I'm confused about this Cruz Citizenship thing

[Steven Tyler]

You make good arguments.
Within the Constitution, Congressmen and Senators need to be Citizens.
Only the President must be a Natural Born Citizen.
My belief, the adjective “Natural” before the word Born means something.

Further example > Look to the British North America Act of 1867, to establish Canada. The BNA requires Senators to be Natural Born Subjects (of the Queen). The Adjective Natural meant something back in 1776 and 1876

[philman_36]

By your logic, someone born in the US also is granted his citizenship by the same law. Or did you fail to notice:

What I noticed, and what you've either failed to notice or have chosen to ignore, is that it all falls back to U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

So, NO, someone born in the US is NOT granted his citizenship by the same law unless one, or both, of his parents is a frigging ALIEN!!!

[CA Conservative]

Since most Constitutional scholars disagree with you, it hardly seems worth it to keep having this circular argument. You cannot prove your position beyond a reasonable doubt, and neither can I, because there is no legal definition of the term “natural born citizen”. And since no one has standing to challenge Cruz’s eligibility, that pretty well ends the discussion.

[philman_36]

Since most Constitutional scholars disagree with you...

That's like saying this - Since most scientists say global warming is real you have to believe it.

...it hardly seems worth it to keep having this circular argument.

Where you see a circular argument I see linear progression.

[DiogenesLamp]

You can argue with the proof, but you wouldn't win in a court of law.

Is this now the measure of truth? Whether you can win in a court of law? I dare say the truth of winning in court is that people have to bake cakes for gay weddings.

Pardon me, but I think the truth is not the by-product of winning in court. That is just raw judicial power. It is not the same thing as truth.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hawaii is one of the most corrupt RAT havens in the union. I guess you’ll have to show it to us.

Funny you should mention that. Do you know *WHY* Hawaii is a state? Precisely because it *IS* a corrupt RAT haven.

Back in the 1950s, Alaska had acquired enough of a population to become a state, but it's petition to become one was being held up in Congress because Democrats did not want another Republican state to be added to the Union.

The "moderates" of the time offered them a compromise. If they would support Alaskan statehood, then the Republicans would support state hood for Democrat Hawaii. The Democrats would get a new state, and so would the Republicans. They all agreed, and the rest is history.

Hawaii became a state precisely because it was a Democrat Rat Haven.

[xzins]

So if Obama being born in Kenya supposedly matters, why does Cruz being born in Canada NOT matter?

Because the issue was the immigration law of that era that required the US citizen parent to have lived in the US for, iirc, 5 continuous years before their 18th birthday...something like that. I'd have to look it up again. Cruz's mother MORE THAN met that requirement.

There was question whether Obama's mother met that requirement.

That was the difference.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Hawaiian state health official who personally reviewed Barack Obama's original birth certificate has affirmed again that the document is "real" and denounced "conspiracy theorists" in the so-called "birther" movement for continuing to spread bogus claims about the issue.

"It's real, but no, you can't see it." Every document they've issued so far has been asserted by Hawaii to be "I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health."

"abstract of the record on file?" You put that in your affirmation, and it renders the entire document meaningless. In point of fact, Hawaii has "affirmed" nothing but that whatever they *PUT* in their Records, even from a later date, is *IN* their records.

It in no way constitutes proof that Barack Obama was born *IN* Hawaii.

[DiogenesLamp]

Mummy was a US citizen and Daddy was an alien, right? The children of such unions need a law to make them US citizens, don't they?

Yes, it's called the "Cable Act" of 1922. Funny thing. For the first 146 years of the nation's existence, we didn't have such a law.

Were none of those children born in such circumstances prior to 1922 "natural born citizens"? And then suddenly after 1922 they were?

[DiogenesLamp]

3. At this stage, with Obama having his second term nearing an end...it will soon be a moot point in any case.

It's already a moot point. That is why I support Ted Cruz and refuse to abide by a rule that doesn't control Democrat malfeasance.

[DiogenesLamp]

Only in so far as EVERYBODY needs a law to make them a citizen since citizenship is defined by laws.

Yeah? What law created American Citizens? When were American Citizens created?

[DiogenesLamp]

Since most Constitutional scholars disagree with you, it hardly seems worth it to keep having this circular argument.

And this same group will likely tell us Gay Marriage and Abortion ought to be legal too. I don't get my understanding from reading what "experts" tell me, especially when it doesn't jive with actual History.

You cannot prove your position beyond a reasonable doubt, and neither can I, because there is no legal definition of the term “natural born citizen”.

Actually I can, but it requires a reasonable listener. I can also show a "legal definition" and a legal basis in natural law principles for it. (look at page 26)

[philman_36]

For the first 146 years of the nation's existence, we didn't have such a law.
We've had laws covering immigration and naturalization well before 1922.

Naturalization Act of 1906
Immigration act of 1907
Immigration Act of 1917
Immigration Act of 1918

I can even go further back...

Naturalization Act of 1790
Naturalization Act of 1795
Naturalization Act of 1798

[DiogenesLamp]

We've had laws covering immigration and naturalization well before 1922.

We didn't have a law specifically directed at women transferring citizenship to their children born in a foreign country until the Cable act of 1922. Prior to that, if the woman was married to an Alien and the child was born in a foreign country, the Child was an "Alien."

[urtax$@work]

You do know that Ted Cruz’s father was born in Cuba and only became a citizen many years after his son’s birth. Correct? So does that make Ted Cruz not a NBC either?

so im gonna jump in here, what cruz daddy did AFTER Ted's birth not one wit does anything , its natural BORN citizen--- at B I R T H , not 10yrs later..

SomeFRs post U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part I › § 1401 which only address nationals and citizens, not the coveted NBC status. all in all i think nbc is 2 Citizen parents Birthing a Child in this country.

The child has no dual alligence. (and....yes, that means McCain or Romney born outside US are non starters also )

Cruz would be a kick-a%% speaker house!!

[philman_36]

Too funny. From your link...

Former immigration laws prior to 1922 did not make reference to the alien husband's race.[2] However, The Cable Act of 1922 guaranteed independent female citizenship only to women who were married to "alien[s] eligible to naturalization".[3] At the time of the law's passage, Asian aliens were not considered to be racially eligible for U.S. citizenship.[4][5] As such, the Cable Act only partially reversed previous policies, allowing women to retain their U.S. citizenship after marrying a foreigner who was not Asian. Thus, even after the Cable Act become effective, any woman who married an Asian alien lost her U.S. citizenship, just as she would have under the previous law.

What does the Cable Act of 1922 have to do with children?

[philman_36]

We didn't have a law specifically directed at women transferring citizenship to their children born in a foreign country until the Cable act of 1922.

Again, where are children mentioned? It speaks of a woman either losing or maintaining her citizenship based upon who she married.

[philman_36]

Naturalization
Few women pursued naturalization before 1920 because women couldn't vote - the major right of citizenship - and in many places couldn't own property. Following the passage of the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote, there was a movement to change the laws relating to naturalization of women. Many asked why a woman should automatically be granted the right to vote through marriage. Congress passed the Married Women's Act (the Cable Act) on September 22, 1922. Women were now able to apply for naturalization on their own. Included in the Cable Act, was a provision to allow American born women who had lost their citizenship due to their marriages to foreigners to file petitions to become citizens. Many U.S. born women who had married foreign citizens did not believe they should have to file for a citizenship to which they had been born. In 1936 Congress passed a new act that allowed U.S. born women who had married foreigners between 1907 and 1922 to take an oath of allegiance (sometimes mistakenly called a repatriation petition).

Again, children aren't mentioned.

[DiogenesLamp]

What does the Cable Act of 1922 have to do with children?

Prior to the Cable act, if a woman married an alien, she became his nationality and therefore her children would be ONLY of his nationality. No claim to American citizenship.

The cable act was just the first effort at allowing women to retain their own citizenship. (and therefore pass it on to their children.) The act which completed this foray into women's citizenship rights and which made it clear cut, was the citizenship act of 1934.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/43197267/1934-Citizenship-Act-73rd-Congress#scribd

[DiogenesLamp]

Gotta go. Later folks.