Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
Jul 17th 2003, 1:02 pm
#31
Howling at the Moon
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 3,742
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
Originally posted by Dekka's Angel
No, actually the "one drop" rule was fairly limited to determining the applicability of Jim Crow laws against people of African Descent.
But that Toyota case I cited actually tackled this issue a little bit. It was addressed head on in an apparently more famous case brought a few years later by an Asian Indian named Singh (if my memory from last night doesn't fail me). That case said that the citizens of the US had a "common understanding" of what was white, and "clearly" Asians didn't meet it (Singh had, essentially, argued that he was white). They more "clearly" were not of African nativity or descent, so they were completely out of the running on that option.
These cases are sick. But those who do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it.
No, actually the "one drop" rule was fairly limited to determining the applicability of Jim Crow laws against people of African Descent.
But that Toyota case I cited actually tackled this issue a little bit. It was addressed head on in an apparently more famous case brought a few years later by an Asian Indian named Singh (if my memory from last night doesn't fail me). That case said that the citizens of the US had a "common understanding" of what was white, and "clearly" Asians didn't meet it (Singh had, essentially, argued that he was white). They more "clearly" were not of African nativity or descent, so they were completely out of the running on that option.
These cases are sick. But those who do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it.
My grandmother's siblings were able to emmigrate there without being subject to the restrictions as they were mixed race (one white parent, one asian) and so, according to the "fashion" of the times were classifiable as white, even though they are not in appearance.
Common understanding? Clueless more like it for the most part.
(I have my own set of experiences and subsequent opinions on this...lol).
Jul 17th 2003, 1:33 pm
#32
Howling at the Moon
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 3,742
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
Originally posted by Ingo Pakleppa
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:29:18 +0000, Rich Wales wrote:
> "Kayumanggi" wrote:
>
> > > I think those American history sites are quite credible.
>
> I disagree. The sites you cited have, in and of themselves, no
> credibility at all. There's no way, for example, that you could
> convince the State Dept. or any federal court to rule in your favor on
> the basis of any (or even all three) of these sites. You need to go find
> the primary sources -- the federal statutes and regulations as they
> existed in 1942 -- and see exactly what =they= said at the time in
> question. Unfortunately, the source of the three sites (and, given the
> similarities between them, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they all
> drew from a single common source) doesn't appear to have included
> references to the statutes or regulations.
>
> Failing something definite to the contrary in 1942-vintage US law, I
> would tend to assume that Filipinos were considered to be nationals, but
> not citizens, of the US -- and that the common source of the three
> history sites simply garbled the distinction between a US citizen and a
> non-citizen US national.
A quick google search came up with a couple of sites that indicate that
the US passed two separate laws addressing Filipino citizenship, both
around the time of independence of the Philippines.
The first one allowed Filipino veterans of the US military to become US
citizens. The other was the Filipino Citizenship Act, which became law on
July 3, 1946 (I believe the day of Philippine independence).
Unfortunately, this seems to be almost a googlewhack; there was only a
single hit searching for it.
I have been unable to find out exactly what it says, but the BCIS Web site
mentions it as
60. Act of July 2, 1946 (60 Statutes-at-Large 416)
Amended the Immigration Act of 1917, granting the privilege of admission
to the United States as quota immigrants and eligibility for
naturalization races indigenous to India and persons of Filipino descent.
Ingo Pakleppa wrote:
>
> > independence is the one situation where you could end up with a
> > non-US citizenship. This would be no different if, say, Puerto
> > Rico gained independence.
>
> I'm not at all certain, FWIW, that Puerto Rican independence would
> necessarily lead to involuntary loss of US citizenship by Puerto Ricans.
> Given that Puerto Rico is considered just as much a part of the US
> nowadays as, say, the District of Columbia, I can easily see the courts
> concluding that the 14th Amendment's "citizenship clause" applies to
> Puerto Ricans.
>
> > For that matter, it was similar in the case of several Pacific
> > Islands that gained independence over the past 30 years or so.
>
> Those Pacific islands, IIRC, were classified in US law as "outlying
> possessions" -- which meant that their inhabitants were non-citizen US
> nationals, rather than US citizens.
>
> At present, BTW, the only remaining "outlying possessions" of the US are
> American Samoa and Swains Island. The inhabitants of Puerto Rico (and,
> for that matter, the US Virgin Islands and Guam) are explicitly defined
> in current US law as being full-fledged citizens of the US.
Actually, people from the Marshall Islands, FSM (Federated States of
Micronesia) and CNMI (Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands) and Palau
(freely associated states, or Compact States) are also still US nationals.
Either that, or they have some special status: such citizens are permitted
to enter the US without passport, visa and have employment authorized as
non-immigrants. See http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/diaz.2.ltr.htm
By the way, it doesn't seem widely known at the border patrol that people
in Guam are US citizens. I recently visited Tijuana with a friend from
Guam. On the way back, she was sent to secondary inspection because the
officer didn't believe that a US passport issued in Guam was valid. For
that matter, I don't think these guys were aware of the difference between
citizenship and nationality, either.
--
Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
newsgroups.
Please support H.R. 539 and H.R. 832. More information at
http://www.kkeane.com/lobbyspousal-faq.shtml
Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (always under construction)
My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
my Web site for information on how to contact me.
Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my new Web site
http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:29:18 +0000, Rich Wales wrote:
> "Kayumanggi" wrote:
>
> > > I think those American history sites are quite credible.
>
> I disagree. The sites you cited have, in and of themselves, no
> credibility at all. There's no way, for example, that you could
> convince the State Dept. or any federal court to rule in your favor on
> the basis of any (or even all three) of these sites. You need to go find
> the primary sources -- the federal statutes and regulations as they
> existed in 1942 -- and see exactly what =they= said at the time in
> question. Unfortunately, the source of the three sites (and, given the
> similarities between them, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they all
> drew from a single common source) doesn't appear to have included
> references to the statutes or regulations.
>
> Failing something definite to the contrary in 1942-vintage US law, I
> would tend to assume that Filipinos were considered to be nationals, but
> not citizens, of the US -- and that the common source of the three
> history sites simply garbled the distinction between a US citizen and a
> non-citizen US national.
