Posted on 03/06/2016 6:48:24 AM PST by patlin
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), a.k.a. Hart-Celler Act, 1965
Section 202 of the Immigration and Nationality Act... “(b)(3) an alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject, or if he is not a citizen or subject of any country then in the last foreign country in which he had his residence as determined by the consular officer; (4) an alien born within any foreign state in which neither of his parents was born and in which neither of his parents had a residence at the time of such alien's birth may be charged to the foreign state of either parent.”
Now please tell me, if the 14th gives citizenship simply based on birth on US soil, then how can one born in the US be an alien at birth? Even the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1965 states that children born to alien in the US are themselves aliens at birth.
Further, the Act goes on to say... “SEC. 203. (a) Aliens who are subject to the numerical limitations specified in section 201(a) shall be allotted visas or their conditional entry authorized, as the case may be, as follows: “(1) Visas shall be first made available, in a number not to exceed 20 per centum of the number specified in section 201(a) (ii), to qualified immigrants who are the unmarried sons or daughters of citizens of the United States.
Now let's go back to Sec. 202 ... (b) Each independent country, self-governing dominion, mandated territory, and territory under the international trusteeship system of the United Nations, other than the United States and its outlying possessions shall be treated as a separate foreign state for the purposes of the numerical limitation set forth in the proviso to sub section (a) of this section when approved by the Secretary of State. All other inhabited lands shall be attributed to a foreign state specified by the Secretary of State. For the purposes of this Act the foreign state to which an immigrant is chargeable shall be determined by birth within such foreign state...”
Now since Canada did not recognize dual citizenship in 1970, and the fact that Canada considered Cruz to be a natural born Canadian, per the 1965 Act passed by Congress, which is 100% constitutional in its language, Cruz himself, at best, is a 14th Amendment “naturalized” citizen.
Going back to the original intent of the Constitution, I would think that the governor's daughters would be MORE likely to be born US citizens since their FATHER is the US citizen. Never would have thought only the MOTHER could confer citizenship.
That is absolutely true. Citizenship via mother didn’t come about until suffrage—i.e.: it’s by statute.
Born May 28, 1971
Parents: Mario and Oriales Rubio
Both parents Cuban citizens.
Parents naturalized in 1975, four years after Marco was born. "
Anchor Babies are not Natural Born Citizens, Marco is NOT eligible to run for President of the United States.
The Supreme Court has used two sources: British common law and enactments of the First Congress for understanding constitutional terms. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
Trump refuses to file his own lawsuit against Cruz because he KNOWS it would be a bogus case.
Of course, that hasn't stopped him from using the propaganda to get other chumps to spend THEIR money pursuing lawsuits against Cruz....while at the same time causing "doubts" on the campaign trail instead of duking it out with who has the best policy positions. Sad.......
Cruz, Rubio, and Obama.... None are natural born citizens.
The natural born clause has been under attack for quite some time now. The question we need to ask ourselves is why two of our top three choices are not natural born citizens and why so many freepers seem bound and determined to drive the final nail in the natural born clause.
If you vote for Cruz or Rubio you are voting for the destruction of one of the finest safeguards to the highest office in the land. Do not kid yourselves, the founders would be ashamed.
The Hart-Celler Act concerned itself with immigration quotas:
The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that had structured American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants’ skills and family relationships with citizens or residents of the U.S. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, nor “special immigrants” (including those born in “independent” nations in the Western hemisphere; former citizens; ministers; employees of the U.S. government abroad).
If you need to see what the law is in effect for citizenship at birth and naturalization see the U.S. Code, that codifies all of the current laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
I am sorry, but you are making a common legal mistake. You are quoting from statue and not code. You see, one law is passed and then another and then another, etc. Often subsequent laws which have nothing to do with the original law modify the original law. And often these modifications are very selective.
Taken all together, statues, laws, acts, treaties, etc are known as US Code. In essence, USC is the “final” version after all edits.
What you need to be looking at is US Code Title 8 and it’s subsection. To answer your specific question about the law’s definitions, you would look to Title 8 Section 1101 - Definitions. In subsection A part (23) “naturalization” is an act that takes place ONLY after birth.
Further, under Title 8 Section 1401 - Nationals and Citizens at Birth; Sen Cruz was born a US citizen regardless of his location and inherited his US Citizenship from his US Citizen mother when he was born. He has never needed to be naturalized as he has always been a US citizen. He was naturally born a citizen as the circumstances of his birth qualified him as a US citizen at birth. Had he been born on US soil, subsection A of Title 8 section 1401 would have likewise qualified him as a US citizen at birth.
there is no ‘birthright citizenship’ in the US.
being on the soil does not grant citizenship... UNLESS, the parents are residents of the state and subject to its jurisdiction (ie: they could be called for jury duty).
MEANING ... anchor babies ARE NOT citizens, no matter how much the left insists they are.
doing just 1 minute of reading with 7th grade comprehension skills will prove what i’m saying is accurate.
JUST READ THE AMENDMENT
True as a general statement, but the only one that matters as far as citizenship status at birth is concerned is the one that was in effect at the time the child was born.
Today's Title 8 code has no more effect on Cruz that the 1790 Naturalization Act does.
Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and others are quite happy to benefit from the controversy of this issue; making sure it remains clear as mud in the eyes of the electorate. My respect for them equals their ‘respect’ for the Constitution. This issue alone would keep me from voting for any of them. . . ever.
Any interpretation of the law that distinguishes between the male parent and the female parent is going to be a complete non-starter today!
Of course, even ignoring that, generations were taught what a Natural Born Citizen was - until they had to stop teaching that to not hurt the feelings of the anchor babies.
Well, in keeping with Justice Scalia’s philosophy, what matters is what the words say. And the Constitution NOWHERE makes a distinction between male and female.
Washington is loaded with statues. Why doesn’t someone go around and collect quotations from them?
And I am sorry that you have no clue that NOT ALL of the US code has been enacted as "positive law". Title 8 of the US code is NOT positive law, it does not stand on its own as law, it is merely a compilation of the statutes at large that are the law.
http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml
Positive Law Titles vs. Non-Positive Law Titles
The Code is divided into titles according to subject matter. Some are called positive law titles and the rest are called non-positive law titles.
A positive law title of the Code is itself a Federal statute. A non-positive law title of the Code is an editorial compilation of Federal statutes. For example, Title 10, Armed Forces, is a positive law title because the title itself has been enacted by Congress. For the enacting provision of Title 10, see first section of the Act of August 10, 1956, ch. 1041 (70A Stat. 1). By contrast, Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, is a non-positive law title. Title 42 is comprised of many individually enacted Federal statutes––such as the Public Health Service Act and the Social Security Act––that have been editorially compiled and organized into the title, but the title itself has not been enacted.
The distinction is legally significant. Non-positive law titles are prima facie evidence of the law, but positive law titles constitute legal evidence of the law in all Federal and State courts (1 U.S.C. 204). ...
There are currently 27 positive law titles in the Code. Those titles are identified with an asterisk on the Search & Browse page. ... * This title has been enacted as positive law. However, any Appendix to this title has not been enacted as part of the title
Title 8, “Aliens & Nationality” is not one of the positive laws, therefore, we must go to the statutes at large to determine what the law actually says... same goes for Title 26, the tax code. It is the statutes at large that govern, not the code itself.
That was in response to Larry Klayman re Barack Obama.
Also true, yet -
Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.
James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791
Keeping Wilson's words in mind, the right of a woman to pass their citizenship down in a manner equal to the father could be considered an equitable expansion of the natural right.
---
On a side note, something I never understood the logic behind is the argument some people (not you) make saying Cruz's mother's citizenship is the only one that matters. Just because the mother can now pass their citizenship to their children doesn't negate the father's involvement in the matter.
So all Title 8 is, is a brief glimpse into the actual statutes at large that make up Title 8 of the US code, see... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3405786/posts?page=36#36
Unfortunately, for your point of view, the courts are not going to agree with you. That’s been their behavior for the past eight years, and will continue forward. The role of the Supreme Court will be to agree with the lower courts and that’s exactly what they will do.
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.