Check out # 226.
EO by 0 that sealed all his records....
Thanks, anonymous.
Posted on 03/23/2015 8:36:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Now that Ted Cruz is officially in the Presidential race, you may rest assured that some of the same people who considered it an insult of titanic proportions to even ask to see President Obama’s birth certificate will be kicking off a similar conversation regarding the Texas Senator. Because, you know… he’s a gosh darn foreigner. For the few of you who may have missed it, Cruz was born in Canada. His father was from Cuba but his mother was a US citizen. As our colleague Guy Benson explained over a year ago, this one isn’t even a question.
For the uninitiated, the Texas Senator and conservative stalwart was born in Calgary, Canada — prompting some to insist that he’s not a “natural born citizen” and is therefore ineligible for the presidency. But there are only two types of citizens under the law: Natural born Americans (from birth), and naturalized Americans, who undergo the legal process of becoming a US citizen. Cruz never experienced the latter proceedings because he didn’t need to; his mother was born and raised in Delaware, rendering Cruz an American citizen from the moment of his birth abroad. Meanwhile, Cruz hasn’t even indicated if he has any designs to pursue a White House run — he’s got his hands full in the United States Senate. National Review has more on this preposterous “debate:”
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.” Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen.
This was the same conversation that took place in 2007 and 2008 regarding John McCain. (McCain was born in Panama.) At the time, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama signed on to a simple resolution (along with the rest of the Senate) declaring that Senator McCain was “a natural born citizen” and eligible for the presidency. Given the current, rather toxic climate inside the beltway, I have to wonder if Ted Cruz will be offered the same consideration?
Perhaps a better question, though we’ve kicked this one around here before, is whether or not the Supreme Court will ever rule on this definition once and for all so we can just be done with it. True, we have some federal laws on the books which cover such things and they are frequently referenced when these discussions come up. And there’s absolutely nothing to indicate that this interpretation is any way unconstitutional.
And why would it be? The prevailing wisdom seems to at least have the benefit of sounding reasonable to the layman. Going back to the writing of the Constitution it was recognized that there are only two types of citizens recognized. You are either a citizen at the time of your birth or you become one later by going through the naturalization process. If we have to pick one of these two classes to be “natural born” it seems a rather easy choice.
But, yet again, that answer won’t be “permanent” (for lack of a better word) without the Supremes weighing in on it. And for that to happen, someone would have to challenge it. And that someone would have to have standing to even bring the challenge. You know… the more I think about it, maybe we should just stick with what we have now.
“the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.
The phrase “shall be considered as natural born Citizens” is a term of art which clearly states such children are being naturalized at birth to acquire rights which are comparable in most respects as those of actual natural born Citizens. The fact that these children born abroad were subject to residency requirements which were not applicable to natural born citizens clearly indicates such children born abroad were not natural born citizens.
thanks
“So? His mother was was a US Citizen when he was born, hence that made him a natural born citizen. Like it or not”
Winston Churchill’s mother was a U.S. citizen until she married her British husband. You have to know the Founding Fathers wrote the natural born citizen clause into the Constitution to keep people like Winston Churchill from serving as the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the president of the United States.
Ted Cruz was born with Canadian citizenship and the right to also claim Cuban citizenship. Why on Earth do you think the Founding Fathers put the natural born citizen clause into the Constitution to keep people born with foreign citizenship and foreign allegiance from being eligible for the Office of the President if not to disqualify people with British, Canadian, French, Indian, and/or Cuban citizenship? Do you think the natural born citizen clause was put into the Constitution as some form of null filler text?
*rme*
There was no residency requirement for children born overseas in the Naturalization Act of 1790. The requirements to be considered a natural born citizen, if born overseas, were having citizen parents and a FATHER who had been a resident in the United States.
There is also a residence requirement of 14 years in order to be president.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President, et., etc., .............”
Absent an unmistakably clear and universally accepted definition of “natural born citizen” being included or clearly cited in the Constitution, the issue has been rendered moot, in my opinion.
The End!!
You completely missed my point. That’s OK, I’ve decided to ignore the new Birthers.
“You completely missed my point.”
The point is that you made a conclusion that was based upon a patently false statement: “Yet, under current laws, illegal immigrants can sneak across the border and give birth and her child WOULD be eligible to run for president.” The actual fact is that current law does not make such a child eligible at all, despite political efforts to falsely pretend the laws should do so.
“That’s OK, I’ve decided to ignore the new Birthers.”
You use an insulting pejorative and then announce your intention to “ignore” the evidence refuting your false comments, which demonstrates there is little daylight to be discerned between your bad conduct and the bad conduct of the Liberals you claim to abhor. Congratulations.
“There was no residency requirement for children born overseas in the Naturalization Act of 1790.”
A person born abroad is born under the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign, which makes it impossible for the child to be a natural born citizen. The fact that a statutory is necessary for a child born abroad to be eligible to be considered as a natural born citizen is direct evidence the child is not and cannot be a natural born citizen.
“The requirements to be considered a natural born citizen, if born overseas, were having citizen parents and a FATHER who had been a resident in the United States.”
Yes, it is correct “to be considered a natural born citizen” is the direct evidence the child is not a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen does not require a manmade, artificial, and unnatural statutory law to grant the right to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth or additional burdens to retain the same such grant of citizenship at birth. The phrase “to be considered a natural born citizen” recognizes the child is not a natural born citizen and requires an unnatural statutory law to confer certain limited rights of a natural born citizen to a child who is not a natural born citizen.
“Absent an unmistakably clear and universally accepted definition of “natural born citizen” being included or clearly cited in the Constitution, the issue has been rendered moot, in my opinion.”
The definition of the term, natural born citizen, was “clear and universally accepted” at the time it was incorporated into the Constitution. The actions of 19th, 20th, and 21st Century politicians to deny the original definition for political purposes is unreasonable and unacceptable.
But you posted a quote from that "ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY" document yourself. It starts out by saying, "U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth." Those are the only two choices--there is no mention of "naturalization at birth." So there's no basis there for distinguishing between "citizen at birth" and "natural born citizen."
Then, later, it says, "All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth." So apparently, yes, such a child is eligible. You might not like it--I don't much like it--and it may not be what was ever intended, but that is in fact what current laws say.
“In the [constitutional] convention, it was objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place [the presidency]; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who should be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the office of President.”—George Bancroft, “History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent.”—1854
Who do you think George Washington would have preferred as his successor, foreign born on the Caribbean Island of Nevis and naturalized citizen Alexander Hamilton or Hamilton’s murderer, natural born citizen and third Vice President of the United States, Aaron Burr (who at the urging of Thomas Jefferson was tried for treason but was acquitted)?
I think you will find that in the year 2015 there are very few Americans who believe that a child (born of an American mother) who left a foreign land at age four, never to return and who lived the rest of his 44 years in the United States has any sort of allegiance to that foreign land.
That’s just silly and not worthy of conservative thought.
Its right there in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, a person only needed to be a CITIZEN at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to become president IF they had lived in the United States for fourteen years. Allegiance is developed over the course of a person’s life and is especially acquired with age and maturity. Newborns have no concept of nation or allegiance.
My point was refuting the claim that only a person born whithin the borders of the US is eligible to become President. This argument goes back to Hoover and has been proven wrong time and again.
I was using a ludicrious example to show the ridiculessness of the claims being made. I accept that you likely have more “technical” knowldege about the specific example, but it does not negate my point.
The point is that this discussion is nothing more than a “spurious distraction” being used to attack Conservatism, and by extension Conservatives! I am not going to be distracted by this crop of birther discussions. It is irrelevant and a waste of time and energy.
“My point was refuting the claim that only a person born whithin the borders of the US is eligible to become President.”
Your point is utterly wrong once again, and here are some of the reasons why. To be a natural born citizen requires by definition that the citizenship is acquired by the Law of Nature and not by the unnatural and artificial Law of Man. The word, “natural”, in the term “natural born citizen” refers to the Law of Nature as opposed to the Law of Man. The Law of Nature determines the child’s citizenship at birth because there are no other sovereigns who have a legal basis for claiming the allegiance of the child’s parents and the child at the time of the child’s birth within the sovereign domain of the one and only possible sovereign. Whenever a parent or the child is subject to the lawful jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign, the child’s conflicting dual allegiance at birth to a domestic sovereign and a foreign sovereign must be resolved and acquired by the application of unnatural manmade law granting citizenship, instead of the natural law inherent in the circumstances of birth under the jurisdiction of only one sovereign making the grant of citizenship by unnatural law unnecessary.
Since the birth of a child abroad results in the birth occurring within the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign, the legal allegiance and citizenship of the child at birth can be resolved and granted only by an unnatural act and law of Man. The Law of Nature can come into play in determining citizenship only when the child is born subject to only one sovereign and no other sovereign. The birth of a child abroad in a foreign sovereign’s jurisdiction can never constitute a natural born citizenship acquired by the effect of the Law of Nature. Consequently, “only a person born within the [jurisdiction] of the US” can be a natural born citizen if and when the parents are U.S. citizens who are also subject to the domestic sovereign’s jurisdiction.
“This argument goes back to Hoover and has been proven wrong time and again.”
Herbert Hoover was born in the United States with two U.S. citizen parents, so you are wrong yet again in making such a false statement. His mother was born as a British-Canadian citizen, but she acquired U.S. citizenship upon her marriage to Herbert Hoover’s father.
“I was using a ludicrious example to show the ridiculessness of the claims being made.”
Your example proved to be a “ludicrous” repetition of a bunch of obvious falsehoods and outright lies. After all, it certainly is not difficult by any means to see the Herbert Hoover was undeniably a natural born citizen insofar as he was born solely within the jurisdiction of the sovereign United States of America.
“I accept that you likely have more “technical” knowldege about the specific example, but it does not negate my point.”
In your dreams.
“The point is that this discussion is nothing more than a “spurious distraction” being used to attack Conservatism, and by extension Conservatives!”
A true conservative does not purposefully lie or knowingly and/or negligently propagate falsehoods as you are doing on this topic. If anyone is attacking “Conservatism” it would be yourself when you put imagined political expediency ahead of the law and personal integrity with respect to debasing the law instead of defending the law.
“I am not going to be distracted by this crop of birther discussions. It is irrelevant and a waste of time and energy.”
Every person is entitled to his or her own opinion, and we are free to treat your opinions and insulting “birther” remarks with the contempt they well deserve.
“In the [constitutional] convention, it was objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place [the presidency]; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who should be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the office of President.”—George Bancroft, “History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent.”—1854
So what? Everyone who was born in the future United States of America before the American Revolutionary War was born
in the jurisdiction of a British or other foreign sovereign. That is precisely why the Founding Fathers had to exempt themselves from the natural born citizen clause saying, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
“Who do you think George Washington would have preferred as his successor, foreign born on the Caribbean Island of Nevis and naturalized citizen Alexander Hamilton or Hamilton’s murderer, natural born citizen and third Vice President of the United States, Aaron Burr (who at the urging of Thomas Jefferson was tried for treason but was acquitted)?”
The question is irrelevant, because these men were all formerly subject to the jurisdiction of the British sovereign and were therefore of necessity exempted by the Constitution from the natural born citizen clause. Any person who was not already a citizen of the United States of America at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was made subject to the natural born citizen clause.
The point is when looking for original intent, conservative textualist and originalist judges and justices will look at the exact wording of Article II, Section 1 and they will see that the Framers took no issue with naturalized citizen foreigners becoming president as long as they had lived here for 14 years.
The real fear was newly arrived Europeans coming over and trying to return the new nation to a monarchy.
“I think you will find that in the year 2015 there are very few Americans who believe that a child (born of an American mother) who left a foreign land at age four, never to return and who lived the rest of his 44 years in the United States has any sort of allegiance to that foreign land.”
Conservatives are supposed to believe in the “rule of law” and not in the rule by diktat for political expediency, yet here you are arguing we must disregard the law and the Constitution because it is not politically expedient for you or those whom you would pretend to represent. If you don not like the “natural born citizens clause”, you are certainly free to secure the support of those people you talk about above to ratify an amendment to the Constitution removing the natural born citizen clause. In the meantime, perhaps you would care to demonstrate conservative values by defending the Constitution and its natural born citizen clause is currently written by the Founding Fathers.
“That’s just silly and not worthy of conservative thought.”
Conservative thought defends the “rule of law” and the natural born citizen clause until such time as an amendment to the Constitution is adopted by Congress and the ratifying States. What you are arguing for is nothing less than mob rule just like the Liberals, Progressives, and Communists you claim to be opposing as a conservative, but you are actually opposing as another outlaw political competitor instead.
“Its right there in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, a person only needed to be a CITIZEN at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to become president IF they had lived in the United States for fourteen years.”
Yes, it is. The Founding Fathers were not concerned enough about those persons who were citizens of the United States of America at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to restrict all persons from the Office of the President who were not born in the United Colonies as the children of colonial subjects. They were, however, concerned about those person who would be born afterwards, because it was such common practice in Europe to install foreigners as sovereigns over a nation of subjects. To impede any such attempts, the Founding Fathers used the natural born citizen clause to make such efforts too difficult to accomplish.
“Allegiance is developed over the course of a person’s life and is especially acquired with age and maturity. Newborns have no concept of nation or allegiance.”
Your statement is utterly wrong, because it was a matter of law in 1787 and long afterwards that Britain claimed and demanded the allegiance of every child born within the jurisdiction of the British Crown for life with no provision for expatriation without alienation of the territory. You really ought to know better than to put forward such a false statement as that.
I never said otherwise.
Check out # 226.
EO by 0 that sealed all his records....
Thanks, anonymous.
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.