A quick google search came up with a couple of sites that indicate that
the US passed two separate laws addressing Filipino citizenship, both
around the time of independence of the Philippines.
The first one allowed Filipino veterans of the US military to become US
citizens. The other was the Filipino Citizenship Act, which became law on
July 3, 1946 (I believe the day of Philippine independence).
Unfortunately, this seems to be almost a googlewhack; there was only a
single hit searching for it.
I have been unable to find out exactly what it says, but the BCIS Web site
mentions it as
60. Act of July 2, 1946 (60 Statutes-at-Large 416)
Amended the Immigration Act of 1917, granting the privilege of admission
to the United States as quota immigrants and eligibility for
naturalization races indigenous to India and persons of Filipino descent.
Ingo Pakleppa wrote:
>
> > independence is the one situation where you could end up with a
> > non-US citizenship. This would be no different if, say, Puerto
> > Rico gained independence.
>
> I'm not at all certain, FWIW, that Puerto Rican independence would
> necessarily lead to involuntary loss of US citizenship by Puerto Ricans.
> Given that Puerto Rico is considered just as much a part of the US
> nowadays as, say, the District of Columbia, I can easily see the courts
> concluding that the 14th Amendment's "citizenship clause" applies to
> Puerto Ricans.
>
> > For that matter, it was similar in the case of several Pacific
> > Islands that gained independence over the past 30 years or so.
>
> Those Pacific islands, IIRC, were classified in US law as "outlying
> possessions" -- which meant that their inhabitants were non-citizen US
> nationals, rather than US citizens.
>
> At present, BTW, the only remaining "outlying possessions" of the US are
> American Samoa and Swains Island. The inhabitants of Puerto Rico (and,
> for that matter, the US Virgin Islands and Guam) are explicitly defined
> in current US law as being full-fledged citizens of the US.
Actually, people from the Marshall Islands, FSM (Federated States of
Micronesia) and CNMI (Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands) and Palau
(freely associated states, or Compact States) are also still US nationals.
Either that, or they have some special status: such citizens are permitted
to enter the US without passport, visa and have employment authorized as
non-immigrants. See http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/diaz.2.ltr.htm
By the way, it doesn't seem widely known at the border patrol that people
in Guam are US citizens. I recently visited Tijuana with a friend from
Guam. On the way back, she was sent to secondary inspection because the
officer didn't believe that a US passport issued in Guam was valid. For
that matter, I don't think these guys were aware of the difference between
citizenship and nationality, either.
--
Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
newsgroups.
Please support H.R. 539 and H.R. 832. More information at
http://www.kkeane.com/lobbyspousal-faq.shtml
Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (always under construction)
My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
my Web site for information on how to contact me.
Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my new Web site
http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.
Britian has several caategories of Citizens and Subjects.
I have heard it stated that UK Nationality Law is the most complex in the world.
Jul 17th 2003, 5:20 pm
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
>Subject: Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
>From: [email protected] (Kayumanggi)
>Date: 7/17/2003 12:15 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id:
>I'm sure they have official documents to back their statement that in
>the year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens to allow them
>to register in the US military to help fight the Japanese. And if you
>further research on one of those American history sites, you will find
>that it's supported by some of the actual leading institutions,
>custodians, and experts on American history. You know, like, federal
>officials, institutions, Pulitzer prize winners, officials of the Bush
>administration, university faculties, etc.
When I was very young, I always wondered why there were too many Old filipino
Hawaianos retiring in my hometown. I found out from them, before our
independence from USA, the americans brought them to work in Hawaii, Guam and
other parts of USA. They did not use passport but "cedula." I'm filipino and my
understanding of cedula is piece of paper for residential registration. If this
filipinos are not classified as US citizen during those years why they did not
use passport to gain entry to work as laborer in US? Pretty sure this is not in
any site you will research because this was told to me by those very old
filipinos who had work here in US before Philippines independence and finally
they came back to my country to retire.
>From: [email protected] (Kayumanggi)
>Date: 7/17/2003 12:15 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id:
>I'm sure they have official documents to back their statement that in
>the year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens to allow them
>to register in the US military to help fight the Japanese. And if you
>further research on one of those American history sites, you will find
>that it's supported by some of the actual leading institutions,
>custodians, and experts on American history. You know, like, federal
>officials, institutions, Pulitzer prize winners, officials of the Bush
>administration, university faculties, etc.
When I was very young, I always wondered why there were too many Old filipino
Hawaianos retiring in my hometown. I found out from them, before our
independence from USA, the americans brought them to work in Hawaii, Guam and
other parts of USA. They did not use passport but "cedula." I'm filipino and my
understanding of cedula is piece of paper for residential registration. If this
filipinos are not classified as US citizen during those years why they did not
use passport to gain entry to work as laborer in US? Pretty sure this is not in
any site you will research because this was told to me by those very old
filipinos who had work here in US before Philippines independence and finally
they came back to my country to retire.
Jul 17th 2003, 5:39 pm
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
Well, I'm not the one to blame here. Blame the US government itself
for this confusion. They're the ones whose contradicted and violated
their own laws. You say, Filipinos are not US citizens in most
statutes. Then why do Filipinos permanently residing and working in
the Philippines issued with regular US citizen passports from 1898 up
to 1946? That are now antique US citizen passports that Filipinos
still have in their possession? (Some of those Filipinos who carried
those antique US citizen passports are still presently living in the
Philippines) When Filipinos travel abroad they are recognized as US
citizens by other countries coz of the US citizen passports they are
carrying! And again, these are Filipinos who are permanently residing
and working in the Philippines from 1898 up to 1946 and are now still
living in the Philippines.
When Filipinos heard of the Valmonte v. INS case in 1998 that's when
they started to dig up their antique US citizen passports, thinking
that it may help someday. Experts have already tested their
authenticity, and they concluded it's genuine. Now if the US
government can be kind enough to disclose the antique records of
Filipinos who traveled abroad in the old days then that would be good
for us. I heard these antique US citizen passports will be presented
as evidence, maybe reopen the Valmonte v. INS case in 1998 due to
having new tangible evidence. Therefore it means there's no Double
Jeopardy.
Again, I'm pretty sure there are official documents stating that in
the year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens allowing
civilian Filipinos at that time to quickly enlist in the US military
to help fight the Japanese. Coz I think even the number of Filipinos
who were already enlisted in the US military, even before the war took
place, were not enough to fight the Japanese. And so the US
government made a decree to again reclassify Filipinos as US citizens
to encourage presently civilian Filipinos to enlist in the US military
to help fight the Japanese. I think Japanese invasion of the
Philippines happened in December 3, 1941 a day after the Pearl Harbor
bombing? And so, a month later or the next year in 1942, I guess in
desperate need of supply of soldiers, Filipinos are reclassified again
as US citizens to encourage Filipinos who were presently civilians in
status to be allowed to enlist in the US military as an addition or to
immediately re supply the number of strength of the US military to
help fight the Japanese along with other Americans and with other
Filipinos who were already enlisted even before the war took place.
I think the Filipinos engaged in the Valmonte v. INS case will be
talking to the actual leading experts on American history. The ones
who posted that Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens in
their site. I guess they may call upon those experts to serve as
witness in court regarding this case.
for this confusion. They're the ones whose contradicted and violated
their own laws. You say, Filipinos are not US citizens in most
statutes. Then why do Filipinos permanently residing and working in
the Philippines issued with regular US citizen passports from 1898 up
to 1946? That are now antique US citizen passports that Filipinos
still have in their possession? (Some of those Filipinos who carried
those antique US citizen passports are still presently living in the
Philippines) When Filipinos travel abroad they are recognized as US
citizens by other countries coz of the US citizen passports they are
carrying! And again, these are Filipinos who are permanently residing
and working in the Philippines from 1898 up to 1946 and are now still
living in the Philippines.
When Filipinos heard of the Valmonte v. INS case in 1998 that's when
they started to dig up their antique US citizen passports, thinking
that it may help someday. Experts have already tested their
authenticity, and they concluded it's genuine. Now if the US
government can be kind enough to disclose the antique records of
Filipinos who traveled abroad in the old days then that would be good
for us. I heard these antique US citizen passports will be presented
as evidence, maybe reopen the Valmonte v. INS case in 1998 due to
having new tangible evidence. Therefore it means there's no Double
Jeopardy.
Again, I'm pretty sure there are official documents stating that in
the year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens allowing
civilian Filipinos at that time to quickly enlist in the US military
to help fight the Japanese. Coz I think even the number of Filipinos
who were already enlisted in the US military, even before the war took
place, were not enough to fight the Japanese. And so the US
government made a decree to again reclassify Filipinos as US citizens
to encourage presently civilian Filipinos to enlist in the US military
to help fight the Japanese. I think Japanese invasion of the
Philippines happened in December 3, 1941 a day after the Pearl Harbor
bombing? And so, a month later or the next year in 1942, I guess in
desperate need of supply of soldiers, Filipinos are reclassified again
as US citizens to encourage Filipinos who were presently civilians in
status to be allowed to enlist in the US military as an addition or to
immediately re supply the number of strength of the US military to
help fight the Japanese along with other Americans and with other
Filipinos who were already enlisted even before the war took place.
I think the Filipinos engaged in the Valmonte v. INS case will be
talking to the actual leading experts on American history. The ones
who posted that Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens in
their site. I guess they may call upon those experts to serve as
witness in court regarding this case.
Jul 17th 2003, 8:13 pm
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
Thanks for finding Valmonte. It seems that your question has already been
decided; Valmonte seems to be a binding legal precendent and says that
between 1899 and 1934, Filipino citizens were US nationals but not
citizens.
http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/F.../96-41940.html
BTW, double jeopardy wouldn't be an issue here - it only applies in
criminal cases.
The fact that other countries recognized Filipino passports as US
passports is plain immaterial here. If the government of Russia declared
all Filipinos Brazilian citizens, would that have any legal effect at all
outside of Russia? Also, note that a passport by itself does not establish
citizenship. Only the underlying facts establish citizenship. Otherwise,
somebody who obtained a US passport through fraud would automatically
become a US citizen. In this case, the fact that Filipinos were issued
regular US passports merely proves one thing: that US passports were
issued to both citizens and nationals.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:39:10 -0700, Kayumanggi wrote:
> Well, I'm not the one to blame here. Blame the US government itself for
> this confusion. They're the ones whose contradicted and violated their
> own laws. You say, Filipinos are not US citizens in most statutes.
> Then why do Filipinos permanently residing and working in the
> Philippines issued with regular US citizen passports from 1898 up to
> 1946? That are now antique US citizen passports that Filipinos still
> have in their possession? (Some of those Filipinos who carried those
> antique US citizen passports are still presently living in the
> Philippines) When Filipinos travel abroad they are recognized as US
> citizens by other countries coz of the US citizen passports they are
> carrying! And again, these are Filipinos who are permanently residing
> and working in the Philippines from 1898 up to 1946 and are now still
> living in the Philippines.
>
> When Filipinos heard of the Valmonte v. INS case in 1998 that's when
> they started to dig up their antique US citizen passports, thinking that
> it may help someday. Experts have already tested their authenticity,
> and they concluded it's genuine. Now if the US government can be kind
> enough to disclose the antique records of Filipinos who traveled abroad
> in the old days then that would be good for us. I heard these antique
> US citizen passports will be presented as evidence, maybe reopen the
> Valmonte v. INS case in 1998 due to having new tangible evidence.
> Therefore it means there's no Double Jeopardy.
>
> Again, I'm pretty sure there are official documents stating that in the
> year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens allowing civilian
> Filipinos at that time to quickly enlist in the US military to help
> fight the Japanese. Coz I think even the number of Filipinos who were
> already enlisted in the US military, even before the war took place,
> were not enough to fight the Japanese. And so the US government made a
> decree to again reclassify Filipinos as US citizens to encourage
> presently civilian Filipinos to enlist in the US military to help fight
> the Japanese. I think Japanese invasion of the Philippines happened in
> December 3, 1941 a day after the Pearl Harbor bombing? And so, a month
> later or the next year in 1942, I guess in desperate need of supply of
> soldiers, Filipinos are reclassified again as US citizens to encourage
> Filipinos who were presently civilians in status to be allowed to enlist
> in the US military as an addition or to immediately re supply the number
> of strength of the US military to help fight the Japanese along with
> other Americans and with other Filipinos who were already enlisted even
> before the war took place.
>
> I think the Filipinos engaged in the Valmonte v. INS case will be
> talking to the actual leading experts on American history. The ones who
> posted that Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens in their
> site. I guess they may call upon those experts to serve as witness in
> court regarding this case.
--
Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
newsgroups.
Please support H.R. 539 and H.R. 832. More information at
http://www.kkeane.com/lobbyspousal-faq.shtml
Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (always under construction)
My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
my Web site for information on how to contact me.
Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my new Web site
http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.
decided; Valmonte seems to be a binding legal precendent and says that
between 1899 and 1934, Filipino citizens were US nationals but not
citizens.
http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/F.../96-41940.html
BTW, double jeopardy wouldn't be an issue here - it only applies in
criminal cases.
The fact that other countries recognized Filipino passports as US
passports is plain immaterial here. If the government of Russia declared
all Filipinos Brazilian citizens, would that have any legal effect at all
outside of Russia? Also, note that a passport by itself does not establish
citizenship. Only the underlying facts establish citizenship. Otherwise,
somebody who obtained a US passport through fraud would automatically
become a US citizen. In this case, the fact that Filipinos were issued
regular US passports merely proves one thing: that US passports were
issued to both citizens and nationals.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:39:10 -0700, Kayumanggi wrote:
> Well, I'm not the one to blame here. Blame the US government itself for
> this confusion. They're the ones whose contradicted and violated their
> own laws. You say, Filipinos are not US citizens in most statutes.
> Then why do Filipinos permanently residing and working in the
> Philippines issued with regular US citizen passports from 1898 up to
> 1946? That are now antique US citizen passports that Filipinos still
> have in their possession? (Some of those Filipinos who carried those
> antique US citizen passports are still presently living in the
> Philippines) When Filipinos travel abroad they are recognized as US
> citizens by other countries coz of the US citizen passports they are
> carrying! And again, these are Filipinos who are permanently residing
> and working in the Philippines from 1898 up to 1946 and are now still
> living in the Philippines.
>
> When Filipinos heard of the Valmonte v. INS case in 1998 that's when
> they started to dig up their antique US citizen passports, thinking that
> it may help someday. Experts have already tested their authenticity,
> and they concluded it's genuine. Now if the US government can be kind
> enough to disclose the antique records of Filipinos who traveled abroad
> in the old days then that would be good for us. I heard these antique
> US citizen passports will be presented as evidence, maybe reopen the
> Valmonte v. INS case in 1998 due to having new tangible evidence.
> Therefore it means there's no Double Jeopardy.
>
> Again, I'm pretty sure there are official documents stating that in the
> year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens allowing civilian
> Filipinos at that time to quickly enlist in the US military to help
> fight the Japanese. Coz I think even the number of Filipinos who were
> already enlisted in the US military, even before the war took place,
> were not enough to fight the Japanese. And so the US government made a
> decree to again reclassify Filipinos as US citizens to encourage
> presently civilian Filipinos to enlist in the US military to help fight
> the Japanese. I think Japanese invasion of the Philippines happened in
> December 3, 1941 a day after the Pearl Harbor bombing? And so, a month
> later or the next year in 1942, I guess in desperate need of supply of
> soldiers, Filipinos are reclassified again as US citizens to encourage
> Filipinos who were presently civilians in status to be allowed to enlist
> in the US military as an addition or to immediately re supply the number
> of strength of the US military to help fight the Japanese along with
> other Americans and with other Filipinos who were already enlisted even
> before the war took place.
>
> I think the Filipinos engaged in the Valmonte v. INS case will be
> talking to the actual leading experts on American history. The ones who
> posted that Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens in their
> site. I guess they may call upon those experts to serve as witness in
> court regarding this case.
--
Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
newsgroups.
Please support H.R. 539 and H.R. 832. More information at
http://www.kkeane.com/lobbyspousal-faq.shtml
Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (always under construction)
My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
my Web site for information on how to contact me.
Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my new Web site
http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.
Jul 18th 2003, 12:37 am
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
Ah yes yes! I apologize, I haven't mentioned or explained it clearly
yet. Indeed you're right, the law needs to be changed. Actually,
this is, about changing the pre black civil rights era laws and
policies regarding the Filipinos. About laws and policies that are
contradicting with other laws and policies. Like, it's written that
Filipinos are not US citizens but why are Filipinos issued with
regular US citizen passports? Why are Filipinos documented as US
citizens when traveling coz of the US citizen passports they're
carrying?
Obviously, you are all relying on the very laws and policies that are
actually needed to be changed. Laws that need to be straightened out.
Policies that were created or was descended on previous laws that
were weaved during the time when racial discrimination was rampant and
regular within all sectors of the United States. You know, the epic
tug of war between white supremacist Americans and colorblind
Americans in all sectors of American society during the pre black
civil rights era. Which are presented in the historical or true to
life movies like the "Tuskegee Air Men" and "Men of Honor the movie,"
etc.
Indeed this US citizenship for the Filipinos issue is no different
from the black civil rights movement, the women's right (gender
equality) movement, and the Native American rights movement, etc etc.
I know, I know. Filipinos are several decades behind in fighting for
their rights in America. You know, the Black civil rights, Native
American rights, Women's right movement have already won decades ago.
But you gotta understand those movements have an advantage coz they
were inside the US mainland, that's why their antagonists had a
difficult time subduing them. But with the Filipinos case, the white
supremacists were able to pin the Filipinos down coz Filipinos were
not inside the US mainland to fight for their rights, unlike the
Blacks, Women, and Native Americans were privileged to have.
There is some kind of Filipino-American rights movement in the
Philippines. I think they are now let's say in a kind of first stage
communication with the US Congress and the US Supreme Court. I have
yet to check them out on how far their current progress is.
yet. Indeed you're right, the law needs to be changed. Actually,
this is, about changing the pre black civil rights era laws and
policies regarding the Filipinos. About laws and policies that are
contradicting with other laws and policies. Like, it's written that
Filipinos are not US citizens but why are Filipinos issued with
regular US citizen passports? Why are Filipinos documented as US
citizens when traveling coz of the US citizen passports they're
carrying?
