Posted on 02/16/2016 8:43:51 PM PST by omegatoo
“You’re ignoring the two most important points from my reply... The act only says they ‘shall be considered’ natural born citizens. Not that they are”
Wrong. I answered it clearly and succinctly. It also describes those who are naturalized by the act as “shall be considered” so. Is that supposed to mean that they were not really naturalized, and only just considered so? Of course it does not.
“Citizenship would have passed paternally anyway, so it’s irrelevant for Cruz.”
Cruz was not born between 1790 and 1795. The 1952 act applies, which makes him a citizen at birth. And the citizenship was naturally conveyed from his mother.
“Most of your post, essentially, is just one big dodge/strawman”
This is possibly one of the singularly most ridiculous arguments against my points I have heard. The original intent of the founders is significant, relevant, on point, and exactly what a constitutionalist should be looking at first and foremost. The dodge and straw-man is when people try to sweep the constitutionality of the act in 1790 under the rug with silly, implausible explanations. It is when Cruz is purported to need to somehow qualify under this act that is the straw man.
“It could not have, because, by either Vattel’s definition of Natural Born citizen or Blackstone’s, Cruz is not a natural born citizen.”
First, the founders rejected British common law. We are not subjects but citizens. Secondly, only a cursory reading of Vattel leads to the conclusion you are making. Reading further you will find that Vattel ALSO (just like the 1790 act) addressed the issue of children born abroad. He says they “naturally” follow the condition (i.e. citizenship) of their parents. British common law would have said they naturally follow the jurisdiction of the place of birth (and become subjects of the king). Incidentally, this is one of the reasons we fought against the British in the war of 1812.
“If Congress must pass a law to grant you legal status, by definition you are naturalized, even if you are naturalized at birth.”
Again, the founders disagree. I think I am safe to take their side.
This country will collapse sooner or later if people don’t start revering the Constitution. Otherwise it’s just a slow death, an agonizing journey into oppression and control and the tools of control are more powerful than ever. The chance has to be taken for people to wake up before there are too few of us to rally in opposition while the population at large finally understands they are in grave danger. Faux Conservatives will do nothing but confuse and weaken the cause and drive Erica into the arms of the socialists.
Utterly false and falsified as always. There is no such definition of natural born citzen anywhere but in your fevered imagination. It does not exist.
“Ted Cruz is considered native born by the 14th Amendment, making him a native born citizen, but unfortunately not a natural born citizen.”
No, the 14th amendment does not even apply to Cruz. Cruz was not born on US soil. And he was not naturalized. His citizenship was conferred from his mother under the 1952 naturalization act. For Cruz, it would not even matter if there was a 14th amendment. Again, the Constitution only recognizes two kinds of citizenship: naturalized and natural born. The 14th did not change that.
And I will go ahead and save everyone time here by replying to the objection beforehand. The 1952 act does NOT “naturalize” Cruz just because the name of the act contains the word “naturalization”. So did the first such act in 1790, and it explicitly conferred natural born citizenship on children born abroad. So the logic of that argument which has been repeated ad nauseum is fatally flawed.
Cruz was a citizen at birth and by birth. He is a natural born citizen who can become president.
It's your word versus an Originalist who has been cited 17 times by the Supreme Court.
Cruz was not born between 1790 and 1795. The 1952 act applies
The 1952 Act didn't make Cruz a natural born citizen either. Nor could it have.
The original intent of the founders is significant
That's exactly what my argument is, while you're the one telling me "Laws change!", as if there is an amendment somewhere that changed the definition of natural born citizenship, allowing the mother to transfer citizenship to the father.
First, the founders rejected British common law.
No they didn't. They used it a great deal when formulating our own laws, and the Supreme Court has used it when trying to understand original intent. That said, they were also influenced greatly by Vattel's Law of Nations.
Reading further you will find that Vattel ALSO (just like the 1790 act) addressed the issue of children born abroad. He says they "naturally" follow the condition (i.e. citizenship) of their parents.
So, can you quote it? It sounds like you're quoting Blackstone. But since you say "Parents," you run into the old problem again: citizenship either passes through the father, best case scenario, or by 2 parents who are citizens.
British common law would have said they naturally follow the jurisdiction of the place of birth
No, British Common Law conferred citizenship to children born outside the country, provided that their father was an English Citizen and was not currently engaged in treason.
One of the reasons we fought with the British in 1812 was because they claimed that Americans were natural born Brits, and so they forced them into service.
Again, the founders disagree
Where do they disagree? You are making things up.
It really does not matter how you or I interpret the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen. Constitutional scholars come down on both sides of the matter of Ted Cruz’s eligibility. But that does not really matter that much either. I will tell you why.
After Super Tuesday if Ted Cruz is still a factor in the election Trump will file a lawsuit challenging his eligibility. The lawsuit will most likely be filed in a location on the West Coast. The case may be dismissed but I am sure they are already shopping for a judge that will want to make a name for himself and hear the case. Yeah, yeah, I know this is not the way it is suppose to be. Unfortunately, lawyers, judges and our judicial system does not work the way we would like to think it does. They are largely scum bags as far as I am concerned. After what the judge “decides” the case; it will be appealed.
At that point the case will move to The United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit the most liberal of the 15 federal judicial districts. A panel of 3 judges will review the decision that was made. All the Trump team has to do is present enough “evidence” in their arguments before the first judge to give the two most liberal of the three judges enough wiggle room to write a decision that makes some kind of legal sense and they will decide against Cruz. You can give thank your Senators for approving the 300 hand picked liberal judges Obama sent to the senate for confirmation.
