Posted on 01/08/2016 6:00:09 PM PST by FR_addict
It is not a question of her being a citizen of the US. The question is whether Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen which is the requirement of the constitution to be eligible for the Presidency and calls for BOTH parents to be Citizens of the US.Cruz’s father was a citizen of Cuba, then Canada, and FINALLY, AFTER Ted Cruz was born became a US Citizen. Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen.
It would be nice to have someone running for president who has two American parents and always lived in the US. 300 million people and we have Rubio, Cruz and Jebbie who is a Mexican wannabe running for prez....
“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.†Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.
That is a SCOTUS decision btw.....
LOL...you still trolling these treads....Mr. Wong Kim Ark?
What proof?
The court was attempting to answer if on the basis of being a citizen whether Minor had an inherit right to vote even though she was a woman. The paragraph below is an acknowledgement of Minor’s situation to this case (she had 2 citizen parents and was born in the US) that there was no doubt she was a natural born citizen (which the court went on to rule that that alone didn’t give her the right to vote as a woman). This is the ONLY class of NBC that the court addressed because it was the ONLY situation that applied to the Minor Case. All this paragraph did was answer the question whether Minor was a citizen based on her facts. Had she had a different situation, the court may/may not have come to the same conclusion because as the first sentence in the paragraph indicated, the Constitution doesn’t define Natural Born Citizen. But for the facts of the Minor case, it was pretty clear she was and that was the ONLY part addressed. In NO WAY was that paragraph meant to put an absolute definition on NBC because the Court would have been going beyond the scope of the case (and essentially legislating from the Bench).
Nice try though.
Your quoted passage from Minor vs. Happersett is of the form, "If A, then B." Okay, fine.
It does not list all the conditions of "Not B".
One citizen parent? No citizen parent, but born on the soil of the U.S. ("anchor baby")? Citizen parent(s), but born abroad? You see my difficulty.
Left unanswered is a whole string of "Yeah, well, what about ...?" questions.
Which question(s) in which post?
That is a SCOTUS decision btw.....
Yes, 1874.
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
You don't think he's an alien or foreigner, you just said he was a citizen.
“We’ll never know”
Yes, we do. How? Because if she had renounced her US citizenship, Ted would not be a US citizen. Since Ted has a passport, it means there is no paperwork on file renouncing her US citizenship.
“Gather the renunciation fee. Due to a large number of Americans renouncing citizenship, the State Department has increased the renunciation fee in recent years. It now stands at $2,350. Make sure you have this fee ready for when you go to renounce your citizenship...
...Appear before a diplomatic officer. You have to appear in person to renounce your citizenship; it cannot be done through the mail or a mediator. Once you’re at the embassy, you’ll have to verbally state your intention to renounce US citizenship in front of a diplomatic officer...
...Sign the oath of renunciation. After you meet with the diplomatic officer, he will present you with an oath renouncing your citizenship. Read this document carefully and consider your decision before signing it. After you sign the document, there is no going back....”
http://www.wikihow.com/Renounce-American-Citizenship
A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
sign an oath of renunciation
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.
...Finally, those contemplating a renunciation of U.S. citizenship should understand that the act is irrevocable, except as provided in section 351 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1483), and cannot be canceled or set aside absent successful administrative or judicial appeal...”
Therefor, it is safe to say she did not renounce her US citizenship.
Thank you for clarifying this to fellow freepers who don't have a clue on how it works up here. As a Canadian and Cruz supporter, I admit that i got a chuckle reading some of the insane comments about his eligibility. Man, Trumpers are nervous and this angle to derail the Cruz momentum smacks of desperation and reflects their blissfully ignorance of all things not Trump. BTW My neighbour is on a similar list and he is from France! And no he is not eligible to vote either since he is not Canadian!!
Is it too much to ask Trumpeters to actually read the article before making ignorant statements? If you had bothered to read, you would have seen that the waiting period to become a Canadian citizen is 5 years. His parents moved to Canada in 1967. Ted was born in 1970. Since you have such a hard time understanding simple concepts, let me do the math for you.
1970-1967= 3 years
3 yrs < 5 years
Hence, neither his mother nor his father could have been Canadian citizens when Ted was born.
Are you able to comprehend that? I tried to make so even a third-grade intellect like yours can understand.
I’m still right, and you are still telling people wrong things. This time, to eliminate the most conservative candidate for President in a generation.
Canada might as well be American. It is more than Kenya, or even Hawaii before and after being made a state.
Is there any doubt that a child born of citizen mother and father on the soil of their country a natural being a natural born citizen?
Can there be doubts, argument in other configurations like we're having now?
What do you think the Founding Fathers meant with that in mind?
You ain’t shit.
Why release them? We know she could NOT have renounced her US citizenship, and we know she must have been a US citizen when Ted was born. If not, Ted would not have been able to get a US Passport.
Why are y’all so upset at the idea of the most conservative candidate in a generation getting the nomination?
I can, at least, understand why those who cling to the erroneous belief that it requires two citizen parents get upset. But claiming his mother was not a US citizen? When she was able to re-enter and resume life as a US citizen, and her son got a passport?
Why is it y’all are afraid of Ted?
Excerpt from an article by Mario Apuzzo, March 31, 2011
“The Founders and Framers understood that under natural law and the law of nations, as explained by Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“Vattelâ€), a nation’s most fundamental duty is self-preservation. They therefore included the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution so that each and every citizen would be protected by having someone assume and exercise the great and singular civil and military powers of the President and Commander in Chief with only their and the nation’s values and safety at heart. To accomplish that end, the Founders and Framers required in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution that anyone who was a “citizen of the United States†at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was eligible to be President. But for anyone born thereafter, they built in extra protection for the nation by requiring that anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution be a “natural born Citizen.â€
I ASSUMED that after citing George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Jay (First chief justice of the Supreme court) on a thread last night, someone would be able to connect the dots. I made nothing up, so take your foul mouth and outrageous assertions and climb into your OWN computer to do your research. I am NOT wrong. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was written specifically using the term Natural Born Citizen INSTEAD OF CITIZEN! VATTEL was the source and reason for the wording.
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.