JONATHAN TURLEY CORRECTS BLOG – THANK YOU PROF. TURLEY

[UPDATE:] JONATHAN TURLEY HAS CORRECTED HIS BLOG AND POSTED MY LETTER TO HIM.  PROPER RESPECT TO MR. TURLEY FOR TAKING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO CORRECT THE PUBLIC RECORD.

“Constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley will appear on MSNBC’s count down tonight and according to his blog he’ll be discussing this case.  Unfortunately …” SNIP

I’ve snipped my original post.  No point leaving the old post up.

About these ads

40 Responses to “JONATHAN TURLEY CORRECTS BLOG – THANK YOU PROF. TURLEY”

  1. I know he is misrepresenting the case, but the fact that it will blow up on Mainstream Media will show these frauds that we’re coming to get them like a freight train bearing down on them and there’s no where to run..we can sort out the facts after the SCOTUS decides! But yes, hopefully he gets his facts straight before he goes Live. Thank You so much Leo and Co.!

  2. A summary of Donofrio’s case is also posted to distinguish Leo’s case from others.

    Obama Birth FAQ

    http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/

    Tell your friends about it.

  3. Ladyhawke Says:

    Leo,

    Mr. Turley is now quoting you on his blog.

  4. Leo, you are handling this very very well. Thank you!

  5. The radio host Schmidt who is on air right after the Rush show has totally trashed you. Called you a nuts case and wacko and gave out all false information about your case. You really need to sue theses people!

  6. I see Mr. Turley has entertained your correction and it is included in the body of his blog.

  7. Looks like he updated his site to include the message you’ve sent him. One thing that almost all of the reports I have read that are leaving out, even the nearly correct ones, is the McCain part of your suit. This projects your case as partisan while it is clearly not.

    Try to get some rest tonight!
    Tomorrow will be one for the books!

  8. Leo, how frustrating to have to Fight EVERY step of the way, But
    just keep keep doin’ it! You’re doing GREAT. Both your letters to the Press who mis wrote the facts of your Case, (OUR Case), (The USA I should say) were extremely well written and clear to understand and
    and If I were them, I’d be worried of the consequences for penning their names to those articles. Keep in mind that the media intentionally uses propaganda tactics. Hopefully you’ll have your day to get on national TV expose it all, after Your Success (Our Success, the USA, I should Say) in winning this Case. In the Meantime, keep Biting the Bullets, keep setting them straight and and Keep Going Leo. Thank You So much for keeping us informed and For Everything you Have Done. I’ll be Praying and doing everything I can. God Bless You!

  9. Leo, have you seen this about Pres Chester Alan Arthur?
    http://volokh.com/posts/1228153366.shtml#494147 I found this when trying to find the source for the comments from Volokh as used in the Chicago Trib article. He really says nothing at all about the specifics of your case. Have you read comments at this blog? There seem to be some challenging opinions and no bad language!

  10. He’s fixed his posting to include your letter!

  11. Leo, Looks Like Turley already CORRECTED his Blog and mentioned your
    e mail! Way to GO Leo! Congratulations!

  12. Clark Hill Says:

    Mr. Donofrio, can you please clarify your argument regarding Obama being a “natural born citizen because his father was a British citizen”? It is my unerderstanding that Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen. Wouldn’t this then also made Obama a U.S. Citizen?

  13. Good! Now let Sean Hannity correct the record too!

    I don’t care what “side of the fence” they claim to be on. If they can’t tell the truth, they deserve the spanking they get.

    I have “a life”, Sean. Saving YOURS, thanks!

    I’m pissed!

  14. Excellent.

    Leo, I’m finishing off an article that I and other FReepers intend to circulate widely. I also intend to publishing it on RenewAmerica.com, michnews.com, etc. where I’ve posted articles before.

    Here is the URL (I intend to add just a bit more which provide historic rationale and context, and relevant precedent, also a summary for how you’ve been obstructed, all with links for further reading.):

    http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/donofrio-dual-citizenship-natural-born.html

    If you have any input for me, please send to arlenwilliams//at//yahoo.com. If you have any use, it will all be reproducible.

    Thanks you,
    Arlen

  15. Wendy Matrisciano Says:

    This is nothing compared to the Schmidt show today(comes on after the Rush show).
    He proceeded to call Leo a wacko and nutcase. Misrepresented the case completely. Laughed about it and said it is the only case that has not been thrown out of court, but his will too. Said he was born in Hawaii and he will be the 44th president of the United States.
    He went on for about 10 minutes making fun of it.
    This guy should be sued.
    It is horrible that the media is finally starting to talk about it, and are totally stating untrue facts.

  16. How long do you think you’re going to be able to keep this up, writing a personal letter to every reporter who mis-reports the facts of the case? Do you really think this is a prudent and feasible approach?

  17. Sid Davis Says:

    I suppose they press will generally ignore or malign this case unless the Court reviews it and finds for Mr. Donofrio.

    I think that the press must be terrified that people might actually discover this is a major Constitutional issue, and be inflamed by the failure of the Court to address it. I personally knew nothing about what “natural born citizen” meant, nor did I understand the relationship between the 14th Amendment and statutory citizenship. Over several weeks I looked for everything I could find on the internet and I am convinced that neither Obama nor McCain are “natural born citizens.” I think they both got their citizenship by operation of Congressional Statutes at the time of their respective births, and not from the 14th amendment and not as a result of being “natural born.” To qualify they would need to be born in the US without being under the jurisdiction of a foreign power (without foreign citizenship).

    All this issue of born in Kenya just clouds the real issue and directs attention away from the real issue.

    Should Obama become President, I think this will just be yet another grievance to be added to the list for the next Declaration of Independence.

  18. Joss Brown Says:

    IMPORTANT NOTE TO MR. DONOFRIO:

    Your comment on his blog is probably being moderated, because you included live URLs. So maybe it would be good to post a URL-free comment there as well.

  19. Millie O'Riley Says:

    Now the Chicago Tribune’s James Janega can be added to the growing list of reporters who are publishing completely inaccurate stories about the Donofrio case. I just sent him an email asking him to quickly and easily research the case at this blog site. I can’t understand why it is that not a single reporter has written an accurate story of this case yet. Isn’t that peculiar?

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-birth-certificatedec04,0,664988.story

  20. In Palin We Trust Says:

    NEW AMERICA MEDIA GETS IT RIGHT…Well, before they get it wrong.

    Article linked here is copied below:

    http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=91f3d495aef4a4952d363ab87b52c6a0&from=rss

    Justice Thomas Forces Supreme Court to Probe Obama’s Citizenship

    Afro America Newspaper , News Report, James Wright, Posted: Dec 04, 2008

    (December 3, 2008) – In a highly unusual move, U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has asked his colleagues on the court to consider the request of an East Brunswick, N.J. attorney who has filed a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s status as a United States citizen.

    Thomas’s action took place after Justice David Souter had rejected a petition known as an application for a stay of writ of certiorari that asked the court to prevent the meeting of the Electoral College on Dec. 15, which will certify Obama as the 44th president of the United States and its first African-American president.

    The court has scheduled a Dec. 5 conference on the writ — just 10 days before the Electoral College meets.

    The high court’s only African American is bringing the matter to his colleagues as a result of the writ that was filed by attorney Leo Donofrio. Donofrio sued the New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Wells, contending that Obama was not qualified to be on the state’s presidential ballot because of Donofrio’s own questions about Obama citizenship.

    Donofrio is a retired lawyer who identifies himself as a “citizen’s advocate.” The AFRO learned that he is a contributor to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, a Web site that raises questions about Obama’s citizenship.

    Calls made to Donofrio’s residence were not returned to the AFRO by press time.

    Donofrio is questioning Obama’s citizenship because the former Illinois senator, whose mom was from Kansas, was born in Hawaii and his father was a Kenyan national. Therefore, Donofrio argues, Obama’s dual citizenship does not make Obama “a natural born citizen” as required by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

    “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…”

    Donofrio had initially tried to remove the names not only of Obama, but also the names of Republican Party presidential nominee John McCain and Socialist Workers’ Party Roger Calero from appearing on the Nov. 4 general election ballot in his home state of New Jersey.

    McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was a U.S. possession. Calero would be ineligible to be president because he was born in Nicaragua.
    After his efforts were unsuccessful in the New Jersey court system, he decided to take his case to a higher level.

    On Nov. 6, Souter denied the stay. Donofrio, following the rules of the procedure for the Supreme Court, re-submitted the application as an emergency stay in accordance to Rule 22, which states, in part, that an emergency stay can be given to another justice, which is the choice of the petitioner.

    Donofrio’s choice was Thomas. He submitted the emergency stay to Thomas’s office on Nov. 14. Thomas accepted the application on Nov. 19 and on that day, submitted it for consideration by his eight colleagues – known as a conference – and scheduled it for Dec. 5.

    On Nov. 26, a supplemental brief was filed by Donofrio to the clerk’s office of the Supreme Court. A letter to the court explaining the reason for the emergency stay was filed on Dec. 1 at the clerk’s office.

    Thomas’s actions were rare because, by custom, when a justice rejects a petition from his own circuit, the matter is dead. Even if, as can be the case under Rule 22, the matter can be submitted to another justice for consideration, that justice out of respect, will reject it also, said Trevor Morrison, a professor of law at Columbia University School of Law.

    Morrison said that Thomas’s actions are once in a decade. “When that does happen, the case has to be of an extraordinary nature and this does not fit that circumstance,” he said. “My guess would be that Thomas accepted the case so it would go before the conference where it will likely be denied. If Thomas denied the petition, then Donofrio would be free to go to the other justices for their consideration. “This way, I would guess, the matter would be done with. Petitions of Donofrio’s types are hardly ever granted.”

    Traditionally, justices do not respond to media queries, according to a spokesman from the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

    Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and has been one of its most conservative members.

    Before his ascension to the court, he was appointed by Bush to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Earlier, he served as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – appointed by President Reagan – and worked various jobs under former Republican Sen. John Danforth.

    It would take a simple majority of five justices to put Donofrio’s emergency stay on the oral argument docket. Because it is an emergency by design, the argument would take place within days.

    Donofrio wants the court to order the Electoral College to postpone its Dec. 15 proceedings until it rules on the Obama citizenship. He is using the 2000 case Bush vs. Gore case as precedent, arguing that it is of such compelling national interest that it should be given priority over other cases on the court’s docket.

    “The same conditions apply here,” Donofrio said in his letter to the court, “as the clock is ticking down to Dec. 15, the day for the Electoral College to meet.”
    Audrey Singer, a senior fellow at Washington’s Brookings Institution, who is an expert on immigration, said that the Donofrio matter is “going nowhere.”

    “There is no way that anyone can argue about whether Barack Obama is a citizen,” Singer said. “In this country, we have a system known as jus soli or birthright by citizenship. You are a citizen by being born on American soil and he (Obama) was born in Hawaii.”

    Singer said that Donofrio’s argument that Obama’s father was a Kenyan national does not matter because citizenship is not based on parentage, but on where someone was born.

    “This is the issue that some people have with illegal aliens in our country,” she said. “Children of illegal aliens, if they are born in the United States, are U.S. citizens. That is in the U.S. Constitution.”

  21. YAH Leo!!! Making progress a little at a time. :)
    Thank you Jonathan Turley for correcting your blog.

  22. Lederhosen Says:

    Thanks from everyone across the pond! God Bless!

  23. with Keith Olberman?? Good luck!!

  24. Jan C: “Leo, have you seen this about Pres Chester Alan Arthur?
    http://volokh.com/posts/1228153366.shtml#494147 I found this when trying to find the source for the comments from Volokh as used in the Chicago Trib article. He really says nothing at all about the specifics of your case. Have you read comments at this blog? There seem to be some challenging opinions and no bad language”

    I read it. think the point is that Arthur’s father was a naturalized American citizen at the time of Arthur’s birth. The person who wrote te comment sounded extremely condescending towards Leo’s argument, presenting him as a nut. Her point was that under theBritish law, Arthur’s father was still considered a British subject,and terefore Arthur himself was born a British subject. But I think that her argument was invalid. To the United States, who had naturalized Arthur’s father, it shouldn’t have mattered that the British government still considered him a citizen. The important thing was that he was an American citizen in the eyes of the American government.

  25. [...] Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, responded to legal scholar and analyst Professor Jonathan Turley’s blog entry today. Leo had written to [...]

  26. On MSNBC now: Turley does not completely dismiss these cases but seems a little more inclined to think the Hillary issue is a serious constitutional question, although based on “a rather arcane provision”. Arcane, perhaps even hoary, but extant and still relevant. Let’s hope Senator Byrd, who has expressed some interest in investigating the Hillary nomination on constitutional grounds, can exhibit the same constitutional fervor in the matter of Obama eligibility My post: http://is.gd/ahE3.

  27. “How long do you think you’re going to be able to keep this up, writing a personal letter to every reporter who mis-reports the facts of the case? Do you really think this is a prudent and feasible approach?” – Jerry

    It will continue for however long the MSM continues to misrepresent Mr. Donofrio’s case. After all, you didn’t mind when Obama or McCain misrepresented their qualifications to this country. While they were doing that and using the Senate to try to pass legislation that deemed them “natural born citizens” through S.R. 511 (bet you didn’t know about that huh?), I didn’t see you objecting, yet you come here now to yell at truthseekers.

    If you think for one minute this is just Mr. Donofrio, you are out of your mind. Look around. This is America, of which Mr. Donofrio is a true patriot that you’re trying to belittle here. Get educated.

  28. Leo, I’ve seen some very well written articles & Blogs on the internet in High Regard of your case and I’ve seen some with all the facts distorted however, You were right to stand up and correct the mis-writings of the ABC and MSNBC (Main stream media) articles – since they were the possibly only 2 MSM articles to actually give this case any attention at this point. Who knows if they mis wrote the ABC and MSNBC articles intentionally or out of lazy “journalism”- you defended yourself correctly
    to MSM..

    I doubt very much that anyone in MSM will be able to “Get it Wrong” when the SCOTUS rules in favor of hearing the case.

    God Bless You leo, Sleep Well.

  29. Another article: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=9773

    Again is seems there is continued confusion about the concept of “natural born citizen” as defined in the Constitution.

    – Well, we’ll see what the SC says tomorrow. The author feels the only reason Thomas “accepted” the case was to force a rejection by the entire court.

  30. It pays to attempt to set the record straight.Sometimes you will run across a person in the msm or accepted by the msm that has a conscience and a shred of integrity.Thanks for your patriotism and hard work.And kudios to you for having the discernment to see through an opportunist like Lan Lamphere that would’ve smeared your good name had you been on his show a few more times. It helps that you are not partisan,as the 2 party system we have is a prime example of Hegelian Dialectics.Or going off on tangents about Obama’s Marxist-Socialist-Communist background.That’s not paramount at this point in time.McCain is a Globalist as well.Neither are eligible,and that is what you are bringing to light.They are not Natural Born Citizens,and I hope the Constitution is still held in high esteem by Scotus. The past 20 years says it isn’t,but there’s always hope until it is officially announced that it is dead and we are forced to adopt the World Constitution of the godless UN.Incidentally the UN Charter is a verbatim ripoff of the former USSR’s,written by the Communist Alger Hiss. http://www.constitution.org/pub/swinton_press.htm http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/TALK.html

  31. David Mivshek Says:

    YAY! HE CORRECTED HIS BLOG, BUT…

    I saw Jonathan Turley’s interview with Keith Olbermann. It’s just sick! Clinton’s case is serious because it violates the Constitution, but Obama’s case will probably be put to the side because the judges usually don’t like to get involved in such matters? Where did this guy learn law? The eligibility of President is in the Constitution, and is just as important, if not moreso, than the Secretary of State.

    This guy is just another media puppet. He’s more concerned with how he looks on TV and that the media and public likes him. What a scared poseur!

    And then he sits there and says what Hillary would accept as pay? Hey Turley! You’re Jonathan Turley! That’s it! Quit trying to be the go-to guy for the media. Leave that to someone who is truthful!

  32. Leo, are you aware of Barack Obama’s remarks regarding the US Constitution during confirmation hearings for Chief Justice Roberts? These are very important regarding his view of the Constitution and appointments/ nominations:

    http://www.obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_sena/

    EVERYBODY PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!!!!

  33. Audrey Singer, a senior fellow at Washington’s Brookings Institution, who is an expert on immigration, said that the Donofrio matter is “going nowhere.”

    “There is no way that anyone can argue about whether Barack Obama is a citizen,” Singer said. “In this country, we have a system known as jus soli or birthright by citizenship. You are a citizen by being born on American soil and he (Obama) was born in Hawaii.”

    Singer said that Donofrio’s argument that Obama’s father was a Kenyan national does not matter because citizenship is not based on parentage, but on where someone was born.

    Amazing that someone that learned can’t read the most pertaining document in her supposed field: The State Depertments Consular Affairs Manual. In the manual it clearly states that both Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis is used not just Jus Soli.

    7 FAM 1111.2 Citizenship
    (TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)
    a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization.

    b. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:

    (1) Jus soli (the law of the soil), a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.

    (2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline ), a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also
    changed.

    Also again it misses the crucial point that just because you are a US Citizen it doesn’t mean you are a nautral born citizen. I guess Leo needs to make it simple for people like this, All Jelly Donuts are Donuts but not all Donuts are Jelly Donuts.

  34. CNN had a report on this case this morning (around 6:30 a.m. Eastern). I was surprised to hear it being discussed at all. They seemed to think it would not get anywhere, although they did speak about it professionally.

  35. Quoting Jim Dec 4 “Kudos to you (Leo) for having the discernment to see through an opportunist like Lan Lamphere that would have smeared your good name…”

    Leo, shortly after you hung up on Lan on the air on his show, Lamphere had someone on his show and they were discussing YOU. This Guy mentioned to Lan that he was on Ed Hale’s show WITH YOU on the air and this guy told Lan that he (paraphrased) “Gave it to you or Put it to you”, meaning that he (paraphrased) blasted you or put you on the spot in some way, as the 3 of you were on the air. I hope this person has the good sense to really be your ally and NOT be pretending. The Only part I thought he would be referring to, to Lan, was when this guy asked you “Would you be Personally Benefitting from Cort Wornowski’s Case. This Guy is helping the cause of the Supreme Court Vigil and I was APPALLED to hear him being a part of the Vigil SINCE he was on Lan’s show, a day or two before that, Not particularily speaking well of you.

    I would only give you this person’s name privately in some way, if you don’t know who I’m referring to. There’s an audio of this on Lan’s show, which is where I heard the conversation between this person and lan.

    Why do I even mention this? Because I feel it’s necessary that you be on on guard for who you may be trusting from this point on. As I said, I hope this person has the good sense to truly be your ally.

  36. holly,newstand Says:

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DICTIONARY 1800:

    http://search.abaa.org/dbp2/search.php?Author=&Title=Law+Dictionary+&Description=Dictionary&All=&Pmin=&Pmax=&Days=&year1=1700&year2=1900&sortfield=AuthorLH&rtype=&submit=+Search+

    Reference to possible adjacent documentation of definition of ‘Natural Born’ from the period. This is a list of Historical Law and Constitutional Law Dictionaries.

    ie: Bouvier, John A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the…
    1856 Bouvier, John [1787-1851]. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, And of the Several States of the American Union

  37. Turley: Courts Should Hear Obama NBC Cases

    Respected constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley doubts claims that Barack Obama does not meet the natural born citizenship requirement. Nonetheless, he believes the standing hurdle should not get in the way of the courts hearing cases challenging Obama’s natural born status. He doesn’t understand why Obama doesn’t produce his original certificate, and he thinks allowing the matter to fester only propels conspiracy theory notions. Turley writes on his blog:

    http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2008/12/turley-courts-should-hear-obama-nbc.html

  38. OBAMA was born here: (13th august 1961 Honolulu Advertiser Edition, Hawai)

    http://wikileaks.org/leak/obama-1961-birth-an

    As a white man from georgia,
    who has been voting REpublican for 75 years, I have never witnessed
    a situation where a candidate has to show his certificate of birth.(Presidents
    Hoover, Jefferson both parents were not born in USA ). What is wrong with OBAMA situation. You may say i am too old. However, I think it is a racial issue going on here. If my party won the elections, nobody will be talking about Mccain should show his birth certificate. In any case take time
    to read the constitution located in http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ . It does not give a reader the definition of ‘Natural born’. I suspect that most of above contributors have not read the constitution. Clearly any legal mind will tell you the term ‘Naturally born’ is open various interpretation. DoNofrio case says
    Natural born means both parents must be born in USA. Donofrio definition of ‘USA natural born’ IS NOT SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTIUTION. THEREFORE HIS CASE WILL BE THROWN OUT, period.
    My definition of ‘Naturally born’ could be in a DNA delineage, in which case nobody will qualify, because this land of made of immigrants from different parts of planet earth (including native indians, who immigrate from some where else).
    AS TO MR OBAMA, YOU CANNOT ASK A CHILD TO PROVE WHERE HE WAS BORN. YOU CAN ONLY RELY ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY. WOmen can give birth in hospitals, some do at home without any midwife witness (draw your own conclusions). In any case OBAMA birth was advertized in Honolulu new paper
    on 12th August 1961, 8 days after he was born (4th August 1961). It is clear.
    NO DOUBT about. OBAMA WAS BORN IS USA
    (HAWAII, HONOLULU, clearly printed in that local newpaper edition in 1961).
    I DID NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA, However this man, is of GREAT INTELLECT who will fix up our country problems. MY PARTY (REPULICAN) delivers a disastrous performance over the last eight years under an intellectually ineffectual GUY.
    LOOK AT WHAT A MAN CAN DO, NOT AT HIS COLOUR OF SKIN. NOW MY PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY PAYING SOME BLACKLEADERS (Clarence thomas, supreme court, alan keyes and others) to create this mess. PLEASE STOP. IN MY 95 years, I have seen my people misuse, mistreat blacks, native indians,
    THIS IS THE CHANCE TO BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER to work for our COUNTRY.
    I WILL ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN, BUT REPUBLICANS AND OTHERS MUST RESPECT THE WILL OF MAJORITY (over 7000000 people spoke clearly in favour of trying again the democrate governing philosophy.).
    We are in the 21st century. MR OBAMA DOES NOT HAVE SHOW HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE. WHERE WILL YOU STOP, IT WILL NOT PROVE ANYTHING. ANY USA birth certificate, however forensically tested will ONLY TELL YOU THAT 99.9999 % correct. BUT IT IS NOT 100

    We do not live in 1800’s. We are in the 21st century. IF you are a citizen
    (it does matter how you get your citizenship), and if you are able to convine the american constituents that you can serve faithfully the people of USA, then you should be given a chance.

  39. Maria Trujillo Says:

    I fully understand the arguments. I still hope that they craft an opinion which continues to allow NATIVE BORN status to all who are born in the United States, no matter the status of their parent(s).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: