Posted on 01/11/2016 4:27:13 PM PST by NaturalBornConservative
:: Cruz's Dilemma
- By: Larry Walker, II -
The concept of natural born Citizenship is clear and concise, to anyone with a rational mind. Although some may wish to contort its meaning to fit the presidential candidate of their choice, natural law is incapable of such bias. It takes two parents to produce a child, one male and one female, but you would never know it if your source of information is the lamestream media. By its logic, only one parent is sufficient.
Epigrammatically speaking, if both of your parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of your birth, you are without question a natural born Citizen of the United States. The location of your birth matters little. You could have been born in Kenya, Canada, Panama, or perhaps on the Moon, but as long as both parents were U.S. Citizens, at the time of your birth, you are without question a natural born Citizen.
According to Vattel's Law of Nations, Chapter 19 § 212: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights... The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."
You can think of natural born citizenship as free and clear citizenship. In other words, the rights of the parents (plural) are passed to their children. Thus, when both parents are U.S. Citizens, their offspring are natural born U.S. Citizens, free and clear. No other country has a claim of right. Comprende?
However, if at the time of your birth, your father was a Citizen of Kenya and your mother of the U.S., this would pose a problem. Oh no! What's the problem? The problem is duality. Under such circumstances, the child would be a Citizen of Kenya (a British subject pre-1964) by virtue of its father, and equally a Citizen of the United States by virtue of its mother. There's nothing free and clear in this circumstance. Upon the age of consent, such a child may claim citizenship with one country or the other; however, citizenship does not equal natural born citizenship.
You might not like the result of the above graphic, but that's simply the way it is. Here are some recent examples.
Is John McCain a natural born Citizen? John McCain's parents were both U.S. Citizens at the time of his birth, thus he is a natural born Citizen. It matters not that he was born on a military base in Panama. He could have been born in Siberia. No matter where he was born, McCain is a natural born American Citizen by virtue of his parent's common nationality, at the time of his birth. You got that?
Is Ted Cruz a natural born Citizen? Ted Cruz's father was a Cuban Citizen and his mother a U.S. Citizen, at the time of his birth. Thus, whether born in the U.S., Cuba, or Canada (where he was actually born) he is not a natural born Citizen of either.
Cruz was born with citizenship rights to both Cuba and the United States. Although he may have chosen U.S. citizenship, at the age of majority, natural born citizenship is not something one chooses. Natural born citizenship is a right passed from one's parents at birth. As such, Ted Cruz is no more a natural born Citizen than is Barack Obama.
The U.S. is filled with undocumented aliens, birthright Citizens, permanent residents, dual status Citizens, naturalized Citizens, and natural born Citizens. Whether the children of undocumented foreigners, born on U.S. soil, are U.S. Citizens by birthright is questionable. However, without question, such children are not natural born Citizens of the United States.
The main issue is this. According to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, "No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President." So where does that leave Ted Cruz? Is he a U.S. Citizen? Sure, if he affirmed. Is he a natural born Citizen? Due to the citizenship status of his parent's, at the time of his birth, he clearly is not.
Is Ted Cruz eligible to run for the presidency? Technically no, since he is not a natural born Citizen. But since you allowed Barack Obama, who is plain as day not a natural born Citizen, why stop Ted Cruz or anyone else for that matter? If it weren't for that confounded Constitution, we could nominate whomever we yearned, without conscience. But, since we do have a blessed Constitution, it's up to us, rather than fainthearted federal judges, to see that it is upheld.
Reference: #NaturalBornCitizen
Never happened. You need memory check-up.
“Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates the exclusive power to Congress to define the rules of naturalization. That includes who is and who is not born as a citizen.”
Natural Born Citizenship does not depend on ANY legislative act that has ever occurred!
There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz’s citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute. Here is one particular quote of note:
“Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.â€
I assume that Mr. Cruz and his parents have meet all of the obligations described above, hence that is why his US citizenship is not in question. But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) that have been drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural born citizenship.
I will use myself as an example. I was born in the United States to two citizen parents. My citizenship is granted (by nature) owing to the place of my birth (jus soli), and the undivided loyalties of my citizen parents (jus sanguinis), under the sole governance of the United States Constitution. That is, my citizenship does not depend on the existence of any statutory actions taken by the US Congress (nor can it ever be constrained by such); hence I am a natural born citizen.
1) all, as in:
the children of all citizens of the United States
2) both parents, as in:
the children of both parent citizens of the United States
3) at least one parent, as in:
the children of a US citizen (all that qualify) of the United States
Of these, #1 and #3 are the least restrictive. #2 is the most restrictive. Under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, strict scrutiny must be applied to restrict the rights of any person. Strict scrutiny means that a challenged statute must be "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest, and must not have a "less restrictive" alternative. The less restrictive alternative is that it applies to children who have one US parent.
“current law which is expressed in title 8 section 1401”
Here’s that section:
“(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;”
If this is the definitive clause then it looks like Cruz is a citizen.
Not to argue but it would actually be subsection G. The Cruzes moved to Canada in 1967 and Sen Cruz was born in 1970.
That code section refers to “citizenship”. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution refers to the term a “Natural Born Citizen”. They are not the same, because Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 refer to the qualifications for representatives and senators; one of which is to have been a “citizen of the United States” for the past seven or nine years, respectively.
”. . . I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power [emphasis added] or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” - John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866. Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend. (See top half of 2nd column)
McCain was born under US juridiction. So they say.
Dems wanted a feeble minded idiot to run against.
Suppose for some administrative snafu, you have to sue the US government to force them to recognize your NBC status. What law are you going to site that specifically says you are a citizen at birth?
You would site Title 8 section 1401 subsection A.
That law is the law that says your are a natural born citizen.
” The Children of Naturalized Aliens also do not have to go through a “process.” The lack of a “process” does not make them any less naturalized than their parents.
The concept in law is called “Derivative citizenship.” The citizenship of the children becomes derived from the Naturalized Parent. “
Okay, so then in my case, did my daughter, having been born abroad, “derive” her citizenship from me (a U.S. citizen at birth) or is she a naturalized citizen?
Who are you saying is Obamas father? Although I have an idea who his father was, that is still one of the unresolved mysteries of the Obama Administration imo.
I’m sorry, I cited wrong case seee this, from earlier thread today:
The basic principle is stated in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-3 (1898):
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. . . . Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
Sorry, but you are wrong. The process of naturalization requires one to renounce their former citizenship and swear allegiance to the United States. Trump’s mother was thus a full-fledged American Citizen at the time of his birth.
I tend to agree.
Let me give you my example and this is not a hypothetical.
Indonesia does not recognize Jus Soli citizenship. Children born of foreigners in Indonesia are not considered Citizens of Indonesia.
So, if a mother and father both American citizens have a child born to them in Indonesia, does that child have a natural connection and allegiance to Indonesia serving to make the child a Natural Born Citizen of Indonesia despite their refusal to consider the child one of their own, or is the child's natural allegiance to the nationality of the parents, making the child a Natural Born Citizen of their country? Or is the child born stateless, with no right or residence, protection and nurture from any society or nation, and without the right to obtain documentation and passport from anywhere by natural right?
Does the country of the parents' birth have the sovereign right to extend its protection and nurture to the children of its citizens as Natural Born Citizens if that is the wish of the polity?
Let's end it here for now and see where the discussion goes.
The one on his birth certificate.
Ooookay
When the first American citizens gave birth to the first babies born here in this newly created United States of America, there was no need to define their citizenship, because what else would those children be but citizens of this country?
They were born here to the first citizens created when the country was formed. By law and nature they are obviously citizens of this country and no other.
No law or lawyers needed to explain it or define it. It's obvious. What else could those first born citizen be but Americans?
That is the test that defines the pure essence of the obvious: "what else can they be at birth but citizens of the country of their birth?" There are no other options, just the one by nature, thus "natural born citizen".
But what of the rest who weren't born here to citizens? How do we legally define the citizenship of those who are not natural born citizens? What are their privileges? Restrictions?
The Naturalization Act of 1790, followed soon after with wording and meaning corrected in the Act of 1795, were needed to legally define the citizenship of those not naturally born, as well as potential citizens seeking their American baptism in the melting pot.
A great "check your work" question here is, if Ted is a natural born citizen of the US, then which state is he a natural born citizen of?
Hmmm...Delaware? Texas? How, by nature, would that possible?
A Natural Born American Citizen has an answer for that question and it's obvious and verifiable to anyone who has seen that person's genuine B.C.
The term natural born citizen is only mentioned in the qualifications to be President and Vice-President. It doesn’t apply to Congress, Judges, Governors nor anyone else. My wife used to be a Mexican citizen. She renounced her former citizenship when she was naturalized. I witnessed the ceremony and explained all of this too her in advance.
The U.S. Code is the law, not the Constitution. Your daughter would only be a natural born citizen if your wife was naturalized prior to her birth. Your wife cannot be a dual citizen if she was naturalized, because she would have renounced her former citizenship.
So the Founding Fathers, whom didn’t want the Presidency manipulated by foreigners in any way, were smart enough to understand the measures of tyranny and manipulations of government, but weren’t smart enough to properly define the restrictions of the office of the President so it wouldn’t be misinterpreted. I find that really hard to believe.
No! I would not cite any law. I would simply produce my birth certificate and perhaps those of my parents and rest my case!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.