The DaVinci Code of American Citizenship

Were Bernie Maddoff’s investment account statements reflective of reality?  Was Arthur Anderson’s audit of Enron reflective of reality?  Was Obama’s promise that if you liked your health insurance, you could keep it, reflective of reality?  Did the government’s confidence that failing sub-prime mortgages did not indicate any problem for the U.S. economy reflect reality?  Disaster demonstrated that what everyone assumed to be true was not reflective of reality.  The same goes for the supposed American citizenship of Barack Obama.

Why Obama’s U.S. Citizenship Is Not Real

I believe I’ve come to understand the nature of a great mystery, after coming across many clues over a long investigation covering three years of reading and thinking and writing, -a mystery that almost no one even knew existed.  I’ve bit by bit discovered information, -facts, which taken separately are like separate puzzle pieces.  They don’t really present any image.  But taken all together and assemble as a whole reveal a picture that explains things that have not even entered the thoughts of those in the American political and government bureaucracy world, nor the general population.
The picture is one that (from their perspective) portrays the world as being flat instead of round. It is absurd on its face and nobody believes it.  But in fact, it portrays the world as being round while their life-long belief is the one analogous to belief in a world that is flat  What do both beliefs have in comon?  Certainty.  Before the rise of the view of Columbus, everyone “knew” (with all of the certainly of sight and reason) that the world was flat.  It was obvious.  How could anyone tell them anything different?

A couple decades ago there was a massive bubble in the Japanese real estate market, during which time Japanese exports of cars and electronics was vast, and there seemed to be no end to either situation in the foreseeable future.  Thus the assumption took hold that the value of Japanese, and especially Tokyo, real estate would inevitably increase forever.  As values doubled and more, presumed national wealth exploded, along with their stock market.  But one day the buyers stopped buying and the whole thing crashed, with the stock market dropping from 35,000 to about one third of that level.  And it has remained within trading range of that figure ever since.
Everyone thought the wealth was here to stay, but it was all just an illusion that infected everyone.  The common conception or consensus opinion was universally wrong.  The smartest men in the country didn’t see the inevitable coming and instead stuck their necks out all the way by making loans for buying property at astronomical levels.

There was no way to fix horrendous loses due to the collapse, and so they could not write-down the losses on their books because they all would have then gone bankrupt since they were so huge.  So they had to live in a pretend world which didn’t acknowledge the real value of what they owned or were invested in.  REALITY and people’s impression were in total opposition leading up to that national disaster.

Americans hold certain impressions about citizenship which are equally wrong , but no price will be paid for their misconceptions other than the election of an unconstitutional president, who, along with his party, have ham-strung the U.S. economy with excess regulation and the deleterious effects of the health care act.

Everyone being wrong is not a modern phenomenon.  There were few who delved into ancient Greek writings preserved by the Arabs but those that did learned something absolutely startling; a Greek thinker and mathematician calculated the earth’s circumference to within about one percent, revealing that it was not only spherical but huge, -beyond anything that anyone could have guessed.  That is similar to the same sort of surprise when, contrary to what the whole world believed, (including Einstein) the universe was not limited to the vast expanse of the Milky Way but was more like a trillion times larger, and older, and not eternal.  What everyone believed was wrong.
I’m relating those facts to illustrate that what everyone thinks about the nature of American citizenship is also wrong.  But everyone nevertheless is certain because they have no idea that something different from what they’ve always believed and been taught, just like their teachers, and their teachers’ teachers, -different from what it has always been assumed to be, is in fact reflective of reality, and that is so because of fundamental American values which run opposite to what they believe.

Since they don’t know how those values figure-in to citizenship, they cannot assemble the clues that my subconscious has managed to assemble following a claim I first heard back in 2010 that Barack Obama was not constitutionally qualified to serve as President.  That got my attention because what could be bigger than that?  The claim was based on the words of the Constitution which requires that the President be a natural born citizen.
Well, I knew what “natural” meant and I knew that Obama’s citizenship did not meet its definition at all, and so I began my quest to learn more and show why he and his citizenship aren’t eligible to the office of President.

I’ve shared my “discoveries” and realizations in about 100 expositions, but have found even more ammo to slam home the truth that I discovered.  I will attempt to not just reveal a smoking gun but to expose a firing gun, so to speak.  Facts and logic are the light that will uncover why the perennial nation-wide consensus view is a fiction of the imagination implanted by being under the royal rule that governed the colonies for over a century.

Of the two possible world views that explain American citizenship, one is pervasive, entrenched, institutionalized, and uncontested, while the other is silent, invisible, unspoken, and discredited as an error only embraced by the ignorant.
One views nationality and royal human ownership as being based on birth within the dominion of the Crown rather than by birth to natives.  One is human rights oriented while the other is Royal rights oriented.  The question being; -was one a subject of the king because one was born of subjects of the king or because one fit the arbitrary criteria set by the king, namely entering the world within his territory?

So if you are neutral and not a sycophant of the establishment view, then I don’t need to ask you to put your preconceptions aside and just follow the facts and the conclusions they lead to.  That involves thinking that is more advanced than a knee-jerk acceptance of something like the claim of that those who use the service are three times more likely to find a mate than those who don’t.

Why should anyone doubt that claim?  They won’t if they don’t have a brain.  If they do then they will realized that the pool of people who do not use includes everyone else from all demographics, including children, the elderly and those in nursing homes, the semi-literate, the unemployed, the homeless, those on public assistance, foreigners, the disabled, and everyone with bad teeth or an unattractive appearance, plus the obese.

So why is their rate as mate-finders only three times greater?  It isn’t.  It may be 10 or 50 or 100 times greater but if they used such a figure then people would start to think about what is involved in arriving at that figure, and they would thus realize that any figure is meaningless because no comparison is possible between those who use it and those who don’t.

Common “logic”, common perceptions and conceptions are generally not reflective of reality, and that fact involves people from all walks of life, including those in the media and those in government, -not excluding those appointed to judgeships.  Everyone’s “common knowledge” assumptions are riddled with misconceptions.  That fact is at the heart of the nature and history of racism and ethnocentrism.  Everyone in one’s world can be wrong about others, or wrong about ingrained assumptions with which one was raised, and those preceding them as well.

The monster that is the establishment “wisdom” is grounded on an error of presumption about the force of old English common law on the implementation of American fundamental principles.  They believe that we have few and that most of them are just continuations from English practices, -practices established and enforced to preserve and elevate the power of royal British dictators.

They believe that it is so because a dishonest justice of the Supreme Court (Justice Gray) said it was so in a very important case construing the meaning of the14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.  His statement gave immortal strength to the fiction that the States of America were all just a continuation of British colonies, -colonies in which any child born in them, whether of Americans or foreigners, was a subject of his majesty the King, and therefore a subject of the colony as well.
That was the rule under the reign of the royal governments of the colonies, and, -as proclaimed by that judge of the high court, it continued on in the United States up until the present day.  It would seem that such a claim must have some proof to substantiate it, as he had exhaustively elucidated a million other details about Monarch-subject subjection in Britain in his written explanation and historical exploration behind the ruling in the case before the court (U.S. v Wong Kim Ark 1898).  And yet he gave not even one example to prove his claim.

That was because it was unsupportable by any reasonable criteria.  The federal government from the beginning had been following a policy and practice that was the exact opposite of what he claimed was the law of the land, but he could claim anything that he choose to, and back it by nothing but his position of authority, and that’s what he did.  Who dares question the authority of brilliant Supreme Court Justices?  Well the dissenters on the court sure did, and demolished the validity of the entire argument on which he based his conclusion and the court’s ruling.

The United States Government in that case was appealing a lower court ruling that invalidated its policy.  Its policy was not law and had never been law because it had always only been policy.  So in the end, the case had to be decided not on what was or had been official policy, but on what the words of the 14th Amendment actually say and mean.  They had never been interpreted before and so that was the task before them in that crucial case.

“The Citizenship Clause [of the] Fourteenth Amendment (also known as the Naturalization Clause) refers to the first sentence of Section 1… This clause represented Congress’s reversal of that portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

Either the claim by Justice Gray about the universality of native-birth citizenship was the simple truth that needed no illumination because it was so pervasively evident, or he told a gigantic whooper that was wholly unprovable.  It was like he had stated a claim about the practice and tradition of a mysterious distant foreign country which no one knew much about.  How do you confirm or deny such a claim?
Since his view was one held by members of the United States Supreme Court, it obviously must have been very wide-spread and entrenched.  Therefore the right approach to confirming or debunking it is not to look for evidence, since citizenship had always previously been a State matter, -only taken over by the federal government as immigration vastly increased into eastern port cities, predominately New York, so old State immigration laws might be all over the map and federal judges would not even know what they were.

Since both sides might find ammo to defend their view by looking at the States’ historical practices, the only right course is to go to the very heart of the issue, and that is only found in fundamental American principles.  They sprang from ancient writings beginning with the Magna Carta, leading up to their present day, with recent writings by men like John Locke, illuminating the Rights of Man, -rights grounded in Natural Law and the divine origin of human life.

If man was not created to be a slave but instead to be a free and independent being just like the creator in whose likeness he was created, with a free will and all the right to exercise it for the preservation and survival of himself and his own, then being the property of a monarch had to be utterly rejected because the monarch of Britain had become a total tyrant when it came to his treatment of the colonists.

The Principle of Natural Membership Illuminated by Example

Who is the royal heir to the throne of Great Britain?  Is it any child born in Britain or its Commonwealth?  Is it any child born in a royal palace?  Is it any child born with royal blood?  Is it any child born in the bed of the Queen?
“A child was born today in the Queens bed.”  What can we know about its national status?  We can’t “know” anything but can make some very strong assumptions.  It was born as a royal.  It was born to the Queen.  It is in line as an heir of the throne, and, if firstborn, first in line.

We have no evidence other than logic that those conclusions are true.  But they do not answer the fundamental question raised by the issue of the nature of citizenship.  In the British context it is: “why is the child a royal heir?  Is it because he or she was born in the Queens bed or because of being born of the Queen?

Was it due to its place of birth or to its source of life?  Would it have still been a royal even if born in a stable or a slave plantation living quarters?  Was the location of birth the controlling factor in determining its royal nature or the personage of its mother?”

The correct answer is self-evident.  Just as it would be if the subject in question were born of a slave.  Is the child of a slave the property of its purchased parents or is it born free because it was not purchased and therefore belongs solely to the parents?  The answer under slavery is that property cannot own property but instead is owned by the purchaser of the property which produced the new property (a child).

Let’s pose a similar question from a different angle: Is the off-spring of slaves also a slave because it inherits its  status from its slave parents, -being the issue of slaves?  Or is the off-spring of slaves also a slave because it was the issue or product of the property / estate / plantation to which its source (slave parents) belong (just like with the issue of crops, cows, sheep, sows, and chickens)?

Does that which comes from the estate naturally belong to the estate as a produced product that is therefore the property of its owner?
Does the child of a slave not belong to the slave owner even if born somewhere other than on his property?  -born outside of the boundaries of his land?
That illustrates the citizenship conundrum of confused principles and practices in a nutshell.

Do you belong to the nation because you were born on its soil, or does the nation belong to you because you were born to and born of persons to whom the nation belongs?

Do “We The People” own the government or does the government own the people?

Do you belong to your family by birth or by being born under its roof?
Would a stranger’s child born under your parents’ roof be a natural member of your family while you, born under another’s roof, require official adoption permission in order to be recognized as a member of your own family?

Native tribes are extensions of families and clans.  Examining the issue of their membership provokes these questions:  What produces a natural born member of the Sioux Nation?  What produces a natural born member of the Navaho Nation?  What produces a natural member of the American nation?  Are the answers not based on a universal principle?  Does birth on Sioux land convey membership in the Sioux Nation to the son of General George & Mrs. Custer?  Is George Custer Jr. a natural born Sioux and eligible to one day lead the tribe?

By what means is natural membership in native nations conveyed?  By what means is kingship conveyed?  By what means is natural citizenship conveyed?  Are they not all convey purely by blood?  By parents?  By descent?

Is not the term “CITIZENSHIP” simply a way to describe membership in a free democratic representative republic?

Is  “citizenship by birth” not manifestly different from citizenship-by-law based on domestic-birth location?  Does not the first describe to whom you were born while the latter merely describes where you were born?  Which one is the true determinant of which family and which nation you belong to?

You can’t look to the law because there is no such law, -hence the conundrum.  All there is is opinions.  But actually, that is not entirely true because there are the puzzle pieces that I came across and which, when pieced together, present a clear picture that is irrefutable since it’s rooted in our fundamental principles.

When struggling with the question of:  “citizenship by native-birth or citizenship by birth to natives?” be careful how you answer because you just may find yourself in opposition to the position of the entire American political and immigration  establishment.   They all worship at the alter of national borders instead of inherited membership by blood-connection.

If you ask an obamunist this question:  “To which animal family do mules belong?   (Of which family are they natural members, -horse or donkey?)” their answer will invalidate Obama’s eligibility.
Hybrid animals, like hybrid plants, cars, and citizens, do not belong to any natural group. They are the product of an unnatural alliance that violates the Natural Law of uniformity of origin.

All natural groups, along with all national groups, consist of off-spring whose sources that are the same. Fish, birds, insects, reptiles, and mammals produce off-spring identical to themselves, just as by Natural Law citizens produce citizen off-spring, and foreigners produce alien off-spring. Combining the two does not produce a creation that naturally belongs to either of two different groups since it is a hybrid synthesis of both.

With cars the natural groups are fuel-powered, or electric-powered. Combining the two does not produce a creation that naturally belongs to either of those two groups since it is a hybrid synthesis of both.

So it is with hybrid citizens whose citizenship is not by natural origin but by naturalization law.
No hybrid, whose citizenship depends on law, is a natural citizen even if naturalized at birth.

Imagine this: suppose the 14th Amendment states something that it does not state (namely, the point at which citizenship for the native-born is conveyed) stating that citizenship is conveyed at the end of the first week of survival, or the end of the first month or year. Clearly, such alien-born children would then not be “citizens by birth”, nor from / at / or upon birth either.

So the amendment’s naturalization isn’t a matter of birth itself, nor birth place alone, but also of timing, with the clock started from delivery instead of at a later point in time. Move the point in time, and the claim that such citizens are natural born vanishes.
Yet real natural born citizens are predestined for citizenship from conception, and nothing can change that. Their citizenship is describable as “sui generis” citizenship.

from Wikipedia,
Sui generis; is a Latin phrase, meaning “of its own kind/genus” and hence “unique in its characteristics”.

The term is widely used to refer to more esoteric entities in a number of disciplines, including

Philosophy, when a concept is not available;
Biology, when a species does not fit into a genus which includes other species;
Law, when a special and unique interpretation of a case or authority is found to be necessary;
Intellectual property rights, where there is no defining characteristic; and
Politics and Societal Norms, where there is no real authority perceived.


The expression is often used in analytic philosophy to indicate an idea, an entity, or a reality which cannot be reduced to a lower concept nor included in a wider concept. [that describes natural citizenship perfectly, with the wider concept being citizenship by law]


In law, it is a term of art used to identify a legal classification that exists independently of other categorizations because of its singularity or due to the specific creation of an entitlement [the presidency] or obligation. For example, a court’s contempt powers arise sui generis and not from statute or rule.

When citing cases and other authorities, lawyers and judges may refer to “a sui generis case”, or “a sui generis authority”, meaning it is a special one confined to its own facts, and therefore may not be of broader application.

Natural citizenship is a sui generis form of citizenship because it is not a part of the legal framework of citizenship made possible by law.
Legal citizenship comes by various means, the 14th Amendment’s automatic natural-ization being the main one, but natural citizenship has nothing to do with government permission since it is inherited from citizen parents. It thus is unique, separate, and distinct from legal citizenship.  A child’s membership in the tribe or country of his or her parents is an organic membership passed along via inheritance by blood connection, and that fact is not dependent on their country even having a functioning government.  The acknowledgement of that fundamental reality is the recognition of the sui generis nature of natural national membership, aka; citizenship.

~    ~    ~    ~    ~

“WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT…”  That statement is in stark contrast to the consensus attitude, which is: “We hold these opinions to be unassailable”.  From that perspective “the matter is decided”, -the truth is determined, -but that truth is a false truth because the actual truth has been long forgotten and buried in the dust of time.

“-THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL”  That is a fundamental American principle and its promulgation is inscribed in our Constitutional amendments.  Numerous laws, as well as Supreme Court and Justice Department opinions have been issued to protect the EQUAL RIGHTS of all citizens.

