Replies

This is called natural law. Absolutely wrong!

The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born Citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ cannot possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?

There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.

OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?

There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.

1. Born in or out of a country.
2. Both parents are citizens.
3. One parent is a citizen.
4. Neither parent is a citizen.

The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.

Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?

'Natural Born Citizen' simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.

What is important about the 'law of nature'? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable". The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a 'Natural Born Citizen', because they CAN NOT change the definition, it's immutable.

The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).

Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a 'US National', he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION". The title of the chapter containing section 320?
CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are 'citizens at birth' through these sections, are citizens "THROUGH NATURALIZATION". Also, these are not really 'Citizens at birth', the are 'Citizens BY birth'. There is a BIG difference (and you will notice that Cruz 'spokespeople' will always say 'by birth'), persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence.

That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen at birth, are 'naturalized US citizens', and NOT 'natural born Citizens'.

“This is called natural law.”

That is a totally false analogy.

Among patrilineal cultures for thousands of years, the child’s citizenship was determined by the father’s citizenship, because the mother’s citizenship was also determined by her husband’s citizenship. This was the basis for the Roman laws and jus sanguinis. When some jurisdictions adopted jus soli as a principle of law to determine citizenship on the basis of the place of birth, there arose a conflict between the claims of competing jurisdictions. Under the principles of natural law a sovereign jurisdiction could perpetuate itslef without the manmade enactments of statutory laws or codification of manmade common-law only when the child is born in a circumstance where the citizenship of the natural parents are no different than the jurisdiction that is the plae of birth or the jurisdiction that is the place of birth claims no obligations of allegiance upon the child at birth. In these circumstances the child is a natural born citizen because no other sovereign is in a position to claim the allegiance and obligation from the child but that of the natural parents having the same citizenship.

When the traditional relationship between the husband and wife occurred with the emancipation of women and redognition of citizenship aprt from the husband or male guardian, there arose a new circumstance under which the mother of the child could have a citizenship different from the father of the child. This circumstance then required a manmade and therefore unnatural law and a statutory law to determine which of two or more sovereigns would be determined by a manmade act and not a natural occurrence to be the child’s citizenship. If the child were truly a natural born citizen, there could only be one possible citizenship and sovereign. The very fact there can be more than one possible choice of citizenship immediately indicates the child cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of any state, because a manmade law had to used to determine which of the citizenships would become effective.

Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canad with a father who was a Cuban citizen, a mother who was a U.S. citizen with authority to confer her U.S. citizenship to her child only when qualified by the U.S. statute of law. Since a child is a natural born citizen only in the absence of a manmade statute of law to authorize the citizenship, the U.S. statutory law authorizing his U.S. citizenship to a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother disqualified him as a natural born citizen by definition.