Found: The Toxic Terms Scrubbed from the Web

I was intrigued by a huge run-up in views of the most popular exposition I’ve written, without any explanation known to me.  I went to its page and found reference to a government website that had statements fatal to Obama’s legitimacy, so I clicked on the link out of curiosity, -not having visited it for years, and I was amazed to find a Bing message that said they would like to describe the missing page but the website won’t allow it.

As told on my homepage, a few years ago I broke the news to attorney Leo Donofrio about having found in the INS Interpretations a mention of native and natural born citizen, plus one including naturalized citizen.  He was taken aback and wrote a blog post on the subject, located here:

Upon finding the page, which had already been hidden once before,  missing, I spent much of a day searching for it, but I found that it not only was nowhere to be found on any government website but the entire huge collection of INS Interpretations had been removed with no mention of them in any search result .  But even worse, they had also been deleted from the internet archive at the Wayback Machine website!  The only capture they had was of “Page Not Found”.

I finally found on the web a replica of the entire Interpretations page, (only one) in an obscure page that has been long abandoned.  I down loaded it, and copied and pasted to this page all of the pertinent sections and more so they will not disappear again.

Here’s the pdf I downloaded.  I’m assuming it is the same as the pdf page I downloaded it from.


Interpretations  890Kb.  Key page is page 190;  (shown below; key words are in Red and are easily located.)

Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.

(a)  Repatriation
(b) Naturalization.
(c) Effect of expatriation reversals under Afroyim v. Rusk upon derivative citizenship rights.

(a) Repatriation. (1) Before and under the 1907 statute. A United States citizen woman who expatriated herself
under the circumstances set forth in INTERP 324.1 could regain her citizenship prior to the Act of March 2, 1907,
even though that statute was the first enactment which provided for such restoration of status.

Citizenship lost in accordance with the principles recognized by the Service prior to the 1907 Act was resumed upon termination of the marriage before September 22, 1922, provided the expatriate was then residing in the United States. 26/ If such expatriate resided abroad at termination time, resumption occurred upon her return to the United States for permanent residence prior to September 22, 1922, 27/ or upon her registration as a United States citizen before a United States consular officer subsequent to March 1, 1907, and within one year after termination of the marriage.
Citizenship lost under the 1907 statute was resumed under the same conditions set forth above, except that the
expatriate who resided in the United States when the marriage was terminated reacquired status only upon a
continuance of such residence for at least a short period beyond the termination date of the marriage. 28/
The statutes did not provide for any procedure whereby a person repatriated in accordance with the above
principles could secure an official document as evidence of that fact.

(2) Act of June 25, 1936. (i) Resumption provisions.

The Act of September 22, 1922, 29/ repealed the above resumption provisions of the 1907 statute without disturbing status regained thereunder, and statutory authority for the repatriation of citizen women expatriated through marriage ceased to exist until the enactment of legislation in 1936. 30/
Under the 1936 enactment, any woman, irrespective of her race or that of her husband, who had acquired citizenship at birth within or without the United States, but who, on June 24, 1836, no longer had such status because of expatriation prior to September 22, 1922, under the conditions specified in INTERP 324.1,was restored to citizenship on June 25, 1936, if her marriage had terminated on or before that date; or upon the termination of her marriage thereafter, on a date prior to January 13, 1941. 31/

Lacking termination of the marriage, as above, citizenship was resumed on July 2, 1940, if the expatriate had
resided continuously 32/ in the United States since the date of the marriage. 33/

(ii) Effect of oath of allegiance. The above 1936 Act, in its original and amended forms, made provision for the oath
of allegiance 34/ to be taken before a naturalization court or a legation or embassy secretary. Although some courts
have held otherwise, 35/ the Service, supported by substantial authority, has taken the position that a woman
contemplated by these statutory provisions was automatically reinvested with United States citizenship by
operation of law, irrespective of whether or not the oath was taken.
However, while the taking of the above oath was not a condition precedent to the vesting of citizenship, such action
was necessary before the repatriated women might claim or exercise any rights as citizens. 36/
(3) Nationality Act of 1940; Immigration and Nationality Act.

(i) Applicability. The 1936 statute, as amended, was repealed by the Nationality Act of October 14, 1940, which, in turn, was superseded by the current statute; however citizenship restored under the 1936 Act, and the right to take the oath of allegiance thereunder before a naturalization court, were not affected by the later enactments. 37/

Moreover, there were included in section 317(b) of the Nationality Act of 1940, and in current section 324 almost
identical provisions providing for the restoration of citizenship to women who would have been repatriated by the
1936 Act, as amended, had their marriages terminated prior to January 13, 1941, or, lacking that factor, had
maintained continuous United States residence since that date of the marriage.

Termination of the marriage to an alien continued to be a requirement of the Nationality Act of 1940 and the present
law but, under both statutes, the event must have occurred on or after January 13, 1941.
The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen
woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship, a category of expatriate
not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation.

(ii) Effect of oath of allegiance. Unlike the 1936 enactment, the 1940 statute required and the current law requires as a specific prerequisite to the actual restoration of citizenship status, the taking of the oath of allegiance.

(iii) Proscription of subversives. Current section 324(c) may be distinguished from section 317(b) of the 1940 Act in
that, under the present law, specific provision is made to disqualify subversive persons specified in section 313, 38/
whereas under the earlier statute it was held administratively that the somewhat similar restrictions set forth in
section 305 of that statute, as amended, applied. 39/

(4) Nature of marriage termination requirement. This requirement within the meaning of all the statutes did and
does contemplate the complete dissolution of the martial status by judicial divorce or the death of the alien husband.
Thus, when marriage to an alien husband ended, in the sense that he ceased to be an alien by reason of naturalization during coverture, the requirement is not satisfied.

However, if marriage to an alien was terminated in accordance with the above requirement, a subsequent marriage
to the same or a different alien after September 21, 1922, other that a marriage to an alien racially ineligible to
naturalization contracted prior to March 3, 1931, did not adversely affect eligibility under the 1936 statute, even
though the second marriage was valid and subsisting on June 25, 1936.

(5) No foreign nationality acquired. Under the Nationality Act of 1940, as well as the present law, the repatriate
must make a showing that no foreign nationality had been acquired by her affirmative act. Moreover, although this
express requirement of the two most recent enactments was not found in the 1936 statute, the woman who applied to take the oath of allegiance thereunder was required by the Service to furnish testimony which, in effect, established that she had not acquired a foreign nationality in the manner stated.

The acquisition of a foreign nationality within the above context does not contemplate citizenship automatically
conferred by operation of law through marriage to an alien, as discussed earlier in this interpretation, but rather has
reference to other affirmative action taken by a woman to gain recognition as a citizen of a foreign state. 40/

(6) Good faith oath of allegiance requirement. A person who has been restored to citizenship by the Act of June 25,
1936, as amended by the Act of July 2, 1940, and applies to take the oath of allegiance in order to regain the rights
and privileges of citizenship, or a former citizen who applies for repatriation under current section 324(c), is
required to be questioned to determine whether she intends in good faith to discharge the obligations of the oath of
allegiance and whether her attitude toward the Constitution and Government of the United States renders her
capable of fulfilling the obligations of the oath. If the intention in good faith or the required attitude is not
established, an objection to the taking of the oath or to the repatriation shall be made on the ground that the applicant is unable to take the prescribed oath of allegiance.

Shortly before enactment of the present legislation, the good faith and proper attitude described above were also
required of applicants who sought repatriation by taking the oath of allegiance pursuant to section 317(b) of the
Nationality Act of 1940. 41/

(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective.

Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.
The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said
alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.

(8) Evidence of repatriation. An application who has been restored to citizenship under the provisions of the 1936
Act, the Nationality Act of 1940, or the current section is not entitled to receive a certificate of naturalization such as
is usually issued by the clerk of court. 42/

The respective statutes provide, however, that the above repatriate may receive from the clerk, a certified copy of the proceedings in court, which is acceptable as evidence of the regained status. If the proceedings were conducted abroad, a similar document may be secured from the United States consul.

(b) Naturalization.

At one time or another since September 22, 1922, women who expatriated themselves under the
circumstances set forth in INTERP 324.1 have been able to regain citizenship by means of a simplified form of
naturalization, if for any reason status had not been restored to them in accordance with the principles outlined in

INTERP 324.2(a).
Generally, the statutes authorizing the above naturalization procedures 43/ modified or accorded exemptions from
the usual naturalization provisions requiring a declaration of intention, United States residence, lawful entry for
permanent residence, residence within the jurisdiction of the court, and the petitioner’s intention to reside
permanently in the United States.

The above 1922 legislation, in its original form, provided only for the naturalization of a citizen wife who had lost
her status solely by marriage to an alien eligible for citizenship and expressly prohibited naturalization during
continuance of the marital status if the husband lacked such eligibility. 44/ The naturalization privilege was
extended by the above 1930 amendment to include a woman who had undergone expatriation as a result of her
husband’s loss of United States citizenship during subsistence of their marriage.

The 1931 Act cited above not only repealed the restrictive provisions of section 5 of the original 1922 enactment,
mentioned above, but it also extended the scope of the earlier legislation by providing for the naturalization of those
women who lost citizenship by residence abroad following marriage to an alien or by marriage to an alien racially
ineligible to citizenship. In addition, it sanctioned the naturalization of those women, formerly citizens at birth, who
were otherwise racially ineligible, but precluded restoration of status to any women whose citizenship originated
by marriage or the naturalization of a husband. 45/
The last mentioned restriction was not continued in the Nationality Act of 1940, nor was naturalization of racially
ineligible women thereunder limited to those who had acquired status at birth. With such exceptions, the 1940
enactment contained substantially the same provisions as the 1922 Act following its final amendment in 1931, and
somewhat comparable provisions are included in current section 324(a).
A petitioner for naturalization under all of the foregoing statutes was required to establish that a foreign nationality
had not been acquired by her affirmative act, a requisite that has been considered in connection with repatriation
under INTERP 324.2(a).

The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore
the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.
(c) Effect of expatriation reversals under Afroyim v. Rusk upon derivative citizenship rights. Prior to the decision in
Afroyim v. Rusk, children were held to have derived United States citizenship as a result of a parent’s reacquisition
of citizenship in one of the ways described in INTERP 324.2 (a) and (b) above. Whether such reacquisitions of
citizenship have ceased to have validity as naturalizations for derivative citizenship purposes, because the findings
of expatriation by marriage which made them necessary have been reversed under the Afroyim principle, is a
question considered in INTERP 320.1(e)(2).

“but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.”

Service Law Books

FN 26/Petition of Drysdale, 20 F. 2d 957 (1927).
FN 27/Watkina v. Morganthau, 56 F. Supp. 529 (1944).
FN 28/Sec. 3, Act of March 2, 1907.
FN 29/Sec. 7.
FN 30/In re Watson’s Repatriation, 42 F. Supp. 163, 165 (1941).
FN 31/Act of June 25, 1936.
FN 32/4 I. & N. Dec. 723 (1952).
FN 33/Act of June 25, 1936, as amended by the Act of July 2, 1940.
FN 34/See INTERP 337.
FN 35/In re Portner, 56 F. Supp. 103 (1944).
FN 36/1 I. & N. Dec. 127 (1941), 283 (1942); Petition of Davies, 53 F. Supp. 426 (1944).
FN 37/1 I. & N. Dec. 283 (1942).
FN 38/See INTERP 313.
FN 39/Gen. Coun., file 500/2, sec. 317, July 5, 1951.
FN 40/See INTERP 349.
FN 41/See Gen. Coun., file 500/2, sec. 317, July 5, 1951.
FN 42/See INTERP 338 and 343.
FN 43/Sec. 4, Act of September 22, 1922, as amended by the Acts of July 3, 1930, March 3, 1931; sec. 317(a),
Nationality Act of 1940.
FN 44/Sec. 5.
FN 45/See INTERP 341
Service Law Books

Interpretation 301.1 United States citizenship.

(a) Birth in the United States.
(b) Birth abroad.

(a) Birth in the United States.  (1) Statutory development. Prior to 1866, absent any statutory or constitutional
provision, it was generally held, under the common-law principle of jus soli (the law of the place), that a person born
in the United States acquired citizenship at birth; this principle was incorporated in the Civil Rights Act of April 9,
1866, and, two years later, found expression in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which
provides that all persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.
The above constitutional provision has remained in effect ever since, and is restated in this section. 1/

(2) “United States” defined. Prior to January 13, 1941, the term “United States” included the continental mainland,
Hawaii after August 11, 1898, 2/ Alaska, upon its formal incorporation into the Union on March 30, 1867, 3/ but not
Puerto Rico. 4/ The Philippine Islands have never been deemed to be part of the United States within the purview of
the 14th Amendment. 4a/
The territorial limits of the United States were extended on January 13, 1941, to include Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands, 5/ and the current statute has added Guam to this definitive grouping 6/
In addition to the land areas mentioned above, ports, harbors, bays, enclosed sea areas, and a three-mile marginal
belt, along the coasts thereof, form a part of the territorial limits of the United States. 7/
Notwithstanding the position taken in the second paragraph under INTERP 316.1(b)(2)(i) and in INTERP