Obviously, you are all relying on the very laws and policies that are
actually needed to be changed. Laws that need to be straightened out.
Policies that were created or was descended on previous laws that
were weaved during the time when racial discrimination was rampant and
regular within all sectors of the United States. You know, the epic
tug of war between white supremacist Americans and colorblind
Americans in all sectors of American society during the pre black
civil rights era. Which are presented in the historical or true to
life movies like the "Tuskegee Air Men" and "Men of Honor the movie,"
etc.
Indeed this US citizenship for the Filipinos issue is no different
from the black civil rights movement, the women's right (gender
equality) movement, and the Native American rights movement, etc etc.
I know, I know. Filipinos are several decades behind in fighting for
their rights in America. You know, the Black civil rights, Native
American rights, Women's right movement have already won decades ago.
But you gotta understand those movements have an advantage coz they
were inside the US mainland, that's why their antagonists had a
difficult time subduing them. But with the Filipinos case, the white
supremacists were able to pin the Filipinos down coz Filipinos were
not inside the US mainland to fight for their rights, unlike the
Blacks, Women, and Native Americans were privileged to have.
There is some kind of Filipino-American rights movement in the
Philippines. I think they are now let's say in a kind of first stage
communication with the US Congress and the US Supreme Court. I have
yet to check them out on how far their current progress is.
Jul 18th 2003, 12:56 am
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
Ingo Pakleppa wrote in message news:...
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:41:31 -0700, Kayumanggi wrote:
>
> > I'm aware of that data. For years that's my knowledge of it. But
> > suddenly I came across or discovered these very credible American
> > history sites, stating that in 1942 Filipinos are "reclassified" as US
> > "citizens" not US "nationals." And when you say "reclassified" that
> > means Filipinos were already classified previously as US "citizens" not
> > US "nationals." You know, these are websites of quite credible
> > organizations, (you may further research their site to determine their
> > credibility as I did) for sure they know the difference between US
> > "citizens" and US "nationals." Actually, some of the people running
> > those American history sites are themselves the actual leading
> > custodians and experts on American history.
>
> I suspect that this meant "reclassified for purposes of enlisting in the
> military" rather than "granted full citizenship".
I think the Filipinos are speedily granted full citizenship to enable
them to quickly enlist as regular US military, due to America's
desperate need of new military recruits at that time.
>
> --
> Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
> everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
> newsgroups.
>
> Please support H.R. 539 and H.R. 832. More information at
> http://www.kkeane.com/lobbyspousal-faq.shtml
>
> Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (always under construction)
>
> My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
> my Web site for information on how to contact me.
>
> Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my new Web site
> http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:41:31 -0700, Kayumanggi wrote:
>
> > I'm aware of that data. For years that's my knowledge of it. But
> > suddenly I came across or discovered these very credible American
> > history sites, stating that in 1942 Filipinos are "reclassified" as US
> > "citizens" not US "nationals." And when you say "reclassified" that
> > means Filipinos were already classified previously as US "citizens" not
> > US "nationals." You know, these are websites of quite credible
> > organizations, (you may further research their site to determine their
> > credibility as I did) for sure they know the difference between US
> > "citizens" and US "nationals." Actually, some of the people running
> > those American history sites are themselves the actual leading
> > custodians and experts on American history.
>
> I suspect that this meant "reclassified for purposes of enlisting in the
> military" rather than "granted full citizenship".
I think the Filipinos are speedily granted full citizenship to enable
them to quickly enlist as regular US military, due to America's
desperate need of new military recruits at that time.
>
> --
> Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
> everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
> newsgroups.
>
> Please support H.R. 539 and H.R. 832. More information at
> http://www.kkeane.com/lobbyspousal-faq.shtml
>
> Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (always under construction)
>
> My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
> my Web site for information on how to contact me.
>
> Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my new Web site
> http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.
Jul 18th 2003, 4:18 am
#38
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
Originally posted by Kayumanggi
You say, Filipinos are not US citizens in most
statutes. Then why do Filipinos permanently residing and working in
the Philippines issued with regular US citizen passports from 1898 up
to 1946?
You say, Filipinos are not US citizens in most
statutes. Then why do Filipinos permanently residing and working in
the Philippines issued with regular US citizen passports from 1898 up
to 1946?
The definition of "national" includes TWO groups, US Citizens, and non-citizens owing permanent allegiance to the United States. In fact, the spread of the term "national" is subject to dispute NOW in a totally different context.
Non-citizen nationals get US passports. In fact, I recall one case where a native of American Samoa petitioned for her husband. They had filed a "combined" I-130/485 application on a DIY basis. When they were finally interviewed, the INS approved the I-130, denied the I-485 and actually refunded the filing fee for the I-485!
They then came to see me. I explained that under BIA case law, a "non-citizen national" was considered a "lawful permanent resident" and therefore able to file an I-130 on the [now] Family Based 2nd preference which was not current when they filed the application. Under the law existing at the time this happened, the remedies were two -- national wife naturalize and then hubby file new I-485 or simply consular process.
I just looked at my old and present passports. All of the passports have the request from the Secretary of State to "permit the citizen/national named herein to pass without delay or hindrance." The two 10-year machine readable passports issued in 1985 and 1995 not only contain that same language, but also list only the "nationality" with no reference to "citizenship."
Jul 18th 2003, 6:21 am
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
"Kayumanggi" wrote:
> Like, it's written that Filipinos are not US citizens
They aren't. At least, not in general. Those Filipinos who have
emigrated to the US and have been naturalized -- or who were born
in the US -- or, in some cases, those who have an American parent
-- would of course be exceptions.
> but why are Filipinos issued with regular US citizen
> passports?
They aren't. At least, not since 1946.
I assume you're talking about Filipinos who were issued US pass-
ports prior to 1946 -- in which case you may have accidentally used
"are" instead of "were" in your question. Are you absolutely sure
that those passports do =not= say that the bearer is a "national"
of the US? Don't answer this question unless you've actually seen
one of these passports with your own eyes. If you have, please let
us know =exactly= what it says.
Note that =current= US passports refer to the bearer as a "citizen /
national of the United States" -- a phraseology commonly understood
as meaning that the bearer could be =either= a US citizen =or= a
(non-citizen) US national. Present-day inhabitants of American
Samoa, for example, can get US passports, even though most of them
are not US citizens, but are instead non-citizen nationals of the US.
> Why are Filipinos documented as US citizens when traveling
> coz of the US citizen passports they're carrying?
Any US passport which was issued to anyone prior to 1946 would have
expired decades ago. There is no possible way that a traveller
could successfully use a US passport from that time period for
international travel today -- unless the immigration officials in
whatever countries they were travelling to were totally lazy and
incompetent.
Rich Wales [email protected] 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.
> Like, it's written that Filipinos are not US citizens
They aren't. At least, not in general. Those Filipinos who have
emigrated to the US and have been naturalized -- or who were born
in the US -- or, in some cases, those who have an American parent
-- would of course be exceptions.
> but why are Filipinos issued with regular US citizen
> passports?
They aren't. At least, not since 1946.
I assume you're talking about Filipinos who were issued US pass-
ports prior to 1946 -- in which case you may have accidentally used
"are" instead of "were" in your question. Are you absolutely sure
that those passports do =not= say that the bearer is a "national"
of the US? Don't answer this question unless you've actually seen
one of these passports with your own eyes. If you have, please let
us know =exactly= what it says.
Note that =current= US passports refer to the bearer as a "citizen /
national of the United States" -- a phraseology commonly understood
as meaning that the bearer could be =either= a US citizen =or= a
(non-citizen) US national. Present-day inhabitants of American
Samoa, for example, can get US passports, even though most of them
are not US citizens, but are instead non-citizen nationals of the US.
> Why are Filipinos documented as US citizens when traveling
> coz of the US citizen passports they're carrying?
Any US passport which was issued to anyone prior to 1946 would have
expired decades ago. There is no possible way that a traveller
could successfully use a US passport from that time period for
international travel today -- unless the immigration officials in
whatever countries they were travelling to were totally lazy and
incompetent.
Rich Wales [email protected] 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.
Jul 18th 2003, 6:28 am
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
"Folinskyinla" wrote:
> Non-citizen nationals get US passports. In fact,
> I recall one case where a native of American Samoa
> petitioned for her husband. . . .
I'm curious. Did this American Samoan woman's US passport say
anything that specifically identified her as being a non-citizen
national of the US?
Rich Wales [email protected] 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.
> Non-citizen nationals get US passports. In fact,
> I recall one case where a native of American Samoa
> petitioned for her husband. . . .
I'm curious. Did this American Samoan woman's US passport say
anything that specifically identified her as being a non-citizen
national of the US?
Rich Wales [email protected] 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.
Jul 18th 2003, 8:07 am
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
I just forgot to mention that this is about asking for clarification
or possibly the changing of existing laws. Coz even actual US
immigration experts say that it is a contradiction, issuing Filipinos
US citizen passports that are strictly for US citizens only, is indeed
a contradiction to the belief that Filipinos were just US nationals.
So, this needs clarification. And now were finding documents from
actual leading custodians and experts of American history, (who will
serve as witnesses in court someday) stating that Filipinos are
reclassified as US citizens in 1942, is also a major contradiction.
You know, what's the deal here? So, we must ask for clarification and
possibly for the changing of existing laws.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that Double Jeopardy was only for criminal
cases. I'm not a lawyer myself. :-) But anyway, I think
there are still 11 (eleven) circuit courts to try this case? Or there
are 11 more chances to try this case. And of course, there's also the
US Congress and the US Supreme Court, wherein in my last knowledge the
Filipino-American rights movement or the Back to American Citizenship
movement or whatever they call it, is already in the first stages of
communication with regarding this matter.
or possibly the changing of existing laws. Coz even actual US
immigration experts say that it is a contradiction, issuing Filipinos
US citizen passports that are strictly for US citizens only, is indeed
a contradiction to the belief that Filipinos were just US nationals.
So, this needs clarification. And now were finding documents from
actual leading custodians and experts of American history, (who will
serve as witnesses in court someday) stating that Filipinos are
reclassified as US citizens in 1942, is also a major contradiction.
You know, what's the deal here? So, we must ask for clarification and
possibly for the changing of existing laws.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that Double Jeopardy was only for criminal
cases. I'm not a lawyer myself. :-) But anyway, I think
there are still 11 (eleven) circuit courts to try this case? Or there
are 11 more chances to try this case. And of course, there's also the
US Congress and the US Supreme Court, wherein in my last knowledge the
Filipino-American rights movement or the Back to American Citizenship
movement or whatever they call it, is already in the first stages of
communication with regarding this matter.
Jul 18th 2003, 11:16 am
#42
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
Originally posted by Rich Wales
"Folinskyinla" wrote:
> Non-citizen nationals get US passports. In fact,
> I recall one case where a native of American Samoa
> petitioned for her husband. . . .
I'm curious. Did this American Samoan woman's US passport say
anything that specifically identified her as being a non-citizen
national of the US?
"Folinskyinla" wrote:
> Non-citizen nationals get US passports. In fact,
> I recall one case where a native of American Samoa
> petitioned for her husband. . . .
I'm curious. Did this American Samoan woman's US passport say
anything that specifically identified her as being a non-citizen
national of the US?
No, she had your standard issue U.S. Passort -- someone had drawn a magic marker line over the "citizen" on the Secretary's greeting, but it had worn thin. Quite frankly, I was surprised that the filing fee was refunded -- I guess that INS was so embarassed.
IMHO, it was an honest mistake on the part of the former INS.
For your interest, look up Matter of Tuitasi 15 I&N Dec. 102 and Matter of Ah San 15 I&N Dec. 315. These two cases are the ones that held that non-citizen nationals are lawful permanent residents of the United States for visa petition purposes. Drill down in the "virtual law library" at www.usdoj.gov/eoir
Jul 18th 2003, 11:31 am
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
"Kayumanggi" wrote:
> even actual US immigration experts say that it is a
> contradiction, issuing Filipinos US citizen passports
> that are strictly for US citizens only, is indeed a
> contradiction to the belief that Filipinos were just
> US nationals.
Please find one of these passports and read =every= =word= to see
if the passport really, REALLY says the bearer is a US =citizen=
(and not a "citizen or national", "citizen / national", etc.).
If the passport contains both English and some other language
(such as French -- US passports have contained both English and
French for a long time, and I believe current US passports have
Spanish now as well), look at the wording in the other language
too. For example, my US passport (issued in 1995) calls the
bearer a "citizen / national of the United States" in English,
which could be confusing (what's a "citizen / national"?), but
the French text says "citoyen ou ressortissant des Etats-Unis",
which unambiguously means a citizen OR a national (i.e., the
bearer might or might not be a full-fledged US citizen).
> And now we're finding documents from actual leading
> custodians and experts of American history (who will
> serve as witnesses in court someday) stating that
> Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens in 1942,
I'm sorry, forgive me for getting a bit harsh with you here, but
I really don't want to read another word from you about those
three precious web sites you found. If you're imagining you're
going to be able to go to court over this matter, those sites
are TOTALLY useless as primary sources. I don't care who wrote
them, or which organizations posted them, or what their academic
or professional credentials might be, and neither will any judge,
in any court, anywhere.
If all Filipinos were in fact, at any time, declared (or classi-
fied, or "reclassified") to be full-fledged US citizens (and not
just non-citizen US nationals), there will be a federal statute
somewhere saying so. Find that statute (or have a lawyer or
knowledgeable legal researcher find it for you). If you can't
find the statute anywhere, then ask those "actual leading cus-
todians and experts of American history" to help you find it.
And if =they= can't find the statute anywhere, then they aren't
likely to have anything to testify to on the subject that any
US court is going to be interested in hearing.
Again, if you intend to fight this matter in court -- or even
if you want to try to get Congress to enact a new law on the
subject -- you NEED to find a PRIMARY source for your informa-
tion. Those three web sites, no matter how appealing they may
sound to you, ARE NOT PRIMARY SOURCES and will NOT counter the
accepted claims (backed up by federal statutes, regulations,
and court decisions) which ALL insist that Filipinos prior to
1946 were non-citizen nationals and NOT citizens of the US.
> But anyway, I think there are still 11 (eleven) circuit
> courts to try this case?
BTW, I found a "proper" cite to the Valmonte case:
Valmonte v. INS, 136 F.3d 914 (2nd Cir. 1998),
cert. denied, 142 L.Ed.2d 463 (1998).
"Cert. denied", in case this term is new to you, means that the
losing party (in this case, Ms. Valmonte) tried to get the US
Supreme Court to review the case, but the Supreme Court refused
(without comment) to get involved and allowed the appellate
court's decision to stand.
A denial of certiorari doesn't automatically mean that the
Supreme Court will rule one way or the other if it ever does
decide to hear a similar case, and it doesn't set a binding
precedent that would force all other courts in the US to go
along with the Valmonte ruling. However, it really isn't a good
sign as far as you're concerned. And especially if you consider
a case on this general subject which the Supreme Court =did=
rule on -- INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875 (1988) -- it seems
=extremely= unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to accept
the proposition that all Filipinos have a pre-1946 claim to US
citizenship.
If you haven't already read both the Valmonte and Pangilinan
decisions in their entirety, I would again urge you to do so.
You may not (and, indeed, almost certainly =will= not) agree
with much of anything either court said, but you do need to
understand what these courts said and =why= they said it,
because you aren't going to get anywhere at all simply by
insisting that their rulings were factually and/or morally
mistaken.
> the Filipino-American rights movement or the Back to
> American Citizenship movement or whatever they call it,
> is already in the first stages of communication with
> [Congress and the Supreme Court] regarding this matter.
Uhhh . . . people and organizations don't enter into "first
stages of communication" with the Supreme Court in the way you
seem to think they do. The Supreme Court won't (and, indeed,
can't) get involved in matters like this until and unless they
are asked to decide a specific case from a lower court.
Rich Wales [email protected] 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.
> even actual US immigration experts say that it is a
> contradiction, issuing Filipinos US citizen passports
> that are strictly for US citizens only, is indeed a
> contradiction to the belief that Filipinos were just
> US nationals.
Please find one of these passports and read =every= =word= to see
if the passport really, REALLY says the bearer is a US =citizen=
(and not a "citizen or national", "citizen / national", etc.).
If the passport contains both English and some other language
(such as French -- US passports have contained both English and
French for a long time, and I believe current US passports have
Spanish now as well), look at the wording in the other language
too. For example, my US passport (issued in 1995) calls the
bearer a "citizen / national of the United States" in English,
which could be confusing (what's a "citizen / national"?), but
the French text says "citoyen ou ressortissant des Etats-Unis",
which unambiguously means a citizen OR a national (i.e., the
bearer might or might not be a full-fledged US citizen).
> And now we're finding documents from actual leading
> custodians and experts of American history (who will
> serve as witnesses in court someday) stating that
> Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens in 1942,
I'm sorry, forgive me for getting a bit harsh with you here, but
I really don't want to read another word from you about those
three precious web sites you found. If you're imagining you're
going to be able to go to court over this matter, those sites
are TOTALLY useless as primary sources. I don't care who wrote
them, or which organizations posted them, or what their academic
or professional credentials might be, and neither will any judge,
in any court, anywhere.
If all Filipinos were in fact, at any time, declared (or classi-
fied, or "reclassified") to be full-fledged US citizens (and not
just non-citizen US nationals), there will be a federal statute
somewhere saying so. Find that statute (or have a lawyer or
knowledgeable legal researcher find it for you). If you can't
find the statute anywhere, then ask those "actual leading cus-
todians and experts of American history" to help you find it.
And if =they= can't find the statute anywhere, then they aren't
likely to have anything to testify to on the subject that any
US court is going to be interested in hearing.
Again, if you intend to fight this matter in court -- or even
if you want to try to get Congress to enact a new law on the
subject -- you NEED to find a PRIMARY source for your informa-
tion. Those three web sites, no matter how appealing they may
sound to you, ARE NOT PRIMARY SOURCES and will NOT counter the
accepted claims (backed up by federal statutes, regulations,
and court decisions) which ALL insist that Filipinos prior to
1946 were non-citizen nationals and NOT citizens of the US.
> But anyway, I think there are still 11 (eleven) circuit
> courts to try this case?
BTW, I found a "proper" cite to the Valmonte case:
Valmonte v. INS, 136 F.3d 914 (2nd Cir. 1998),
cert. denied, 142 L.Ed.2d 463 (1998).
"Cert. denied", in case this term is new to you, means that the
losing party (in this case, Ms. Valmonte) tried to get the US
Supreme Court to review the case, but the Supreme Court refused
(without comment) to get involved and allowed the appellate
court's decision to stand.
A denial of certiorari doesn't automatically mean that the
Supreme Court will rule one way or the other if it ever does
decide to hear a similar case, and it doesn't set a binding
precedent that would force all other courts in the US to go
along with the Valmonte ruling. However, it really isn't a good
sign as far as you're concerned. And especially if you consider
a case on this general subject which the Supreme Court =did=
rule on -- INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875 (1988) -- it seems
=extremely= unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to accept
the proposition that all Filipinos have a pre-1946 claim to US
citizenship.
If you haven't already read both the Valmonte and Pangilinan
decisions in their entirety, I would again urge you to do so.
You may not (and, indeed, almost certainly =will= not) agree
with much of anything either court said, but you do need to
understand what these courts said and =why= they said it,
because you aren't going to get anywhere at all simply by
insisting that their rulings were factually and/or morally
mistaken.
> the Filipino-American rights movement or the Back to
> American Citizenship movement or whatever they call it,
> is already in the first stages of communication with
> [Congress and the Supreme Court] regarding this matter.
Uhhh . . . people and organizations don't enter into "first
stages of communication" with the Supreme Court in the way you
seem to think they do. The Supreme Court won't (and, indeed,
can't) get involved in matters like this until and unless they
are asked to decide a specific case from a lower court.
Rich Wales [email protected] 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.
Jul 18th 2003, 4:12 pm
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
Yes, those antique US citizen passports only indicate that the bearer
is a US citizen, no US nationals mentioned. And the holder of those
antique US citizen passports have no American parent, did not go
through naturalization, did not immigrated or resided in the US
mainland but only visited for a while, but who are permanently
residing and working in the Philippines.
is a US citizen, no US nationals mentioned. And the holder of those
antique US citizen passports have no American parent, did not go
through naturalization, did not immigrated or resided in the US
mainland but only visited for a while, but who are permanently
residing and working in the Philippines.
Jul 18th 2003, 11:43 pm
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Year 1942 Filipinos are reclassified as US citizens
I'm sorry, I admit I'm just following this issue myself. Sometimes,
checking out the latest news about the NGO or the lobbying group
pursuing this case about the US citizenship of the Filipinos. Don't
know the legal details and procedures, but I do understand and I am
expressing in my own words what this NGO's general direction is.
But if you want to personally contact the NGO or the movement itself,
and personally examine their tangible evidence (example, antique US
citizen passports) and arguments, and to contact their affiliated US
immigration and American history experts, and catch up with their
latest business with the US congress and US Supreme Court. You may do
so, I can give you their office address and contact information. But
it's been a long time since I've contacted them myself. So I'm not
aware if there are changes in their contact information or slight
change of organization name. But you may call the US embassy in
Manila, Philippines if there's indeed a change. Anyway, this
organization already has official ties and cooperation with the US
embassy in Manila, Philippines.
Here's their contact information:
Discovery Crusade of the Philippines Inc. (D.C.P.I.) aka Back to
American Citizenship Movement
Room 402-B, Building in front of the US embassy, Manila, Philippines
Telephone Numbers: 63 (2) 302-2524 and 63 (2) 525-9209 local 15
If you're unable to contact them, then again you may ask the US
Embassy in Manila for their new contact information coz they already
have official ties and cooperation with the US embassy. They don't
have a website. Again, you may also personally examine their antique
US citizen passports, etc etc.
P.S. they have lots of enemies. If you first want to make a
background research before you actually contact this NGO, then please,
I suggest you first directly contact the US government itself or the
US embassy in Manila to get a direct information background about this
NGO. Coz if you first surf the internet to get background information
about this NGO, you will mostly find bad information and lies
discrediting and demonizing the Discovery Crusade of the Philippines
Inc. So again, it's very important that you must first contact the US
government itself or the US embassy in Manila, Philippines to get the
true background information about this NGO. Coz again, this NGO
already has official ties and cooperation with the US embassy in
Manila, Philippines.
That is how you will find all the answers and information you're
asking for about this issue. :-)
checking out the latest news about the NGO or the lobbying group
pursuing this case about the US citizenship of the Filipinos. Don't
know the legal details and procedures, but I do understand and I am
expressing in my own words what this NGO's general direction is.
But if you want to personally contact the NGO or the movement itself,
and personally examine their tangible evidence (example, antique US
citizen passports) and arguments, and to contact their affiliated US
immigration and American history experts, and catch up with their
latest business with the US congress and US Supreme Court. You may do
so, I can give you their office address and contact information. But
it's been a long time since I've contacted them myself. So I'm not
aware if there are changes in their contact information or slight
change of organization name. But you may call the US embassy in
Manila, Philippines if there's indeed a change. Anyway, this
organization already has official ties and cooperation with the US
embassy in Manila, Philippines.
Here's their contact information:
Discovery Crusade of the Philippines Inc. (D.C.P.I.) aka Back to
American Citizenship Movement
Room 402-B, Building in front of the US embassy, Manila, Philippines
Telephone Numbers: 63 (2) 302-2524 and 63 (2) 525-9209 local 15
If you're unable to contact them, then again you may ask the US
Embassy in Manila for their new contact information coz they already
have official ties and cooperation with the US embassy. They don't
have a website. Again, you may also personally examine their antique
US citizen passports, etc etc.
P.S. they have lots of enemies. If you first want to make a
background research before you actually contact this NGO, then please,
I suggest you first directly contact the US government itself or the
US embassy in Manila to get a direct information background about this
NGO. Coz if you first surf the internet to get background information
about this NGO, you will mostly find bad information and lies
discrediting and demonizing the Discovery Crusade of the Philippines
Inc. So again, it's very important that you must first contact the US
government itself or the US embassy in Manila, Philippines to get the
true background information about this NGO. Coz again, this NGO
already has official ties and cooperation with the US embassy in
Manila, Philippines.
That is how you will find all the answers and information you're
asking for about this issue. :-)