The case will then be appealed to the Supreme Court. Have you heard? The Supreme Court just lost their arguably most intellectual and conservative justice. There is a good chance they will refuse to hear the case and the appeals court decision will stand. The other possibility is that they will hear the case, but because the court is now made up of four liberals vs. four conservatives the court would most likely deadlock and the appeals court decision would stand. I don’t think that Trump would have actually gone through with a legal challenge if Justice Scalia was still alive.
If the Trump’s team finds a way to get the case heard the decision process will most likely be expedited. Even if it is not the doubt created by an ongoing legal battle will torpedo the Cruz campaign.
I am not a legal expert, but my family and I lost over a half million dollars in legal fees in a case we took all the way to our State Supreme Court. I have more insight into how blood sucking lawyers and politically influenced judges actually decide cases. It is a travesty. Trump has a lot of money and lawyers that are second to none. This is how I see this thing working out
In contrast, a statutory native-born citizen is a person who does not qualify for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, but receives U.S. citizenship, at birth, by laws enacted by Congress. For example, foreign-born children of American parents do not receive citizenship from the 14th Amendment; such children acquire U.S. citizenship, at birth, by statute.
By the same token you are wrong as well. He has received birthright citizenship by virtue of laws enacted by Congress .
“I can’t tell if this is the ‘well they did it too’ defense. Or ‘I was against it before I was for it’.”
Don’t try to be obtuse. The effort is not necessary, seeing it comes “naturally” for you, without any effort.
Not agreeing with YOUR definition of natural born citizen does not constitute me embracing a lawless society. Is that simple enough for you to grasp?
I did not attack your loyalty to the nation or patriotism just because your arguments are poorly drawn and unconvincing. So don’t go there, or I will reply with the appropriate vindictiveness it deserves.
Yes, I am replying to your sarcastic “thanks” comment in which you blame me and people who hold my view for allowing Obama to be president and enact unconstitutional laws. I did no such thing. And you know better. Get some sleep, and maybe you will argue your case more rationally tomorrow.
And, in case you don’t get my tone, I have a lot of respect for you, even if I am a very aggressive debater. I am sure you are a patriotic conservative who is demoralized by the state of the nation. We share the same common views. And your arguments are not completely without merit. I just don’t find them convincing when considering the facts I have put forward. I think Cruz is the best candidate in the race. I think he is qualified in every respect. And I intend to support him as much as I am able.
“He has received birthright citizenship by virtue of laws enacted by Congress .”
A child born in 1791 to parents who were US citizens would have also had “birthright citizenship”. And that citizenship would have been a “natural born citizenship”, qualifying the child (potentially) to be president.
The definition you and many others are putting forward to distinguish between natural born citizenship and naturalized citizenship does not square with the first act of naturalization. I have seen many mental backflips to explain this away. None are satisfactory in the least.
This simple explanation is the best: Children who, at birth, receive citizenship “naturally” from a parent, are natural born citizens. All other citizens are naturalized. This is the only consistent interpretation of the founders’ writings.
It also make Cruz a natural born citizen who can be president of the US.
Ha, good one.
Rubio also is not a natural-born citizen. Neither of his parents were citizens when he was born. So if Trump really does sue, it could be a two-fer! ;-)
You seem to think I have a problem with Ted. The only problem I have with him is he does not meet the requirements to be the President. In fact I was all in for Ted until I learned about his birth situation. That's when I said ah oh. One usurper occupying the Presidency is one too many, in my opinion.
Correct, Rubio’s birthright citizen is based upon the 14th Amendment of being born within the boundaries of the United States or her territories.
His father acquired Canadian citizenship after Ted's birth.
Under the laws enacted by the US Congress in 1952 Cruz was automatically a US citizen at birth.
The US law was constitutional per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4a and 4c of the US Constitution.
America is more than a game to me, by the way. It’s everything. But we can’t keep compromising a little bit at a time. Eventually, there’ll be nothing left to save. So, it’s time to fight. If a conservative doesn’t get elected, we need to make ourselves more than heard but felt. What else is there to do against impending tyranny?
I simply can not believe that the Founders would have considered a man a natural born citizen who was born in a foreign country, to a foreign father, and who kept dual citizenship well into middle age.
so he was a Cuban? What is Cruz’s mother renounced her US citiznship before Cruz was born?
Would he then be a Cuban/Canadian?
You have to have a country that will accept you before you can give up your citizenship.
His mother was from the New England states as I recall.
Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term “naturalization†means “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.†Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization. (emphasis added)Do you see what just happened there? Citizenship at birth is NOT citizenship by naturalization. That means that the INA (Immigration and Naturalization Act) defines some of it's own content as NOT being about naturalization per se. I know it seems counterintuitive, but it is true.
From the State Departmentâ€s Foreign Affairs Manual.
| One or Two Citizen Parents | Alien Parents | |||
| Born in US | Born Outside US | Born in US | Born Outside US | |
| 14th Amendment | Citizen at Birth | N/A | Citizen at Birth | Naturalized in US After Birth |
| Statutory (INA) | N/A | Citizen at Birth | N/A | Naturalized After Birth |
| Common Law | Citizen at Birth | N/A | N/A | N/A |
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.