Posted on 02/18/2016 9:58:26 PM PST by TigerClaws
Provided that the citizen parent (that would be you, in the hypothetical you provided) AND your offspring born abroad under those circumstances met the residency requirements written within 8 U.S.C 1801.
Prior to the time window available for the offspring to meet the U.S. residency conditions, your offspring would of course be citizen of the United States, at birth according to the laws if the United States -- yet having derived their citizenship not from the laws, but from yourself under conditions stipulated by law.
To retain that status, in order to prevent there being citizens of the United States not raised as resident within the U.S., yet as "citizen" themselves and (thus conceivably at some later time able to pass on their own U.S. citizenship to those born overseas with no connection to the Nation's soil) Congress chose to legislate U.S. residency conditions which must be met --- of else children born to a citizen parent would LOSE the citizenship status they were born with.
It's as if -- the "naturally" a citizen jur soli component (of the soil, within the territory of) of qualification for citizenship at birth is recovered through returning residency (the parent returning to the U.S. with child, the child to a large degree raised within the U.S.) thus at all times the child be a citizen up until and following ever after when those residency requirement conditions have all been fulfilled.
“I explained what 320 was about.”
No, you did not, because your comments about it are nothing but false hogwash demonstrating your ignorance about it.
“Sorry you do not understand it, and cannot see that you are projecting upon that portion of code things which are not there.”
You are just inventing a lot of false allegations and false statements with absolutely no evidence to back it up in the form of the actual language of the law. I invited you to quote the exact words of the law which grant natural born citizenship to such a child, and you never have. You never will, because it does not exist. You are doing nothing more than spouting a lot of nonsensical phrases and sentences purporting to say something that does not exist in quotable law and are self contradicting. You refuse to face up to the fact such a child cannot be a natural born citizen while the Sections 301 and 320 of the Immigration and Naturalization of 1952 determine whether or not the child is to acquire U.S. citizenship. If the child were natural born, the laws granting U.S. citizenship to the child would be unnecessary.
“I already explained what is not there.”
No, you did not, because your statements about that are no more than fantasy fairy tale inventions with no basis in quotable law.
“Try to find what it is I was talking about and interact with that, rather than attempt to tell me that I do not understand, and then give me “any true scotsman” fallacy while talking about capacity of brain matter.”
Then explain to the audience why it was necessary for Congress to enact a law to make a child born abroad with one alien father and one U.S. citizen mother a U.S. citizen if as you claim it to be the child was already a natural born citizen of the U.S. It stands to reason no such law would have been written, much less enacted, if the child were born with natural born citizenship.
“The codes do stipulate that Cruz was a citizen at birth, there being no mention of persons born in the circumstances that he was, being in some other way ‘naturalized’.”
That is what you keep saying over and over again in blatant contradiction to the quoted statutory laws, such as the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Acts; the case law such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) whether or not the language was dicta does not invalidate its accuracy; Scott v. Sanford (1856) which was certainly not dicta; and so many other numerous legal citations. You are not debating or evidencing your claims. You are instead just talking around the subject with a lot of nonsensical false statements.
“We’ve been through this before, you and I.”
Not really, because you refuse to face up to the legal quotations that flatly refute your comments. When the critical quotation from United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is quoted and cited for you, you just wave your hand in the air and try to dismiss it as being irrelevant with the comment it is no more than dicta. Unfortunately for your argument it is dicta acknowledging the prior U.S. Supreme Court case and it conforms in other cases such as Scott v. Sanford in which the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly denied U.S. citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad. It does you no good to argue in response that the law has changed, because there never has been a U.S. statute granting natural born citizenship.
“And what came to light but that yourself (and others too who invented the line of argument you have been presenting) in order to make it work had to rely upon argument arising from reliance upon language within laws regarding citizenship AND immigration from decades (if not more than a full century) prior to those laws having been greatly altered.”
You keep trying the false tactic of portraying my evidence and argument as my own invention and/or the invention of others, when in fact these are the arguments of the legal authorities being reported in quotations from the sources, paraphrases from the sources, and reasonably accurate explanations of those sources. For example, the following legal definitions established the fact that naturalization laws are statutory laws, statutory laws are Positive Law, Positive Law and therefore statutory naturalization laws are in contradistinction to Natural Law, and natural born citizens are in contradistinction to Positive lw and therefore in contradistinction to naturalization laws and naturalized citizens. See:
Bouvier’s A Law Dictionary, STATUTE. A law established by the act of the legislative power. An act of the legislature. The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms necessary to constitute it the law of the state.
This word is used to designate the written law in contradistinction to the unwritten law. . . .
Bouvier’s A Law Dictionary, POSITIVE LAW. Law actually ordained or established, under human sanctions, as distinguished from the law of nature or natural law, which comprises those considerations of justice, right and universal expediency that are announced by the voice of reason or of revelation. Municipal law is chiefly, if not essentially, positive; while the law of nations has been deemed by many of the earlier writers as merely an application of the law of nations.
Bouvier’s A Law Dictionary, NATURAL LAW. The law of nature. The divine will, or the dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there is in any act, according to its suitableness to a reasonable nature. Sometimes used of the law of humans reason, in contradistinction to the revealed law, and sometimes of both, in contradistinction to positive law.
They are independent of any artificial connections, and differ from mere presumptions of law in this essential respect, that the latter depend on and are a branch of the particular system of jurisprudence to which they belong; but mere natural presumptions are derived wholly by means of the common experience of mankind, without the aid or control of any particular rule of law, but simply from the course of nature and the habits of society. These presumptions fall within the exclusive province of the jury, who are to pass upon the facts. 3 Bouvier, Inst. n. 3064; Greenleaf, Ev. Sec. 44.
“You simply cannot continue to import language from codification of laws -—which have been subjected to change-— as if those laws still read the same way.”
In fact I did no such ting, often noting for readers and you that the laws have been changed over time, which is why I made such a point of quoting the 1952 statutory law applicable to Ted Cruz when he was born on 22 December 1970. I also made a point of researching further to make sure the quoted sections were not repealed and retroactively applied to the date of Ted Cruz’s birth.
“Or else — we may as well go back all the way to the language in the original 1790 code.”
I did exactly that, tracing the evolution of the applicable laws all the way back to the Declaration of Independence on 2-4 July 1776, and then further on back to Rome, Hammurabi’s Code and the Bible. The Naturalization Act of 1790 explicitly indicated the child born abroad with a U.S. citizen acquired U.S. citizenship by naturalization, just as they now do in the 20th and 21st Centuries.
“The last time I mentioned that on another thread — you ran away.”
No, there you go again with the self congratulatory fantasies. First, I was busy working and driving across the state. My posts stop while I’m driving a vehicle. Secondly, when I was able to post again I stopped posting for awhile after 5 of 6 postings of the music were censored/deleted by the moderator. It is not uncommon for posts on this topic to be censored from time to time, so don’t expect these discussions to go forward unmolested and without interruption.
Finally, naturalization laws, meaning legislative acts, make artificial and unnatural citizens, and only natural law bestows natural born citizenship; because any citizenship granted by a legislative act is an unnatural citizenship by the definitions of the law dictionaries, customary law and case law as demonstrated by the above quotations and citations.
Again, who benefits?
How do you deal with WKA and Rogers v. Bellei, and a few other potentially relevant cases? i ask because you say you’ve researched this. If those cases don’t ring a bell, fine, just say so, and I’ll drop the subject with you.
Try this;
it is lengthy, but thorough.
Within the scope of what is covers, it blows the various assertions you persist repeating, right off the page.
And I'm only about half-way through with it.
But here, I returned to your last missive and this jumped out at me;
In another thread I dealt with what you call "legal quotations" and showed how those did not apply as they would need to in order to support your various assertions. Your replies there in return were to attack me personally, and reassert your the same claims that I had just gone to painstaking effort to demonstrate were erroneous.
“I guess Judge WX and you do not know that there are Senators in DC with dual citizenship papers as we sit here today. “
Apparently you failed to read and comprehend the part of the Public Law stating “A child born outside of the United States, one of whose parents at the time of the child’s birth was an alien and the other of whose parents then was and never thereafter ceased to be a citizen of the United States, shall, if such alien parent is naturalized, become a citizen of the United States. . . .” The father of Ted Cruz did not naturalize as a U.S. citizen until 2005, which is long after the 16 year age limit of Ted Cruz required by the statutory law.
“I guess yawl needs to tell them to clean their offices out because they are there illegally. LOL”
Yes, no member of Congress is supposed to have any foreign citizenship. At the time the Constitution was adopted, dual citizenship was not permitted, so the residency requirement argued by the authors to establish the means of excluding foreign influences among the members of Congress. The more recent move to tolerate dual citizenship among the general populace die to the U.S. Supreme Court does nothing to make an amendment to the Constitution to permit present day dual citizens to be members of Congress while dividing their allegiance between the United States and a foreign sovereign. By all rights, such dual citizens in Congress should be immediately removed.
November 12, 2014
Dual Citizens in Congress?
by L. Michael Hager
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/12/dual-citizens-in-congress/
And get dismissed at every level.
At lest the Ankeny suit was a state suit.
-- This is a state action on ballot access and states get to decide the rules for access to THEIR ballot. --
Most of the suits, even the Obama ones, were of this nature. But the Obama suits all were in the context of the general election.
-- It's coming from a completely different legal angle, and one which presents enormous threat to Cruz. --
I agree with you. The Cruz case is much easier to decide, and on the facts, Cruz is on thin ice. He prevails only by having the issue decided on procedural grounds.
No, then why bother with this discussion.
Cruz citizenship status is not the most pressing issue facing conservatives. That doesn't mean that I don't care about the Constitution, but I practice the concept of "abstraction" in software design terms, when dealing with complex issues.
I've researched it, read several legal opinions, and I'm confident Cruz will survive a legal challenge to his citizenship. On to other issues.
If you weren’t such a slow wit, you would already have read and noticed I dismissed William Jacobson and his article in Post 13. over the years I have repeatedly refuted his erroneous claims. I’m not going to waste my time repeating them again and here for a person to discourteous to even read the law, much less show any capability of understanding it. Furthermore, if you should get it into your head to suggest any more such pathetically bad sources, don’t. I’ve already studied and refuted them. I’ve been studying and writing on the subject of this Presidential eligibility issue ever since I was given an assignment to do so in the 1964 Presidential election and the controversy over Barry Goldwater’s citizenship. I certainly don’t need your kindergarten efforts at twisting the law into pretzels. Come back when you can acknowledge the U.S. Supreme Court statement: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
You said you'd researched it, and all I asked was whether your research included the Bellei and WKA cases. I take it from your reply that the answer to that is "no," you did not consider those cases.
-- After the case against Cruz is dismissed, or adjudicated in his favor, will you be satisfied? --
No. But I don't think it can be adjudicated in his favor, simultaneously following precedent. If the courts evade the issue, I will be disappointed but not surprised.
If it can happen to them, it could have happened to Obama.
Do you doubt that Cruz is covered by 301(a)(7)? If he's covered by Chapter 1, he can't be "naturalized again."
Question for the board...
I am having a debate on the meaning of natural born citizen on another forum, and a poster says his daughter is a natural born citizen of 2 countries?
Valid claim?
If that is the plan, it’s being played masterfully. It would explain why Cruz hasn’t simply disclosed what he needs to disclose in order to prove US citizenship and it could explain why the kabuki theater is being used, to build up tension so America is listening closely. But they don’t have much time to pull it off, and ultimately I think Cruz is the sacrificial lamb because he’ll lose votes while the issue is being heard.
But they both need to make sure that hole in our southern radar is closed before they do anything that scares Valerie Jarrett too much. And Trump needs to do whatever he can to neutralize the threat of Russia hacking the stock exchange to collapse the US economy too. There are so many things that could explode in our faces before the election that it’s like doing brain surgery, where any sudden or inaccurate move could cripple or kill the country.
I would REALLY like to believe that these 2 guys have the patriotism, the smarts, and the dedication to do this. I’m watching. Trump has admitted that he has standing. Could be that Trump has said some of the things he’s said lately so Cruz could catch up with him a bit for the kabuki theater part, and the Cruz ads could be intended to give the appearance of goading Trump - just like a WWE match. I’d like to believe that; it would make sense out of a lot of things. Trump now says he knows he has standing to sue, and he’s threatened to sue if Cruz keeps pounding with the ads, Cruz has mocked his cease-and-desist order and said he will double up. So it sounds like the stage is being set. I’m watching.
But that hole in our radar defense HAS to be fixed, and I’d feel better if it was done first.
Meaningless. Things that are self-evident to one world view can be ridiculous to another. Two cultures can have opposite assumptions about the same situation. Modern legal practice has to pick one and ignore the other, or perhaps accept some other view entirely.
Okay.
But it still smells funny.
Both Cruz and Rubio are both potentially vulnerable to the attack right now, and Obama was in the last two elections.
They'll attack Cruz but not Rubio, and they'll do it to him now when they could have done it to Obama then, but didn't.
Why?
I gave you some of my speculation on the vague "why" question, but another reason the challenges are coming earlier is that interested plaintiff's learned from the Obama challenge experience. Courts stated why the courts would not entertain the cases, and some plaintiffs adapted.
As to why Cruz and not Rubio (or Obama), the legal argument against a person born abroad is much easier to make, and rests on thousands of precedents, all of which are uniform on the subject. The Rubio and Obama cases are more difficult, in light of WKA and Plyler.
Apparently they didn't learn very fast. The first challenges were in 2004, but they're just now figuring it out.
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.