Posted on 02/19/2016 4:41:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The 14th does not say anything about parents.
BTW, Trump’s mother was for Scotland and was naturalized, not natural born US Citizen. So by your interpretation, Trump is also disqualified as he would not be a NBC.
If you watched the video, the FATHER is the one that legally matters the most and determines the child’s status, NOT the mother.
PLEASE watch the video.It is explained very well.
The 14th is ALSO explained in the video.
Ted Cruz is a citizen because his mother was a citizen. So Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen?
Again, that is not what is in the text of the 14th amendment. Further, the current law does not distinguish between mother or father.
Anyone can put their opinions in a video. If we are going to be a nation of laws, what maters is the LAW.
The current will of Congress is expressed in U.S. Code. It is the sum of all amendments, treaties, acts of Congress, statute, laws, etc. To the point of who is a citizen at birth and does not need to be naturalized is found in USC Title 8 section 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth. Further, USC Title 8 Section 1101 subsection A part (23) - defines naturalization as a process that occurs “after birth”.
Likely not...but according to current understanding in the USA, he certainly WOULD be eligible to be POTUS in 2017.
I can’t have a conversation with you about this until you have WATCHED the video and refute what points in it that you think are false.
Congressional will = MANMADE LAW - NOT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Congressional will -DOES NOT override the Constitition.
To quote YOU:” If we are going to be a nation of laws, what maters is the LAW.”
The Constitution IS the supreme law of the land.
Naturalization IS a process that occurs “After Birth” to give legal citizenship to one who needs it.
A NBC does not need anything else. ANYTHING that takes a statute to give citizenship to a person makes them NATURALIZED.
The Constitution gives it’s citizens the blueprint for what constitutes a NBC.
Again, until you watch the video, tell me what points the presenter makes that you disagree with, we are just talking past each other. I really would like to hear what you think in the video is false.
After you watch the video, I think you will agree that Ted is in a hard legal battle concerning this.
But when it comes to Rubio’s situation, its explained also in the video, he’s TOAST. If he is the nominee, his court case will be about 15 minutes long and the DEM candidate will probably win the 2016 POTUS race.
If you would take the time to watch the video and then tell me what you disagree with in it, the maybe we can discuss this better between us. If not, then we aren’t going to be able to because the video contains the information (not OPINIONS) for you to examine and then refute the points made in it.
http://powderedwigsociety.com/eligibility-of-cruz-and-rubio/#
I thank you very much for your replies to my posts.
Yes the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And according to the Constitution, who is specificly enumerated with the unrestricted authority over all rules of naturalization? ... Congress.
Congress says (USC Title 8 Section 1101 subsection A part (23)) that the definition of naturalization is the conferring of nationality after birth. One’s status at birth is how one is naturally born and if they are born a citizen, having never been naturalized, they then are naturally born a citizen. That is the same as “natural born citizen” the only difference is the root work of “natural” either being used as an adverb or adjective in order to comply with proper syntax.
USC Title 8 section 1401 defines who is a citizen at birth and does not need to be naturalized.
I will reply in a separate post about the specifics of the video
Thank you very much!
Second error occurs when the video attempts to hold Vattel as an authority higher than the Constitution in that she is attempting to ignore the above authority granted to Congress. Further, the very first Congress who had many of the same drafters and signers wrote the very first naturalization act of 1790 which was signed by George Washington. In that act, Congress SPECIFICALLY states that those born outside of the boundaries to US parents are US citizen and are natural born citizens. In other words, the framers of the constitution DID NOT REQUIRE being born on US soil to be born a citizen. Further when quoting Vattel, be aware that Vattel did not require the location or jus soli in his definition either.
[agreement 5:40] Ramsey said “... as a natural right, belongs to none, but those that have been born of citizens....” And this is the exact state of Sen Cruz. He inherited his citizenship from his mother at the time of his birth.
Third error is at 6:20 where the speaker states that no act of congress makes the NBC a citizen. This is incorrect. All nations have the organic right as a sovereign nation to define their borders and their citizens. All nations exercise this right via acts of their legislators. The founders knew this and specifically enumerated Congress with the authority over all rules of naturalization. This includes those who are aliens and those who are citizens at birth. Starting in the very first acts of Congress, this authority has been exercised. Those first acts have been repealed and replaced along with subsequent acts till one gets to the current code as expressed in USC Title 8 section 1401 - Nationals and Citizens of United States at birth.
The first general error of this video is the belief that jus sanguinis (right of blood) as the ONLY means of NBC conference. That is NOT the current law. The current law incorporates the 14th amendment which is now part of the Constitution and there is no higher legal authority.
Fourth error is at 9:30 that Marco Rubio has been naturalized. Rubio was a citizen at birth and has never been naturalized.
Fifth error is at 10:20 Sen Cruz's mother was a US Citizen at the time of Sen Cruz's birth. This is a known fact.
Sixth error is at 10:25 in the assertion that only the father's status counts towards inheritance of citizenship or NBC. In the very first naturalization act of 1790, the status of the father only requires prior residence within the US as part of the criteria for NBC. Further, this was met by Sen Cruz's father though the law does not require it for citizenship at birth.
Seventh error at 10:40 the assertion that common law exceeds the Constitution.
Eight error at 11:25 is the assertion that one must renounce citizenship in some other country to be a US citizen. Laws of other nations have no weight on US laws and as such are irrelevant. My citizenship would not change just because some other country asserts that I am a citizen. Some other nation could assert that I am a citizen of that country because of the amount of time that I spent in that country. My status as a citizen and NBC comes from the conditions of my birth and does not come from any other nations laws. Again, those laws are irrelevant to US law. The video is representing how they would like the laws of the US TO BE, not how they are. The genius of the founders is that they made a way for those who want to change this to be able to do so. If you dont like what the 14th amendment says, get enough of your like minded individuals together to change it. Same with the laws of this nation.
>>> Ted Cruz is a citizen because his mother was a citizen. So Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen?
If his mother was divorced at the time of his birth, and her reason for being in Canada was only temporary, then yes... he would be a natural born citizen.
Again... Natural born citizenship is that citizenship which you inherit from your parents. While you may be able to aquire dual citizenship at birth via naturalization, only one country can be your natural born country.
If parents are of two different nationalities, it is the father’s citizenship which takes precedence... much like it is the husband’s name which the wife takes as her own... because a married couple are considered to be one entity.
Where there may be discrepancies, or conflicts as to what citizenship either parent possesses, place of birth of the child steps in to resolve it.
Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen of Canada...
err...SCRATCH THAT.... Ted Cruz WAS a natural born citizen of Canada... until he renounced that citizenship years ago.
You cannot transfer your natural born status... nor can you regain it once you renounce it. It is a matter of birthright, not legal status.
>>> The video states that Congress could pass a law that changes the definition and calls that supposition ridiculous.
It is ridiculous... you cannot pass laws to change the meanings of words that have been in use for centuries.
>>> Second error occurs when the video attempts to hold Vattel as an authority higher than the Constitution in that she is attempting to ignore the above authority granted to Congress.
The authority granted to congress governs naturalization, not inheritance. The two are not in conflict.
>>> Third error is at 6:20 where the speaker states that no act of congress makes the NBC a citizen. This is incorrect. All nations have the organic right as a sovereign nation to define their borders and their citizens.
And parents have an organic right to pass down their citizenship to their offspring. What nation would pass a law which denies parents that right? and why would they do that??? Now... I suppose that if a country wanted to, they could pass a law requiring natural borns to become naturalized in some way like signing an oath or declaration before their citizenship would be recognized, but such a law would NOT change the fact that they were natural born citizens by virtue of inheritance.
>>> The first general error of this video is the belief that jus sanguinis (right of blood) as the ONLY means of NBC conference. That is NOT the current law The current law incorporates the 14th amendment which is now part of the Constitution and there is no higher legal authority.
The 14th amendment does NOT change the definition of NBC...
and the only way you can be a NBC of any country IS by blood.
>>> Fifth error is at 10:20 Sen Cruz’s mother was a US Citizen at the time of Sen Cruz’s birth. This is a known fact.
So is the fact that his father was Canadian at the time of birth, and the father’s citizenship takes precedence over the mothers where NBC status in concerned... so it doesn’t really matter what his mother’s citizenship was or wasn’t.
>>> Sixth error is at 10:25 in the assertion that only the father’s status counts towards inheritance of citizenship or NBC. In the very first naturalization act of 1790, the status...
There you go again... very first NATURALIZATION ACT...
DOES NOT APPLY TO NBC!
>>> Seventh error at 10:40 the assertion that common law exceeds the Constitution.
That was not asserted. What was asserted was that the founding fathers USED a common law TERM (nbc) in the constitution. Therefore, common law was being RECOGNIZED in the constitution... which MAKES the common law definition for NBC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
>>> Eight error at 11:25 is the assertion that one must renounce citizenship in some other country to be a US citizen.
I do not recall that ever being said. I think you heard what you wanted to hear. I believe the point of bringing up the renouncement of citizenship was to illustrate that Cruz can only be a naturalized citizen of the US, and not natural born. He was considered NB of Canada. That is something which is not transferable.
Thank you again for your reply and for taking the time to view the video.
I will now reply to the eight topics you listed in your post.
#1. Her comment was congress could not change the NBC definition. Congress can and has changed MANY rules for NATURALIZATION.
Again, NBC = nothing else needed. NATURALIZED = Not NBC.
#2. Vattel & Ramsey were the blueprint for NBC (she referenced Franklin and others who repeated that). NONE of the founding fathers up until Harrison were NBC. They needed wording for the the non-qualified NBC generation to specify who was eligible until the first NBC generation was “ready” and could meet the Vattel and Ramsey based NBC qualifications. When that happened, THAT initial starting part was made moot.
It is VERY well explained in the video.
That is why the 14th is almost the carbon copy of the above.
How do you make the newly freed slaves able to acquire an NBC ststus? The first ones were NATIONALIZED. When it evolved (just like with the first Presidents) that both parents and the child were American born, that made them NBC.
The argument is not whether they were “citizens”. They were by the laws that were passed (also explained in the video) making them NATURALIZED citizens, but NOT NBC.
#3. No (extra) act of congress makes the NBC a citizen, and that is correct because they don’t require one. Any law needed to gain citizenship that DOES NOT meet NBC ststus makes that person NATURALIZED and not NBC.
#4. Rubio is considered an “anchor baby” at best and does NOT meet NBC qualifications. His parents are now NATURALIZED but that does not elevate Marco to NBC status.
#5. Yes Ted’s mother (AFAIK) was an American citizen at the time of Ted’s birth.
Ted was also born out of country with a non-US citizen father.
IMHO, the WHOLE Obama is legit to run for POTUS argument hinged on the public swallowing the “Born In Hawaii” premise. If he WAS born in Kenya, with a non-US citizen father, he would have REALLY WITHOUT A DOUBT been ineligible under NBC and the Dems and Obama knew it. The folks who questioned Obama’s non-NBC status even with his “born-in-Hawaii” meme, were immediately slapped with the race card to try and kill the debate. Ted is in the SAME spot as Obama, but unfortunately doesn’t have the “Born-In-The USA” card to utilize in his argument.
#6. As explained above, the 1790 rules were put in place so SOMEONE would be qualified under a set of rules to run to be POTUS (explained in the video) until NCB people were able by law to run.Same with the slaves. Those laws did NOT make the NBC.
They NATURALIZED them. Just like those landing in a beach in the USA with a raft or crossing a border to arrive here.
In a generation they will start having NBC qualified children.
#7. I’m not sure what is meant by that statement, but that is almost the MAIN point made by the speaker in the video.
She stated that words in the Constitution mean what they mean. The words are not “Play-Dough” to be twisted and molded to fit someone’s point of view or winning argument,
and NBC is clearly defined. She specifically calls out people who twist the 14th amendment to try to make non-NBC people eligible when they are not.
#8. I agree. You don’t have to give up your citizenship in another country to be a citizen. This point was NOT stated in the video. NATIONALIZED citizens may have DUAL citizenship. This does disqualify them from being POTUS , because the founders did not want “divided loyalties”.
This is WHY the founders wanted NBC qualified applicants for POTUS.
NBC = Able to run for POTUS
NATURALIZED CITIZEN = Not qualified
I thank you so much for the VERY CIVIL back-and-forth and taking the time to reply.
Much of what you said we agree upon.
NBC status is required to be President - check
Being naturalized disqualifies someone from being NBC - check
Where we disagree:
Being born within the boundaries of the US as a requirement for NBC
Having more than one US parent citizen as a requirement
BFLR
BFLR
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.