Unbeknown to the establishment, that principle has a direct bearing on the issue of the nature of citizenship.  It’s connection to citizenship is like something from another dimension, another universe, because it is from a plane that’s far above that of ordinary life.  It is from the highest plane, the plain of the purely spiritual realm, -the  realm in which all humans are equal because all human beings are of the same life and nature, of the same source, the same origin, the same life-giver, -a Deity that views all of the throngs of human families as being one, being brethren, being equals with none superior nor inferior.

That view was gospel to most or all of those who put their signature to the Declaration of Independence, while putting their all on the line in taking a stand for human liberty and equality.  For that belief they were willing to risk losing all and being hung as traitors, which they were.  Traitors to despotism and inequality.

How was that high concept of human equality adopted as part of our foundational principles?   By the embrace of a doctrine of equality.  Its view is that since all men are equal, therefore all citizens are equal also.  You can’t have all Americans as equals if some possess a superior form of citizenship.  You can’t have a fair and just society if it is divided up into classes as was the case in morally degenerating old Europe where the nobility and aristocrats were heads above the lower classes.  Such a social system had to absolutely be avoided, and so equality was embraced as a fundamental doctrine of citizenship.

How did that translate into real life?  It was present only as an invisible influence that few even knew about.  But the founders did.  They knew it as the doctrine of citizenship equality.  By that doctrine, all citizens were equal.  What did that mean as applied to citizens that were not natives, -that were immigrants from foreign nations?  It meant that they were not to be viewed as substandard citizens, nor merely as “equals” to natural citizens.  Rather, they are to be viewed as actual natural citizens also.
That view did not reflect reality but reality was the problem that needed to be overcome in order to protect equality.  So they embraced a fiction of law as the only solution.  Its adoption was not just an adoption of an ancillary principle but was the adoption of a fundamental principle.  It was embraced as an immutable right.  By it, a native would say to a naturalized foreigner: “You are not a step-child, -you are my equal, -you are just as much an American citizen as I am.  We are brethren in the American enterprise of Liberty and self-governance.”

What did that signify in real life?  It signified that however Congress lawfully treated natural-ized citizens, that treatment must not be different from how it lawfully treats natural citizens.  That means its treatment would have to conform to the authority which Congress was given by the Constitution in regard to the nationality status of natural citizens.

But what many, or most, fail to understand is that Congress was given no authority at all over the nationality of natural citizens.  Zilch.  Nada.  That is not the case in other nations.  Some, if not many, (or most?), grant the government the authority to give their citizenship to those they approve as well as take it from those whom they disapprove due to criminal behavior.  In a strict sense, their nationality law does not allow “natural-ization” but instead allows citizen-ization.  That makes perfect sense.  But it is incompatible with the doctrine of citizenship equality.

Why?  Because other governments can rescind the citizenship of their naturalized citizens for offenses like criminality, national disloyalty, including treason, and engaging in armed hostilities against their nation or serving as an officer or non-commissioned officer in foreign military services, etc.  They can do more than merely strip them of their passport and exile them if they’ve fled their new country, as our government stripped Edward Snowden of his passport.
But we cannot strip him of his citizenship (like stripping one of a garment) because it is not something that he possesses.  It is not something that he acquired from the government.  It is what he is by birth.  In other words, he does not have citizenship which can be removed from his possession.  Rather, he is an American by the political nature with which he was born.  It is his political DNA.  [Only he alone can reject it by openly and officially self-expatriating himself before a U.S. government magistrate or State Department officer.]

This truth is revealed via arcane legal enactments that recognize it.  They are the result of a perspective resurrected by the U.S. Supreme Court which issued an opinion in 1966 that overturned nearly a century of treaties passed by Congress which tread on the principle of citizenship equality.

Congress passed treaties that rescinded the citizenship of naturalized Americans when they returned to their homeland and resettled there.
Generation after generation after generation of American officials, Congressmen, judges, and federal officers adhered to the laws that Congress had passed, believing them to be lawful and valid, and acceptable (as they were in many other nations).  They were “the law of the land” and no one questioned them, yet when they were placed under the microscope by the Supreme Court, they were deemed to violate our fundamental national principles because citizenship is, by our choice (even though not that of other nations) a one way street.

Why were none of the alien-born or naturalized citizen terrorist murderers stripped of their U.S. citizenship and citizenship rights?  Because they are Americans for life, unless they personally choose to renounce their citizenship or can be judged to have lied by withholding pertinent facts or falsely swearing the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation.  Those who have done so cannot simple resume it.  They must do what all foreigners must do.  They must go through the naturalization process, a second time, unless they lost their citizenship by marrying a foreign man.  That was once the law also, but an accommodation was made to simplify their return to their native citizenship after their husband died or they divorced.

Here’s an exchange between internet bloggers which illustrates the confusion in America regarding citizenship in general, and naturalization in specific:

Losing Citizenship – I wasn’t aware that someone can loose citizenship – if she/he establishes residence in a foreign country within 5 years after naturalization;
Source:    Citizenship in the United States, pdf file from USCIS site. Quote:
“Individuals who are U.S. citizens by birth cannot involuntarily have their citizenship taken away. For naturalized citizens, citizenship can be revoked only if the government is able to prove that such action is warranted. Rescission of naturalization, or denaturalization, is recommended only where there is objective evidence to establish one or more of the following conditions:

• Concealment or willful misrepresentation of material facts related to the naturalization application and proceedings;
• Illegal procurement of naturalization;
• Residence in a foreign country within 5 years after naturalization;”

respondent #1: I think the Supreme Court struck down that rule about revocation based on foreign residence after naturalization.

respondent #2:  I have heard something about it being 2 years after Naturalization and moving away that you could lose it. That could be the new ruling, being that they reduced it from 5 years to 2 years or something…

Question poster: Here is the link This is .pdf file issued in May 2004 by USCIS.   page 60.

