Natural Born Citizen

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
They can renounce when they are of age or can demonstrate they are of sound mind and renouncing on their own free will, if applicable; OR maybe they never acquired U.S. citizenship at birth because it would affect their right to tribal property.

But wasn't your point that not everyone gets US citizenship just by birth and that this applied to the children of tribe members born in the US. So, how do the tribe members call upon 8 USC 1401 (b) so that their children don't get US citizenship?

They don’t have to “call upon it.”

You give birth in the U.S., your child automatically acquires citizenship...UNLESS they don’t acquire it because the parent is a member of a qualifying tribe AND the child’s right to own tribal property would be affected by having U.S. citizenship.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Maybe you missed my edit but you seem to have flipped-flopped.

a reply to: daskakik

I haven’t flip flopped once. You just have a thin grasp, if any. I’ve been completely consistent.

Goodnight daskik.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sure you did. You said that parents are not given a choice, that no forms exist that it is automatic and you have no way of explaining how that would work within the scope of 8 USC 1401(b). Surely the child isn't going to say anything and I'm pretty sure once you have a BC and SS it would have alreeady affected the right of such person to tribal or other property. You can't have it both ways.

Also "call upon" is a figure of speech.

originally posted by: daskakik

ETA: To your edit. How could that be unless they somehow notify that the child is the offspring of an excluded tribe or something? I'm thinking like a form of some kind but you just said that parents are not given the choice.

No one needs to notify the U.S. government that they are not a citizen of the U.S.

Do you think every Chinese citizen needs to notify the U.S. government that they aren’t a U.S. citizen?

You only need to prove you are a U.S. citizen...and only if you want some benefit exclusive to U.S. citizens.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It all depends on when the child is born really. If she gives up her US citizenship, renouncing it before she is pregnant, then the child would not be a US citizen. However, if she is pregnant, then the child would be a US citizen.

But regardless, even if she does and that child retains and moves back to the USA and gets elected to be President, it would mean that the child would have to renounce all ties to the UK and be removed from the line of succession, as the constitution is very clear on that one.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Actually, if you had read the article about the diplomats who are getting citizenship for their kids you would have seen that that is not the case.

ETA: Just a bit from that article:

There is no federal requirement that hospitals ask new parents if they are foreign diplomatic staff. State agencies do not instruct hospitals to differentiate between children born to diplomatic staff and those born to U.S. citizens or temporary or illegal aliens. Hospitals issue the same birth certificates to all newborns.

To be fair it is from 2011.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Actually, if you had read the article about the diplomats who are getting citizenship for their kids you would have seen that that is not the case.

Claiming U.S. citizenship is the opposite of NOT claiming U.S. citizenship.

Your article is immaterial and irrelevant.

ETA: ah, I think I see what you are asking, now. My response is that a parent would simply not apply for a SS# if their child is not a U.S. Citizen.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The article stated that nobody is asking about the parents' legal status so it is relevant to the claim in your post.

ETA: So, they might be given a choice? Although, the article says, and you have also said, that they really are not.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The article stated that nobody is asking about the parents' legal status so it is relevant to the claim in your post.

ETA: So, they are given a choice?

Sounds like another example of how not everyone born on U.S. soil automatically acquires U.S. citizenship at birth, to me.

It’s interesting, and I need to read more about it to give you thoughtful input. Not tonight though. I was tired hours ago.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's actually an example of how everyone, even the children of diplomats, which I said was a better example of those who shouldn't be getting birthright citizenship, are getting it.

ETA: I would also like to say that my point all along wasn't that people do/should all have birthright citizenship but that 8 USC 1401(b) only applies to tribes within the US while you implied that it applied to any tribe worldwide.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It all depends on when the child is born really. If she gives up her US citizenship, renouncing it before she is pregnant, then the child would not be a US citizen. However, if she is pregnant, then the child would be a US citizen.

But regardless, even if she does and that child retains and moves back to the USA and gets elected to be President, it would mean that the child would have to renounce all ties to the UK and be removed from the line of succession, as the constitution is very clear on that one.

Thanks for the reply
So a UK prince or princess from Meghan and Harry could in theory be president of the US if born over there then.
As I said earlier I don't want to go off topic here so may start a thread about it, but renouncing line of succession would mean nothing really if the UK king's grandson became POTUS, you never leave the firm. What an interesting situation that would be.

Remember the Emoluments Clause?

This child would be a legitimate case of it. Emoluments are titles like the Euro nobility have, and this kid would have that in spades by being the child of his or her father and because of who that father is there would be all kinds of obligations that come with it.

We're not talking about a casual knighting from the Queen. We're talking about in line to the throne type stuff and all the loyalty question built into that.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

As I stated before, it would be timing. If she is over there and becomes a US citizen and is in the process of renouncing her US citizenship, that may hinder any aspirations to such. But if they do set a date, it may be a good thing for her to do such, that way it would remove the US government and a certain agency out of the way and complications that she would not want nor would the UK or even the royal family, and that would be the IRS. They apparently tax people who are leaving the USA and send them a bill.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: dragonridr

" Being born in the United States to immigrant parents."





To Legal immigrant parents .

being legal parents is not required according to the constitution for a child naturally born in usa and that is not to be confused to naturalized citizen and that is what the daca kids would be if givin any kinda status other than illegal.

To me naturalized would mean to take a legal path along with accepting language and customs of the usa.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are right being a citizen is something you have to opt in to or guardians have to opt you in to the system.

However they are automatically nbc simply by making the choice to stay and forms may follow to seal the deal.

I do not believe that any nbc will be deported just because they have not filed paperwork.

imo being born here makes one a natural born citizen regardless of paperwork.

At some point we should clean up all these amendments by all getting together.

looks like they will all get the shaft if the government does not get its act together

sad that we cant even naturalize anyone
we cant turn the lights on in peurto rico but we can cut the corporate tax to 20%

priorities