A Subversive Congress...Citizenship...Eligibility Laws...Nationality...and more Birther talk...

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

By virtue of Obama's taking of the required Oath,he swore allegiance to the US and that he would defend the US Constitution. He was under the same legal onus that anyone swearing an oath is under. By swearing to adhere to the US Constitution, he created his responsibility of maintaining allegiance to the US. He violated that oath by swearing falsely and therefore became a traitor and a spy.He usurped the Presidency by fraud during time of war. www.thepostemail.com...

a reply to: Greven

And I am seriously confused as to why you are consulting the definition of the term 'national of the United States' to determine it's meaning in this section:

8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

...because that term is not even used in that section.

And, again, the Hawaii Statehood Act says none of its provisions shall operate to confer US nationality.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

And, again, the Hawaii Statehood Act says none of its provisions shall operate to confer US nationality.

I don't think that that is within the states' jurisdiction, to confer "national status". I would think that conferring "national status" on an individual or a group would be the job of the nation's federal government. Who confered "national status" on the Cherokee Nation, for example?

a reply to: Greven

Since Hawaii was illegally annexed, it is NOT a State or a US Incorporated Territory. See: "The Apology" signed by William Clinton as President [PL-103-150]. That said, mere birth in a State does NOT confer "Natural-Born Citizen[ship]" on anyone. See: Art. 2, Sec 1, Clause 5. SCOTUS has ruled in no less then four cases that a "Natural Born Citizen" is one born IN the United States to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. Minor v. Happersett, Shanks v Dupont, Wong Kim Ark and "the Venus". See also Laity v State of NY and Barack Obama and Laity v State of NY, Ted Cruz,Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal. There is now a group of people that are ineligible to be President who have tried to usurp OUR presidency. Two of them actually did so. "President" #21 Chester Arthur and "President" #44 Barack Obama. McCain,Cruz,Rubio,Jindal,Swarzenegger,Harris, et al, are/were ALL Constitutionally ineligible to be President. See my new book on this subject: "Imposters in the oval office" (IUniverse Publishing).

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your Icon is Blasphemous. Don't you fear God?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Greven

And I am seriously confused as to why you are consulting the definition of the term 'national of the United States' to determine it's meaning in this section:

8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

...because that term is not even used in that section.

And, again, the Hawaii Statehood Act says none of its provisions shall operate to confer US nationality.

Your entire OP is about someone from Hawaii somehow being a U.S. Citizen, but not a U.S. National.

The law says that anyone who is a U.S. Citizen is a U.S. National.

8 U.S. Code § 1405 says that people born in Hawaii are U.S. Citizens. Therefore, they too are U.S. Nationals.

The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't interfere with either nationality or citizenship.

This is pretty straightforward.

originally posted by: RobertLaity
a reply to: Swills

It is NOT "Time to move on". Obama ,who has been under formal citizens arrest since 2012, is an imposter,fraud,traitor and spy. See: "There is NO 'President' Obama" www.thepostemail.com... Also see: "Imposters in the Oval Office" by me.

(IUniverse Publishing). www.thepostemail.com... Obama should be hanged or shot by a military firing squad, if convicted.

Oh my goodness! According you, and your source, none of Donald Trump's kids are eligible to run for President but Tiffany!

originally posted by: RobertLaity
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your Icon is Blasphemous. Don't you fear God?

How about you help me pick out a new, less blasphemous one?

Should it be 1)?


2)?


Or 3)?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Check your PMs Sookie

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MotherMayEye

And, again, the Hawaii Statehood Act says none of its provisions shall operate to confer US nationality.

I don't think that that is within the states' jurisdiction, to confer "national status". I would think that conferring "national status" on an individual or a group would be the job of the nation's federal government. Who confered "national status" on the Cherokee Nation, for example?

The Hawaii Statehood Act was an Act of the U.S. Congress.

originally posted by: Greven
Your entire OP is about someone from Hawaii somehow being a U.S. Citizen, but not a U.S. National.

The law says that anyone who is a U.S. Citizen is a U.S. National.

You can't find a law that says that. You're just repeating your understanding. So I think we're through with that line of the discussion.

originally posted by: Greven
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't interfere with either nationality or citizenship.

