: ACT, the ONLY common sense implicature allowed is that the perpetual positive law singular U.S. citizenship acquired by naturalization by grandfather Pietro was, by the positive law naturalization of the 1930s, perpetually derived by his son Aldo, and the same singular U.S. citizenship of the grandfather Pietro transferred to his son Aldo would be transferred to Aldo's son Rick by birth, Rick's birth in 1958 on U.S. soil to his two U.S. citizen married parents, perpetual U.S. citizen by naturalization Aldo and his perpetual U.S. citizen wife Catherine, a perpetual U.S. citizen from and by birth.
Whether grandfather Aldo's U.S. citizenship was by natural law birth on U.S. soil or by positive law oath and naturalization on U..S. soil, the INA: ACT Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431] "citizens...birth" language has ONLY one implicature that can only mean that Sen. Santorum derived his natural law "natural born" singular U.S. citizenship from his positive law singular U.S. citizenship father, Aldo, who derived his positive law singular U.S. citizenship from his positive law singular U.S. citizenship father, Pietro, who derived his positive law singular U.S. citizenship by oath and naturalization by authority of the positive law that was current in the 1930s. The assumption being made here is that the 1930 naturalization language was similar and with the same implicature as this current INA:ACT Sec. 320 language.
When I read Case Scenario #1 detailing how to get an Italian Passport "IF" the grandfather was "STILL" an Italian citizen when "YOUR" father was born so that "YOU" can get an Italian Passport, I noticed something that is very relevant to the way that Obama birth narrative neo-birthers since 2008 and Republican – Independent – Libertarian – Anarchist "MY GUY/MY GAL" neo-birthers since 2012 seem to deliberately ignore the ONLY implicature of the 1787 original language in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and the ONLY implicature of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment.
For example, neo-birthers, regardless of their political affiliation, never want to give their 2015 opinion about what THEY think, not what do THEY "know" but simply what do THEY "think" about what John Jay "may" have meant in 1787 and what Jay's original genesis original intent implicature "may" have been in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.
Do neo-birthers think that Jay implied and meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by being born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, or do neo-birthers think that Jay REALLY implied and meant singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship, and that Jay REALLY meant being born on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents who may OR may NOT have been married to each other BEFORE the child is born? By asserting singular AND dual citizenship, neo-birthers are incoherent, because there can NOT be two implicatures, singular U.S. citizenship and dual U.S./foreign citizenship, there can be ONLY one common sense implicature in the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," and that implicature can ONLY be ONLY singular U.S. citizenship or ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship, not both. John Jay was not schizophrenic, ambiguous or vague.
The "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers seem to want to make of prime importance the implicature of the words "born...citizens...subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction," found 81 years later in the 1868 14th Amendment, as NOT meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship to be "...eligible to the Office of President," but ALSO meaning dual U.S./foreign citizenship AND being born on U.S. soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, married OR not married to each other BEFORE the child is born on U.S. soil.
That incessant back and forth about 1787 original intent and 1868 original intent is why we need a change in the conversation about "natural born Citizen" from what did "natural born Citizen" mean to the WE the People original birthers and framers in 1787, and what did "citizen" mean to the WE the People framers in 1868. The conversation should be changed to what do WE the People want "natural born Citizen" and "citizen" to mean in 2000s America. That is why an Article V convention of the states to propose a language clarifying amendment to Article II and a language clarifying amendment to the 14th Amendment should be debated before someone else says I-I-I-Managed-to-OCCUPY-America too with only one U.S. citizen parent, or a variant such as, "I-was-born-on-U.S.-soil-to-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-and-I-managed-to-be-elected-POTUS-and-Commander-in-Chief" too.
If Sen. Santorum's grandfather Pietro's positive law singular U.S. citizenship was not perpetually derived by his son Aldo in the 1930s, meaning that at the age of majority Aldo would need to formally naturalize with an oath, explicit clarifying language would probably have been inserted in the same clause or a succeeding clause that would require naturalization by children of a naturalized parent when the naturalized children reached the age of majority.
Since no such language is inserted in the current INA: ACT, the ONLY common sense implicature allowed is that the perpetual positive law singular U.S. citizenship acquired by naturalization by grandfather Pietro was, by the positive law naturalization of the 1930s, perpetually derived by his son Aldo, and the same singular U.S. citizenship of the grandfather Pietro transferred to his son Aldo would be transferred to Aldo's son Rick by birth, Rick's birth in 1958 on U.S. soil to his two U.S. citizen married parents, perpetual U.S. citizen by naturalization Aldo and his perpetual U.S. citizen wife Catherine, a perpetual U.S. citizen from and by birth.
Whether grandfather Aldo's U.S. citizenship was by natural law birth on U.S. soil or by positive law oath and naturalization on U..S. soil, the INA: ACT Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431] "citizens...birth" language has ONLY one implicature that can only mean that Sen. Santorum derived his natural law "natural born" singular U.S. citizenship from his positive law singular U.S. citizenship father, Aldo, who derived his positive law singular U.S. citizenship from his positive law singular U.S. citizenship father, Pietro, who derived his positive law singular U.S. citizenship by oath and naturalization by authority of the positive law that was current in the 1930s. The assumption being made here is that the 1930 naturalization language was similar and with the same implicature as this current INA:ACT Sec. 320 language.
When I read Case Scenario #1 detailing how to get an Italian Passport "IF" the grandfather was "STILL" an Italian citizen when "YOUR" father was born so that "YOU" can get an Italian Passport, I noticed something that is very relevant to the way that Obama birth narrative neo-birthers since 2008 and Republican – Independent – Libertarian – Anarchist "MY GUY/MY GAL" neo-birthers since 2012 seem to deliberately ignore the ONLY implicature of the 1787 original language in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and the ONLY implicature of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment.
For example, neo-birthers, regardless of their political affiliation, never want to give their 2015 opinion about what THEY think, not what do THEY "know" but simply what do THEY "think" about what John Jay "may" have meant in 1787 and what Jay's original genesis original intent implicature "may" have been in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.
Do neo-birthers think that Jay implied and meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by being born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, or do neo-birthers think that Jay REALLY implied and meant singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship, and that Jay REALLY meant being born on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents who may OR may NOT have been married to each other BEFORE the child is born? By asserting singular AND dual citizenship, neo-birthers are incoherent, because there can NOT be two implicatures, singular U.S. citizenship and dual U.S./foreign citizenship, there can be ONLY one common sense implicature in the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," and that implicature can ONLY be ONLY singular U.S. citizenship or ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship, not both. John Jay was not schizophrenic, ambiguous or vague.
The "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers seem to want to make of prime importance the implicature of the words "born...citizens...subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction," found 81 years later in the 1868 14th Amendment, as NOT meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship to be "...eligible to the Office of President," but ALSO meaning dual U.S./foreign citizenship AND being born on U.S. soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, married OR not married to each other BEFORE the child is born on U.S. soil.
That incessant back and forth about 1787 original intent and 1868 original intent is why we need a change in the conversation about "natural born Citizen" from what did "natural born Citizen" mean to the WE the People original birthers and framers in 1787, and what did "citizen" mean to the WE the People framers in 1868. The conversation should be changed to what do WE the People want "natural born Citizen" and "citizen" to mean in 2000s America. That is why an Article V convention of the states to propose a language clarifying amendment to Article II and a language clarifying amendment to the 14th Amendment should be debated before someone else says I-I-I-Managed-to-OCCUPY-America too with only one U.S. citizen parent, or a variant such as, "I-was-born-on-U.S.-soil-to-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-and-I-managed-to-be-elected-POTUS-and-Commander-in-Chief" too.
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
(
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com : Time to Change the
Conversation—Time to Choose )
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mario
Apuzzo, Esq. Said on February 3, 2015 at 9:16 PM...
ajtelles,
Your understanding of the Rick Santorum natural born citizen issue is excellent. I can surely say that you see relevancy even when it is hidden deeply in the weeds. In contrast, Obot Bob cannot see it even when it is on his nose and he is looking at himself in the mirror.
Your understanding of the Rick Santorum natural born citizen issue is excellent. I can surely say that you see relevancy even when it is hidden deeply in the weeds. In contrast, Obot Bob cannot see it even when it is on his nose and he is looking at himself in the mirror.
No comments:
Post a Comment