Posted on 05/06/2013 7:09:31 AM PDT by Perdogg
Ted Cruz’s address at the annual South Carolina Republican Party dinner Friday helped feed growing speculation that the freshman senator from Texas is eyeing a run for the White House in 2016 — and raised yet another round of questions about his eligibility to serve in the Oval Office.
Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to an American-born mother and Cuban-born father, and was a citizen from birth — but that Canadian factor puts him in the company of other past candidates who have had their eligibility questioned because of the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Or just repeat yourself endlessly. (Argumentum ad nauseam ) This is the Jeff approach.
I notice you spend more time trying to ‘deconstruct’ the poster than you spend on his arguments.
Argumentum ad hominem.
Any person will lose his citizenship if he knowingly takes expatriating actions. In Bellei's case he had been informed verbally and in writing that he was in danger of forfiting he natural-born citizenship unless he complied with the laws that identified him as a NBC to begin with. He did not do that, and was aware of the consequences of his actions. His citizenship wasn't stripped from him so much as relinquished through his own actions and with full knowledge of the consequences.
Look, this is simple. A "natural citizen" could have spent his entire life abroad, and never lost his citizenship for failing to live here for a designated period.
Depends on under what conditions a person's NBC status was recognized.
And as a result of the 14th amendment, the Cable act, and the Citizenship act of 1934, some of that naturalization occurs at birth due by the operation of congressional statute.
You see, Congress passes some laws, and some people here claim those laws affected the circumstance of birth, and thereby magically transformed what would have previously been non natural citizens, into "natural" citizens.
They can't seem to grasp the notion that if manmade law is required, the citizens aren't natural, they are "naturalized."
A good point. When a child is born, and until it is much older, the child's allegiance is to it's family. It doesn't even comprehend the concept of "government" beyond that of it's father.
National allegiance is unknown at an early age, but paternal allegiance is understood quite quickly. As the twig is bent, the tree shall grow.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't GIVE me my natural right to keep and bear arms - it merely recognizes that natural right.
The 2nd Amendment is “man-made law”. The passing of the 2nd Amendment didn't transform my natural right into a statutory right.
American law everywhere says “born or naturalized” - not once does it make the outrageous claim that one is ‘naturalized at birth’ or ‘born and thus naturalized’.
Involving a case of State Citizenship, not Federal, also ignoring the fact that Madison said:
I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South-Carolina, so far as they can guide us, and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature so far as they are applicable to the present case.It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind, have obtained in some of the states; if such a law existed in South-Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general principles before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference drawn from such principles.
Doesn't quite work as well as the soundbite which you guys have seized upon, but his argument cannot be reduced to merely a soundbite. The word "Maxim" means "General Principle" by the way.
Madison goes on further to point out that William Smith has a Jus Sanguinus argument for being accepted as a Citizen of South Carolina.
Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
Had your soundbite been the deciding factor, nothing more needed to have been said. That Madison on for quite a ways indicates that they didn't just accept "born here" as the sole criteria.
No, there are two criteria - place and parentage. Sometimes it is one, sometimes the other and sometimes it is both. It is you who is claiming that it MUST be both.
That is incorrect.
Argumentum ad hominem.
A Cop to which I will plead. I have learned to have little respect for Jeff or his opinion. The final straw was when he intentionally left off the words of John Bingham which contradicted his argument. I can deal with honest disagreement, but intentionally omitting words which clarify the meaning? Not cool, and not honest.
Well then I guess we ARE ALL “naturalized” at birth by that criteria. Here is the “manmade” law that covers those who will be citizens of the United States at birth, and it covers EVERYONE who is a citizen at birth. It is not a case where “manmade” law covers only those who would be ‘naturalized at birth’ and those who are natural born citizens are NOT covered by the law - EVERYONE who is a citizen at birth is so under this law.......
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899
It was inaction.
Tell me how I can lose *MY* citizenship through inaction.
I'm listening.
The 2nd Amendment is “man-made law”. The passing of the 2nd Amendment didn't transform my natural right into a statutory right.
American law everywhere says “born or naturalized” - not once does it make the outrageous claim that one is ‘naturalized at birth’ or ‘born and thus naturalized’.
You engage in sophistic arguments; Splitting hairs and multiplying the meanings of words in attempts to render them meaningless.
Axiomatic facts do not have to be articulated. Had congress set the naturalization at 6 months instead of birth, the distinction would be comprehensible by you, but because congress set the boundary "at birth" you confuse it with being the same thing as "natural born."
You completely overlook that the characteristic of citizenship was completely at the discretion of congress, and they could have determined any time boundary they wished.
You are, in fact, guilty of the very offense you articulated above, the conflation of man made law with natural law. In this case, you apply man made law and claim it is the basis of natural law.
The creation of a man made law does not take away a natural right... Nor does it create one.
Not at all. I am perfectly content with it being parentage alone. (The System Most of the World Uses. Even England now uses it. ) One's parents can always be determined by an examination of the child, but one's place of birth? Not unless you already know it.
If you lack that information, you cannot tell if a child is an American or not. A rather silly conundrum, don't you think?
That is ridiculous and idiotic.
Our law should ALWAYS reflect our best understanding of natural law and principles, not be written to EXCLUDE natural law lest through operation of “manmade” law we render a natural law principle no longer so.
If your argument were true, those people you listed would have ALWAYS been citizens. The very fact that man made laws had to be passed to change them from exceptions to included indicates that something is seriously wrong with your theory.
And no, parentage is not always able to be determined any more than birth place. You find an orphan wandering the streets of NYC - who are his parents?
The premise is false and correct at the same time? I think I see your problem here.
but that if a “manmade” law confirms that natural right or principle then suddenly it is only through operation of a “manmade” law - and no longer a natural right or natural law principle.
That is ridiculous and idiotic.
Yes it is, but that's because you are misstating it. I believe this is called the "Straw Man Fallacy."
The man made laws are not confirming a natural right. They are creating a positive law that grants the same privileges as a "natural right." Once more, this is called "naturalization."
The Principle is exactly like that of Adoption. A Child who is not part of a family is adopted, and thereafter can claim the benefits of being part of that family, including the characteristic of name.
Birth to family = Natural born.
Adoption = Naturalized.
Adoption at birth = Naturalized.
Born in Family House = squatter.
Tell me you understand the difference between a natural born child and an adopted child.
.
Now apply the idea to citizenship.
Except when he was President, and explicitly rejected "place of birth" as being an acceptable proof of citizenship.
And no, parentage is not always able to be determined any more than birth place. You find an orphan wandering the streets of NYC - who are his parents?
I bet I can determine them better than you can determine his place of birth.
Why are the “manmade” laws confirming a natural law in one case but only creating “manmade” law in another? Based upon what YOU deem to be the operation of natural law and natural principles?
I say the operation of “manmade” law confirms the natural allegiance at birth due to natural law principles of place and/or parentage.
You say the operation of “manmade” law confirms natural law in some cases, and is only “naturalizing” in others.
If parentage is the criteria you prefer - why your opposition to Cruz who gets his citizenship at birth through the natural law principle of parentage?
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.