 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsAustralia and NZCanadaUSAUSA Marriage Base ImmigrationKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Immigration Forum / USA Marriage Base / February 2005I-134 citizenship categories - clarification
The I-134 states the following: If you are not a native born United States citizen, answer the following as appropriate: a. If a United States citizen through naturalization, give certificate of naturalization number b. If a United States citizen through parent(s) or marriage, give citizenship certificate number c. If United States citizenship was derived by some other method, attach a statement of explanation. So, how could someone be a citizen through marriage (category b) without already being a citizen through naturalization (category a)? And who falls under category c? > The I-134 states the following: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > without already being a citizen through naturalization (category a)? > And who falls under category c? If a train leaves Chicago at half past two and another train leaves London at....... :D Hell if *I* know! ~SecretGarden > The I-134 states the following: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > without already being a citizen through naturalization (category a)? > And who falls under category c? C) Derivative citizenship???? People who have U.S. citizens in their direct line of ancestry. You were born elsewhere and your ancestors have not lived in the United States for a long time, but U.S. citizenship has been passed down the line. Do I get the GOLD prize??? > C) Derivative citizenship???? > People who have U.S. citizens in their direct line of ancestry. You [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do I get the GOLD prize??? Uh, wouldn't that be through one's parents? As in category b? > Uh, wouldn't that be through one's parents? As in category b? An excellent point... I was wondering who'd be the first to spot this, naturally. (dammit dammit dammit) Um, so, dunno... Give us a clue? Cheers, Mr Pink ~and SecretGarden ~~(she's not really blonde) ;) > The I-134 states the following: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > without already being a citizen through naturalization (category a)? > And who falls under category c? Hi: Why the Hell are you asking? Do you have a female affiant signing the I-134 who is over a 100 years old? If you are ALREADY a citizen, you need not go through a naturalization. The 1855 nationality provisions relating to the citizenship of women married to U.S. Citizens was not repealed until the September 1922 Cable Act. However, citizenship conferred under the 1855 law is absolute. "The trouble is all inside your head she said to me. The answer is easy if you take it logically. I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free." Paul Simon.  SignatureCertified Specialist Immigration & Nat. Law Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization > Hi: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > easy if you take it logically. I'd like to help you in your struggle > to be free." Paul Simon. Clearly he's asking because he's a royal pain in the butt :) > Clearly he's asking because he's a royal pain in the butt :) Hi: I guess your right. He has shown an ability to look up things quickly. To be honest, I just looked it up to get the details of the effective dates. BTW, the I-134 has not changed all that much over the years and there is a lot of obsolete stuff in the form. SignatureCertified Specialist Immigration & Nat. Law Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization > Hi: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > easy if you take it logically. I'd like to help you in your struggle > to be free." Paul Simon. Man, Stuart.... What side of the bed did you wake up on today? Sheesh. I happen to be a curious sort. No point in getting your speedo in a knot about it. Here's what I asked: So, how could someone be a citizen through marriage (category b) without already being a citizen through naturalization (category a)? And who falls under category c? So, I take it from your answer that category b would apply to an alien woman who married a USC prior to 1922? Now, what about category C? > Man, Stuart.... What side of the bed did you wake up on today? Sheesh. > I happen to be a curious sort. No point in getting your speedo in a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So, I take it from your answer that category b would apply to an alien > woman who married a USC prior to 1922? Now, what about category C? Hi: There have been various acts of "collective naturalization" over the years. The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas being the most recent. Before then, acquisition of Hawaii, Virgin Islands, etc. SignatureCertified Specialist Immigration & Nat. Law Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization > Hi: > > There have been various acts of "collective naturalization" over the > years. The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas being the most > recent. Before then, acquisition of Hawaii, Virgin Islands, etc. Aha, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks. I was thinking too contemporaneously. ;) > Aha, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks. I was thinking too > contemporaneously. ;) I've noticed. :) You may remember prior mention by the legal eagles here of the infamous "rule against perpetuities." Part of that rule is the concept of the "fertile octegenarian." Once you study the rule against perpetutities, your mind if forever warped. ;) SignatureCertified Specialist Immigration & Nat. Law Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization >>Aha, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks. I was thinking too >>contemporaneously. ;) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "fertile octegenarian." Once you study the rule against perpetutities, > your mind if forever warped. ;) Wouldn't Winston Churchill have been able to use item C assuming he was still alive when the question first appeared on the form? SignatureAbove intended as general commentary, not specific legal advice. Your mileage may vary. =============================================================== Jonathan McNeil Wong Voice: 510-451-0544 Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP Facsimile: 510-832-1486 P.O. Box 12979 URL: http://www.donahue.com Oakland, CA 94604-2979 E-mail: jonathan@donahue.com =============================================================== > Wouldn't Winston Churchill have been able to > use item C assuming he was still alive when the > question first appeared on the form? I don't believe so. Winston Churchill was never made a US citizen. He was given "honorary" US citizenship in 1963, which (AFAIK) is =not= legally the same thing as becoming a US citizen. Congress =does= have the power to enact legislation conferring US citizenship (true citizenship, not just "honorary" citizenship) on an individual, and it has done so on rare occasions. A bill proposing to give 6-year-old Cuban refugee Elian Gonzalez US citizenship (the real thing -- not honorary), for example, was introduced in Congress in 2000 but never became law. Rich Wales richw@richw.org http://www.richw.org/dualcit/ *DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant, or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice. > > Wouldn't Winston Churchill have been able to > > use item C assuming he was still alive when the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and > are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice. Indeed. And yet, the strict language of item C would seem to permit an honorary citizen to check the box, then explain that the basis was honorary (or, in the case of the Marquis de Lafayette, probably honorary). SignatureAbove intended as general commentary, not specific legal advice. Your mileage may vary. =============================================================== Jonathan McNeil Wong Voice: 510-451-0544 Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP Facsimile: 510-832-1486 P.O. Box 12979 URL: http://www.donahue.com Oakland, CA 94604-2979 E-mail: jonathan@donahue.com =============================================================== >>c. If United States citizenship was derived by some other method, attach >> a statement of explanation. > >[W]ho falls under category c? I'm speculating: how about a centenarian born in Alaska? -Laurens de Jong. > If you are not a native born United States citizen, answer the following > as appropriate: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > b. If a United States citizen through parent(s) or marriage, give > citizenship certificate number [...] >So, how could someone be a citizen through marriage (category b) without >already being a citizen through naturalization (category a)? Going back to centenarians: alien wives of US citizens who married before September 11, 1922. It's possible! -Laurens de Jong. > The I-134 states the following: > If you are not a native born United States citizen, > answer the following as appropriate: . . . . It seems to me that the I-134 wording is just plain sloppy. Under section 101(a)(23) [8 USC 1101(a)(23)], the term "natural- ization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever. In other words, if you are a US citizen, but not a citizen "at birth", you are a naturalized citizen. The phrase "native born" isn't defined anywhere in US law, AFAIK. Most people would probably consider it synonymous with "natural born" -- another term that isn't defined in US law, but which appears (see http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#president) to have been understood by the Founding Fathers to refer to any person who had citizenship from the moment of birth (i.e., not via naturalization). In the above quote from the I-134 instructions, though, it seems to me that the writer was probably thinking of "US citizen by virtue of having been born in the US". I assume the practical meaning of the instructions would be something like "give the number of whatever sort of certificate you have that says you're a US citizen; or, if you don't have any such number, include a detailed explanation (and it had better be good!). Rich Wales richw@richw.org http://www.richw.org/dualcit/ *DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant, or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.