respondent #3: …the document is out of date on this question. It cites as its source an immigration law textbook (Weissbrodt) that has been around since the eighties.  The textbook merely refers to “USCIS, Adjudicator’s Field Manual, chap. 76, § 76.1;”.
This is what the INA says:


Sec. 340. [8 U.S.C. 1451]

(a) It shall be the duty of the…blah, blah, blah…



(a) IN GENERAL.–Section 338 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1449) is amended by striking “intends to reside permanently in the United States, except in cases falling within the provisions of section 324(a) of this title,”.
(b) CONFORMING REPEAL.–Section 340(d) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1451(d)) is repealed.

respondent #3:  I did look at the Field Manual, and there is no mention of this 5-year residency condition, so I assumed the source must have been Weissbrodt.    As it stands, the subsection dealing with US residency as a requirement for maintaining citizenship has been repealed. I don’t know what could be more explicit.

respondent #4:  I think this issue has been debated many times before. I wouldn’t trust a pdf to be the ultimate rule. I don’t think that is accurate information.  I think the information might be outdated.

respondent #3:   There’s no debate here. I quoted the entire relevant section of the INA above, including where the original requirement was repealed, as well as the act of repeal itself. References don’t get much more valid than that.  USCIS informational pdfs do not constitute law and do certainly do not trump the INA.

respondent #4  The 2004 USCIS “document” is a summary report. It’s not binding on anyone. Footnote 200 cites a manual and a textbook – neither of those are legally binding. The sections cited for the repeal are from the amended INA statute.   Statute is legally binding.

~   ~   ~   ~

And so it is with the presumed citizenship of Barack Obama.  There is no statute by which he is a citizen, nor constitutional amendment, nor court holding.  It is simply an erroneous presumption based on a century old institutionalized error that no one ever bothered to question nor challenge.  So his presumed citizenship is not legally binding either.  It is purely a thing of political policy built on nothing that in any way is established law, although everyone assumes that it is because “the courts have ruled”.  But they have not.

It’s just assumed that they have, because the Attorney General in 1898 “ruled” that native-born children of all immigrants are U.S. citizens, -with the exception of foreign Ambassadors and Native Americans.  [Elk v. Wilkins established that Native American tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisdiction of the United States. Children born to these Native American tribes therefore did not automatically receive citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment since they were not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States“.]
But the Attorney General’s 1898 “interpretation” of the Wong ruling is in opposition to the 14th Amendment as well as the Supreme Court’s dishonest ruling in construing its meaning.

The court made citizens of children of immigrants only, -no other form of foreigner can father an American child: “In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners …who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States…was a citizen of the United States.”

Those children, -made citizens at birth, are equal to naturalized citizens, and natural citizens as well.

Then the Supreme Court in 1967 handed down the aforementioned  ruling (Afroim v Rusk) which forever altered the presumed statutory authority of Congress to meddle in a matter which the Constitution gave it no authority over, and that is American citizenship which is already held.  The basis of their ruling was in the philosophical realm where the doctrine of citizenship equality is found, and by which citizenship is not “held” or possessed after it is acquired by law.  Rather, as with natural citizens, it is an element of one’s political constitution like eye-color or skin color or gender.  That’s what “natural-ized” means.  Human authority can’t alter it or take it away.  But like gender reassignment surgery, one can voluntarily change their nature via the process of naturalization in another nation, or acts which imply a similar measure of allegiance to another nation.

From Wikipedia []…
“Under the Supreme Court precedent of Afroyim v. Rusk, loss of 14th-Amendment-based U.S. citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:
1.  Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically this is not loss of citizenship, but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a U.S. citizen.

2.  Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship…or through other actions (e.g., treason) which demonstrate an intention to give up U.S. citizenship.  Such an act of expatriation must be accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship.

For jus sanguinis U.S. citizenship, i.e., citizenship for the children…of U.S. citizen parents…these restrictions do not apply (e.g., cf. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)).
“These restrictions do no apply” to children of American parents born abroad or born anywhere on Earth, including the United States, because their citizenship is not the result of an amendment which didn’t even exist until 80 years after the Constitution was written, and which wasn’t interpreted by the Supreme Court for another 30 years.

The children of Americans are Americans by nature, naturally born as U.S. citizens.  They cannot lose their innate political nature even by treason anymore than they can lose their race or gender since it is something that they never “acquired”.  Tigers do not acquire their strips and natural citizens do not acquire their citizenship.  They are born being members of the American nation.
As a consequence of revised policies adopted in 1990 by the United States Department of State, it is now (in the words of one expert) “virtually impossible to lose American citizenship without formally and expressly renouncing it.”

In Saenz v. Roe, the Supreme Court held that the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment protects a citizen’s right to resettle in other states and then be treated equally:

The Citizenship Clause (also known as the Naturalization Clause []) refers to the first sentence of Section 1 in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clause represented Congress’s reversal of that portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.
[T]he Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly equates [relates] citizenship with residence: “That Clause does not provide for, and does not allow for, degrees of citizenship based on length of residence.” [Zobel, 457 U. S., at 69]. It is equally clear that the Clause does not tolerate a hierarchy of 45 subclasses [from 45 States?] of similarly situated citizens based on the location of their prior residence. … [T]he protection afforded to the citizen by the Citizenship Clause of that Amendment is a limitation on the powers of the National Government as well as the States.   [end quote]
So the whole U.S. government was wrong, and for most of a century.  It thought that it had authority that the Constitution didn’t give it.  It thought it understood basic American government and citizenship but it didn’t understand squat.  It was ignorant and yet confident in its certainty that it knew what it was doing as it followed the lead of practical men who preceded them.  Certainty is no substitute for factuality yet human nature is unable to acknowledge that fact when its assumptions are the ones questioned and its certainty is assailed for not reflecting reality.

Citizenship is something conceptual and organic.  It is viewed on a legal basis and treated as a matter of law, but in fact law is only involved in the acquisition, not in the retention.  Once obtained in the U.S.A., it is beyond the authority of government.
The holdings of the Supreme Court upheld that forgotten traditional American principle, and its rulings made manifest that natural citizenship is the policy of citizenship in the United States, and not life-long unending monarchical subjectship determined by borders and government power.

The court’s ruling relied on the principle of citizenship equality in regard to naturalized citizens, with the upshot being that naturalization makes one a natural citizen, and natural citizens cannot lose their citizenship.  This ties into presidential eligibility by the fact that the suggestion by John Jay to George Washington that the power of the Command in Chief not be handed to nor devolve on any but a “natural born citizen” (with born underline by him) reflects his awareness that not all citizens were natural citizens by birth, but that some were natural citizens by the American (and originally British) fiction of law of citizenship equality.

And so the riddle of what “natural born citizen” or “born natural citizen” means is solved by understanding the permanence and equality of American citizenship.  Such an innate nature can only be ascribed to nature, to that which is natural, -not to that which is merely legal, because that which is legal can, as Congress thought and acted, prove to be temporal, impermanent, amendable and rescindable.
No one who acquired their citizenship via a legal means (whether by statute or the 14th Amendment) is a born natural citizen, even if native-born or born of an American parent (singular), and they therefore can never be eligible to serve as the President of the United States since they were born ineligible.

Why did no one in the lapdog American media think to question anything about the citizenship and eligibility of Barack Obama?  Because they were smitten by him and his demi-god-like voice and soaring rhetoric.  He was the liberal hero they had been waiting for all of their adult lives.  He was like what the daughter of the Spanish governor of California saw in the rogue known as Zorro, aka Diego de la Vega, after engaging in a spirited sword fight with him before he escaped the scene.
She told her father: “He was very veegorus, fahther, veeery veegorus!”  And so was Obama.  Unlike all of the male figures in that young woman’s life, men who were lap-dog sycophants of those with power, the Zorro figure was very independent and self-driven, -or justice driven.  She was smitten by his fearless spirit, just as the press was smitten by Obama’s cool, competent, slick, grown-up idealistic front, but what would have been their reaction had he had a voice like Barney Fife, and been up against a real conservative with a fearless spirit?  Would they have felt such a strong desire to have access to him and gain his approval?

~    ~    ~
If you think that the government can do no wrong, that it doesn’t make mistakes, that it never follows policies that are unAmerican and unconstitutional, just read the history of the overthrow of the sovereign civilized Hawaiian Kingdom by some Americans with the support of the U.S. government.  It was like what Saddam Hussein did to Kuwait in regard to its sovereignty.  It was a crime that Hawaiians could never forget nor forgive.  Congress finally officially apologized 100 years later.

PUBLIC LAW 103-150 [S.J.Res. 19]; November 23, 1993  (
Joint Resolution to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
The Congress— (1) on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;
(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;

(5) urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.


377 U.S. 163
Schneider v. Rusk
No. 368 Argued: April 2, 1964 — Decided: May 18, 1964

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Immigration and Nationality’ Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 269, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 1484, provides by § 352:

(a) A person who has become a national by naturalization shall lose his nationality by —

(1) having a continuous residence for three years in the territory of a foreign state of which he was formerly a national or in which the place of his birth is situated, except as provided in section 353 of this title, [n1] whether such residence commenced before or after the effective date of this Act. . . .

~ It is also argued that Congress reasonably can protect against the tendency of three years’ residence in a naturalized citizen’s former homeland to weaken his or her allegiance to this country.  It is finally argued that…what Congress did had been deemed appropriate not only by this country, but by many others, and is in keeping with traditional American concepts of citizenship.

~  We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. [p166]

While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native.
The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe “a uniform rule of naturalization”, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.   [-that means that after writing the basic rule to make all state naturalization laws uniform then Congress has no more authority regarding citizenship.]

There is one view that the power of Congress to take away citizenship (for activities of the citizen) is nonexistent absent expatriation by the voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance. See Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 79 (dissenting opinion of JUSTICES BLACK and DOUGLAS);

In Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, supra, a divided Court held that it was beyond the power of Congress to deprive an American of his citizenship automatically and without any prior judicial or administrative proceedings because he left the United States in time of war to evade or avoid training or service in the Armed Forces. The Court held that it was an unconstitutional use of [p168] congressional power because it took away citizenship as punishment for the offense of remaining outside the country to avoid military service without, at the same time, affording him the procedural safeguards granted by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Yet even the dissenters, who felt that flight or absence to evade the duty of helping to defend the country in time of war amounted to manifest non-allegiance, made a reservation. JUSTICE STEWART stated:

Previous decisions have suggested that congressional exercise of the power to expatriate may be subject to a further constitutional restriction — a limitation upon the kind of activity which may be made the basis of denationalization. Withdrawal of citizenship is a drastic measure. Moreover, the power to expatriate endows government with authority to define and to limit the society which it represents and to which it is responsible.

This Court has never held that Congress’ power to expatriate may be used unsparingly in every area in which it has general power to act. Our previous decisions upholding involuntary denationalization all involved conduct inconsistent with undiluted allegiance to this country.

