Skip to comments.Ted Cruz draws presidential buzz, but is he eligible?
Posted on 01/08/2013 3:15:17 PM PST by Seizethecarp
Ted Cruz may have the aura of a future presidential contender, but is he even eligible...?
The newly sworn-in Texas senator and rising Republican star was born in Canada, to a mother who was born in Delaware and Cuban father. Thats triggered a debate about whether hes eligible for the nations highest office...
While theres no legal precedent for Cruzs situation, most constitutional scholars surveyed by POLITICO believe the 42-year-old tea party sensation would be OK.
The problem is, no one knows what a natural born citizen is, agreed University of California, Davis law professor Gabriel Chin, who argued in 2008 that Sen. John McCain was not eligible to be president.
Advisers to Cruz a Harvard Law-educated appellate lawyer who has argued dozens of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and knows a thing or two about constitutional law say that because his mother had U.S. citizenship at the time of his birth, it transferred to him on foreign soil.
Temple University law professor Peter Spiro said Cruz has a very strong argument that he is indeed natural born.
While the 14th Amendment to the Constitution grants citizenship to anyone born inside the U.S., children born to American citizens outside the country attain citizenship through a law passed by Congress, according to Spiro.
Hes a birthright citizen but his birthright citizenship derives from his parents, and the question is, does that fit with the definition of natural born citizen? added University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt. I think it does.
Chin, who authored a lengthy analysis on McCains citizenship, agreed that Cruz most likely is eligible.
Even though only Cruzs mother was a citizen, there shouldnt be a problem because it appears she had lived in the United States for at least 10 years, Chin said.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Statutory citizen at birth is equated by most of the quoted scholars as NBC but some hold back and say there has never been a SCOTUS ruling on the matter.
Not having a US citizen father, as stated in MvH, isn't even mentioned.
Ted Cruz eligibility ping...
Cruz compared to McCain and Romney...but not Obama.
...and so it begins anew, there must be new evidence disqualifying Odungo.
I’m disgusted by the hero worship alone.
The media gave Obama a pass but it would not give Sen Cruz a pass.
Cruz would throw this back in their face if challenged.
Indeed, I think Republicans need to start nominating people that are not qualified in races that are safe democratic seats.
They should also publicly advocate cheating in elections by simply saying “The democrats do it we should too” The demonrats will cheat as long it is profitable for them to do so. The only way to get them to stop is to out cheat them
“Focus on anything BUT Obama’s eligibility!” many angry alleged freepers tell us.
If his father was naturalized by the time of his birth and Canada made no jurisdictional claims upon him as a result of being born in Canada, then he qualifies.
If his father had not naturalized by the time of his birth but was a resident alien of the United States, and his nation (Cuba) made no jurisdictional claims upon him at birth, then doubt begins to creep in, but he could be eligible.
If Canada, Cuba or both made jurisdictional claims upon him at birth, he is not eligible.
If a who knows where born red diaper baby with a Kenyan father can be President twice I’m going to stop splitting hairs over good GOP candidates who can at least produce a bonafide birth certificate and the hospital they were born in actually has a record of it.
If a Kenya citizen father and an underage American mother makes one eligible to be POTUS, and win 2nd term, even Vladimir Putin could run for POTUS and the media won’t raise a boo. All that matters to them...is he a liberal? If yes, then no problem.
If an illegal Kenyan immigrant Commie with Marxist parents can get elected, I would guess that most anyone could do it.
Sounds like a trial balloon/Talking Point/end-run around The Mulatto Messiah’s Ineligibility problem, that everyone who could possibly Rule on is either afraid for their life, exposure of dirty laundry, or under threat of smears (or worse).
If your mother takes a day trip to Mexico and has you that day in Mexico, the US Embassey there declares you a citizen of the US, not Mexico. When you and your mom can travel back into the US, it is as if the trip to Mexico did not happen.
McCain was born on a military base in another country but that military is considered US territory and he was a US citizen that day and would have been even if it was another country because his parents were US citizens and the embassey there would have made him a US citizen.
A naturalized citizen may not be president. That is a citizen of another country (neither parent is a US citizen)who comes here and goes through the paper work to become a naturalized US citizen. That person is not a natural born citizen as he/she was a citizen of another country before becoming a US citizen.
The beauty of this system is Piers Morgan was born in England of English parents. He can become a naturalized citizen of the US if he goes through the procedure, BUT HE CAN NEVER BE US PRESIDENT - THANK GOD.
Don’t flame me about this because I don’t care if you don’t agree because I am right.
My grandson was born in England but his father is a US citizen (my Texas born son) and the US embassey there made the grandson a US citizen that day and issued him a US passport.
If the Canal Zone was under the full jurisdiction of the United States and Jimmy Carter just up and decided unilaterally to give it away, you’d better hope Obama doesn’t get a wild hair and decide to do the same thing with wherever you reside.
How does anyone know where Cruz is born. He can get on every state’s ballot, without a birth cert, right?
He should just state he was born in Hawaii, since their privacy laws will keep it sealed. Nobody can prove he was or wasn’t born in Hawaii.
Bronco Bama’s paternity cannot even be determined with certainty.
Was it Frank Marshall Davis? Or even more edgy, was Stanley Ann Dunham actually the half-sister of Bronco Bama, child of Stanley Dunham and an unidentified woman of African ancestry, which Stanley Ann took as her own child and arranged a sham marriage with a foreign student playing the patsy? We have seen bigger hoaxes pulled in history, but none with such far-reaching effects.
Should be simple enough - pull a DNA sample from both Bronco Bama and his half-sister Maya Soetoro. While part of Bronco Bama’s DNA would show he was related to the Dunhams, it may show that Stanley Ann may not have been his mother, but it would definitely show that Maya’s mother WAS Stanley Ann.
Good luck collecting the samples.
I think the code is that anyone who is not Obama is not eligible.
That being said, Cruz is a promising Senator in office now for the extent of a couple of days.
We are best served to stop looking to one person, with the hope of doing as much as exhuming the late great R Reagan and just do what we need to do.
Conservatives are so busy doing what they ought to do that we don’t hone debating skills nor speak out in the public arena. WE want one person to do that for us, but it is up to conservatives now to get in and get comfortable speaking out.
It is still a free country and there still is freedom of speech.
A maxim I read can’t remember where some Christian source stated that we are not to be cowered into inaction out of fear of retaliation and anger.
The youth of this Nation need us to stop these people from destroying their future.
Let’s not allow Tom Brokaw to be the one to define us. The greatest generation is any one who practically realizes that freedom is not free.
Let’s let Ted Cruz do his job and do ours and leadership will form naturally.
I am just really ranting today.
About Obama: We don’t know if the mom renounced her US citizenship when she went with the supposed “husband” to Africa to live. If she did renounce her citizenship before Obama was born, he is not a US citizen and the grandmother says Obama was born there. The critical part is, did she renounce her US citizenship?
See, no one has researched the mom and she didn’t like this country so maybe she renounced citizenship when she was carried away with all things African, even the African “husband”. This could be the “glitch” Obama has been hiding all these years.
Mr.Cruz is an American citizen by virtue of one parent being American.
At birth, he was also a dual citizen, as his father was not an American citizen.
As such, he is not and can not be considered a natural born citizen.
That term means a person born in the country, of citizen parents. This is how it was understood by the Founders, who had three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations, which Benjamin Franklin documented, along with its beneficial use, in a letter to one provider of the volume, used by those at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Senator Cruz is qualified to be a Senator, as only the office of President has the requirement in the Constitution of natural born citizen.
As for John McCain, he was not born in a military hospital,nor was he born on an American military base. He was born to in the hospital in Colon, Panama. In his case, he was born to two American parents, and his father was an American military officer. He is a natural born citizen, because his father was in service to his country, and in a foreign land under the auspices of the nation. in Vattel’s terms, the father was in the service of the King.
I would hope that Senator Cruz is a man of such character that he would not try to bend then.constitution to fit his ambitions.
As for Mr. Obama, he was born to a non American father, making him a dual citizen at birth. his American mother qualifies him to be an American citizen, however, he can never be a natural born citizen, as one parent was a non-American. Being born in Hawaii is not a determining factor-—he could have been born on the steps of the US Capitol, and that would not change his status at birth
Lastly,the 14th .amendment cannot in any circumstance grant natural born citizenship to anyone, nor can it supersede Art. II of the
The mom has been researched into the ground. Click the keyword at the top of the page and dig in.
The bar is down, the corral gate is open, that horse has escaped, never to be corralled again. For that matter, are we certain that there will be another presidential election?.
“If the Canal Zone was under the full jurisdiction of the United States and Jimmy Carter just up and decided unilaterally to give it away, youd better hope Obama doesnt get a wild hair and decide to do the same thing with wherever you reside.”
Doesn’t matter - McCain’s parents were US citizens so he is too no matter where he was born as they would have gone to the US embassey to record the birth and he would be a US citizen the date of his birth.
Obama can cut a trench and cut off Texas, but both my parents were US citizens so I always will be unless I choose to denounce my citizenship.
For anyone interested the above linked article gives a lot of background info on Ted Cruz and his family.
Supreme Court cases that cite natural born Citizen as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: 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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
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.
It matters if Panama or any other country makes a legal claim of jurisdiction upon him as a result of birth within that country.
Can you seriously envision a US President being arrested for treason by another country, and that arrest be legally recognized and upheld?
That could happen and probably would if the two countries were to be at war.
Lot of silly opinions.
Bottom line is: If was born an American citizen, then he’s probably eligible to be President.
Here is Mr. Cruz’s chance to leverage his situation.
First, no, he is basically ‘less eligible’ than Obama.
He (and Jindal and Rubio) should stand a stage, quote the SCOTUS rulings and say
“...because of these and the precedent they establish and abiding by the long understanding of our founding fathers and previous legal precedents I (we) are not eligible for the office of VP or President. I (we) will not run for these offices and will not accept nominations for these offices.”
There is not knowing and then here is ignoring. We know, they ignore.
Then why is he the POTUS, and why every bill he signs become legitimate law? Logically following the events, if one is born in Hawaii of one American citizen parent, one is eligible to be legitimate POTUS, as the ONE proves every day.
Why, you ask?
Because fifty Secretaries of State, the entire Democrat Party leadership, and 535 members of Congress don’t give a hoot about what the .constitution stays.
It doesn’t make it right, and it does not excuse their perfidy.
Stays =says in previous post.
thanks Seizethecarp, additional:
Depends on what his immigration file with DHS says.
SURVEY OF THE LAW OF EXPATRIATION
It is now well settled that anyone may renounce his United States citizenship. (2)
(2. Hundreds of American citizens renounce their citizenship every year. See Richard A. Westin, Expatriation and Return: An Examination of Tax-Driven Expatriation by United States Citizens, and Reform Proposals, 20 Va. Tax Rev. 75, 98 (2000) (listing annual renunciation rates for 1980-1994).)
“In 1794 and 1797, many members of Congress still adhered to the English doctrine of perpetual allegiance and doubted whether a citizen could even voluntarily renounce his citizenship. By 1818, however, almost no one doubted the existence of the right of voluntary expatriation.” Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 258 (1967)(3)
(3. See also Right of Expatriation, 9 Op. Att’y Gen. 356, 358 (1859) (”the general right, in one word, of expatriation, is incontestible”); Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 497 (1950) (”Traditionally the United States has supported the right of expatriation as a natural and inherent right of all people.”); Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129, 139 (1958) (Black, J., concurring) (”Of course a citizen has the right to abandon or renounce his citizenship”); Lozada Colon v. United States Dep’t of State, 2 F. Supp. 2d 43, 45 (D.D.C. 1998) (assuming that “an individual has a fundamental right to expatriate”). )
In 1868, Congress declared that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Act of July 27, 1868, ch. 249, 15 Stat. 223, 223 (1868); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1481 note (2000) (quoting R.S. § 1999) (same). That declaration further stated that “any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.” 15 Stat. at 224.
By virtue of its express power “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4, Congress has an implied power to set the terms of U.S. citizenship, including the power to expatriate.(4)
(4. It was once thought that, because the Naturalization Clause contained no express provision for Congressional power to expatriate a U.S. citizen against his will, no such authority existed. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4. As Chief Justice Marshall stated in dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), “[a] naturalized citizen . . . becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is, to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.” Id. at 827. In Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), the Court found an inherent federal power, beyond the express terms of the Constitution, to forcibly expatriate U.S. citizens, as a necessary attribute of sovereignty. See id. at 57 (concluding that power to expatriate necessarily arose out of federal power to conduct foreign relations (citing United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936))). That view was abrogated, however, in Afroyim. See Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 257 (”This power cannot, as Perez indicated, be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty possessed by all nations. . . . Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones.”).
Under the Court’s current jurisprudence, the Naturalization Clause empowers Congress to expatriate U.S. citizens without obtaining their consent, but only with respect to naturalized citizens who fall outside the protection of the Citizenship Clause. Individuals not protected by the Citizenship Clause acquire U.S. citizenship, if at all, solely by an act of Congress enacted pursuant to the Naturalization Clause, and not pursuant to the Constitution itself. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971) (Citizenship Clause does “’not touch the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization’”) (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898)); see also note 6. With respect to such individuals, Congress’s power under the Naturalization Clause includes the power to set conditions subsequent to naturalization, failure of which may result in expatriation without consent. See Bellei, 401 U.S. at 834 (”it does not make good constitutional sense, or comport with logic, to say, on the one hand, that Congress [in exercising its authority under the Naturalization Clause] may impose a condition precedent, with no constitutional complication, and yet be powerless to impose precisely the same condition subsequent”). )
See MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, http://www.justice.gov/olc/expatriation.htm#N_2_
Call me paranoid but I think this is a left setup to take Cruz out. He is popular and that can’t stand. The left will take him down even if they need to make up charges. Right now they are trying to get him exposed as much as they can just waiting for him to make a slip then they will attempt to rip him apart.
Yes! The Cruz adoration has already begun here on FR. Now, perhaps he deserves it; perhaps he doesn't. But we can't possibly know yet.
For Pete's sake, give the guy a couple years in office before pledging your first-born son to him.
Only reason I bring up this issue of “natural born” is that by allowing Obama to become POTUS twice, the powers that rule the country have made definition of “natural born” irrelevant.
Eligibility no longer a concern. If he needs a birth certificate, he can ask any of the millions of us with Photoshop to make him one. That’s what Obama did , so there is now precedent. “Not true,” you say? Prove me wrong.
I am placing that in nomination for Comment O'Year. (Well, at least so far.)
No, he's not eligible, and if the GOPe try to run him in the future sans a Supreme ruling saying he is, then he will lose. Same with Rubio, Haley and any other contenders that didn't have two citizen parents at birth.
We shouldn't have to worry about whose side you'll come down on if conflict arises between America and the country of origin of one (or more, in the case of 14th Amendment "Anchor" babies) of your parents.
Isn’t it ironic that this country with all its great promise was first weakened by a foreign organization, the UN, and then finished off by a possible foreigner as president, while Congress stood by, submissively?
And this is the same Congress that now wants to disarm its citizens leaving it defenseless against its enemies.
Didn’t these clowns swear to defend the Constitution, including its 2nd Amendment?
We shouldn't have to worry about whose side you'll come down on if conflict arises between America and the country of origin of one (or more, in the case of 14th Amendment "Anchor" babies) of your non-citizen parents.
Naturalized citizen parents of American citizens born to them have taken the affirmative step of establishing loyalty to America.
“While theres no legal precedent for Cruzs situation, most constitutional scholars surveyed by POLITICO believe the 42-year-old tea party sensation would be OK.”
Why are all of these Obama-loving law professors and Politico backing the eligibility of Cruz???
Why, especially after they attacked McCain head-on, as documented in Corsi’s “Where’s the Birth Certificate”...at least up until Leahy’s NON-binding Senate resolution. This was obviously part of a quid pro quo agreement for both parties to lay off the eligibility of the other’s candidate.
Now, right out of the box, the Dems and the Law School elite are giving Cruz a pass. It looks highly suspicious.
There is one major reason why they might be doing this, IMO, and that is to protect Barry in the event that proof is found that he was born in Kenya.
If Barry was Kenyan-born his legal profile would be nearly identical to Cruz’s: Foreign soil birth and only one US citizen parent, the mother. Cruz has the advantage of having his mother have 10 years of US residence prior to the birth, but otherwise Barry and Cruz would be legally similar.
And this gets to why many of the quoted professors say Cruz would be a natural born citizen. I believe that they are buying into the 9th Circuit Marguet-Pillado case ruling.
Here is the key part of my vanity thread on the case:
“Obama cites US v Marguet-Pillado. Dicta implies Obama eligible even if born in Kenya”
The Marguet-Pillado case, quoted above, affirms in dicta that Obama would be eligible to be president even if he was born outside the USA!
IMO, the timing of this citation by Obama and his legal team shows consciousness of guilt that he is actively hiding his actual foreign birth, which most likely would be in Kenya. The defendant in the Marguet-Pillado case was born in Mexico to a Mexican citizen mother and had stipulated in an earlier trial (reversed and remanded) that the US citizen named Marguet that appeared on his Mexican birth certificate was not his natural father. Why would Obama cite to a case which adds nothing at all towards establishing his eligibility if he were, in fact, born in the US? Here is the Opinion from the case, which does not appear to apply to Obama at all:
GWIN, District Judge:
“Defendant-Appellant Carlos Marguet-Pillado (’Marguet- Pillado’) appeals his conviction for being a previously removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. With his appeal, Marguet-Pillado argues that the district court erred in refusing to give a requested jury instruction. The instruction would have permitted Marguet-Pillado to argue that the government had failed to establish that Marguet-Pillado was an alien who had not obtained derivative citizenship from his step-father, a United States citizen listed on Marguet-Pillados birth certificate as his father. The district court rejected the instruction after finding that an earlier appeal in this case relieved the government of the burden of establishing alienage in the second trial. Because we find that in the second trial, Marguet-Pillado could require the government to come forward with proof that Marguet-Pillado was an alien and did not have derivative citizenship, we REVERSE Marguet- Pillados conviction and remand this case for a new trial.”
If born in Kenya, whether Obama would even be a US citizen at birth (natural born or not) would depend on whether his parents were legally married. INS records show that BHO Sr. was deported based substantially on suspicion that he had entered into a bigamous marriage with Stanley Ann Dunham. Below are the State Department rules for married vs unmarried foreign births with a US citizen mom:
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock:
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the persons birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the persons birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Ironically, if Obama was born in Kenya it would be to his advantage for him to have been born out-of-wedlock because, as can be seen above, his mother meets the residency requirement to pass citizenship to him if she was single while she does NOT meet the residency requirement to pass citizenship to him if she were legally married to BHO Sr.
Bottom line is that the Obama legal team is now claiming that Marguet-Pillado applies to Obama and that case would make the out-of-wedlock Kenya-born child of an eighteen-year-old US citizen mother a “natural born citizen” according to the two-judge 9th Circuit majority and eligible to be president of the United States according to the Obama legal team. This is a blatant attempt to overturn the unanimous holding in Minor v. Happerset defining natural born citizen to exclude those who were not born in the country to citizen parents:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Note that the Congressional Research Service has also jumped to endorse the Marguet-Pillado case as affirming that a foreign born child biologically-related to a US citizen is a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen and thus eligible to be POTUS:
Concerning the contention made in earlier cases that everyone who is made a citizen only by federal statute is a naturalized citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), itmay be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms naturalized and naturalization, as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that someone who is a citizen at birth is not considered to have been naturalized.
Justice Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that this kind of citizenship, that is, under statutes that confer citizenship at birth, was not intended to involve[ ] naturalization, citing current federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(23). The Supreme Court recently recognized in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, that federal law now specifically defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, and thus it could be argued that by current definition and understanding in federal law and jurisprudence, one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship automatically at birth or by birth could not be considered to be naturalized. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized in a recent case that one may be a natural born citizen of the United Sates in two ways: either by being born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the residency requirement. In United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, a case dealing with the propriety of an appeal based on requested jury instructions not given, the court stated:
No one disputes that Marguet-Pillados requested instruction was an accurate statement of the law, in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968is a natural born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.
We need someone to stand up to the media like Reagan did. Cruz may very well be able to accomplish this.
I pray that at least one brave Patriot exists among those in Congress.
Except McCain wasn’t born on the military base. The base had no medical facility for birthing so his mama had to deliver at the hospital (can’t think of the name off hand) in Colon.
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.