Trey Gowdy Twists Natural Born Citizen Qualification to Support Marco Rubio

Freedom Outpost ^ | 12/19/2015 | Tim Brown

[thackney]

While I don't fully understand what you might mean,

I view the term "pure American" as another attempt to break down Americans into smaller groups. Claiming to be different than those "other Americans". I won't claim that.

"United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs."

Patrick Henry's Final Speech, March 4, 1799
http://www.patrickhenrycenter.com/Quotes.aspx

[GBA]

view the term "pure American" as another attempt to break down Americans into smaller groups. Claiming to be different than those "other Americans". I won't claim that.

I view it as a legal reality based upon the circumstances of your birth.

Therefore, I see the "pure American" that you're reacting to as a legal description, standard and reality honoring history, the Law and its meaning and intent.

Your mom's water could have broken while waiting for the naturalization procedure to start and she could have given birth to you moments after your parents took the oath of citizenship and you would be a "Pure" American.

What else would you be???

Based upon the citizenship you inherited at your birth, it was all American and nothing else.

That's the LEGAL baptism of the melting pot. I washes your past citizenship away and gives you a fresh American identity (citizenship) and a fresh, clean start.

I honor that, am not ashamed of it and do not see it as divisive. Divisive? How could it be? It is what legally makes the Unum out of E pluribus.

Interesting to me that we seem to be using the same words but our understanding and emotional reactions to them are very different.

Thank you for helping me with my confusion!

[thackney]

I’m an American. I’m happy with that distinction and do not want a qualifier.

Cheers!

[2pets]

I hope so.

The reason why those born a dual (or more) citizen are precluded from eligibility for POTUS via the natural born citizen clause is because the Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the foreign country has the valid legal right to assert their country's laws upon the born dual (or more) citizen individual at any time regardless of where they are, worldwide.

Prime example: the U.S. citizens impressed into service for the British Royal Navy in the early 19th century. Many if not most of those men were born in the U.S. to a parent (father, given the historical era) who had been a British subject at birth and were therefore dual citizens at birth. They were subject to British law even if they had never left the U.S. The UK has the legal international right to enforce their own laws on their own subjects/citizens, worldwide.

The US State Dept to this day warns about this very same problem afflicting any and all who were born dual citizens or later become dual citizens at some point in their life:

"Each country has its own nationality laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice.

...The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there."

http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-and-dual-nationality/dual-nationality.html

What happens when a foreign country similarly impresses a born dual citizen POTUS into service for them, as they most certainly would have the legal right to do under international law?

That's what the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid with the 'natural born citizen' requirement. They wanted POTUS to have no split, dual, or otherwise compromised/competing allegiance from birth to prevent that possibility.

Pretty simple, really. And extremely reasonable to require a POTUS and the Commander in Chief of our military to have 100% allegiance to the U.S. from birth, with no competing/conflicting foreign claims on his/her allegiance or service.

To be clear: the problem is conflicting/competing allegiance at birth via dual (or more) citizenship, and a foreign country's valid legal right according to international law to enforce its laws upon its own citizens/subjects, worldwide.

Renouncing a citizenship with which one is born is iffy. In times of war or conflict, that renunciation may not be recognized. That's what happened in the early 19th century to U.S. citizen men born in the U.S. to parents (fathers, given that historical era) who had been born British subjects before the U.S. gained independence. Even though those U.S.-born men had never stepped foot in England and had been U.S. citizens all their lives, the UK had the legal right under international law to impress them into service in the British Royal Navy because they were the progeny of those who had been born British subjects, and therefore were also British subjects themselves under British law.

That aside, it's shocking that so many are on board with ripping the Constitution to shreds on more than just this issue (e.g., at the very least, the First, Second, and Sixth Amendments are also currently under attack: publicly speaking critically of Muslims, gun controls/bans, No Fly list compiled without due process, etc.).

[Georgia Girl 2]

Yes we have been over this territory ad nauseum in 2012. Dredging it back up now is simply well, boring.

[JayGalt]

That is a strange way of parsing it. Since the country has been founded these 3 categories have existed. The only reason for the natural born designation was to attempt protect the US from a President/Vice President with foreign allegiance. No better no worse no purer no more American. Just American citizen parents. Pretty hard to see it as elitist or divisive.

[JayGalt]

Its so seductive however to think that if people understood the necessities and how ignoring the concepts had lead to BO and our downfall they might choose more wisely and elect representative that would clarify the standards so our Country would not face this situation again & again. The issue needs traction.

[GBA]

Okay. Merry Christmas!

[thackney]

Since the country has been founded these 3 categories have existed.

- - - - -

We don’t agree.

Cheers.

[2pets]

"Yes we have been over this territory ad nauseum in 2012. Dredging it back up now is simply well, boring."

Yes, I'm sure it has been discussed many times. But still to this day... look at how many people even here at FreeRepublic have no knowledge of any of what I posted whatsoever.

/shrug

[Yosemitest]

They will see that TED CRUZ STOOD WITH Jeff Sessions and Steve King,
while Marco Rubio stood with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemer !

TED CRUZ is by far, the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE we've got !

FACT: Cruz’s father’s Cuban nationality at the time of Cruz’s birth, is irrelevant, according to the law at that time,
just so long as he was a LEGAL Immigrant at the time of Ted Cruz's birth,
AND both of Ted Cruz's parents were legally married to each other.

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

The 14th Amendment IS a part of the U.S. Constitution and states in SECTION 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So, under that power to legislate, Congress legislated and the President signed into law:
When ONE parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national,
the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child,
with five of the years after the age of 14.

... While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,
amendments since 1952 HAVE ELIMINATED THESE REQUIREMENTS.

When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK".

They married, moved to Calgary, Alberta, and in late 1970 had their first and only child, Rafael Edward Cruz.
Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz.

Cruz's mother was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent.
Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School (1952) in the U.S., as well as Rice University (1956),
so clearly she meets the residency requirements.

Source

In 1957, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.
Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.

"Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father, "and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."

Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born.
His father went there after having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out.
He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen.
The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.

"I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."

The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 —
48 years after leaving Cuba.
Why did he take so long to do it?
"I don't know. I guess laziness, or — I don't know," he says.

So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
AND HOW Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

“Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.
... The U.S. Constitution allows only a “natural born” American citizen to serve as president.
Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Lets just talk about the race its frustrating enough. :-)

[Georgia Girl 2]

This issue has been trying to gain traction for 8 years. The Supreme Court is authorized to interpret the Constitution. They refuse to take up the matter. Will not do it. Admit they don’t want to do it. So until they decide otherwise its all moot.

The Congress wants nothing to do with it either so the issue is DOA.

[entropy12]

Trump is by far the strongest on how to re-negotiate the Trillion dollar foreign trade deficits EVERY YEAR. That is the prime reason better wage jobs have gone away for the vast middle class.

[entropy12]

Cruz has been pushing the cheap labor express. Listen to his speeches here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CwVrfydjOI&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHlGlNwsQb0

[entropy12]

I have noticed many Freepers turn faster than Jimmy John’s sandwich delivery. All it takes is one action, and then all past actions are ignored.