372 U.S. at 214.

This statute proceeds on the impermissible assumption that naturalized citizens as a class are less reliable, and bear less allegiance to this country than do the native born. This is an assumption that is impossible for us to make. Moreover, while the Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause, it does forbid discrimination that is “so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.” Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499.
A native-born citizen is free to reside abroad indefinitely without suffering loss of citizenship. The discrimination aimed at naturalized citizens drastically limits their rights to live [p169] and work abroad in a way that other citizens may. It creates indeed a second-class citizenship.
Living abroad, whether the citizen be naturalized or native born, is no badge of lack of allegiance, and in no way evidences a voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance. It may indeed be compelled by family, business, or other legitimate reasons.

Schneider v. Rusk (No. 368)  218 F.Supp. 302, reversed.

CLARK, J., Dissenting Opinion


377 U.S. 163
Schneider v. Rusk

As early as 1863, President Lincoln had suggested to Congress that it

might be advisable to fix a limit beyond which no citizen of the United States residing abroad may claim the interposition of his Government.
[7 Messages and Papers of the Presidents 3382 (Richardson ed. 1897)].  However, no legislation was enacted in the nineteenth century. In 1906, at the request of Congress, Secretary of State Elihu Root appointed a “citizenship board” to consider this and other related matters. The Board’s report stated:

Expressed renunciation of American citizenship is, however, extremely rare; but the class of Americans who separate themselves from the United States [p173] and live within the jurisdiction of foreign countries is becoming larger every year, and the question of their protection causes increasing embarrassment to this Government in its relations with foreign powers.

H.Doc. No. 326, 59th Cong., 2d Sess., 25.

The Board’s recommendations led to the enactment of the Nationality Act of 1907, 34 Stat. 1228. That Act included a rebuttable presumption that residence for two years in the foreign state from which a naturalized American citizen came constituted a forfeiture of American citizenship. This provision proved difficult to administer, and, in 1933, President Roosevelt appointed a cabinet committee (the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor) to review the nationality laws.

The committee issued an extensive report and draft statute which provided for expatriation of naturalized citizens who resided continuously in their country of origin for three years. This provision was incorporated into the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, 1170, and was carried over into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, modified so as not to require “uninterrupted physical presence in a foreign state. . . .” 66 Stat. 163, 170, 269.
This historical background points up the international difficulties which led to the adoption of the policy announced in § 352(a)(1). Residence of United States nationals abroad has always been the source of much international friction, and the ruling today will expand these difficulties tremendously. In 1962 alone, 919 persons were expatriated on the basis of residence in countries of former nationality. The action of the Court in voiding these expatriations will cause no end of difficulties, because thousands of persons living throughout the world will come under the broad sweep of the Court’s [p174] decision. It is estimated that several thousand of these American expatriates reside in iron curtain countries alone.

Hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on S.Res. 49, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 133.

The protection of American citizens abroad has always been a most sensitive matter, and continues to be so today. This is especially true in Belgium, Greece, France, Iran, Israel, Switzerland and Turkey, because of their refusal to recognize the expatriation of their nationals who acquire American citizenship. The dissension that springs up in some of these areas adds immeasurably to the difficulty.

Nor is the United States alone in making residence abroad cause for expatriation. Although the number of years of foreign residence varies from 2 to 10 years, 29 countries, including the United Kingdom and 7 Commonwealth countries, expatriate naturalized citizens residing abroad.  Even the United Nations sanctions different treatment for naturalized and native-born citizens; Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness provides that naturalized citizens who reside abroad for seven years may be expatriated unless they declare their intent to retain citizenship.


The decisions of this Court have consistently approved the power of Congress to enact statutes similar to the one here stricken down.   Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738 (1824), where Chief Justice Marshall remarked: “The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge . . . [the] rights” of citizens.
The Bancroft Treaties

The Bancroft treaties, also called the Bancroft conventions, were a series of agreements made in the late 19th and early 20th centuries between the United States and other countries.[1] They recognized the right of each party’s nationals to become naturalized citizens of the other; and defined circumstances in which naturalized persons were legally presumed to have abandoned their new citizenship and resumed their old one.

The Bancroft treaties were mainly intended to prevent individuals from using naturalization as a way to avoid military service and other legal obligations in their native countries.[6][7]

From 1868 to 1937, the United States entered into 25 Bancroft treaties covering 34 foreign countries.[8][9] A typical Bancroft treaty had three major provisions. The first specified the terms under which each party would recognize the naturalization of its citizens by the other. (Five years’ uninterrupted residence in the adopted country was the usual requirement.)

The second provided that naturalized citizens who returned to their native country could be prosecuted for crimes that they allegedly committed before they emigrated. The third and most important provided that naturalized citizens who returned to their country of origin and stayed there for two continuous years would be presumed to have resumed their former nationality.

That would require them to meet any unfulfilled military service obligation in their native country and deny them the diplomatic protection of their adopted one. Article III of the 1908 treaty with Portugal was typical:

“     If a Portuguese subject naturalized in America, renews his residence in Portugal, without intent to return to America, he shall be held to have renounced his naturalization in the United States. Reciprocally, if an American naturalized in Portugal renews his residence in the United States, without intent to return to Portugal, he shall be held to have renounced his naturalization in Portugal.

The intent not to return may be held to exist when the person naturalized in one country resides more than two years in the other country.
Conceived in an era when the right of individuals to change their citizenship was not universally recognized, the Bancroft treaties represented an important step forward in securing recognition by foreign governments of the right of their nationals to become American citizens.

But American constitutional law eventually made the treaties obsolete.
[that inadequately states the truth of the matter, because the 14th Amendment constitutional principle of equality under the law was based not on the words of the amendment but on what inspired them, -which was the principle or legal-fiction of citizenship equality.]

In Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the Supreme Court invalidated a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the McCarran-Walter Act) that would strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship after three years’ continuous residence in their country of origin; and in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), the Supreme Court, reviewing part of the Nationality Act of 1940, held that Congress has no power to strip anyone of their citizenship, whether it is acquired by birth or by naturalization.

