The Arizona Sentinel

February 12, 2012

Existing US Law on Website says Obama in Ineligible. Ballot Access denied!

Filed under: My Posts — Tags: , — thearizonasentinel @ 3:49 pm

Existing US Law on INS .gov Website Says Obama is Ineligible

Posted by By at 12 February, at 18 : 57 PM Print

Existing US Law on INS .gov Website Says Obama is Ineligible

This one from eligibility expert attorney Leo Donofrio has been making the rounds on the Internet. I suppose we should put this in our Natural Born Citizenship section of the site for peoples’ ready reference.


On the eve of Obama’s eligibility hearing Leo Donofrio reveals a new nail in Obama’s coffin (from Sam Sewell’s Steady Drip blog)

Existing US Law on INS .gov Website Says Obama is Ineligible


Sam adds some verbiage, as follows:

I had presumed that the idiom “natural born citizen” appeared nowhere in U.S. Law other than A2S1C5, but I found it in administrative law and it is contrasted with native and naturalized citizenship. I’ve never seen any mention of this fact before and wonder how many are aware of it in the ineligibility camp. Here’s the quotes:


He then quoted two provisions from the link provided, but there’s actually three at the official INS “.gov” site which establish official recognition by the federal government that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated. When you visit the suggested link to the Immigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”


Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:


“The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…” (Emphasis added.)


Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:


“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.


The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922?, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.” (Emphasis added.)


And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:


“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.” (Emphasis added.)


Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status.


The INS includes the following explanation of Interpretations:

“Interpretations were created to supplement and clarify the provisions of the statute and regulations as interpreted by the courts. These materials usually are not included in the regulations because they deal generally with procedural matters and do not deal directly with application and benefit requirements. They are still a useful tool to help you understand how the DHS Bureaus performs their different immigration services and enforcement functions. Users of the Operation Instructions and Interpretations should always consult the relevant regulations and manuals in conjunction with these materials. As the DHS Bureaus have grown, the trend has been towards inclusion of more materials in the regulations and field manuals, and the Operations Instructions and Interpretations have been updated less frequently.”

I’m not a lawyer but I am a well educated critical thinker. Your research and analysis deserve to prevail.

The problem that many people don’t understand is that this accurate understanding of the constitutional definition of “natural born” has not yet been directly applied to AKA Obama.

I think I am correct in assuming that until a case is decided that actually involves AKA Obama your analysis, correct as it might be, remains an intellectual exercise and has no potency as an argument until AKA Obama is a defendant.

What is desperately needed is a case actually being heard with AKA Obama as a defendant. Without a case to take to the SCOTUS AKA Obama’s ineligibility remains an opinion in a public debate with no legal authority.




What is the Article II Legal Defense Fund? Find out.


Only a natural born citizen can legally be President of the USA. ”Obama” is not either. See:


Subscribe free to Please forward. We’re also on Facebook


Ballot News Blog, Natural Born Citizenship, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama , Planted by Congress, to drive America towards a Marxist, Socialist Country.

Filed under: My Posts — Tags: — thearizonasentinel @ 1:07 pm

The WordPress Classic Theme. Create a free website or blog at

Recent Items

Reading Secondhand, Library and Low-Cost Quality Books

A Lawman Speaks for Liberty

Border and National Security, Private Property rights, Removing Federal agencies from the states,American Energy Policy, Constitutional Conservative


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 78 other followers