 Hey! FReepers! Help Fill The Tank! How About It? Huh? It Ain't Askin' Too Much Ya Know.... Click The Pic To Donate! |
Posted on 08/11/2013 2:54:35 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Potential 2016 presidential contender Donald Trump spoke to ABC's Jonathan Karl Sunday morning and reignited the birther issue that he helped spark back in 2011, questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama's birth certificate and wondering whether Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, was eligible to president. "Was there a birth certificate?" Trump asked. "You tell me. Some people say that was not his birth certificate. I'm saying I don't know. Nobody knows. And you don't know, either, Jonathan. You're a smart guy, you don't know, either." "I'm pretty convinced he was born in the United States," Karl said. "Ah! Pretty convinced," Trump said, and rolled over Karl's objections that he was 100% sure Obama was an American citizen. "Pretty sure is not acceptable." Trump made Obama's birth certificate a major issue in his aborted 2012 run for the GOP nomination, ultimately leading to Obama releasing his longform birth certificate. Karl asked Trump if the Canadian-born Cruz was eligible for the office. (Cruz's mother is an American citizen.) "If he was born in Canada, then perhaps not," Trump said. "That will be ironed out. I don't know the circumstances. If he says he was born in Canada, that's his thing."
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Hey! FReepers!
Help Fill The Tank!
How About It? Huh?
It Ain't Askin' Too Much
Ya Know....
Click The Pic To Donate!
It’s an Obama kind of gaffe, Obamaroid being a pseudo-intellectual and all.
“In 1860, Arthur was appointed to the military staff of Governor Edwin D. Morgan as engineer-in-chief. The office was a patronage appointment of minor importance until the outbreak of the Civil War in April 1861, when New York and the other northern states were faced with raising and equipping armies of a size never before seen in American history. Arthur was given the rank of brigadier general and assigned to the quartermaster department.”—Wikipedia
I agree with all you stated, Marcella.
It also makes it clear that RUBIO is NOT eligible, since both parents were Cuban nationals at the time of his birth. Same is true for Jindal, as his parents were Indian nationals when he was born.
Rubio is a lost cause anyway, even if he was eligible.
I think you’ve shown that there was at least one school of thought that argued for your definition. You’ve failed to account for other schools of thought that may have taken a different approach. One, say, based on the legal system that the Founders were raised in such as
the English Common Law.
What you have entirely failed to is to provide any evidence that you were taught the birther definition of NBC in Civics classes. Plenty have made that assertion in the last 5 years but none have been able to link to anything to back it up despite the internet being awash with examples of old school text books. And you talk about my credibility....
You forgot Dual Citizen.
Like my daughter. Born in the states to a foreign national.
Kinda like King Soetoro.
You are incorrect. There are only naturalized citizens and natural born citizens. The word “citizen” encompasses both categories of citizens.
Those who are born as citizens are natural born citizens as they have no need of naturalization. Your assertion that “Congress has no authority to make a statute governing the citizenship of a person born in the US...” is demonstratively incorrect.
Firstly, Title 8 section 1401 subsection A clearly describes the situation you speak of and secondly, the very first Congress stated that individuals born beyond the jurisdiction of the US, to US parents where to be treated as “natural born citizens”.
Dear Olde Chet! To think that for all these years I thought he was just another crooked Collector of the Port of New York, the sweetest patronage deal in 19th C America. Thanks Germanicus!
However, he will never replace Ben Butler in my recollections.
Chet Arthur bio apologies ping.
Such is the traditional view. Perhaps someday, the SCOTUS will get off its black-robed duff and take one of the many opportunities that have arisen to rule on this matter.
English common law does not apply in the United States. 
Partus Sequitur Patrem - citizenship by birth to citizens.
English common law does not apply in the United States.
With the pirate Roberts, globalist puppet, soiling the bench, that will probably happen when Cruz is the nominee, perhaps two weeks before Nov 3rd, 2016. It’s what happens when men with no honor are placed in high positions of power.
Another one is Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. It has the exception for children to born abroad to citizen parents. But, some contend that the framers rejected Blackstone in favor of Vattel’s definition.
ping to 114
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3053528/posts?page=114#114
Not according to USCIS currently published documents.
"restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."
USCIS: Reacquisition of citizenship
The problem with that assertion is that the Supreme Court spent much of one decision examining the sources of the term "natural born" (the Wong Kim Ark decision) and didn't come to that conclusion.
He didn't coin the term--he wrote in French, and his phrase in French does not include the words for "born" or "citizen." You quote a translation, but not the only possible translation, and one which was (some say) not published until well after the Constitution was written. That suggests the translator may have gotten his wording from our Constitution, not the other way around.
Didn’t George Washington have a copy of the Law Of Nations in his library at home? If so, which language version?
It is absurd beyond dispute to claim that the founders would have vainly or incompetently inserted a superfluous, meaningless word into one of the primary sections of such a painstakingly deliberate document, one of our country’s very own birth documents, our Constitution. If they had meant to allow the broader category of “born citizen” they would have succinctly stated such and not bothered to include the further restrictive qualification of being a natural born Citizen, which clearly must exclude many types of mere “born citizens.”
Who are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens that naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature at birth, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else? The answer is obvious – those born exclusively in country jurisdiction to existing U.S. citizens. These are the only type of citizens who are born with 100 percent, red-blooded exclusive allegiance to no other country but America. These are the natural born Citizens.
By blood and by dirt – and the criminal fraud known as obama simply does not qualify.
No one can say this is a fraudulent ‘document’. It has every bit the validity of the other ‘documents’ presented.
There is simply no ‘proof’ this a fake.
A native-born is a natural born citizen who has either given up or lost their citizenship. Thus they are no longer a citizen and the original statement stands. There are only two types of CITIZENS naturalized and natural born.
The Wong Kim Ark decision wasn’t about eligibility to be elected President.
If the Court were to ever take up the issue, it might be considered precedent. But, it could so be overruled, due to additional evidence that contradicts it.
US v. Miller was a poor decision that had glaring errors, but was made with no argument by the appellant, as he had died. And it was further misinterpreted by lower courts to mean things that weren’t even in the decision.
But, it was 70 years before the Court finally. considered the core issue. With a proper defense and a large body of scholarship behind it, the Court finally held that it meant what was plainly written.
Here is a workable link. I don’t know what happened to that post above.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
And there are Citizens by statute. That is what Cruz is. That code you always cite is a statute. A natural born Citizen is one who does not need a code to make him a Citizen. Why is that so hard to figure out taxcontrol.
No proof that it is fake, but you can proove it’s real because, as everyone knows, Darth Vader’s lightsaber is red... and as you can see on the document I provided, it shows Darth Vader’s lightsaber is, in fact, red.
We are a nation of laws. The starting point is The People who then created the Constitution to define our government. Per the Constitution, the Congress is specifically empowered to define the rules of naturalization. That includes who is and who not a citizen at birth (natural born) and does not require naturalization.
The will of Congress is specifically address by Title 8 section 1401. Per subsection A, a person born within the US is a citizen at birth. Thus by your faulty logic, all people born in the US are only statuary citizens. The correct understanding is that Congress uses and expresses through Title 8 section 1401 (and others) to define the rules of naturalization.
But we have been over this before haven’t we. I reference specific law, you argue your opinion without reference the laws of this nation. It seems we will have to agree to disagree.
The specific law you cite states “citizen”.
Again. Natural Born Citizens don’t need any code to define them as Citizens. Ted Cruz is a Citizen by statute. Positive law makes Ted a Citizen. Natural law makes a natural born Citizen. Nowhere in Title 8 section 1401 will you find the specific term ‘natural born Citizen. Just like you will not find it anywhere in the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark ruling. Only Article 2 Section 1, the presidential Constitutional clause is where you will find the term natural born Citizen. Ted Cruz is not eligible. Jindal is not eligible for he is native Citizen. Rubio is not eligible for he is a native Citizen. Native Citizens are not natural born Citizens as indicated in this link.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
That’s correct Ray. Nowhere does the statute mention ‘natural born Citizen’. Cruz is a statutory Citizen. A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
Trump still trying to remain irrelevant
One would have to suspend any semblance of reality to believe so. The false opinion you stated is directly contradicted by USCIS:
"...restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."You may have the right to hold an incorrect belief even though it's foolish to do so, but you cannot refute the actual fact that native-born citizens and natural-born citizens are two different things, confirmed by USCIS.
USCIS: Reacquisition of citizenship
Title 8 is a law passed by Congress, it is not in the Constitution. A Natural Born citizen does not require a law to make him a citizen. This is why you see no LAW defining what a Natural Born Citizen is.
No. He was born a citizen and therefore did not need to be naturalized.
If he doesn’t need to be naturalized, doesn’t that mean he’s a Natural Born Citizen?
Absolutely. Citizenship by birth is all the term means.
From a report by the Congressional Research Service:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
What does it say then....."A Natural"?
I can see it now: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or "naturals", 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 society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
LOL...........the last sentence kind of sums it up.....no matter what the Frogs called it.
How about this quote from John Jay, the first Chief Justice:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
Do you suppose he knew what the term implied....... or was he just playing around with words?
Cruz is a citizen by operation of law, he belongs to a class of persons collectively naturalized as “citizen at birth”. “Citizen at birth” as contradistinguished from “citizen by birth”. The class of persons collectively naturalized as “citizen at birth” are not “natural born citizens”, absent statute they are not citizens.
The class of persons Cruz is a member of could have been collectively naturalized as “natural born citizen”, Congress has previously declared some class of persons “natural born citizen” but they did not do so for Cruz’s class.
The Framers in Article II distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”. The first Congress, many members of which were Framers, in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.
The distinguishing characteristic was parental US citizenship.
Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, no longer made such a distinction and declared all persons naturalized to be “citizen”.
Are we to conclude that subsequent to 1795 there were no further “natural born citizens”?
Are we to conclude that other children born with parental US citizenship - those who were not “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States”, those born within the United States - are “natural born citizens”?
Or are these other children born with parental US citizenship within the United States something other than “natural born citizens”? Why? Was it necessary that they be “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” to be “natural born citizens”?
Who are the post 1795 natural born citizens?
The reasonable conclusion is that those born within the United States with parental US citizenship are “natural born citizens”.
The Naturalization Act of 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
This act was repealed by the 1795 Act, no other act mentions "natural born citizen"
Has Cruz been naturalized?He was "born a citizen" by operation of naturalization statute.No. He was born a citizen and therefore did not need to be naturalized.
Why did you purposely leave out the end of my sentence?
I said born in the US “OF CITIZEN PARENTS.”
I don’t like it when someone puts quotation marks around what I said and then leaves out part of the quote. It is misleading.
Ted Cruz and others would not have US citizenship without meeting the requirements of the Congressional (man made) statutes. People born here of citizen parents don’t need a statute. They derive their citizenship naturally from their parents. It’s that simple.
I think you mean the “Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth” statute.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
The section of the statute that pertains to Senator Cruz qualifying as a citizen of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person:
All citizenship is bestowed by man. Nations are political entities created by men. God created us; we created nations. This is not a religious debate -- it's a political one.
Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, December 22, 1970, to a US citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father.
Relevant law in December 1970 is Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(a)(7) (66 Stat. 163, 236)
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
Statutes at Large available online:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/citation2.result.STATUTE.action?statute.volume=66&statute.pageNumber=163&publication=STATUTE
My brother who was killed in the battle for Okinawa and myself who served overseas in WWII were born in the USA. We didn’t need to be naturalized to be a citizen, but we were not ‘natural born’ as I read the discussions by the Founders.
Cruz is foreign born as McCain, ineligible for unique citizenship requirement of natural born for Presidency, Article 2 Section 1.
What remains in question is how Cruz became an American citizen. Sure the mother is an American citizen, but what date, how long, etc... because the statutes changed IN REGARDS TO MOTHER’S CONFERRING CITIZENSHIP TO A CHILD BORN IN ANOTHER COUNTRY TO A NON-CITIZEN FATHER.
It’s the same questions with Zero. If Zero was born abroad, and if Stanley Ann Dunham is his mother, she could not have conferred citizenship to a foreign born son.
Section 301 (a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was the relevant citizenship law at the time of Zero’s birth....requirement was that the parent had to have been physically present in U.S. at least 19 years old to confer citizenship. She was born Nov 29, 1942 and was 18.
Has it even been determined if Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth?
I bet that If it’s Cruz v. Clinton in 2016, your confusion and doubts will vanish overnight.
James “Father of the Constitution” Madison in a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789 said:
“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; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”—Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from Their Register of Debates; and from the Official Reported Debates, by John C. Rives By United States Congress, Thomas Hart Benton
A lot of people speak of the Founders and the Framers as if they spoke with only one voice and were of one mind on issues. They weren’t, and that’s why so many of the major provisions of our constitution and the structure of our government resulted from compromises.
Has nothing to do with me. Try reading the law lightweight. Cruz stands up for Constitutional issues but when it comes to his own ineligibility he plays dumb and spreads disinformation on purpose for public consummation. That’s violating an oath. That’s treason. So another one can walk the plank, makes no difference to me.
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.