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

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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

But section 19 basically defers nationality from that code and only talks about citizenship, so we must look at another code 1401 to define nationality.

19 says nothing in this act will confer (grant), terminate or restore...

Code 1401 is still in affect to grant....

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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

But section 19 basically defers nationality from that code and only talks about citizenship, so we must look at another code 1401 to define nationality.

19 says nothing in this act will confer (grant), terminate or restore...

Code 1401 is still in affect to grant....

No. It says nothing contained in the Statehood Act SHALL OPERATE TO CONFER NATIONALITY.

By OPERATION of the Act that provided for the admission of Hawaii as a state of the Union, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 would confer U.S. Nationality to those born in Hawaii.

So, that is in conflict with this:



Therefore, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401(a) is REPEALED with respect to those born in the State of Hawaii.

What on earth would it be referring to if not the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act? There is no other way to be conferred U.S. Nationality than through the 1952 INA. The U.S. Constitution/14th does not expressly confer U.S. Nationality.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

No. It says nothing contained in the Statehood Act SHALL OPERATE TO CONFER NATIONALITY.

It does not use the word statehood in section 19

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

No. It says nothing contained in the Statehood Act SHALL OPERATE TO CONFER NATIONALITY.

It does not use the word statehood in section 19

The "Act" is the Statehood Act. "This Act" IS the 1952 Hawaii Statehood Act and that is the Act to which the words "this Act" refers.

That is section 19 of the 1952 Hawaii Statehood Act.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

No. It says nothing contained in the Statehood Act SHALL OPERATE TO CONFER NATIONALITY.

It does not use the word statehood in section 19

It doesn't refer to anything, just that this act has nothing to do with nationality.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

No. It says nothing contained in the Statehood Act SHALL OPERATE TO CONFER NATIONALITY.

It does not use the word statehood in section 19

It doesn't refer to anything, just that this act has nothing to do with nationality.

Incredible.

You are seriously claiming that this:



Says this:

"this act has nothing to do with nationality."

When it plainly doesn't.

Still don't see your point other than to suggest those born in HI can not be a national, and so can not be President.

Can I ask you why do you think this all means

"8 U.S. Code Section 1401(a) is REPEALED with respect to those born in the State of Hawaii."

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Still don't see your point other than to suggest those born in HI can not be a national, and so can not be President.

Actually I did not say that. I don't have the answer to whether a non-US National can be president or not. *Seems* to be a perversion of the eligibility clause if they can, though.

And I didn't say that no person born in Hawaii is born a U.S. National because they may actually acquire nationality via another part of 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 which confers U.S. Nationality through their parent(s) U.S. nationality.

You wrote:

Can I ask you why do you think this all means

"8 U.S. Code Section 1401(a) is REPEALED with respect to those born in the State of Hawaii."

I have answered this ad nauseam in the thread, but here are the operations of law that repeal it, again:

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 -- including it in the "United States" as used in the above 8 U.S. Code § 1401(a), which is part of 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 8 US Code § 1405 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.

a reply to: MotherMayEye


Section 19 of the THE ADMISSION ACT says this act has nothing to do with nationality

Section 23 deals with conflict of this act, so if section 19 says this act has nothing to do with nationality how is anything in conflict. 19 does not give or take away nationality...

I know you are frustrate, so no need to reply. Just remember there are 70 years of scholars that have not tried to make your point.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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."

No, that scenario makes no sense whatsoever.

There are only 2 classes of people in the authoritative definition for who are a U.S. National, not 3:
8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22)
"(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."

A person is a U.S. National if they are a U.S. Citizen.
A person is a U.S. National if they are not a U.S. Citizen and owe permanent allegiance to the U.S.

I don't see in 8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22) where it it says a person is a U.S. National if they are a U.S. Citizen except if they were conferred U.S. Nationality through the 1952 INA. This is your own imagination and your scenario is bunk.

The Venn diagram you've made with (A) is not possible through the law. Your diagram with (B) is the only interpretation.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Section 19 of the THE ADMISSION ACT says this act has nothing to do with nationality

It does not say that. You are paraphrasing and your interpretation falls short...I won't say it's entirely incorrect though.

Here's my paraphrase and interpretation...

• This act is prohibited from being used in any operation of law that would confer U.S. nationality based on the legal fact that the State of Hawaii is now folded into the term "the United States."

• This act is also prohibited from being used in any operation of law that would terminate ANY KIND of nationality, acquired before the enactment of this Act, based on the legal fact that the State of Hawaii is now folded into the term "the United States."

AND...

• This act is also prohibited from being used in any operation of law that would restore ANY KIND of nationality, lost before the enactment of this Act, based on the legal fact that the State of Hawaii is now folded into the term "the United States."


For reference:

a reply to: MotherMayEye

But that is my point..If it can't give, takeaway or restore prior nationality what can it do? If it can't do any of this how is any other act that does deal with nationality in conflict?

a reply to: Greven

originally posted by: Greven
No, that scenario makes no sense whatsoever.

There are only 2 classes of people in the authoritative definition for who are a U.S. Natural, not 3:
8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22)
["(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."

Hello?

You mean why doesn't it say this:

8 U.S. Code § 1101

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

Holy crap. You can't be for real on that????

****

Also I didn't say I could back up (A) in the diagrams I posted. I just said with the actual laws in effect, there is no way to say whether A or B is the correct visualization. Maybe A is bunk. Maybe B is though.

One thing I do know is that the 14th Amendment specifically offers protection for the privileges and immunities belonging to the kinds of U.S. citizens described therein:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So...if you are a U.S. citizen solely by virtue of 8 US Code Section 1405, then you cannot be assumed to be guaranteed those protections.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So...if you are a U.S. citizen solely by virtue of 8 US Code Section 1405, then you cannot be assumed to be guaranteed those protections.

Why not? How does 8 US Code Section 1405 invalidate:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. ?

Are you saying you're perception of the absence of the state's conference of "national status" invalidates U.S. Jurisdiction?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: MotherMayEye

But that is my point..If it can't give, takeaway or restore prior nationality what can it do? If it can't do any of this how is any other act that does deal with nationality in conflict?

That's why I wouldn't say you were entirely incorrect in your paraphrase.

Of course it can't give, takeaway or restore prior nationality, because that's not its purpose. That's what the INA is for. Its purpose is to provide for admitting Hawaii as a state.

But it also can't BE USED in any operation of law to give, takeaway or restore prior nationality.

If you read 8 US Code Section 1401(a) you think, "Persons born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Hmmm... Well, Hawaii is part of the United States and it's a legal fact proven with the 1959 Statehood Act. People born in Hawaii qualify as U.S. citizens and nationals at birth under 8 US Code Section 1401(a)!"

But the Statehood Act says that its provisions admitting Hawaii as a state (nothing in it) shall not operate to confer U.S. Nationality.

And when you consider that the Statehood Act also expressly leaves in effect, the section of code which is specific to making people born in Hawaii U.S. citizens at birth...*voila* you see that, in fact, it does not expressly confer U.S. nationality at birth nor does it require that a person born a U.S. citizen, in Hawaii, to be born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US."

That is in contrast with 8 US Code Section 1401(a) which confers U.S. citizenship AND nationality to those persons born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

(..and, obviously, the 14th Amendment, too.)

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So...if you are a U.S. citizen solely by virtue of 8 US Code Section 1405, then you cannot be assumed to be guaranteed those protections.

Why not? How does 8 US Code Section 1405 invalidate:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. ?

Are you saying you're perception of the absence of the state's conference of "national status" invalidates U.S. Jurisdiction?

No, I am saying if someone is born a citizen exclusively through this section of the INA:

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.

Then it cannot be "ASSUMED" that they are protected as "citizens of the United States" under the 14th Amendment, because that section of code does not require a person to be born in the U.S. and "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S." in conferring U.S. citizenship...unlike the 14th Amendment.

It would not be for anyone to decide based on a reading of that section of code, alone.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Just remember there are 70 years of scholars that have not tried to make your point.

BUT, there are countless Hawaiian citizens who are still fighting for independence (including the Kingdom of Hawaii that is still in operation) who have tried to make this point. I really cannot claim it to be mine.

They are well aware that Congress did not confer nationality by operation of the Statehood Act.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I disagree with you, section 19 says can not give or takeaway, so at that point it has nothing to do with nationality, other codes give if you are on US soil, and HI is Us soil, other codes also say a citizen also has U.S. Nationality, and that is why many times the two are interchangeable, but you disagree.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I disagree with you, section 19 says can not give or takeaway, so at that point it has nothing to do with nationality, other codes give if you are on US soil, and HI is Us soil, other codes also say a citizen also has U.S. Nationality, and that is why many times the two are interchangeable, but you disagree.

You keep forgetting the word "operate." Section 19 says the act can not OPERATE to give or takeaway, etc...

And they are not interchangeable as evidenced in the INA:

8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22)
"(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."

And there is no question that there are U.S. Nationals who are NOT U.S. citizens. The terms are not interchangeable.

It's not all loosey-goosey and you can infer whatever you want depending on what you'd like the conclusion to be.

ETA: But, I am totally good with agreeing to disagree.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Greven

originally posted by: Greven
No, that scenario makes no sense whatsoever.

There are only 2 classes of people in the authoritative definition for who are a U.S. Natural, not 3:
8 U.S. Code § 1101 (22)
["(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."

Hello?

You mean why doesn't it say this:

8 U.S. Code § 1101

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

Holy crap. You can't be for real on that????

****

Also I didn't say I could back up (A) in the diagrams I posted. I just said with the actual laws in effect, there is no way to say whether A or B is the correct visualization. Maybe A is bunk. Maybe B is though.

One thing I do know is that the 14th Amendment specifically offers its protection of the privileges and immunities of the kinds of U.S. citizens described therein:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So...if you are a U.S. citizen solely by virtue of 8 US Code Section 1405, then you cannot be assumed to be guaranteed those protections.

What? No. You're good at imagining things, I'll grant.

8 U.S. Code § 1101 says this:
"(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"

It does not say this:
"(22) The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, except when citizenship is from 8 US Code § 1405, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States"

8 U.S. Code § 1101 also does not say:
"(22) The term “national of the United States” may be (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"

It very specifically says that's what "national of the United States” means. This is not 'may be' or 'can be' or 'could be' or any optional thing; this is a definition of the term.

If a person is either of those two classes of people, then that means the person is a U.S. National.

You claim a person who is born in Hawaii is not a U.S. National even if said person is a U.S. Citizen.

This simply isn't a possible anywhere in 8 U.S. Code § 1101. Such an idea is incompatible with the definition of the term.