This is pretty straightforward.

No. It's straightforward that it does:



You have to do mental gymnastics to conclude it does not.

Anything you think confers U.S. nationality to people born in Hawaii, in 8 U.S. Code Section 1401(a) from the 1952 INA is repealed because it is in conflict with the above:

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven
Your entire OP is about someone from Hawaii somehow being a U.S. Citizen, but not a U.S. National.

The law says that anyone who is a U.S. Citizen is a U.S. National.

You can't find a law that says that. You're just repeating your understanding. So I think we're through with that line of the discussion.

originally posted by: Greven
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't interfere with either nationality or citizenship.

This is pretty straightforward.

No. It's straightforward that it does:

You have to do mental gymnastics to conclude it does not.

Just because you don't want to accept the facts doesn't make them untrue.

Again, that section explicitly says it does not confer, NOR TERMINATE, nor restore nationality. Therefore, it's not in conflict and doesn't repeal the previous legislation. Essentially, it's saying that nationality bestowed by the earlier 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act remains in effect.

8 U.S. Code § 1405 says people born in Hawaii are U.S. Citizens.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22) says U.S. Nationals are U.S. Citizens or those who owe permanent allegiance to the U.S.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 was in 1952, before the Hawaii Statehood Act.
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't confer, terminate, or restore nationality.

You keep arguing that I'm not citing the definition of U.S. Citizen when you are not talking about it either. You are arguing that someone can be a U.S. Citizen and not a U.S. National. 8 U.S. Code § 1101 says a person is a U.S. National if they are a U.S. Citizen and the Hawaii Statehood Act is in no way in conflict with it so there is no repeal. Your argument is wrong.

There is no more to say. You are wrong.

originally posted by: Greven

Just because you don't want to accept the facts doesn't make them untrue.

Again, that section explicitly says it does not confer, NOR TERMINATE, nor restore nationality. Therefore, it's not in conflict and doesn't repeal the previous legislation. Essentially, it's saying that the citizenship bestowed by the earlier 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act remains in effect.

8 U.S. Code § 1405 says people born in Hawaii are U.S. Citizens.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22) says U.S. Nationals are U.S. Citizens or those who owe permanent allegiance to the U.S.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 was in 1952, before the Hawaii Statehood Act.
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't confer, terminate, or restore nationality.

There is no more to say. You are wrong.

There is more to say because it's you that is wrong. Obama and everyone else born AFTER the Hawaii Statehood Act went into effect had no nationality to terminate. If you think you had nationality before you were born, then you are wrong about, too.

You wrote:

8 U.S. Code § 1101 was in 1952, before the Hawaii Statehood Act.
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't confer, terminate, or restore nationality.

And you are wrong, again.

Anything you think confers U.S. nationality to people born in Hawaii, in 8 U.S. Code Section 1401(a) from the 1952 INA is repealed in the 1959 Statehood Act because it conflicts with the nationality provision:

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

Just because you don't want to accept the facts doesn't make them untrue.

Again, that section explicitly says it does not confer, NOR TERMINATE, nor restore nationality. Therefore, it's not in conflict and doesn't repeal the previous legislation. Essentially, it's saying that the citizenship bestowed by the earlier 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act remains in effect.

8 U.S. Code § 1405 says people born in Hawaii are U.S. Citizens.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22) says U.S. Nationals are U.S. Citizens or those who owe permanent allegiance to the U.S.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 was in 1952, before the Hawaii Statehood Act.
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't confer, terminate, or restore nationality.

There is no more to say. You are wrong.

There is more to say because it's you that is wrong. Obama and everyone else born AFTER the Hawaii Statehood Act went into effect had no nationality to terminate. If you think you had nationality before you were born, then you are wrong about, too.

You wrote:

8 U.S. Code § 1101 was in 1952, before the Hawaii Statehood Act.
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't confer, terminate, or restore nationality.

And you are wrong, again.

Anything you think confers U.S. nationality to people born in Hawaii, in 8 U.S. Code Section 1401(a) from the 1952 INA is repealed in the 1959 Statehood Act because it conflicts with the nationality provision:

I'm done trying to explain this to you. 8 U.S. Code Section 1401(a) is current law and nobody considers it repealed, and I'm not even talking about it so I don't know why you're bringing it up.

Your turn.

Explain why the 1959 Statehood Act is in conflict with 8 U.S. Code § 1405 or 8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22).

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

Just because you don't want to accept the facts doesn't make them untrue.

Again, that section explicitly says it does not confer, NOR TERMINATE, nor restore nationality. Therefore, it's not in conflict and doesn't repeal the previous legislation. Essentially, it's saying that the citizenship bestowed by the earlier 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act remains in effect.

8 U.S. Code § 1405 says people born in Hawaii are U.S. Citizens.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22) says U.S. Nationals are U.S. Citizens or those who owe permanent allegiance to the U.S.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 was in 1952, before the Hawaii Statehood Act.
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't confer, terminate, or restore nationality.

There is no more to say. You are wrong.

There is more to say because it's you that is wrong. Obama and everyone else born AFTER the Hawaii Statehood Act went into effect had no nationality to terminate. If you think you had nationality before you were born, then you are wrong about, too.

You wrote:

8 U.S. Code § 1101 was in 1952, before the Hawaii Statehood Act.
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't confer, terminate, or restore nationality.

And you are wrong, again.

Anything you think confers U.S. nationality to people born in Hawaii, in 8 U.S. Code Section 1401(a) from the 1952 INA is repealed in the 1959 Statehood Act because it conflicts with the nationality provision:

I'm done trying to explain this to you.

Your turn. Explain why it is in conflict.

I don't need you to explain anything to me. You are demonstrably wrong.

THIS:

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Is in conflict with THIS:


AND the Act that PROVIDED FOR admitting Hawaii as a state of the "United States" (as appears in the above 8 U.S. Code § 1401) from the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act -- an Act of the U.S. Congress -- says that part of the Act was repealed in 1959:




AND it also left 8 US Code § 1405 in effect and unamended:




Making THAT the law that confers citizenship (and ONLY citizenship) to people born in Hawaii:

8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

They aren't required to be "born subject to U.S. jurisdiction" to be U.S. citizens at birth and they aren't conferred U.S. nationality.


Believe what you want but I have outlined and sourced the operations of law.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

Just because you don't want to accept the facts doesn't make them untrue.

Again, that section explicitly says it does not confer, NOR TERMINATE, nor restore nationality. Therefore, it's not in conflict and doesn't repeal the previous legislation. Essentially, it's saying that the citizenship bestowed by the earlier 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act remains in effect.

8 U.S. Code § 1405 says people born in Hawaii are U.S. Citizens.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22) says U.S. Nationals are U.S. Citizens or those who owe permanent allegiance to the U.S.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 was in 1952, before the Hawaii Statehood Act.
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't confer, terminate, or restore nationality.

There is no more to say. You are wrong.

There is more to say because it's you that is wrong. Obama and everyone else born AFTER the Hawaii Statehood Act went into effect had no nationality to terminate. If you think you had nationality before you were born, then you are wrong about, too.

You wrote:

8 U.S. Code § 1101 was in 1952, before the Hawaii Statehood Act.
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't confer, terminate, or restore nationality.

And you are wrong, again.

Anything you think confers U.S. nationality to people born in Hawaii, in 8 U.S. Code Section 1401(a) from the 1952 INA is repealed in the 1959 Statehood Act because it conflicts with the nationality provision:

I'm done trying to explain this to you.

Your turn. Explain why it is in conflict.

I don't need you to explain anything to me. You are demonstrably wrong.

THIS:

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Is in conflict with THIS:

AND the Act that made Hawaii part of the United States (as appears in the above 8 U.S. Code § 1401) from the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act -- an Act of the U.S. Congress -- says that part of the Act was repealed in 1959:

AND it also left 8 US Code § 1405 in effect and unamended:

Making THAT the law that confers citizenship (and ONLY citizenship) to people born in Hawaii:

8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

They aren't required to be "born subject to U.S. jurisdiction" to be U.S. citizens at birth and they aren't conferred U.S. nationality.


Believe what you want but I have outlined and sourced the operations of law.

Why do you keep talking about 8 U.S. Code § 1401 as if that relates at all to what I'm discussing?

I'm not talking about 8 U.S. Code § 1401. Prior to this post and the last, I hadn't even done more than quote a post of yours which was talking about it. This post and the previous post ask why you keep associating it with my argument.

I'm talking about 8 U.S. Code § 1405 or 8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22).

You've already granted that the 1959 Hawaii Statehood Act is not in conflict with 8 U.S. Code § 1405.

Explain why the 1959 Hawaii Statehood Act is in conflict with 8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22).

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

Just because you don't want to accept the facts doesn't make them untrue.

Again, that section explicitly says it does not confer, NOR TERMINATE, nor restore nationality. Therefore, it's not in conflict and doesn't repeal the previous legislation. Essentially, it's saying that the citizenship bestowed by the earlier 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act remains in effect.

8 U.S. Code § 1405 says people born in Hawaii are U.S. Citizens.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22) says U.S. Nationals are U.S. Citizens or those who owe permanent allegiance to the U.S.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 was in 1952, before the Hawaii Statehood Act.
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't confer, terminate, or restore nationality.

There is no more to say. You are wrong.

There is more to say because it's you that is wrong. Obama and everyone else born AFTER the Hawaii Statehood Act went into effect had no nationality to terminate. If you think you had nationality before you were born, then you are wrong about, too.

You wrote:

8 U.S. Code § 1101 was in 1952, before the Hawaii Statehood Act.
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't confer, terminate, or restore nationality.

And you are wrong, again.

Anything you think confers U.S. nationality to people born in Hawaii, in 8 U.S. Code Section 1401(a) from the 1952 INA is repealed in the 1959 Statehood Act because it conflicts with the nationality provision:

I'm done trying to explain this to you.

Your turn. Explain why it is in conflict.

I don't need you to explain anything to me. You are demonstrably wrong.

THIS:

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Is in conflict with THIS:

AND the Act that made Hawaii part of the United States (as appears in the above 8 U.S. Code § 1401) from the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act -- an Act of the U.S. Congress -- says that part of the Act was repealed in 1959:

AND it also left 8 US Code § 1405 in effect and unamended:

Making THAT the law that confers citizenship (and ONLY citizenship) to people born in Hawaii:

8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

They aren't required to be "born subject to U.S. jurisdiction" to be U.S. citizens at birth and they aren't conferred U.S. nationality.


Believe what you want but I have outlined and sourced the operations of law.

Why do you keep talking about 8 U.S. Code § 1401 as if that relates at all to what I'm discussing?

I'm not talking about 8 U.S. Code § 1401.

I'm talking about 8 U.S. Code § 1405 or 8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22).

Explain why the 1959 Hawaii Statehood Act is in conflict with 8 U.S. Code § 1405 or 8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22).

I didn't say the 1959 Statehood Act was in conflict with 8 U.S. Code § 1405. It isn't. BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONFER NATIONALITY. 8 U.S. Code § 1401 is the section of code that confers U.S. nationality at birth to those born in the U.S. (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof).

And 8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22) defines a 'national of the United States' which is a term that's nowhere to be found in 8 U.S. Code § 1405. So it's not in conflict with it either.

You are insisting that this definition:

(22) The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

..is represented by diagram 'B', below, instead of 'A':



...But you can cite no law to support that conclusion. It might be that it's represented with the 'A' diagram.

****

ETA: And, let me be clear...I am not saying that it's not represented by the 'B' diagram. I personally think it should be represented by the 'B' diagram. I'd just like something with legal weight to confirm it or not.

Interpretations, opinions, and flowcharts don't have legal weight.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven

Just because you don't want to accept the facts doesn't make them untrue.

Again, that section explicitly says it does not confer, NOR TERMINATE, nor restore nationality. Therefore, it's not in conflict and doesn't repeal the previous legislation. Essentially, it's saying that the citizenship bestowed by the earlier 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act remains in effect.

8 U.S. Code § 1405 says people born in Hawaii are U.S. Citizens.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22) says U.S. Nationals are U.S. Citizens or those who owe permanent allegiance to the U.S.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 was in 1952, before the Hawaii Statehood Act.
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't confer, terminate, or restore nationality.

There is no more to say. You are wrong.

There is more to say because it's you that is wrong. Obama and everyone else born AFTER the Hawaii Statehood Act went into effect had no nationality to terminate. If you think you had nationality before you were born, then you are wrong about, too.

You wrote:

8 U.S. Code § 1101 was in 1952, before the Hawaii Statehood Act.
The Hawaii Statehood Act doesn't confer, terminate, or restore nationality.

And you are wrong, again.

Anything you think confers U.S. nationality to people born in Hawaii, in 8 U.S. Code Section 1401(a) from the 1952 INA is repealed in the 1959 Statehood Act because it conflicts with the nationality provision:

I'm done trying to explain this to you.

Your turn. Explain why it is in conflict.

I don't need you to explain anything to me. You are demonstrably wrong.

THIS:

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Is in conflict with THIS:

AND the Act that made Hawaii part of the United States (as appears in the above 8 U.S. Code § 1401) from the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act -- an Act of the U.S. Congress -- says that part of the Act was repealed in 1959:

AND it also left 8 US Code § 1405 in effect and unamended:

Making THAT the law that confers citizenship (and ONLY citizenship) to people born in Hawaii:

8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

They aren't required to be "born subject to U.S. jurisdiction" to be U.S. citizens at birth and they aren't conferred U.S. nationality.


Believe what you want but I have outlined and sourced the operations of law.

Why do you keep talking about 8 U.S. Code § 1401 as if that relates at all to what I'm discussing?

I'm not talking about 8 U.S. Code § 1401.

I'm talking about 8 U.S. Code § 1405 or 8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22).

Explain why the 1959 Hawaii Statehood Act is in conflict with 8 U.S. Code § 1405 or 8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22).

I didn't say the 1959 Statehood Act was in conflict with 8 U.S. Code § 1405. It isn't. BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONFER NATIONALITY.

And 8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22) defines a 'national of the United States' which is a term that's nowhere to be found in 8 U.S. Code § 1405. So it's not in conflict with it either.

You are insisting that this definition:

(22) The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

Is represented by diagram 'B', below, instead of 'A':

...But you can cite no law to support that conclusion.

The law says just that, as illustrated in (B). I've cited that law. There is no room for interpretation in what that means.

As you quote:

(22) The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

The definition is for who is a U.S. National.
So we ask John Doe: "Are you a U.S. National?"
John Doe says: "I don't know! Am I?"
So we ask them: "Are you a U.S. Citizen?"
John Doe says: "Yes I am."
So we say: "You're a U.S. National."

If any person answers "Yes" to "Are you a U.S. Citizen?" then that person is a U.S. National.

originally posted by: Greven
As you quote:

"(22) The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States."

That can be visualized with diagram 'A' OR 'B':



You have nothing with legal weight to conclude which one represents it.

And this hypothetical scenario doesn't have legal weight:

OK, so we ask John Doe: "Are you a U.S. National?"
John Doe says: "I don't know! Am I?"
So we ask them: "are you a U.S. Citizen?"
John Doe says: "Yes I am."
So we say: "You're a U.S. National."

I can create this one:

OK, so we ask John Doe: "Are you a U.S. National?"
John Doe says: "I don't know! Am I?"
So we ask them: "are you a U.S. Citizen?"
John Doe says: "Yes I am."
So we ask them: : "Were you conferred U.S. Nationality through the 1952 INA?"
John Doe says: "No. I am a citizen only by virtue of 8 U.S. Code Section 1405."
So we ask them: "Were you naturalized under the process proscribed by Congress?"
John Doe says: "No."
So we say: "You're NOT a U.S. National."

How does this not apply to Obama? It seems you are saying the state code overrides the US code.

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

originally posted by: Xtrozero
How does this not apply to Obama? It seems you are saying the state code overrides the US code.

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

No, the 1959 Hawaii Statehood Act is an Act of the United States Congress. It's not state law, it's federal law.

***

And the U.S. Congress expressly repealed ALL previous Acts and parts of Acts that are in conflict with it.


The 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act contains parts that are in conflict with the 1959 Hawaii Statehood Act.