Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen... of Canada?

Posted on 05/21/2013 9:52:10 AM PDT by Ray76

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-369 next last
To: Perdogg
Under English common law, yes he would be. However it is irrelevant. However, since his mother was a US citizens who owed her allegiance to the US, Ted Cruz is Jus Solis.

You don't know what the words "Jus Soli" mean, do you? And here you are expressing an opinion anyway.

101 posted on 05/21/2013 11:34:24 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner

“As far as Article II eligibility requirements for holding the office of President, requiring that a candidate be born in the country to citizen parents”

It says no such thing. It simply says a president must be natural born. It did not define the term. Legislation establishes how citizenship is gained, in effect defining the terms the constitution used.


102 posted on 05/21/2013 11:34:45 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

There are two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized. A person doesn’t have to be born in the US to be natural born, but the child has to be born of a US citizen and the parents have to obtain a Consular Report of Birth Abroad in order to convey US citizenship. Without that, there is no record of foreign birth of a US citizen.


103 posted on 05/21/2013 11:36:49 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I understand the mistake I made, but I stand by my overall analysis.


104 posted on 05/21/2013 11:40:52 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

No, i understand perfectly. I only don’t know who you are working on behalf of. The GOPe im sure has a strong desire to see Jeb Bush advance. And they supported Cruz’s opponent Dewhurst.
So my guess is that you will settle for Cruz being in the senate, while you push for someone else.

And that explains this thread.


105 posted on 05/21/2013 11:42:40 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
US law governs US citizenship. Canadian law governs Canadian citizenship. Every Jew, regardless of place of birth, is eligible for Israeli citizenship under that country's Law of Return. Anyone with an Irish grandparent is eligible for Irish citizenship. Do those laws affect the US citizenship of the people to whom they apply?

That is a false analogy. Israel and Ireland have an extended invitation to grant citizenship to anyone of that nation's bloodline, but that is a very different thing from compelling you to serve that nation.

In the various wars fought between the French and the British, men have been EXECUTED for Treason because they were captured by a side that claimed their allegiance.

Italy also has a long standing policy of granting citizenship to the children of Italian descent. During World War II Italy and the United States were on opposite sides. Had someone been born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother (Aldo Mario Bellei comes to mind) he would have been COMPELLED to fight in the Italian army against the United States.

Had he claimed to be an American, and was therefore exempt, they would have thrown him in the army or they would have thrown him in prison.

There are real world consequences to getting moral and principled clarity on this issue. The Notion that someone who could have been compelled to fight in a Foreign Army against us is qualified to be our President is nonsensical and ridiculous.

The Current Administration ought to make it obvious why it is a disaster to allow a non natural citizen to get control of our country. He has no loyalty to us, nor our principles, and he shows us this every day.

106 posted on 05/21/2013 11:43:58 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
The scab pickers are up from their naps again.

It may surprise you to learn that there are some people more interested in stating the truth than they are in developing a strategy of political expediency.

107 posted on 05/21/2013 11:47:05 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Absolutely right. He could very well be a citizen of Canada by birth, but US law doesn’t consider that. He is a US citizen born abroad of one US citizen parent and one alien parent, both married, and the US citizen parent having lived in the US at least five years after age 14.

End of story. The debate will begin anew over the phrase “native born.” However, he still qualifies.


108 posted on 05/21/2013 11:47:55 AM PDT by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Boy that’s a real stretch! The only place that the Constitution mentions NBC is in Article II. NBC is a quality of Born citizenship. Besides born citizenship the only way to be a citizen is through Naturalization.

Because all Natural Born Citizens are born citizens does not mean the reverse is true, In fact it isn’t. Not all Born Citizens are NBCs. That quality is lacking in many born citizen circumstances.


109 posted on 05/21/2013 11:49:39 AM PDT by Forty-Niner ( the barely bare, berry bear formally known as Ursus Arctos Horibilis...Hear me roar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

That provides great comfort.


110 posted on 05/21/2013 11:53:33 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
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.

And of course, you cut out all the parts that don't fit with this narrative.

It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind, have obtained in some of the states; if such a law existed in South-Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us;

And:

Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

Madison said that it was a "General Principle" that if you are born somewhere, you are a citizen thereof, and this is true. Many states having made no statutory law on the subject, continued relying on English Common Law to define their citizenship.

This is not the same thing as Federal Citizenship, and Madison said so in his letter to the Alexandria Herald in 1811 in the case of James McClure.

111 posted on 05/21/2013 11:55:30 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
If you are a citizen, and you didn’t have to get naturalized, you are NBC.

All citizens who only became citizens through an act of congress are "naturalized" citizens. Ted Cruz owes his claim to American citizenship to the "Citizenship act of 1934." Without that law, or one like it, Ted Cruz would have no claim on American citizenship.

He is only a "citizen at birth" because congress SPECIFIED that his citizenship would commence at birth. Again, congress can specify any criteria they want, but it's not "natural" citizenship when they produce such a citizen.

It's "naturalization".

112 posted on 05/21/2013 11:59:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
The correct questions is: Do Canadian laws in any way effect or affect US citizenship? The answer is no.

The answer is "maybe." Obviously had Ted Cruz chosen to live in Canada as a Canadian citizen, and had he been compelled into their Army and fought against us, it would certainly be difficult to argue that he's eligible to lead our country.

Treason sort of affects American Citizenship doesn't it?

113 posted on 05/21/2013 12:02:15 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
I think people should look at this way. If a female Airman who is married to a Canadian businessman gives birth while serving in the USAF in England, the child would nbC.

And you are a fool, and so is anyone that believes such utter nonsense. Yeah, no foreign allegiance problems with this scenario!

114 posted on 05/21/2013 12:03:52 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

No. Because US LAW says that anyone who joins the military forces of another nation loses their citizenship. US law governs US citizenship.

401(c) of the Nationality Act 1940, which reads:

“ A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by:
(c) Entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state unless expressly authorized by the laws of the United States, if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state...


115 posted on 05/21/2013 12:07:21 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

That’s nice to know.
Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment there are still only two types of US citizens: at Birth and Naturalized. The law of the land as codified in the US Code says that Ted Cruz is a Citizen of the United States At Birth.

And no, the 14th Amendment didn’t overrule Article 2, Section 1, it further defined it.

“The Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be ‘natural-born citizens.’ Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”—Minor v. Happersett (1875).


116 posted on 05/21/2013 12:09:35 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
He is a Senator, so he is clearly a citizen. He gained that citizenship by birth, and never needed to be naturalized. So yes, he is indeed NBC.

Nonsense. He was naturalized at birth by the Citizenship act of 1934. (and subsequent variations thereof)

Congress SET the act to apply at birth. Of COURSE it applies at birth. Congress has no power beyond naturalization.

Here, read the D@mned thing! It even SAYS it's an act of "naturalization."

Ted Cruz is a "naturalized" citizen, who was "naturalized at birth", by an act of congress.

117 posted on 05/21/2013 12:10:10 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

NBC is a quality of born citizenship. NBC had a well known and accepted definition in the western world of the 1700s, 1800s and 1900’s. It is only in the early 2000’s, in an attempt to qualify an ineligible candidate by muddying the waters, has the definition of the term come to question in popular circles with mounds of misinformation abounding.

Ask yourself the question of why Nancy Pelosi felt it necessary to delete the Phrase “....meets the Constitutional requirements...” to “...is the Democrat Party candidate for..” in certifying Obama in the 2008 election to the SOSs of all 50 states??? It’s the 59 million dollar answer to the question....

The Founders did not coin the term as it has existed since Roman times with varying definitions, nor did they feel the need to define a term already understood and defined in 1700s texts. Congress has nothing to do with it at all, unless it is to amend the Constitution and change the requirements of Article II.

NBC... the definition of is, is.....


118 posted on 05/21/2013 12:15:44 PM PDT by Forty-Niner ( the barely bare, berry bear formally known as Ursus Arctos Horibilis...Hear me roar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Under the law in effect when Ted Cruz was born, he is a Citizen of the United States At Birth.

A law which declares him to be a "naturalized" citizen. Here you are again, spreading crap, and contradicting people who actually know what they are talking about.

Do you think you are serving the interests of your Country by intentionally interfering with efforts to create an accurate understanding of this issue?

Some People are Ignorantly, and others are Deliberately, confusing the difference between "naturalization at birth" and "natural citizen" at birth. You are behaving like the later.

119 posted on 05/21/2013 12:18:05 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
No, the touchiness not the topic, it’s aimed squarely at trolls who eagerly work to stop the advance of the man who is leading the conservative fight FAR more than any other.

And here the truth comes out. You are no better than a Democrat in putting your own political best interests above that of truth and accuracy. We know THEY don't care what is the law.

I like Ted Cruz, and as near as I can tell, he's the only one in the party who is worth a sh*t, but a "natural citizen" he ain't. Do we believe in the rule of law, or do we believe in whatever benefits us is acceptable?

120 posted on 05/21/2013 12:23:20 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Like I said, Canada applies its own laws in its own ways.

Now if Canada attempted to force him into its army, he might be able to claim exemption on the basis that he was also an American citizen. But whether that would be accepted or not depends on Canadian law, not American law.

Canada could force him into their army if they so chose. They could not force me into their army. There is no recognized body of law which would allow them to do it. Ted Cruz? He owes them allegiance.

121 posted on 05/21/2013 12:27:44 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

My money is on the courts going with what follows when Ted Cruz’s eligibility status is adjudicated. It is also likely that the Senate will pass a Sense of the Senate Resolution clearing him to run like the one they passed for McCain.

“The following shall be nationals and citizens 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...”

US Code, Title 8, Section 1401
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401


122 posted on 05/21/2013 12:28:59 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Whether they register or not, they cannot be compelled to fight against their own country.

Or do you disagree?

123 posted on 05/21/2013 12:29:42 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Cyclone59
Since we have a Kenyan born president we should push this Cruz guy to run for president as a diversion as watch the press get their panties in a wad over it.

We do not know this guy is "born in Kenya" and the evidence I have seen so far argues strongly against it.

124 posted on 05/21/2013 12:31:17 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Your argument has no bearing of the ultimate outcome; Rubio is nbC.

My opposition may have no bearing on the ultimate recreation of this nation as a socialist slave state, but that is beside the point. Rubio might be considered as a natural citizen, but it's iffy. Cruz is simply a bridge too far.

125 posted on 05/21/2013 12:35:00 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Rubio meets and passes the test regardless.

Rubio is at least a 14th amendment citizen. He might be considered to be a "natural citizen" if you stretch the definition pretty far. Had his father naturalized before he was born, it would be a slam dunk, but his father apparently hadn't yet given up hope of going back to Cuba.

Besides, we're talking about Cruz, not Rubio.

126 posted on 05/21/2013 12:38:34 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Didn’t read the law, did you?

5.2: A person who is a Canadian citizen under paragraph 1(b) ceases to be a Canadian citizen upon the expiration of three years after the day on which he attains the age of twenty-one years unless he:

Either is living in Canada or files a declaration of intention to retain Canadian citizenship.

Since it is likely neither applies to Cruz, he has no citizenship status with Canada.

This law is from 1946, and it is at least possible the law has been changed since.

BTW, this issue of dual citizenship applied to Winston Churchill, who was a dual citizen of the US and UK till his 21st birthday.


127 posted on 05/21/2013 12:39:52 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
That’s just what Hillary Clinton is counting on.

I make this prediction now. Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee. Not even the Democrats are that stupid.

128 posted on 05/21/2013 12:40:17 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
Yes, until legislation excludes them, the anchor babies are unfortunately eligible. I don’t like it a bit. But they are under the jurisdiction of the USA, and are born here. And this is reason number 681 that we need border enforcement.

Let me introduce you to a highly knowledgeable and very intelligent conservative Commentator named George Will.

And if you don't particularly care for his opinion, perhaps you would like the opinion of another Highly Knowledgeable and intelligent Conservative commentator named Ann Coulter.

129 posted on 05/21/2013 12:44:16 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I made no such statement, merely pointed out the law concerning them. I’m opposed to conscription on its face.


130 posted on 05/21/2013 12:45:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's next run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

I am telling you that you misunderstand. I KNOW what I said and I KNOW my intentions. You PRESUME otherwise.


131 posted on 05/21/2013 12:46:52 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
Legislation establishes how citizenship is gained, in effect defining the terms the constitution used.

Until Legislation controls the laws of nature, this assertion will remain untrue.

It is CRAZY to believe that congress has the power to re-write the meaning of terms in the US Constitution. All other topics aside, why on God's Earth would you even WANT that?

132 posted on 05/21/2013 12:47:35 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

If the Republican Party is stupid enough to run one of its Constitutionally-challenged candidates for POTUS, the Democrat Party candidate Nomatter Whoitis will win in a landslide.


133 posted on 05/21/2013 12:47:49 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

The 14th Amendment does not mention Article II.

You are mistaken to believe that the 14th Amendment “further defined” Article II.


134 posted on 05/21/2013 12:49:49 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: DPMD
However, he still qualifies.

He is a naturalized citizen. He does not.

135 posted on 05/21/2013 12:51:13 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
No. Because US LAW says that anyone who joins the military forces of another nation loses their citizenship. US law governs US citizenship.

Again, you have a law of congress controlling the meaning of a constitutional term. You are just trying to finesse the point.

*I* cannot be compelled to fight for Canada. Cruz CAN be compelled to fight for Canada. Can YOU be compelled to fight for Canada? Now do you understand the distinction?

136 posted on 05/21/2013 12:55:16 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

If the Republicans nominate an ineligible candidate it protects not just Obama but also his agenda. Why are the currently hyped potential Republican candidates all ineligible or of questionable eligibility? That question might qualify this thread under “conspiracy”, but it wasn’t the original question. The original question was “is Cruz a natural born citizen of Canada”

So far I’ve seen a lot of Republican pom-pom waving but very little to dissuade that Cruz is not a natural born citizen of Canada, and a naturalized US citizen.


137 posted on 05/21/2013 1:00:22 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
My money is on the courts going with what follows when Ted Cruz’s eligibility status is adjudicated. It is also likely that the Senate will pass a Sense of the Senate Resolution clearing him to run like the one they passed for McCain.

My money is on the courts having the same sort of judgement about this that they have about Roe v Wade, or Plessy v Fergusson. They will do the incompetent, but politically expedient thing.

Will you STOP introducing the courts into a discussion about Accuracy? It's a given that the courts are boobs, and no citation of them serves any useful purpose in this discussion. The courts will always give us the "Wong" answer.

The Courts deserve ridicule and contempt, not deference.

138 posted on 05/21/2013 1:04:55 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Didn’t read the law, did you?

If it's a law, I most certainly didn't bother to read it. No law can affect the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" so it is a waste of time to look at any which purport to do so.

139 posted on 05/21/2013 1:08:31 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I made no such statement, merely pointed out the law concerning them. I’m opposed to conscription on its face.

That is immaterial to the point being discussed. If a nation can lawfully compel you to fight against the United States, you are not a natural citizen of the United States.

140 posted on 05/21/2013 1:10:20 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The Canadian law quoted at the start of this column. Which is what I thought we were discussing.

Cruz, under the terms of that law, lost his Canadian citizenship (assuming he ever had it) unless he confirmed it after he turned 21.

So he has no obligation of allegiance to Canada.


141 posted on 05/21/2013 1:30:56 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
You said:
5.2: A person who is a Canadian citizen under paragraph 1(b) ceases to be a Canadian citizen upon the expiration of three years after the day on which he attains the age of twenty-one years unless he:

Either is living in Canada or files a declaration of intention to retain Canadian citizenship.

1(b) is "born outside of Canada elsewhere than on a Canadian ship"

Doesn't apply to Cruz.

142 posted on 05/21/2013 1:39:41 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
So he has no obligation of allegiance to Canada.

He no longer has an obligation of allegiance to Canada.

143 posted on 05/21/2013 1:56:07 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

And no one, absolutely no one, knew of this situation - until 2008 when Donofrio exposed it.

It was HIDDEN and COVERED UP....for a reason....


144 posted on 05/21/2013 2:10:11 PM PDT by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Read section 4.2. I cited the wrong one.


145 posted on 05/21/2013 2:17:20 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Applies to those born before January 1, 1947


146 posted on 05/21/2013 2:22:33 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Ted Cruz has been a US Senator for five minutes.

Only 3 sitting US Senators have ever been elected President and all 3 sucked.

I’d look elsewhere.


147 posted on 05/21/2013 2:29:04 PM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
-- I get so tired of people claiming that the laws of any another nation decide the citizenship status of an American. --

That's too broad. What is correct is the laws of other nations don't determine the American citizenship of an American. But, other nations may (and do) claim citizenship of people who are "born (at least partly) American."

For example, the babies born here on birth vacations are deemed by some to be natural born Americans, eligible for the presidency, even though neither parent is a US citizen, and even though the child is removed from the US at a very young age (weeks or months old) and raised in a foreign country.

For those people, the US, and ONLY the US, decides their US citizenship. But their citizenship overall may be more complicated, and determined by a country other than the US.

148 posted on 05/21/2013 2:36:38 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
-- He further states that this is based not on the soil where the citizen mother drops the baby, but the American citizenship of the mother, if she is of age (18 or older). --

That's based on statutory law, and statutory law can be changed at the whim of Congress.

-- the US has recognized anchor babies in this country - a non citizen crosses the border and gives birth on this soil. That is an aberration of the law. It should be ended. --

This is going to get complicated, because babies born on US soil are subject to the jurisdiction of the US - so see 14th amendment, and discover that this type of citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th amendment. In order to repair this issue, now you'll need a constitutional amendment. I think it's too bad, because I think "subject to the jurisdiction" has been misconstrued, from Wong Kim Ark and forward. Thank you (spit), Chester A Arthur.

149 posted on 05/21/2013 2:44:24 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner

Puerto Ricans are citizens from birth.

But they are collectively naturalized.

So citizen at birth does NOT equal natural born Citizen.

This some made up definition.


150 posted on 05/21/2013 2:47:38 PM PDT by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-369 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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