Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
birtherreport.com/You Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 2016gopprimary; arizona; awjeez; birtherbs; california; canada; carlcameron; congress; cowabunga; cruz2016; debatingbirthers; fff; foxisnotcredible; japan; mccain; mexico; naturalborncitizen; newmexico; obama; teaparty; tedcruz; tedcruziseligible; texas; thisspaceforrent
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 1,551-1,578 next last
To: Perdogg; Marie
That is not so. Once your son resides in US for more than 14 years, he will be eligible.

Yes, you have Perdogg's word on it. That's all you need!

He wouldn't steer you wrong on this. He might not know what he's talking about, but he has good intentions!

401 posted on 03/09/2013 12:35:03 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ken in texas
I disagree. Travel was slow, but remember how it all got started. Franklin definitely got around.

I think they did the best they could and compromised where absolutely necessary to make it happen.

I don't think they thought they got it exactly right or believed that they had thought of everything. That's why they gave us the means to make changes.

I believe we owe it to them, and to ourselves, to be as deliberate in considering all aspects of issues as they were as well as honoring their intent and purpose.

Had we the wisdom to do so, we would have avoided Barry Soetoro and whatever his citizenship might be along with the fun of these last few years, not to mention the aftermath for however many more to come.

Instead, we get some detention after the school of hard knocks works us over some more. We used to know this stuff.

402 posted on 03/09/2013 12:35:58 PM PST by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
OK couple of Q’s

1. What nationality was his father ???

2. What was Mom doing in Canada ???

3 how long did Mom live in Canada ???

4 how old was Ted when he immigrated to the US from Canada ???

5. When did such a ready convenient status of being called an American citizen regardless of birth begin ???

Well, that's five but who's counting?

1. Cuban

2. Working for an American petroleum company

3. I don't know

4. Four years old

5. 1952. Immigration and Nationalization Act, Section 301(g)

403 posted on 03/09/2013 12:37:40 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

Then Cruz would be a dual citizen and not NBC.

Makes me wonder if this was started to get the issue of dual citizen not being eligible for president into the national conversation.


404 posted on 03/09/2013 12:37:42 PM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Charles Francis Adams, a son of John Quincy Adams, was almost nominated for President in 1872 by the Liberal Republicans (the anti-Grant faction) but lost out to Horace Greeley. His mother was born in London in 1775 to an American father and an English mother. His supporters in 1872 clearly did not see him as disqualified.

Well that proves it then. A man's supporters can't be wrong.

Of course, I supported John McCain in the Republican primary without having the slightest clue that he wasn't born in the United States. Had I known it, It would likely have changed my decision to support him.

Apart from that, Historically the mother's citizenship is irrelevant. Only the father's citizenship mattered until 1922 when the Cable act allowed women to transfer citizenship, and in 1934 when the "Women's Citizenship act" strengthened this ability.

My tagline was the defacto legal doctrine governing citizenship for most of this nation's existence.

405 posted on 03/09/2013 12:40:38 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Here it is: (emphasis added)

Since the time that was written, the "at least one parent needs to be a citizen" was adopted. At first it was just the father, later made to be either mother or father.
406 posted on 03/09/2013 12:41:17 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.

The article is badly researched. The 14th Amendment doesn't mention American's born abroad or Americans. It only mentions people who are born IN the United States. Therefore, since Cruz was NOT born in the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to him, and his citizenship must have derived from a source OTHER than the Fourteenth Amendment. Either through another statute entirely, or from being born a Natural born citizen.

In my opinion, if Cruz's parents were both US citizens at the time of his birth, and if they had both resided at some point within the US, then Cruz would likely be a "natural born citizen under the original intent of the US Constitution.

If Obama was not held to these standards, why do you and Fox want to crucify Cruz?

There could be room for debate and interpretation, but I think for most people here, it's about principle and honor. From a moral perspective two wrongs don't make a right. (Just because someone got away with committing a wrong doesn't mean that it is okay to counter with another wrong.) Many people have taken oaths to defend the constitution, and thus they are bound by honor and oath to not support something that they believe will undermine the Constitution. It could thus be argued that if they were to support someone for president whom they sincerely believed to be an unconstitutional candidate, then they would be hypocrites and oath breakers.

407 posted on 03/09/2013 12:42:00 PM PST by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

I very clearly stated that there are only two classes of citizenship. We do not disagree on that. I’m not sure what you think I am wrong about.


408 posted on 03/09/2013 12:42:35 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan; All

Chester Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen at the time of Chester’s birth, not Canadian.


409 posted on 03/09/2013 12:43:40 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; Tennessee Nana
5. 1952. Immigration and Nationalization Act, Section 301(g)

Oops. This would be the Immigration and NATIONALITY Act.

410 posted on 03/09/2013 12:43:49 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Marie
Yes. Children of service members who are born abroad of two US Citizen parents are NOT eligible to be POTUS. (At least that’s what I was told by the US Embassy when my son was born.)

Vattel actually says they are.


411 posted on 03/09/2013 12:44:07 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

I knew this would happen to GOP candidates in 2016, the left will challenge their eligibility. lolz, they are that hypocritical.


412 posted on 03/09/2013 12:44:12 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GBA

Again, no argument, but travel was probably not generally undertaken for the pure enjoyment of it. Your earlier description of it as a three input AND gate is apt, and I suspect they would have included an OR or two had they envisioned the world today.


413 posted on 03/09/2013 12:45:55 PM PST by ken in texas (I was taught to respect my elders but it keeps getting harder to find any.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: Ax
All three of my kids were born overseas. My sons were born in the U.S. Army Hospital at Camp Zama, Japan, and my daughter was born in a British hospital (private insurance, not on the NHS). Since both of their parents are natural born US Citizens, they can hold any office.

Vattel agrees with you.


414 posted on 03/09/2013 12:47:19 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide
I could be wrong, but I think that in a case such as this (child born to American parents on foreign soil) there are certain actions the parents must take in a timely manner in order to establish that the newborn is to be regarded as a “natural born American citizen”.

It may involve going to the nearest American embassy and filling out some paperwork, nothing more.

But again, whether or not the newborn gains full “natural-born” citizenship may not be “automatic”, but rather established by the actions of the parents in a timely manner after the birth.

I welcome correction from others in this forum.

So… the $64 question is — was specific action required by Ted Cruz’ parents required to establish natural-born citizenship after his foreign birth, and (if so), did his parents take such action in a timely manner?

Does it occur to you that if someone is "natural born" that no action is required or needed? If you have to take some sort of action, then it isn't "natural."

415 posted on 03/09/2013 12:51:09 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA; Ax

FRiend, you have no idea what you’re talking about. That section of the FA manual is not addressing only the children of foreign nationals. It deals with ALL claims of citizenship on U.S. soil.

It goes on to define what, exactly, is considered U.S. soil. It gets so specific that it defines when birth on a military vessel is considered birth on U.S. soil. (BTW: international waters = no.)

Yes, Ax’s children are citizens at birth. No one is disputing that. According to the State Dept., that does not, however, automatically grant them eligibility under the Constitution for the presidency. The courts have not ruled on the eligibility of those granted citizenship at birth by statute.


416 posted on 03/09/2013 12:53:57 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Fox news sucks. I no longer watch them. I have even quit listening to Rush. I have had it with all of them. The RINOs, the loud mouths, all of them. They all make me sick to my stomach and I have just quit listening to any of them. I come here to find out what is going on in the world. I agree and of course disagree with what a lot post here, but at least here, we are mostly of the same shade, Red, White, and Blue.


417 posted on 03/09/2013 12:54:06 PM PST by RetiredArmy (1 Cor 15: 50-54 & 1 Thess 4: 13-17. That about covers it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: conservative cat
Now, I was born in the U.S. to an American citizen (over 25, with family ties predating the Revolution) and a legal U.S. resident (but not yet citizen), and I had never heard I was ineligible until the last few years. (Funny, because my mother’s country won’t give me citizenship.)

If the citizen is your father, then you would be qualified under the original meaning of Article II.

The Citizenship of the mothers was irrelevant until 1922. The legal doctrine in effect was "Partus Sequitur Patrem."

(Citizenship follows Father.)

418 posted on 03/09/2013 12:54:45 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; All

This thread is a perfect example of why conservatism hasn’t progressed in the hundred years except for part of Reagan’s term.

Our country is burning and ‘conservatives’ are arguing about irrelevant minutia.

Ted Cruz is more of an American then 90% of the people already in Congress or the Executive Branch. We’re lucky to have him as a Senator and would be even more fortunate to have him as President.


419 posted on 03/09/2013 12:54:49 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Yes it’s sad.
The reign of Sultan Baraq is a period in which FReepers (out of frustration perhaps) bicker with each other rather than take on the enemy.


420 posted on 03/09/2013 12:56:41 PM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
This is silly. The truth is that no one knows what the actual meaning of “natural born” is until it is tested in the courts.

The courts will not give you the truth, they will give you their opinion. It's not necessarily the same thing, and I can point out to you plenty of examples where the court was absolutely wrong.

421 posted on 03/09/2013 12:58:59 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: so_real
I too had this explained to me by a retired military. Children born abroad to U.S. citizens are absolutely "citizens", but not "natural born citizens". They are naturalized-by-statute.

They explained it to you wrong.


422 posted on 03/09/2013 1:01:07 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: old republic

FYI: Ted Cruz’s father wasn’t a US citizen until 2005.

Cheers!


423 posted on 03/09/2013 1:02:03 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

When I say it isn’t the same, I mean with respect to eligibility for the presidency. I do not mean that McCain and your son are not natural born citizens at birth. They are such by statute.


424 posted on 03/09/2013 1:07:48 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: chaosagent
McCain was not born on base. The base hospital was still under construction.

He was born in a Panamanian hospital on Panama soil.

Then how did his birth get recorded as having been delivered by a military doctor assigned to the Canal zone?

425 posted on 03/09/2013 1:10:10 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

It doesn’t matter. The precedent has been established and the fires are burning.


426 posted on 03/09/2013 1:10:21 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: ken in texas
You could be right.

I think most don't object to their intent of having the leader of the country be loyal only to us, if that was the reason for the NBC requirement, but today?

We just don't like exclusion, believing instead that everyone is or should considered equal, with equal access to everything, including the presidency, no matter what.

That highest best standard for NBC excludes individuals we know to be loyal Americans and that's not right.

Highest, best standards are exclusionary by nature, and usually for our own good, but we usually take them down sooner or later and often start our ride down the slippery slope that bridges the gap between them and whatever we want, when we want it.

Most of the issues we humans politically fight about are of that quality and I am grateful to the FFs for leaving us with this system where we can argue it out...if we can keep it. Today, we like skiing that slippery slope!

427 posted on 03/09/2013 1:11:13 PM PST by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Ax

And they are citizens at birth by statute. To be clear, I am not saying that your children are ineligible for the presidency. I believe that children born abroad to those in military service should be eligible.

What I’m saying is that the State Department’s position is that there is no definitive ruling from the courts on whether or not those who obtain citizenship at birth by statute (as opposed to the 14th Amendment) are eligible for the presidency.

I also believe that SCOTUS would rule in favor of your children’s eligibility.


428 posted on 03/09/2013 1:15:12 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

That is so very true.


429 posted on 03/09/2013 1:16:24 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350
the issue of dual citizen not being eligible for president into the national conversation

My take lurking here is that both sides of the debate on this thread are making a case for doing just that. Even if Obama is natural born, his fulfilment of that requirement hasn't protected our nation from the problems of divided (or potentially divided) loyalties in a president.

Is any judge really free to deport Obama's relatives who are in this country unlawfully? Is any bureaucrat really free to cut off their public assistance? Justice should be blind, shouldn't it?

And what about foreign aid packages? Treaties? Are these biased in favor of the different nations in which Obama has held citizenship or where family of origin continues to reside?

Now that we have intimidation of the press by the executive office, are they really free to report on the president's activities related to those nations? They sure didn't cover Obama and Odinga prior to the election!

Dual/Multi citizens may be patriotic and filled with honorable intentions but the nation needs a mechanism to prevent divided loyalties from influencing the highest office in the land. We shouldn't have to rely on whatever the press or the president decides we should know. An amendment related to dual citizenship would be a start but probably not fully address the problem of divided loyalties. Just my two cents. Back to lurking.

430 posted on 03/09/2013 1:22:47 PM PST by PeevedPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

At the time of the Revolution the common law of England was “thrown off”..oh sure, some individual states still adhered to it. That was the only law they knew and there was no central government in place yet.

So then the country loosely followed the Articles of Confederation prior to the construction of the Constitution.

Also prior to the Revolution and the Constitution, each state retained it’s own laws on naturalizing citizens. So, basically you were a subject of England but a citizen of a particular colony/state. If you emigrated from a different country and wished to become a citizen, you became a citizen of a state under their own requirements - those varied from state to state. There was no uniform law on naturalization in this country prior to the Constitution.

Being a sovereign nation, our new government looked to international law. On the topic of allegiance English law may have been referenced, but then again so was Roman, as was French. A lot of sorting out had to be done - necessarily - for a full generation after the Constitution. The only time the question of allegiance did not arise was to children born in the US to citizen parentS. A child born to a alien Father, citizen mother may not be able to inherit property through the mother because she took on the nationality of her alien husband at marriage. That had to be addressed so that children of such marriages wouldn’t be disinherited.

BTW, you posted snips, carefully selected snips. Like you left this off;

“The state of the law in the United States is easily
deduced. -The notion that there is any common law
principle to naturalize the children born in foreign
countries, of native-born American father and mother,
father or mother, must be discarded. There is not and
never was any such common law principle.”

That snip asserts that there was NO common law principle or law, prior to all of the Acts that were later passed. The first Act upon this subject was passed in March, 1790. After the Constitution was signed.

That is quite straightforward.

Cruz was born a dual citizen, both American and Canadian. His class of citizenship did not even exist in 1787. Period. I forget what year the Act was passed that gave the U.S. MOTHER the right to pass U.S. citizenship to her child born on foreign land, but prior to that Act it had to be through the Father, and he had to have been a resident of the U.S. Oh, and that child had to declare allegiance at the age of majority. Those Acts don’t make a foreign born US citizen into a natural born citizen, but it gave them the same rights AS a natural born citizen.

And Article ll was NEVER amended. To this day dual citizenship is still not officially recognized in the US.


431 posted on 03/09/2013 1:22:53 PM PST by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
Can the Rubio/Cruz birthers point to any writings from the time of framing of the Constitution to justify their definition of natural born citizen?

Yes.

Can they point to any case law?

Yes.

Can they explain the other Presidents (ie NOT Obama) that didn’t meet their Natural Born Citizen criteria?

There is only one, and his failure to meet the requirements was not known until just a few years ago.

It’s strange that all these birthers are experts are the natural born citizen clause, but have nothing to support it in case law or from the writings of the Framers.

It's strange that someone who has obviously not bothered to read what we have pointed out regarding the writings of the framers will pop off an accusation from ignorance. I can give you far more than you will want to read.

If the Framers wanted to ensure that you were born in the United States to two parents of American citizenship why wouldn’t they explicitly put that language in the Constitution.

The only word defined in the Constitution is "Treason." They weren't writing a dictionary. As James Madison said:

What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.

432 posted on 03/09/2013 1:23:58 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
That being the case, and given that he was quoted by the Founders SIXTEEN TIMES more often than Vattel, and given that I can certainly show where the notably thrifty Founders spent precious public funds to purchase his work for use in the Senate, would you not now agree that this book, which specifically treats "Offenses Against the Law of Nations," and not Vattel's, is likely the source of the phrase "Offenses against the Law of Nations," as used in our Constitution?

Unless and until you provide a verifiable and historical source for your assertions as well as for the purpose of my perusal, no, I will not.

433 posted on 03/09/2013 1:24:01 PM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

My point is that Obama is a red flag and he passed the test.

Why beat up Cruz?

Beat on Obama.


434 posted on 03/09/2013 1:28:01 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“There is NO DIFFERENCE between a NBC and a 14th Amendment citizen - they embody the same people...”

Completely false and misleading. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to define natural born Citizen, they would have used the words “natural born” in the Amendment like they did in Article 2 Section 1, the presidential clause. But they didn’t.


435 posted on 03/09/2013 1:28:46 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Charles Francis Adams, a son of John Quincy Adams, was almost nominated for President in 1872 by the Liberal Republicans (the anti-Grant faction) but lost out to Horace Greeley. His mother was born in London in 1775 to an American father and an English mother. His supporters in 1872 clearly did not see him as disqualified.

CFA was born in Boston. His father (born in Quincy MA) and his mother (born in London) would have become American citizens with the Revolution and independence.

There's a gray area there -- what did happen with the citizenship of Americans who were living abroad through the Revolutionary period? -- but since Louisa Johnson Adams's father became an American consul in London and her uncle signed the Declaration of Independence, I'm going to assume that she became a US citizen by the time the Constitution was ratified.

436 posted on 03/09/2013 1:30:18 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mylife
We lost the last election because of fixated single issue voters.

Needs slight correction:

We lost the last election because of fixated single issue voters many types of confused right of center voters who should have known better than to stay home and allow the most radical, pro-Marxist, pro-muzzie, anti-American, anti-everything we love and cherish president ever to be reelected and continue his efforts to totally destroy America.

Fixed. I'm not saying you were wrong, just needed a broader brush........

:-)

437 posted on 03/09/2013 1:30:33 PM PST by Lakeshark (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog

At least Cruz’s father was a citizen.

Obama can’t say that.


438 posted on 03/09/2013 1:31:30 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.


439 posted on 03/09/2013 1:32:49 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Yes. Children of service members who are born abroad of two US Citizen parents are NOT eligible to be POTUS. (At least that’s what I was told by the US Embassy when my son was born.)
__________________________________________

This is also the problem McCain had...the Senate voted him eligible...

When we were stationed overseas we were told to make sure I returned to the US for the birth of any children or they would not be eligible to be POTUS

even if they were born on base in the US military hospital


440 posted on 03/09/2013 1:33:38 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Thanks for that graphic, I had never seen it before.


441 posted on 03/09/2013 1:33:38 PM PST by zzeeman ("We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Cruz’s father also liked and supported America. Obamas worked for Americas downfall.


442 posted on 03/09/2013 1:34:10 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest; Mr Rogers
To this day dual citizenship is still not officially recognized in the US.

I would say it isn't addressed by our nationality laws rather than it isn't recognized in U.S.

SCOTUS recognized the concept of dual nationality in Kawakita v. United States.

From the State Department's Foreign Affairs manual:

7 FAM 082 DUAL NATIONALITY AND U.S. LAW -- GENERALLY

(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005)

Current U.S. nationality laws do not explicitly address dual nationality, but the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.” See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).


443 posted on 03/09/2013 1:35:05 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest; Mr Rogers
I meant to include this above:

7 FAM 081 SUMMARY

(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005)

e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person. A foreign country might claim you as a citizen of that country if (a) you were born there; (b) your parent or parents (and sometimes grandparents) are or were citizens of that country or (c) you are a naturalized U.S. citizen but are still considered a citizen under that country's laws. (The oath you take when you are naturalized as a U.S. citizen (8 CFR 337.1) doesn’t mean the foreign country does not still regard you as a citizen of that country.) Public inquiries about the citizenship laws of other countries should be directed to the embassy or consulate of that country in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1185(b) (Section 215(b) INA) and 22 CFR 53.1 require that U.S. citizens exit and enter the United States on a U.S. passport, with certain limited exceptions (22 CFR 53.2).


444 posted on 03/09/2013 1:37:36 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
The judge in Minor vs Happerset case did not rule that. The comments regarding nBC made by the judge were In dicta and were not part of the decision.

One can presume, that even in Dicta a Supreme Court Judge would know what the f*** he is talking about. In his contemplation of the 14th amendment, Chief Justice Waite said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

Given that the 14th amendment says precisely "in words", who shall be a citizen...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

It is obvious that Chief Justice Waite did not accept the 14th amendment as defining a "natural born citizen."

Whether dicta or not, a Supreme court judge cannot possibly be mistaken on this point. It requires one to believe they were too stupid to notice the 14th amendment.

445 posted on 03/09/2013 1:38:21 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
You are completely wrong. There was no “two citizen parent’ requirement, not at the time of the Constitution, and never since.

That is not true. The only two ways to gain US citizenship before 1868 were Naturalization and birth to American parents. In the 1855 Naturalization Act, US law declared that all alien women who married American men automatically became US citizens. Since there was no ius soli in 1855 that means that all people born to American Fathers were de factorequired to have two US citizen parents to be considered natural born citizens from at least 1855-1868. All American children had two US parents unless they were naturalized or illegitimate.

And in fact, the Supreme Court has said that NBC and the 14th are restatements of the same principle, in effect during colonial times, and never changed.

Yeah, that is your interpretation of what they said, but even if your interpretation was correct, that doesn't mean that SCOTUS got the decision right. SCOTUS has also said that the government has the power to force American citizens to buy health insurance, and Obamacare is a tax not a penalty, Roe v. Wade etc. The Supreme Court changes it's mind and has contradicted itself before. There is no way to say they wont' do it again. They likewise are not consistent on citizenship, depending on the point in American history you look at their rulings.

In any case, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, your citizenship was inherited solely from your father, and in many countries the the wife automatically would inherit her husband's citizenship from the husband. The citizenship of the child passed solely through the father's line except in the cases of unknown parentage. In the 20th century, the principle of dual citizenship was introduced to the law, and both parents were given the right to pass on citizenship to their children. This is completely anathema to the principle of the president being a natural born citizen. You cannot actively accept two countries citizenship after the age of 18 and still be considered yourself eligible for the presidency.

Thus when I say citizenship is inherited through the parents, I am referring to general parentage that existed before both parents were capable of passing on the citizenship of separate countries to their children. The key parent involved in natural born citizenship was typically the father owing to cultural circumstances which existed at the time of the Founding. The Founders never intended to have a dual citizen parent.

446 posted on 03/09/2013 1:39:43 PM PST by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

As for Rubio, who had parents awaiting citizenship, he was BORN here to parents who were here legally, citizens in waiting. Both are eligible
______________________________________

“waiting” is not suffient...

Either the parents are American citizens at the time of the birth making the child a NBC and eligible

or they are not and the child is merely an American citizen and ineligible...

Like Bobby Jindal...his parents were not AC so he is ineligible...

What nationality is the father of Ted Cruz ???

If he was an American citizenn there might be a case...

However if the parents were living in Canada as “Canadians in waiting” then NO...

“”American citizens in waioting” is nopt good enough...

I was a so called “citizen in waiting” when my son was born and was naturalized when he was 8 months old...

although his father was an American citizen when our son was born, the baby was not a NBC...

He cannot be POTUS ...he is ineligible...

OUr daughter born in the US a few years later AFTER I was naturalized is a NBC and is eliglible to be POTUS next year when she will be 35...

There is no time limit...

You can be naturalized on Monday and your child born the next day Tuesday will be a NBC...

However if you are still “in waiting” and your child was born on the Sunday of that week, the day before you were naturalized, tough TEA bags..

he or she is not a NBC...

because you were not American citizens as yet...


447 posted on 03/09/2013 1:39:49 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog

Thanks, Doc. That fact could change things considerably.


448 posted on 03/09/2013 1:42:02 PM PST by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
John McCain was born in what was a U.S. unincorporated territory. His citizenship derives from his parents, both U.S. citizens, and from the statutory U.S. citizenship granted by Congress. He is not, however, a Natural born Citizen and has never been eligible to be President.

If Vattel is the authority cited for the natural born citizen requirement as written into the constitution, then Vattel is also the authority for children born to citizens serving their country abroad.


449 posted on 03/09/2013 1:42:36 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
If FReepers can’t even agree on the interpretation of this issue, we shouldn’t expect any legal traction out of it.

Some freepers are more knowledgeable than others, but even the less knowledgeable ones want to express their opinions. This is not a reason to ignore the more knowledgeable ones.

450 posted on 03/09/2013 1:44:33 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 1,551-1,578 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson