Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NYT GOES BIRTHER: ATTACKS 'CANADIAN-BORN' CRUZ, CALLS HIM 'MCCARTHYITE'
Big Journalism ^ | Feb 16 , 2013 | Tony Lee & Stephen K. Bannon

Posted on 02/17/2013 6:52:48 AM PST by SMGFan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 last
To: IMR 4350
"His father left Cuba when Casto came in so I don’t believe he would have still been considered a Cuban citizen and probably couldn’t pass Cuban citizenship to Ted."

If his father lost his Cuban citizenship simply by leaving the country (unlikely), and he hadn't been naturalized a US (or other) Citizen yet...he would have been considered a stateless person.

81 posted on 02/18/2013 10:03:36 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I may be wrong, but I believe Castro stripped those that left of their citizenship so they couldn’t come back. Didn’t want non commies to come back and start a revolution against him.

IIRC he did the same thing with the Marial (SP?) Boat Lift so they couldn’t be returned. Convenient way to have us take his criminals and mental cases.


82 posted on 02/18/2013 10:26:50 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350
"but I believe Castro stripped those that left of their citizenship so they couldn’t come back. "

A possibility, yes.

If true, his father would have been stateless until the time he naturalized in another country.

83 posted on 02/18/2013 10:41:09 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Do you know if Canada, at the time Ted was born, made you a citizen simply because you are born in Canada?

As far as I know the US is one if not the only country that makes you a citizen simply by being born in the country.

Even in this country it was never intended, it was the black robs that made it so.


84 posted on 02/18/2013 10:47:57 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; David; LucyT
You didn't answer the question, did you?

So there you have it.

You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?
85 posted on 02/21/2013 5:22:06 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

If Cruz wants to run for President, do you think he will face any serious legal challenge to his eligibility?

86 posted on 02/21/2013 5:30:35 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; Drew68; LucyT; rxsid; null and void; nutmeg
You didn't answer the question, did you?

So there you have it. ------------------------------------

No. He didn't.

But I have ducked an insightful proposition in rxsid's #80.

How exactly does a person become a citizen of the U S at birth? Who decides?

Easy to say the 14th Amendment makes everyone born in the US a citizen for all purposes which is how the Court will come down.

But born outside the US? The Constitution only specifically authorizes Congress (Article I, Section 8, the fourth clause) to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. . . ." For that matter, born inside the US prior to the 14th Amendment--what was the law? What is the current state of International Law on that topic?

Says rxsid, anybody born outside the US who needs to rely on the statute for citizenship at birth is effectively relying on a Naturalization proceeding because that is all Congress is authorized to provide for.

In no event, would such a person be Natural Born; in fact, it is going to be a struggle for anyone born outside the US without two citizen parents who are at the place of birth on an intermittent stay to ever be a citizen at birth.

The mother citizen statute on which Cruz would need to rely is a problem. It is probably unconstitutional because a person born to a married father and mother where the father was a citizen and the mother was not a citizen did not get automatic citizen at birth status.

More important, the argument set forth by the Congressional Research Service opinion in the last 14 pages of the opinion that a person born outside the US might be Natural Born is clearly bogus.

The Constitutional Bar has generally rejected that portion of the opinion on substantive grounds but I don't think anyone has really attacked it on a power's basis--the idea is that there aren't any facts that would fit Congress having the power to grant such citizenship other that the uniform rules of naturalization clause. No way could such a person be treated as Natural Born. Is that correct?

In the eyes of US law, those that become naturalized citizens by oath are not allowed to be dual citizens/nationals. Yet, a citizen at birth (naturalized or by 14th Amendment), can be a dual national and many here believe (unlike myself) that a "natural born Citizen" may also be a citizen of a foreign country.

Once you get to the point that the power comes from Section 8, the oath issue doesn't mean much to the Natural Born argument.

On the other hand, from a Constitutional Law point of view, there isn't any reason why a person, born in the US, who is a citizen under some rule adopted by some other country, would be treated as anything other than Natural Born. There isn't any jurisdictional reason the sovereign of that country would have any power over the person born in the US.

The sovereign of the second country has simply given the person the rights and privileges of a citizen; wouldn't burden his exercise of the power of chief executive of the US in any way I can see; nor do I see anywhere in the history that the founder's were ever worried about it.

rxsid is wrong about the dual citizenship argument. But he raises an interesting point about the powers that I don't see the answer to although I haven't done any research on the topic either.

87 posted on 02/21/2013 9:01:54 PM PST by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
lol, there you go again, implying that you are answering another question, but not really answering it.

So it's quire obvious that you have zer0 expertise on this subject.

Why do trolls answer questions with questions?
88 posted on 02/21/2013 9:47:21 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
OK, you want to know why I believe Cruz won't face any serious legal obstacles if he wants to run for president? Simple. The courts won't stand in his way. They have no interest in this stuff. A mountain of dismissed birther lawsuits against Obama should tell you as much.

Like I said before, the Senate will resolve that Cruz meets the definition of NBC and the courts won't touch it. There you go. Should be simple enough for you to understand.

89 posted on 02/22/2013 10:23:19 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson