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
Yes, the founding fathers who wrote the constitution and ratified it through the various states, MANY WHO SERVED IN THE FIRST CONGRESS, got together and defined as one of their first acts, that children born beyond the soil of the US are natural born citizens.
So no, they were not misinterpreted. Because they were the ones who wrote the rules and then wrote the law (Naturalization act of 1790). In fact, it was signed by George Washington. So that leaves only one person in this discussion who misinterpreted their intentions.
They were smart enough to place the issue of citizenship at birth with the representatives so that the People, should they not like the direction the representatives were heading, could correct the situation by removing the representatives from office.
“...That is errant nonsense...”
It appears that opinions vary. Now *MY* opinion counts about as much as your does. But you know whose opinion counts a lot? The opinions of those who get to decide whether a candidate qualifies to hold the office of president and so far, the prevailing opinion is that Cruz can be President if he can garner the votes. Now I rather doubt the opinions of anyone on Free Republic is going to sway those folks and what are you going to do when Trump picks Cruz as his VP?
Good luck with your candidate!
I cannot understand why it is that you keep harping on this irrelevant fact.
I know full well that Trump's mother was a "full fledged" US citizen at the time of his birth, and I don't know how many times I need to say it before you get it.
But, that fact is totally immaterial to her status under British law. Britain does not recognize and did not recognize any such swearing or renunciation of former nationality as part of our naturalization process, and therefore her naturalization had NO BEARING on her British nationality.
The only way that she could have effectively ended her British nationality is by renouncing it in the prescribed manner and form to the British Home Secretary according the the law. Specifically, Renunciations made to other authorities (such as the general renunciation made as part of the US naturalization ceremony) are not recognized by the UK. The forms must be sent through the UK Border Agency's citizenship renunciation process.
Get it yet?
McCain was born in the Colon, in the Republic of Panama, in a civilian hospital.
I wonder if the opinion of the father of the U.S. Constitution matters?
James Madison:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
Actually he isn’t. Not quite sure why you seem to think you know more than actual constitutional scholars.
I guarantee your read does not match Mark Levins
Granted that it is precedent, but it is probably the worst and most egregiously erroneous decision ever handed down the the Supreme Court.
The legal reasoning is atrocious, the citations are inappropriate and irrelevant in many cases, and however bad the decision itself was, the dicta in the case is even worse.
For myself, a new decision of the Court overturning Kim Wong Ark would not be sufficient. It needs to be expunged from the record in its wretched entirety.
In the meantime any argument buttressed by quotations from that decision simply cannot be taken seriously.
I can agree with you on this.
“According to Vattel’s Law of Nations, Chapter 19 Sec 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.”
Except that is NOT what Vattel wrote. Nor was it translated (incorrectly) that way until 10 years AFTER the US Constitution was written.
Thanks !
/s
There you go again, injecting facts into a perfectly good argument. I wonder how many of these pugilists were around back when these arguments were raging 8-9 years ago?
You are entirely welcome. it’s refreshing to see someone willing to admit when they have made a mistake!
You might say, "Oh yeah, well what about someone native born, citizen or otherwise?
They can answer that question and by that definition they aren't natural born citizens."
And that's true. All Natural Born Citizens are native born, but not all native born are Natural Born Citizens. See? (Think about it...)
No way Ted Cruz doesn't have a problem, not unless NBC gets redefined again using the same book of rules that redefined marriage and family, calls mad muslim(s) murdering coworkers for allah "workplace violence" and claims a fetus is an undifferentiated tissue mass, among many others.
Doood...we're not doing that again, are we?
Because, whether it's of the coming apocalypse, America's fall, just another on the road we're on or whatever, that's like the man says: "Here's your sign."
IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
(Oct. 18, 2009)  The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen†is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
“Your wife cannot be a dual citizen if she was naturalized, because she would have renounced her former citizenship.”
That statement is not true. The Philippines allows dual citizenship. When becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen, she renounced her Philippine citizenship. Then, after the swearing in ceremony, she went to the Philippine consulate and was sworn back in. Thousands of Filipinos are dual citizens, and I know there are other countries that allow this as well. It in no way disqualifies you from being a U.S. citizen.
Going blind trying to read the decision on my phone....
Kim Wong does stand as law?
Foreign born people are naturalized by congressional acts, correct? Their acts have naturalized Cruz. He needed the power of congress to write law for his citizenship to be. That is naturalization.
My wife did this too.
She also gave birth to our child on US soil, before she became a citizen.
So both my wife and daughter are dual citizens. Philippines and USA.
“...I wonder if the opinion of the father of the U.S. Constitution matters?...”
Well, we *do* know that a mere three years after the constitution, a congress that included 8 of the 11 framers of the Constitution (not just one) wrote in the N.A. of 1790 — in undeniably clear language — that children born outside the boundaries of the nation to US citizens were (quote) “Natural Born Citizens”.
If Cruz was good enough for them, who am I to argue?
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.