Slashdot Mirror

For people born (like President Obama) in 1961 outside the US with only one parent who is a US citizen, the other parent "must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16" for the child to be a US citizen. Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, and his father was not a US citizen, so if he was born outside the US, he is not a natural-born citizen.

(I make no claim that President Obama was actually born outside the US, I am just correcting the AC's mis-statement of citizenship law. Source: http://www.americanlaw.com/cit... )

Enlisting in a hostile foreign enemy is an automatic revocation of one's citizenship. Al Qaeda arguably is a de facto foreign power, a hostile foreign enemy.

That is not actually true - intent to give up citizenship is necessary:

http://www.americanlaw.com/dualcit.html [americanlaw.com]

"As a result of several constitutional decisions, 349(a) of the current Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") provides that U.S. nationality is lost only when the U.S. citizen does one of the specified acts described in INA 349, voluntarily and with the intent to give up that nationality. If any one of these requirements is lacking, nationality is not lost. "

You cannot lose your citizenship unless you actually intend to do so (or the courts find that you had that intent even if you later deny it.) Thus, serving in a foreign military does not automatically qualify, as much as we might think it should.

Ah, but serving in a foreign military can cause one to lose one's citizenship, especially if that foreign military is in conflict with the United States.

I would argue that since Al Qaeda controlled territory at one point and has committed attacks against the country, a US Citizen's allegiance with Al Qaeda constitutes an action that would nullify one's citizenship, in the same fashion that serving in a foreign military would. Since a major goal of Al Qaeda is to set up a Caliphate and their own religious theocracy nation (in their own concept of what that means) then they're essentially declaring themselves to be a foreign power.

The thing is, it is not up to the executive branch to decide if someone has given up their citizenship. Such a thing can only be done via a legal court type of thing - you know, due process. Legislation stripping individuals of their citizenship for whatever reason has been repeatedly struck down by the courts as something the legislature does not actually have the power to do.

http://www.americanlaw.com/dualcit.html

"As a result of several constitutional decisions, 349(a) of the current Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") provides that U.S. nationality is lost only when the U.S. citizen does one of the specified acts described in INA 349, voluntarily and with the intent to give up that nationality. If any one of these requirements is lacking, nationality is not lost. "

You cannot lose your citizenship unless you actually intend to do so (or the courts find that you had that intent even if you later deny it.) Thus, serving in a foreign military does not automatically qualify, as much as we might think it should.

H1B is not a temporary worker visa like some European countries have. It is a dual intent visa allowing an eventual transfer to full citizenship. After 5 years you apply for a Green Card and eventually convert to a citizen or you go back. http://www.americanlaw.com/dintent.html

A child cannot give up his US citizenship by living abroad or renouncing it. His/her parents cannot renounce it either. A US citizen can renounce his citizenship an adult or by other means (but as an adult) Loss of Citizenship (INA 349) covers this.

For another rundown on what does and does not result in loss of citizenship under current law, see this article.

Of course, these are tangential questions. al-Muhajir and Hamdi are still considered US citizens, they are merely US citizens who have committed crimes which fall under military jurisdiction, as laid out in Ex Parte Quirin (see above)>