These decisions strongly suggested that any future case of involuntary loss of citizenship under one of the Bancroft treaties probably would not survive a Supreme Court challenge.

Concluding that the Bancroft treaties were unenforceable, the administration of President Jimmy Carter, acting in consultation with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, gave notice in 1980 terminating the treaties with 18 of the 21 countries with which they were still in force.  As of 2013 only the treaty with Bulgaria was still in force.

by Adrien Nash  November, 2013  http://obama–

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

One Response to The DaVinci Code of American Citizenship

  1. arnash says: Loss of Citizenship and Dual Nationality

    Written by Henry J. Chang

    Loss of U.S. Nationality
    Loss of U.S. citizenship can result only from the citizen’s voluntary actions. This is because termination of citizenship without voluntary action on the part of the citizen would deprive the citizen of freedom of choice and would likely be a denial of due process. This requirement was made explicit by a 1986 amendment of the statute (Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-653, §18, 100 Stat. 3655). There is no dispute that citizenship will not be lost where the U.S. citizen performs an act of expatriation under circumstances involving duress, mistake, or incapacity negating a free choice. The courts have been very generous in accepting claims of coercion where the U.S. citizen’s actions were compelled by fear of injury, retaliation, imprisonment, fine, economic deprivation, and like consequences. Freedom of choice is also negated where the citizen performs an expatriating act after receiving erroneous advice from U.S. government officials. A person who is unaware of a claim to U.S. citizenship at the time that an expatriating act is performed likewise does not have an opportunity to make a free choice.

    Closely related to need for voluntary action is the requirement that expatriation cannot be accomplished by a citizen who has not attained a specified age of maturity. This conforms with the common law maxim that an infant lacks legal capacity to undertake contractual obligations. Legal maturity generally considered to be the age of 21, unless a different age is specially stated. Paragraphs (1), (2), (4) of INA §349(a) specifically fix the age of maturity at 18. In addition, INA §351(b) fixes the age of maturity at 18 for paragraphs (3) and (5) of INA §349(a). The text of INA §351(b) is as follows:

    A national who within six months after attaining the age of eighteen years asserts his claim to United States nationality, in such manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe, shall not be deemed to have lost United States nationality by the commission, prior to his eighteenth birthday, of any of the acts specified in paragraph (3) and (5) of section 349 of this title.

    These special provisions do not apply to acts of expatriation not specifically mentioned, and the age of maturity in relation to such other acts of expatriation generally continues to be the common-law standard of 21 years.

    Not only must the U.S. citizen perform an expatriating act voluntarily, but he or she must also INTEND to relinquish U.S. citizenship as a result of such voluntary act. Prior to the landmark decision in Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253, 87 S. Ct. 16601118 L. Ed. 2d 757 (1967), previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions had ruled that the statutory grounds for loss of nationality were stated in objective terms, and that persons who voluntarily perform acts of expatriation designated by statute lost their citizenship, irrespective of whether they intended to surrender it. However, in Afroyim, the majority of the court held that relinquishment of U.S. citizenship had to be voluntary and concluded as follows:

    We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.

    Nine years later, the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Terrazas 444 U.S. 252, 100 S. Ct. 5401162 L. Ed. 2d 461 (1980) unanimously reaffirmed the principle stated in Afroyim.

    According to INA §349(b), whenever the loss of U.S. nationality is put in issue, the burden falls upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation is presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily. The constitutionality of these provisions was upheld in Terrazas. However, the Court also found that the statutory presumption was applicable only to the voluntariness of the expatriating act itself. In finding that intention to surrender citizenship was a necessary element of expatriation, the Court in Terrazas ruled that such intention could not be presumed and that the government was required to establish such an intention by a preponderance of the evidence.

    Congress subsequently adopted the Terrazas principle in the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-653, §18, 100 Stat. 3655, by specifying that the acts of expatriation listed in the statute would terminate citizenship only if voluntarily performed “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” The Immigration Technical Corrections Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-25, §8(r), 102 Stat. 2609, 2618 went even further in providing that the 1986 amendment “shall apply to actions taken before, on, or after November 14, 1986.”

    Since foreign naturalization, particularly when coupled with an oath renouncing former allegiance, may be in derogation of undivided allegiance to the United States it may in some situations generate an inference of intention. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals has ruled that naturalization in a foreign state, coupled with an oath of allegiance to that state, gives rise only to a highly persuasive inference that U.S. citizenship was abandoned, which may be rebutted with proof that the person did not intend thereby to relinquish citizenship.

    It is useful to mentioned that, although a renunciation of foreign allegiance was required by Canada as a prerequisite to naturalization as a Canadian citizen prior to 1973, this is no longer the case. In Ulin v. The Queen, 35 DLR(3d) 738, the renunciatory language was found to be ultra vires since the statute did not authorize such a requirement.

    In September, 1990, the Department of State (“DOS”) issued a policy statement which dealt with loss of nationality. The policy statement indicated that DOS would presume a person intended to retain U.S. citizenship where:

    the person was naturalized in a foreign country

    took a routine oath of allegiance, or

    accepted non-policy level employment with a foreign government.

    Such a person need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed. It is important to note that the two expatriating acts which arise in the context dual nationality are given the benefit of this presumption.

    According to the policy statement, the presumption that a person intends to retain U.S. citizenship is not applicable when the individual:

    1. formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular officer;

    2. takes a policy level position in a foreign state;

    3. is convicted of treason; or

    4. performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

    Cases in categories 2, 3, and 4 will be developed carefully by U.S. consular officers to ascertain the individual’s intent toward U.S. citizenship.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: