Posted on 08/27/2013 2:27:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
“””“NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES”
I believe this phrase has been generally defined by the courts as excluding only those with diplomatic immunity”””
How did that ever come about? Does a Brit born in the U.S. not owe allegiance to the U.K.? Does a child born abroad to U.S. citizens not owe allegiance to the U.S.?
“””Anybody else in this country is subject to its jurisdiction, as they will quickly find out if caught in criminality.”””
Does that mean it’s okay if a U.S. citizen goes to China to commit treason against the U.S.? Is it then not a crime because it wasn’t committed within U.S. jurisdiction? Can said U.S. citizen then return to the U.S. free and clear of all criminal prosecution because the illegal act didn’t occur on U.S. soil?
I’m stopped from accepting the courts’ supposed definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” by the VERY deliberate “NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE” 14th Amendment clarification made by Trumbull himself in the Congressional Record.
You KNOW Bayard's writing was not intended for legal purposes , was a historical book for use in 'the education of youths'
You KNOW the 'authorities' you quote to imply they approved of what he said actually only approved of the project itself. {See above link}
AND you KNOW that Bayard was quoting the 1790 Naturalization Act, not giving his legal opinion of the current definition for his time, because it has been brought to your attention by more than one poster.
---------
Yet here you are, hopping from thread to thread, spreading your drek and spouting 'facts' without sources.
No wonder you've become such a laughing stock.
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—nothing more, nothing less." - Humpty Dumpty
Statements of intent made during debate on the floor of Congress are interesting, but are not definitive as to the meaning of a law.
Judicial decisions applying that law, OTOH, are definitive.
As I said, I’m not at all sure the courts have interpreted 14A properly. I am sure, however, that precedent supports the position I outlined.
I also don’t think Roe v Wade interpreted the Constitution properly. But my opinion is rather comprehensively irrelevant.
Under our system the Supremes decide what the Constitution means, until overruled by an amendment or by Congress restricting their jurisdiction.
You and I can disagree if we like, but our disagreement will have zero effect.
“Citizenship which comes from a Congressional law *IS* naturalization.”
^ - This.
Yes, it really is that simple folks.
Congress’s Constitutionally defined role as defined in Article 1, Section 8 is solely dealing with naturalization laws and rules.
This is why so many involuntary expatriation laws that deal with natural citizens have been struck down. Congress can set conditions and requirements for naturalized citizens. And that included those born to a single American parent. Up until 1978 a person with with the attributes of Cruz and Cruz himself had a residency requirement. And the court supported this in 1971 as part of Congress’s role in setting requirements - for NATURALIZED citizens, not NATURAL citizens.
“””Statements of intent made during debate on the floor of Congress are interesting, but are not definitive as to the meaning of a law.
Judicial decisions applying that law, OTOH, are definitive.”””
I’m asking how the courts’ supposed definition came about. Does a Brit born in the U.S. not owe allegiance to the U.K.? Does a child born abroad to U.S. citizens not owe allegiance to the U.S.?
Will the courts similarly rule that it’s okay if a U.S. citizen goes to China to commit treason against the U.S.? That it’s not a crime because it wasn’t committed within U.S. jurisdiction? Will the courts rule that said U.S. citizen can return to the U.S. free and clear of all criminal prosecution because the illegal act didn’t occur on U.S. soil?
Congress still has the power to revoke their citizenship by passing another statute. Granted, that is likely an impossibility in today's world, but I am struggling to get past that point. Congress cannot strip 14th Amendment citizens of their citizenship without their consent.
Neither do I... I’m just arguing the facts here. Cruz is born outside of the US. That should make him ineligible. That doesn’t make him a bad man.
Under present law in the two countries, I believe he has dual citizenship. Unless one of his parents has diplomatic immunity.
Does a child born abroad to U.S. citizens not owe allegiance to the U.S.?
Well, there's a pretty prominent example in history. W. Churchill. Mom was an American citizen, Dad a Brit politician. He had dual citizenship till he was 21, when he had to choose one or the other. If Cruz is eligible to be President, then presumably Winnie would have been had he chosen to be an American.
Will the courts similarly rule that it’s okay if a U.S. citizen goes to China to commit treason against the U.S.? That it’s not a crime because it wasn’t committed within U.S. jurisdiction? Will the courts rule that said U.S. citizen can return to the U.S. free and clear of all criminal prosecution because the illegal act didn’t occur on U.S. soil?
I think you're mixing up issues that have nothing to do with inheritance of citizenship. But I'm no lawyer, and I'll leave it to those who are to answer your questions.
FWIW, you’re welcome.
Agreed.
Exactly. The Founders gave the authority of Naturalization to the federal organ, but natural born citizenship is a product of Natural Law, which Mankind cannot affect.
Whenever I see posters say 'we need the Supreme Court to give us a definition of natural born!' I just....... cringe.
“””Under present law in the two countries, I believe he has dual citizenship. Unless one of his parents has diplomatic immunity.”””
So when does one country’s jurisdiction end and the other’s begin? Or is such a person with conflicting allegiances also subject to conflicting jurisdictions and conflicting laws which may or may not be adverse to one of the countries involved?
“””I think you’re mixing up issues that have nothing to do with inheritance of citizenship.”””
No, it’s a question of jurisdiction. How is a matter resolved when there is an issue of countries’ conflicting jurisdictions?
IMHO, we need a definitive SCOTUS decision on whether or not statutory citizens at birth are NBC under the meaning of the Constitution.
Clearly, the Constitution grants Congress the power to decide which individuals must be naturalized in order to acquire U.S. citizenship. The question in my mind then, is does that power include the right to decide that certain individuals do not require naturalization because they were born citizens?
Why?
Do you really want someone who’s a Syrian national for the first 20 years of his life, trained by the Muslim Brotherhood, comes to America illegally - marries an American woman and then gets citizenship.
Say the brotherhood gives them money and then they buy a house. He resides in the house - runs for the HOR, then the Senate when he’s 40.
Wins the presidency.
Is this really what you want?
Countries by treaty have reciprocal recognition of their naturalization laws.
The international status of a foreign born child of a US citizen may differ depending upon treaty.
That person may visit a country with which the US has secured by treaty reciprocal naturalization understandings without fear of claims upon him by the foreign country.
That same person may visit a country with which the US has not secured by treaty reciprocal naturalization understandings but at the risk of claims upon him by the foreign country.
While this person’s domestic status is the same, his international status depends upon treaty.
A “natural born citizen” - a person born within the US with parental US citizenship - has no such risk. His domestic and international status is always the same, without any dependency upon law or treaty, no other nation may make any claim upon this person.
Can a person who’s international status is dependent upon law or treaty be said to be a “natural born citizen”?
I've been arguing that point here since 2008, 4 years before you even signed up.
So what? Congress can pass laws as to granting cititzenship or anything else as it sees fit. They can pin a medal on a soldier's chest and call him a hero. The medal doesn't make him a hero. His actions in battle do that. And a lack of a medal from congress doesn't make that soldier a coward.
The Constitution says; "natural born citizen". I say Cruz is one. You say he's not. But neither you nor I nor congress gets to define the term. SCOTUS has that job. So, let them rule on it. AFAIAK, until they say NO, it's YES.
I hope he runs.
So why then are you hassling me?
I'm glad to see this finally pointed out. The residency requirement was repealed Oct. 10, 1978, by Pub. L. 95–432
The 1952 Act, Pub. L. 82-414, has been amended a number of times.
| Pub. L. 82-414 | June 27, 1952 | 66 Stat. 235 |
| Pub. L. 89–770 | Nov. 6, 1966 | 80 Stat. 1322 |
| Pub. L. 92–584 | Oct. 27, 1972 | 86 Stat. 1289 |
| Pub. L. 95–432 | Oct. 10, 1978 | 92 Stat. 1046 |
| Pub. L. 99–653, § 12 | Nov. 14, 1986 | 100 Stat. 3657 |
| Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(a) | Oct. 25, 1994 | 108 Stat. 4306 |
If there is an amendment missing or some other inaccuracy or deficiency please let me know.
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.