PDA

View Full Version : Ginsburg says her grandson born in Paris is a “natural born” citizen



megimoo
09-29-2009, 07:40 AM
"This old Bat has every right to be proud of her new grandson but come on ?
Even an old Confused Liberal should be able to read the law.Thank GOD she is gone from SCOTUS !"

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg says her grandson born in Paris is a “natural born” citizen
.. and the fruitloops just keep getting jucier and jucier!

snip
Justice Ginsburg:

My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents. I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States.
..........................
Justice Ginsburg again:

There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen. I think he is.

Ruth Ginsburg
..................................
Ruth, grow up and take your collective head out of you know where! Your grandson was born in Paris, France, not the USA. I am now thinking, how long have the parents lived in France? How old is the child? Does the child consider France home too? Does the child speak French, go to French schools, believe Europe is a nice cushy place to practice the NWO. Just where do the child’s loyalties lie?

I will bet you one thing is for sure. As soon as practical after the child was born Ginsburg’s children (parents of the grandson) ran down to the US Consulate in France to submit the paperwork for US citizenship. Just because the law says the child is a US citizen at birth, that doesn’t mean the US is going to let the child inside the Country legally without a US Passport or formal paperwork.
..........................................
Ruth Ginsburg, quite simply, your grandson is a “naturalized” citizen under the following Immigration Codes and Title 8 of the US Code if, and only if, the proper paperwork was submitted and accepted by Immigration in the United States.

Immigration Section 301(c):

A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires USA citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). However, one of the parents must have resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. No specific period for such prior residence is required. If the child was born on or after December 24, 1952, at least one parent will be required to prove residence in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the birth to establish United States citizenship for the child.
.........................................

http://americangrandjury.org/supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-says-her-grandson-born-in-paris-is-a-natural-born-citizen

AlmostThere
09-29-2009, 10:29 AM
To borrow a line from Twain, "The report of her death is an exaggeration". She's back and wacky as ever.

BTW, you mustn't have gotten the memo. Rules and regulations don't apply to the elite, just us peons.

djones520
09-29-2009, 10:40 AM
So let me get this straight. Your trying to claim that the kids US Citizen parents have never resided in the US?

AlmostThere
09-29-2009, 11:33 AM
So let me get this straight. Your trying to claim that the kids US Citizen parents have never resided in the US?

Is that a typo? Kids of U.S. citizens could very well never reside in the U.S.. The parents are living abroad when the kid is born and raise the kid abroad, when has the kid resided in the U.S.?

djones520
09-29-2009, 11:49 AM
Is that a typo? Kids of U.S. citizens could very well never reside in the U.S.. The parents are living abroad when the kid is born and raise the kid abroad, when has the kid resided in the U.S.?

No, what I'm saying is that the assertation is made that Ginsburg does not know the laws of citizenship by stating that her grandchild is a natural born citizen. Then the law is shown saying that parents need to have resided in the US at some point for their child to be a citizen.

So correct me if I'm wrong. Ginsburg grandchild is not considered a citizen, but no proof is presented that the child of a USSC Justice has never lived in the US. The child having been in the US has nothing to do with it. If that was the case, then I would not have been considered a US Citizen until I was two, despite my birth certificate that says otherwise.

megimoo
09-29-2009, 01:00 PM
So let me get this straight. Your trying to claim that the kids US Citizen parents have never resided in the US?

If you take the time to read read the law ?

Immigration Section 301(c):

"If the child was born on or after December 24, 1952, at least one parent will be required to prove residence in the United States or its outlying possessions (prior to) the birth to establish United States citizenship for the child. "

Depending on how US Immigration defines that statement one would have to have lived in America just prior to the birth .For an example a traveler from America giving birth in France ,a student going to College in France,a short term visitor living temporally in France for business purposes but with every intention of going home to America .To me that would make sense but I am not an Immigration lawyer !

If both parents are citizens of France and/or live there permanently they are no longer eligible to 'pass on' the natural born citizenship to their child !

.
Immigration Section 301(c):

A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires USA citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). However, one of the parents must have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period for such prior residence is required.

If the child was born on or after December 24, 1952, at least one parent will be required to prove residence in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the birth to establish United States citizenship for the child.

djones520
09-29-2009, 01:04 PM
Well holy shit Megi. Then I guess I'm not a US Citizen. Neither is my son. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. :rolleyes:

You even qoute the part where it says NO SPECIFIC PERIOD IS REQUIRED.

As long as one of the kids US Citizen Parents has EVER resided in the US, then the kid is a US Citizen. It doesn't matter if they never plan on returning to the country or not.

megimoo
09-29-2009, 02:10 PM
Well holy shit Megi. Then I guess I'm not a US Citizen. Neither is my son. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. :rolleyes:

You even qoute the part where it says NO SPECIFIC PERIOD IS REQUIRED.

As long as one of the kids US Citizen Parents has EVER resided in the US, then the kid is a US Citizen. It doesn't matter if they never plan on returning to the country or not.

You would make a great lawyer for the defense .You take a statement out of context and spin it !

Lets try and reason together ?I have no idea of the conditions of either your or your sons birth but Lets try shall we ?

1: " A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires USA citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)." OK the first sentance is clear enough right ?
1:a:No specific period for such prior residence is required.The same with this,its part of the first statement ?Right ?
.....................................
2: "However, one of the parents must have resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth ."

That sentence says to me that one of the parents had to have lived in America just prior to (Before) the child's birth ,how do you read that one ?
..........................
Justice Ginsberg's kid live permanently in France with her husband according to the news clip !In order to have a full time resident job in France French law requires a French citizenship !

It says nothing of the parents being born in America automatically granting the child's citizenship if they live permanently in France .

djones520
09-29-2009, 02:15 PM
You would make a great lawyer for the defense .You take a statement out of context and spin it !

Lets try and reason together ?I have no idea of the conditions of either your or your sons birth but Lets try shall we ?

1: " A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires USA citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)." OK the first sentance is clear enough right ?
1:a:No specific period for such prior residence is required.The same with this,its part of the first statement ?Right ?
.....................................
2: "However, one of the parents must have resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth ."

That sentence says to me that one of the parents had to have lived in America just prior to (Before) the child's birth ,how do you read that one ?
..........................
Justice Ginsberg's kid live permanently in France with her husband according to the news clip !In order to have a full time resident job in France French law requires a French citizenship !

It says nothing of the parents being born in America automatically granting the child's citizenship if they live permanently in France .



Then by your reasoning, every child of US Military service members born overseas is not a US Citizen. I lived in Japan for 4 years before my son was born. My wife two years. He was issued a US Birth Certificate and Passport without a single question asked about how long we had resided in Japan before his birth. My parents had been living in Greece for nearly a year before I was born there. I had a US Birth Certificate and Passport when we left Greece, and again there was no issues at all.

So please explain to me how that fits into your view.

You accuse me of spinning it, but the only spin is your own Megs. There is no specific period that the citizen had to have resided, AS LONG AS THEY DID. Thats what #2 means Megs.

linda22003
09-29-2009, 02:18 PM
You would make a great lawyer for the defense .You take a statement out of context and spin it !

..........................
Justice Ginsberg's kid live permanently in France with her husband according to the news clip !In order to have a full time resident job in France French law requires a French citizenship !



"According to the news clip". According to Columbia University, Justice Ginsburg's kid is a professor there. It's in New York.
http://www.law.columbia.edu/fac/Jane_Ginsburg

Her husband is with Shearman & Sterling, also in New York. Presumably their son was born when the father was with the Paris office, and when the mother was doing graduate work at the University of Paris.

megimoo
09-29-2009, 02:22 PM
Then by your reasoning, every child of US Military service members born overseas is not a US Citizen. I lived in Japan for 4 years before my son was born. My wife two years. He was issued a US Birth Certificate and Passport without a single question asked about how long we had resided in Japan before his birth. My parents had been living in Greece for nearly a year before I was born there. I had a US Birth Certificate and Passport when we left Greece, and again there was no issues at all.

So please explain to me how that fits into your view.

You accuse me of spinning it, but the only spin is your own Megs. There is no specific period that the citizen had to have resided, AS LONG AS THEY DID. Thats what #2 means Megs.I give up. Trying to reason with you is frustrating so have it your way .

djones520
09-29-2009, 02:28 PM
I give up. Trying to reason with you is frustrating so have it your way .

How are you trying to reason with me? Your saying that my son should not be considered a US Citizen, when I have a Birth Certificate that proves otherwise. So you are either reading the laws wrong, or the US State Department has been wrongly issuing Birth Certificates to thousands of US Citizens.

linda22003
09-29-2009, 02:33 PM
How are you trying to reason with me? Your saying that my son should not be considered a US Citizen, when I have a Birth Certificate that proves otherwise. So you are either reading the laws wrong, or the US State Department has been wrongly issuing Birth Certificates to thousands of US Citizens.

Megi would choose the second option, of course. He also needs to accept that the parents didn't become French citizens, just because some blog entry infers that they might have (it does not say so, Megi simply read it that way).

linda22003
09-29-2009, 03:13 PM
I had a feeling that information would close this thread out. :p

AlmostThere
10-03-2009, 11:41 AM
This is a copy/paste from U.S. Constitution On-Line.


The 14th Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html) defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html) defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"


Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Judging from this it sounds like Ginsburg may be correct. What is worse, it tells me Obama could legally be president even if he was born in Kenya. :(

linda22003
10-03-2009, 01:33 PM
Then hopefully the subject will die and the birthers will find another cause.