Posted on 01/11/2016 8:19:23 AM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
great post!
“Bull. The first Congress was very clear that someone who was a citizen by means of birth was a natural-born citizen. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1790. That should put to rest any question of what “Natural-born†meant to our founding fathers.”
Bull yourself!
The SCOTUS has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereofâ€
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
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,
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
(A)ll 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.
Yet he can’t show where a Founding Father said this. This professor is a liberal.
Wong Kim Ark’s ruling was a matter of Statutory law: Congress at the time declined to confer citizenship at birth to children of citizens living overseas. But that didn’t mean that had they conferred citizenship, those children wouldn’t be considered natural-born citizens. The 1906 Dept. of State doubtlessly followed such statutory law, not the repealed 1790 law.
The 1795 law in no way redefines “natural born,” refers to any citizen at birth as “naturalized,” nor denies “natural born” status to anyone born a citizen. Nowhere in any statutory or case law is there any reference to anyone born a citizen being “naturalized.”
But it’s interesting that there’s one candidate that isn’t allowed to be vetted all. And the media certainly won’t go near vetting him.
Here are my thoughts on the matter of Cruz’s eligibility and those who are questioning it.
Full disclosure- I support Trump and Cruz. I am perfectly happy and willing to vote for either one of them or both.
Ted’s eligibility- As far as I am concerned. He’s good to go. He’s mother was a citizen at the time of his birth, so that, to me, means he was born an American citizen and is qualified.
However, that is just my opinion on the matter. My opinion is not law, and there are indeed people who do not agree with my opinion.
So, here’s my concern.
If Ted Cruz does not handle this or address the matter in such a way that squashes it, it could linger, and it could hurt him with people who are concerned about this.
I’m satisfied with his displaying of his mother’s birth certificate, but did that satisfy everyone? Obviously not.
Are the demonrats going to sue him over this? Yes, indeed they will, I have no doubt. I dunno if they will win, but they will certainly try.
Now as far as people like Mark Levin calling people who are concerned over this kooks and attacking form the left and stupid or whatever else he has been saying or is going to say.
Mistake. If someone is concerned about this, and you want their vote for Ted Cruz, you might have to address this issue in a satisfactory manner to them, otherwise might have to do without their vote. Trying to convince them that they are wrong by calling them names is not likely going to succeed in convincing them.
So, to wrap it up, I think leaving it out there to percolate in the nether could hurt him. Maybe it doesn’t, maybe it helps him, it’s hard for me to say. But I think it’s safe to say that leaving it unaddressed by a judge allows the issue to remain a factor one way or the other.
I don’t think the Happy Days jumping the shark response was a good one. Hit it out of the park, ted, or it’s going to stick around.
Just my two cents.
Not fully true. It depends on the year they were born, the age, and the residency status of the mother. If the mother didn't fulfill the requirements, no citizenship is transferred to the child at birth.
Under that same theory Donald Trump is a British citizen.
The law was superseded not the definition that the founding fathers intended that was in the law. Just because Allah mentions a cow and then it’s later superseded doesn’t mean that a cow isn’t the same thing.
You are a cow, Nick.
I didn't say it redefined it, I said it eliminated it
---
nor denies 'natural born' status to anyone born a citizen.
I never said it did that, either, I said with few exceptions, it LIMITED the amount of time natural born children could be born out of the jurisdiction of the United States.
---
Now I'll be happy to discuss anything I HAVE said, but discussing something you've decided I've said when I actually haven't is a waste of time.
“No it does not, if it does state that.. please give quotation. That a law is silent on an issue does NOT mean it says whatever the reader wants it to say instead.”
There is nothing silent about it whatsoever. The text YOU quoted clearly states the person is NOT a natural born citizen. it does so in two ways. First, it is a naturalization law. You cannot naturalize, meaning to make an alien into a person with the status of being considered as a citizen, a person who is already a natural born citizen by the authority of Nature and not statutory law. Second, “shall be considered as” is a legal term of art which means an alien who is not a citizen or a natural born citizen will be ACCEPTED as if the person was an actual citizen or an actual natural born citizen despite not actually having been born so. Third, the Constitution gave Congress the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, which is only the power to make aliens to be considered as citizens despite not being born as citizens. The Constitution did not give the Congress the power to give citizenship to natural born citizens, because that power comes from the operation of what the Constitution describes as natural law. So, the text you quoted plainly says any such person is NOT a natural born citizen.
Then, to quote Clara Peller, “Where’s the beef?”
After receiving his JD in 2000, he clerked for Judge Michael Boudin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and for Justice David Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yes but how can THIS be? Judge “Eddie Munster” Napolitano says Cruz is eligible without question.
I admit I had had my doubts as well as to Ted's eligibility -- my father was born in Scotland, and growing up he always reminded us that he could never be President.
Yash and GTH and all the rest of you stretch-til-you-snap rationalizers desperate to denigrate Cruz, here's how it is:
My dad was born to life-long citizens of Scotland IN Scotland. He came here as a toddler and, along with his parents and siblings, became a citizen. From earliest childhood, he was "American" in all respects and a patriot. But rightly, he could not be president.
If his mom or dad was an American citizen living in Scotland temporarily, he would have been born with a natural right to American citizenship, certainly when that temporarily removed parent returned to America permanently. That is, born to a parent who was born, raised, and American in all respects and only temporarily out-of-country.
Therefore, one should give the same benefit of doubt to Obama's mother, because she was the same in the spirit of it, if not the legally required years (she was too young for Obama to have qualified for NBC status, it seems to me, if he was born in Kenya). The true problem with Obama is that he was raised outside of America and for sure outside of "mainstream" America for much of his life. He is foreign to America.
That is a major difference between Obama and Cruz setting aside the numerical requirements, and it touches the very SPIRIT of the requirement.
Ted Cruz is a right, excellent, and legitimate candidate for President. Stop making excuses.
If your father or if THE father was not an American citizen, whether we go by English common law at the time or the law of nations, he would not be a natural born citizen, even if he was a naturalized citizen at birth.
Under the "current" system, we have foreign princes of other countries who would be eligible to be President. That just demonstrates how horribly wrong it is.
Perhaps Ted Cruz is smart enough to turn this negative attention into a political advantage. Think of all the free print space and air time he is getting.
I knew Lisa Halaby in DC the ‘70s(she went to a Northern Virginia private high school with a friend of mine), before she married Hussein—yes she was a rich American girl—young woman—at the time, and using the theory that “Cruz is ‘natural born’ because only his mother was a US citizen and the citizenship of the father is moot”—much like those who discounted that Obama’s supposed father? was “Kenyan-British” , the former Halaby’s (now ‘Queen Noor’) Jordanian children would be as “natural born “ as Obama or born with Canadian citizenship—now an uncontested fact, since he publicly ‘renounced’ it in 2014—Cruz.
I guess your attitude toward NBC—which Cruz himself in an interview while running for Senate said was “born in the US of two citizen parents”—depends if this time around it is your ox being gored....
Women couldn’t vote in Victorian England either. What you could and couldn’t do in Victorian England has no bearing on someone’s status in America today. Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen, deal with it.
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.