Posted on 03/09/2016 6:42:13 AM PST by CodeJockey
Yes, but that doesn’t make non-US soil. It is still a territory of the US.
It’s better than your cite, which is ZERO.
The State Dept must have been cranking them out. Ours took about 2 months, 13 and 11 years ago. Then we had to apply for the passports, which took even longer. The difference was probably pre-9/11 vs. post 9/11.
It is a territory of the US, yes, but it is not a state, and so a person born in Puerto Rico is not "born in the US" for 14th amendment purposes.
“I have some form declaring my citizenship at that date.”
There is no double standard here. You were a US citizen from birth. You never had to file a petition for citizenship or become naturalized. You simply have a document to confirm your natural citizenship because your place of birth or the status of your parents might cause confusion. So having the confirmation is a handy thing to have to cut through the red tape, but it doesn’t change a thing about your citizenship status.
The problem for Cuz is not so much the location of his birth or even the status of his father, but rather confirming the US citizenship status of his mother, which some have questioned.
So Puerto Rico isn’t the jurisdiction of the United States of America?
For Cruz to NOT be a natural born citizen, there has to be a third category, not naturalized (because he was definitely a citizen at birth and not naturalized) and yet not natural-born.
Some here have tried to make the case for "naturalized at birth", but it hasn't been convincing, especially since U.S. law defines naturalization as "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever."
NBC=Citizen at birth (unless you can provide convincing evidence to the contrary, which I doubt.) Cruz was a citizen of the U.S. at birth. Whether or not Canada also recognized him as a citizen is irrelevant to U.S. law.
It’s call the ‘three stool’ theory, which explains how and why...and because he is the ‘establishment’ most consistent conservative and knows the constitution because he has spent his whole life defending, sure is funny he can’t explain this...
SEC. 302. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11,1899, and prior to January 13,1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13,1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941.
All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.
I have seen several posts here that McCain was born in a hospital that was outside the canal zone.
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Brief Summary of Rogers v. Bellei: 01/16/2016 6:14:49 PM
See too, Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)
It is, as much as Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Panama Canal Zone are. Persons born in those locales are made US citizens solely by the operation of statute. Person born there are not considered "born in the US."
Sound like a steaming pile of "stool" if you ask me. He can't explain it because it doesn't exist because you just made it up.
Your original post clearly said there are only two categories of citizens: natural-born and naturalized. I agreed with you and pointed out the fact that under U.S. law Cruz is not naturalized. That only leaves one legitimate option left.
Way too much stuff for me to respond to.
I made my points, you made yours. We can argue this all day long and get nowhere concerning what scholars and courts have said or not said about this.
I will admit that precedence in the subject matter of Natural Born Citizen is inconclusive because SCOTUS has never faced a case involving eligibility of a presidential candidate... and it continues to evade the responsibility. We have Thomas himself on video pretty much admitting that SCOTUS evaded the issue during Obama’s 1st run.
There is clearly a difference between Natural Born and Naturalized. The latter is by act of congress. The former is historically and globally considered automatic.
There are those who hold to the “born within jurisdiction” position, and those who hold to the “birthright by inheritance” position in defining natural born.
Considering how concerned our founding fathers were about preventing foreign usurpation of the office, I’m sure they would not have hesitated to clarify their understanding of the term, and would have demanded both sets of criteria to be applied.
Once we get away from examining original intent, and instead focus on semantics, our laws become meaningless in the face of overwhelming opposition.
Anyone who wishes to argue that Obama is NOT exactly what our founding fathers were trying to prevent has no business here on FR.
Running our own version of Obama into the same office regardless of his true loyalties does not help our nation’s condition of being 8 years into a constitutional crisis.
An unenforced law is a meaningless one... and our enemies know this.
Happersett and Wong both seem to use NBC and citizen at birth interchangeably, and contrast the terms with the phrase "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners", which Cruz, being a citizen at birth, was not.
You’ve already seen it so why post it again.
>>> I have seen several posts here that McCain was born in a hospital that was outside the canal zone.
yeah... well arguing about McCain’s viability was not the issue. According to the Senate, he was born on US soil.
Whether he was or not does not matter. The birthplace test was applied.
My point was that the Senate applied BOTH sets of criteria (place of birth and TWO citizen parents) when determining whether or not McCain was a natural born citizen.
So... if SCOTUS were to rule on this, can you forsee them contradicting the definition that congress applied in 2008???
What happens when the dems challenge Cruz on eligibility this year after he gets the nomination???
Won’t the senate apply the same test?
McCain had 2 citizen parents and a shaky position on birthplace.
Cruz has 1 citizen parent and a clearly out of bounds place of birth.
the constitution does not define natural born citizen.
if you recognize the right of congress to declare that military bases/embassies overseas are ‘American Soil’ and that the children of foreign serving diplomats are NBC’s then it would follow that congress is also allowed to define what a natural born citizen is without amending the constitution.
I point to WKA because it cites several different instances of common law. It summarizes the effect in the US ...
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
"never descends" is a reference to jus sanguinis, where citizenship descends through the blood.
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.