329.1(c)(3)(ii), Midway Islands is not and never has been considered a part of the “United States” in the sense that
United States citizenship is or was acquired at birth therein under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, or any of the various statutory provisions which have conferred citizenship upon such basis.
(3) Effect of parents’ status. Alienage of a child’s parents does not preclude his acquisition of citizenship jus soli nor
did their racial ineligibility for naturalization under former laws have such result. 8/
Additionally, acquisition of citizenship is not affected by the fact that the alien parents are only temporarily in the
United States at the time of the child’s birth.

(4) Children of foreign diplomats. (i) Foreign diplomatic officers. Children of “foreign sovereigns” or “foreign
diplomatic officers” accredited to the United States, who as a matter of international law are not subject to its
jurisdiction, do not acquire citizenship in accordance with the jus soli doctrine.
The term “foreign sovereigns” includes any head of a foreign state on an official visit to this country.
The term “foreign diplomatic officers” refers to persons listed in the State Department Blue List, otherwise termed the Diplomatic List, and includes ambassadors, ministers, charges d’affaires, counselors, secretaries of embassies and legations, attaches, 9/ and other employees of embassies or legations; that term also includes persons with
comparable diplomatic status and immunity who are accredited to the United Nations.

(ii) Foreign government employees. Foreign government employees with limited or no diplomatic immunity, such as
consular officials named on the State Department list entitled “Foreign Consular Officers in the United States” and
their staffs are not within the term “foreign diplomatic officers;” therefore, their children are born subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States Employees of foreign diplomatic missions whose names appear on the State Department White List, otherwise known as the List of Employees of Diplomatic Missions Not Printed in the Diplomatic List, enjoy certain diplomatic immunities; however, since those immunities do not extend to their families, their children are born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

This last rule also prevails with respect to children whose parents are employees of foreign missions accredited to
the United Nations or foreign diplomats accredited to another foreign state.
(5) Birth on foreign public vessels. Persons born on foreign public vessels, such as warships, are not born subject to United States jurisdiction even though born in territorial waters.
(6) Indians. Tribal Indians, born in the United States, originally regarded as members of foreign nations for many
purposes, generally considered to be without the jurisdiction of the United States and did not benefit from the
constitutional grant of citizenship. 10/
However, certain Indians acquired citizenship by special legislation, 11/ and under the Act of June 2, 1924, the 1940
Act, 12/ and current section 301(a)(2), Indians born in the United States after June 1, 1924, acquired citizenship at

The Act of June 2, 1924, also conferred citizenship, as of such date, upon all non-citizen Indians previously born in the United States. ……


interpretations  890Kb.  Key page is page 190;  324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage


Sec. 301.1 United States Citizenship
301.2 Issuance of United States passports in relationship to citizenship claims
302.1 United States Citizenship acquired in Puerto Rico
303.1 United States Citizenship acquired in the Canal Zone; Republic of Panama
304.1 United States Citizenship acquired in Alaska
305.1 United States Citizenship acquired in Hawaii
306.1 United States Citizenship acquired in the Virgin Islands
307.1United States Citizenship acquired in Guam
308.1 United States noncitizen nationality
309.1 Acquisition of United States nationality by illegitimate children
310.1 Jurisdiction to naturalize
311.1 Eligibility to naturalization
312.1 Educational requirements
312.2 Educational requirements for naturalization satisfied pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act
of 1986 (IRCA)
313.1 Subversives
313.2 Immigration and Nationality Act

Naturalization based upon Citizenship of Spouse

319.2 Naturalization based upon citizenship of spouse employed abroad

320.1 Derivation of citizenship

320.2 Computation of age for derivative purposes

321.1 Reference

322.1 Naturalization of minor natural children

322.2 Naturalization of adopted minor children

322.3 Issues relating to both natural and adopted minor children

324.1 Loss of citizenship by marriage

324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage


Naturalization and Citizenship Requirements

By Joel H. Paget


A. No person’s right to be naturalized may be denied because of race, sex or marital status.

B. No person, except as otherwise provided in this title, shall be naturalized, unless such applicant satisfies the following:

1. The applicant for naturalization must be lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

I don’t consider this page finished yet.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers