Posted on 03/31/2016 11:39:57 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Court ruled that Citizens of the United States At Birth and Natural Born Citizens are synonymous. That excludes naturalized citizens. There are about twenty other court decisions that have ruled the exact same way. No court has ever ruled that there is a difference between a Citizen of the United States at Birth and a Natural Born Citizen.
Your comment is perhaps to most rational statement in the entire eight years of the Birther arguments. Mind, it won't make them go away.
Unfortunately for you, the courts have not recognized your definitions, and they are the only ones that we have recognized to resolve such disputes. The Birthers are perfectly at will to rant on.
That's false, unless you find that "naturalized (Citizens of the United States At Birth)" and "natural born" have overlap.
See Rogers v. Bellei, citizen at birth, born abroad. Principles that apply to de-naturalization (the denaturalization of Bellei was upheld) run counter to the principles for expatriating a native-born citizen.
That's not the reason the courts and legislatures have "dummied up." There have been cases of lesser executive being found ineligible, and NONE of their official acts are rescinded. All are upheld on a the doctrine of "de facto officer," on the rationale that any attempt to unwind the official acts would create chaos.
The reason the courts and legislatures pretend this is settled in favor of McCain, Cruz, Obama, etc. is face saving, and the governing institutions view themselves as part of a globalist, anti-nationalist transition team.
Rogers v Bellei hinged on a congressionally imposed residence requirement and the statute on which that ruling was based was repealed in 1978.
Oh it most certainly is. A person born to foreign parents here illegally is now considered a natural born citizen, and that isn’t a threat. What the heck are you smoking, ingesting, or injecting?
Dismissed so the Dems can have at him.
You do know that discovery only pertains to documents that are in the possession of the other party in the suit, don’t you? What documents would Ted Cruz possess that would cause him to get “hammered?”
So what? An overarching point is that a person who SATISFIED the post residence requirement (as Cruz supposedly did on the residency requirement in the 1952 act) is still naturalized in the first place.
And see too, Miller v. Albright, a 1998 case; or Nguyen v. INS, a 2001 case. Those also involve a citizen at birth, by dint of Act of Congress.
I think one has to adopt the position Pellegrini did, that "naturalized" and "natural born" are not mutually exclusive. If Congress passes a law making any class of person a citizen at birth, that class of persons is NBC. So, today, a child born of aliens who are legal residents of the Virgin Islands or Guam are NBC. They are citizens at birth by Act of Congress.
He was born in 1970...
When I immigrated to the US in 1971 and in 1975 when I was naturalized into American citizenship dual citizenship was NOT accepted in the US...
a month before the ceremony I had to DENOUNCE my prior loyalty to my birth country, New Zealand, another British Commonwealth country as Canada was...
just as Cruz did 2 years ago..
I could not be an American citizen and a British citizen at the same time..
I could no longer use my New Zealand passport, the country of New Zealand did not recognize me as a subject or their responsibility and I had only my Alien Registration card, AKA green card, for legal documentation to allow me to reside in the US which meant for those 30 odd days I could not leave the country..I had no passport and wasn’t eligible as yet to apply for a US one..
all this was explained to me BEFORE I raised my right hand and swore that I was dissolving my connection to New Zealand..
I was now a woman without a country, a guest as yet of the US with the understanding and date that I would fulfill a connection to a new country, the US, at the upcoming naturalization ceremony...my status was American-to-be..
or on a pathway to citizenship /s
EVERYONE becoming an American citizen had to go through this process ...there was no dual citizenship..
give me a date when THIS changed..
I don't like that, but unfortunately that is specifically Constitutional since the ratification of the 14th Amendment. That's what happens when you amend the Constitution.
Courts have gone with the Supreme Court precedent established in 1884:
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.
Note that “citizens by birth” are contrasted to naturalized citizens, with the former eligible to be president.
The ruling in Elk v Wilkens went on to rule:
This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
True exit82, but not many appear interested in truth these days.
Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco and raised in California took a trip to China to visit his parent’s home. His parents were “Domiciled” residents. They probably would have naturalized had Chinese law permitted. The Supreme Court ruled, citing and quoting Minor v. Happersett for the definition of who were natural born citizens, that Wong Kim was not a citizen, but by the 14th Amendment, he was a naturalized citizen. That, if anyone cares, is law that has never been reversed. Obama, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley were naturalized and not natural born.
Cruz was only naturalized by U.S. code passed in the 1930s, making him a citizen at birth, even though he was not born on our soil. He was NATURALIZED at birth. Being natural born is being born on our soil to parents who were citizens at the time of birth, Minor v. Happersett, 1875, cited as precedent in Wong Kim Ark, 1798, and in Perkins v. Elg, 1939, and cited in dozens of other Supreme Court Cases.
Congress has only the authority to create naturalized citizens. U.S. code only once even mentioned natural born citizens, in the 1790 Naturalization Act, and it was entirely rescinded in 1795, signed by Washington and Madison. The term natural born in 1790 was replaced by the term “citizen”, under the authority granted Congress by the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8, “an Uniform Rule for Naturalization.”
State courts have invented all sorts of nonsense to support their candidate, Obama, and are doing the same here. Six months before he died Scalia noted that there were currently only two “originalists” on the court, himself and Justice Thomas. Now there is one. The USSC avoided the issue in 2010 in Kirchner v. Obama because the two Obama appointees voted on certiorari, even though they stood to lose their lifetime appointees had the case not resulted in the overturning of Minor v. Happersett, Perkins v. Elg, and even the 14th Amendment, since the 14th only created naturalized citizens, and would now, with subsequent U.S. Code, turn anchor babies into natural born citizens.
The popular phrase is “post Constitutional America”. We are there. We are no longer a nation based upon law. Law is anything the political class wants it to be. The polemic gets sillier and sillier. Every U.S. Senator signed Senate Resolution 511 in April 2008 confirming Judge Michael Chertoff’s testimony that a natural born citizen must be born to parents who are citizens. Dozens of Supreme Court Cases add the “Jus Soli”, requirement, born on our soil, as did Obama and Cruz’ constitutional law professor Larry Tribe in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Senate Res 511. With a strong presidency, our framers agreed without debate with John Jay and George Washington, who modified Hamilton’s first pass at eligibility and required a natural born citizen. Madison explained why there aren’t term definitions in the Constitution. The meanings of words change. Interpretation must be made using the language familiar to the framers of the Constitution.
Not true. There has been a progression of SCOTUS precedent since the 14th amendment was passed, and even the most recent of that does not reach the point you claim it does.
See the Slaughterhouse cases and Boyd v. State of Nebraska Thayer for cases that roughly track Bingham's construction of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Following that, see Wong Kim Ark, where the majority revised the construction of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to include persons who are legal residents of the US.
It wasn't until 1982's Plyler v. Doe (in particular, Brennan's FN 10) that the 14th amendment has been claimed to stand for the proposition you assert, that is, children of alien parents, in this country illegally, are citizens.
There are two issues that remain open, before getting to the conclusion that children born to illegal residents are NBC. First, one has to make them citizens, which is NOT what FN10 in Plyler does (FN10 gives them equal protection, also under the 14th), and there are other good arguments that the Plyler case does not necessarily stand for the proposition that the 14th amendment causes children born of illegal aliens to be citizens. Judge Posner mentioned some of his reasoning along these lines in a 2003 case.
The second issue, one that I doubt a Court or Congress would touch, because those institutions are part of the anti-nationalist/pro-globalist transition team, is whether the citizenship of the parents is a relevant inquiry for NBC purposes. In other words, the second issue is whether all native-born citizens are natural born citizens, without regard to the citizenship of the parents.
Its not unfortunate for me..its unfortunate for the country. We have courts that make up definitions and legislate from the bench. We are all under tyranny and that includes you. Now what are you going to do about it. Call people names?
Thats a plausible theory. Question is how do we get our Constitutional form of government back?
- born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction (Cruz admits he is not in here)
- naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction
Wong Kim Ark notes the same bifurcated nature of the 14th amendment.
You have not provided any citation (other than Pellegrini) that makes citizen-at-birth solely by Act of Congress anything other than a naturalized citizen.
“The first seven presidents not born in America agree. :)”
Yes, they were. And they were also specifically grandfathered in by the Constitution.
Good.
Can you get in touch with Cruz and tell him to release his citizenship documentation?
He could settle this in a second. Why won’t he? Does he have something to hide? Normally, when you try to hide something, you have something to hide.
You do know that discovery only pertains to documents that are in the possession of the other party in the suit, don’t you? What documents would Ted Cruz possess that would cause him to get “hammered?”
Well,...For starters, how about the release of Raphael’s US birth documents verifying that he is at least a US citizen. He sealed them, why? Have you seen a document confirming citizenship, other than Canadian? If so, please provide a link. A subpoena from the court to produce would confirm for one and all that he is at least eligible. However, once again, they are sealed,..why?..what does he have to hide? Something in those documents is incriminating, which is why he is lucky a real court hasn’t demanded discovery. He is begging for our money, our votes, and our trust, but refuses to confirm that he is even eligible...(Even that punk obama, coughed up a birth, (bogus) certificate).
Raphael’s shucking and jiving on this issue Is. Going. To Get. Him. Hammered...(if the poontang chronicles don’t get him first).
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.