Posted on 04/15/2015 12:38:59 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
being an ‘automatic citizen’ (whatever the hell that is) does not qualify him as a natural born citizen.
if that were the case, then every anchor baby would also be eligible... which they are not.
the term ‘natural born’ was specifically added to insure two things, both discussed by the founders. they wanted to insure no split allegiances, at least by birth, for the person that assumes the office. the other was to insure no future king of England could become president.
if being an ‘automatic citizen’ was enough, the prince William and Kate could fly to NYC, have their child, and fly home. that child would be American due to being born on the soul, but also British and in line for the throne due to his parents. obviously, this is a situation the founders wanted to avoid. therefore, they added specific language to insure against it.
it’s really not that complicated... unless you’re just trying to ignore the requirement to get ‘your guy’ into office
“since he has alternatives, he cannot be a natural born citizen of either country. if he were born on a US base, which is US soil, then he’d be a natural born citizen.”
That is an incorrect statement. Birth abroad on a U.S. military installation or other U.S. Government installation, embassy, or consulate does not constitute birth on “US soil”. Please see:
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1100 ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY. 7 FAM 1110
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES. 7 FAM 1112 WHAT IS BIRTH “IN THE UNITED STATES”? a. INA 101(a)(38) (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(38)) provides that “the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.” [....] 7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF “IN THE UNITED STATES” [....] c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
(2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America. (See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol. 1, Sec. 466, Comment a and c (1987). See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
that’s interesting
i wonder when US bases and embassies lost their ‘US soil’ designation
“i wonder when US bases and embassies lost their ‘US soil’ designation”
They didn’t with respect to the Law of Nations provisions for the right of embassy, but there are some strict limitations to those rights of embassy being considered as the sovereign soil of the guest embassy. Among those limitations include a sovereign dominion over certain persons, especially those persons not having diplomatic immunity, and limitations upon the usage of their sovereign territory by an embassy. Military installations and their associated hospitals are particularly not entitled to diplomatic immunity, but in many cases are subject to a status of forces agreement between the host nation and the United States. A status of forces agreement can provide for a reservation of jurisdiction for some subject matter, but not for the determination of the sovereign powers of determining citizenship.
It must always be remembered that when a law talks about a subject A must be “considered as” subject B, it must be ‘considered as” because it actually is not and a special provision of a manmade, artificial, and unnatural law is required to cause the subject to be “considered as” and treated as if it actually was so despite not being so.
“Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen.”
Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on 22 December 1970, according to the Canadian birth certificate presented to the news media by U.S. Senator Cruz and other sources. He acquired Canadian native born citizenship at birth in accordance with Jus soli (the law of the soil) common-law customs and unnatural Canadian statutory law, so he was born as a Canadian citizen. He also acquired the right to claim Cuban citizenship by the legal principle of Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) granted through statute retroactively at birth due to his father’s Cuban citizenship, which is unnatural law, upon reaching his age of majority. He also MAY OR MAY NOT have been lawfully or unlawfully granted the right for his parents to claim U.S. citizenship for him by the legal principle of Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) granted through unnatural statute retroactively at birth due to his mother’s U.S. Cuban citizenship.
The fact that Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was born in a foreign nation, under foreign jurisdiction, and a Canadian citizen at birth by authority of unnatural statutory laws automatically and by definition disqualifies any possibility of his being a natural born citizen of the United States or any other sovereign nation through no fault whatsoever of his own. No person ever can be born a natural born citizen of any nation when the citizenship is acquired by a grant of citizenship through the authority of unnatural statutory law. Unnatural statutory law and natural law are contradictory and opposite terms. A natural born citizen acquires citizenship only through the authority of natural law, because the Nature of the birth allows only one possible citizenship and only one possible allegiance to only one possible sovereign in only one possible jurisdiction.
“He was an American citizen at birth due to the age and citizenship of his mother.”
Was Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz “an American citizen at birth”, or are we unable to presently exclude the possibility his parents’ claim to a statutory grant of U.S. citizenship retroactively at birth in Canada was a fraudulent claim? Let’s look at the currently available evidence for and against the claim of U.S. citizenship.
First, Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was not born in and under the jurisdiction of the United States and did not acquire U.S. citizenship by the authority of “Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship.”
Second, Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz did not acquire U.S. citizenship by the authority of Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the father’s citizenship; because his father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was not a U.S. citizen or a U.S. national. Rafael Bienvenido Cruz was born in Matanzas, Cuba in 1939, and he was a Cuban citizen from his birth until his naturalization as a U.S. citizen in 2005, thirty-five years after the birth of the child.
Third, Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz may or may not have “lawfully” acquired U.S. citizenship by the authority of Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the mother’s U.S. citizenship; because we cannot presently exclude the possibility his mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson, was not lawfully married at the time of birth. Reports have in indicated Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was previously married to Julia Anne Garza, and those same news media allegedly searched for and were unable to find a divorce record for that married couple. Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson is also reported to have been married previously with children. The news media have alleged a search for her divorce record also could not be found in the period of time prior to the birth of Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz. In the event that one or both parents had failed and/or been unable to obtain a divorce from their spouse/s before the birth of Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz, it would then be possible his U.S. citizen mother was unwed at the time of his birth, which in turn would reduce the amount of time the mother was allowed by law to remain not in residence in the United States before the birth of her son, Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz, from five years to only one year. In the event she was unwed and not resident in the United States for more than one calendar year, then the papers she and the father filed with the U.S. Consulate in Canada to claim U.S. citizenship would have been fraudulent and thereby the grant of U.S. citizenship would remain subject to revocation to this day.
Until and unless the necessary divorce, marriage, and immigration records are disclosed to exclude the possibility of illegitimacy, it will remain impossible for anyone in the general public to affirmatively determine by documentary records whether or not the U.S. citizenship granted to Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was lawful or an unlawful and fraudulent claim of U.S. citizenship by the parents.
Even if we could safely assume Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was lawfully entitled by the unnatural statutory law for U.S. immigration and naturalization to receive a grant of U.S. citizenship for birth while abroad from the jurisdiction of the United States, that would only make him a U.S. citizen and not a natural born citizen. Being a U.S. citizen and/or a native born U.S. citizen by authority of an unnatural statutory grant of citizenship is the opposite of and not synonymous with being a natural born citizen.
“One has to perform intellectual somersaults in order to assert otherwise.”
“Intellectual somersaults” is precisely what you are doing when you ignore the big obstacle in the room in the form of a natural born citizen being so simply because no statutory law was required to establish the acquisition of citizenship; whereas an unnatural born citizen requires a manmade, artificial, and therefore unnatural statutory law to acquire and to retain citizenship. The issue is as simple as it gets: citizenship acquired by the authority of statutory law is unnatural law and unnatural citizenship and/or unnatural born citizenship; whereas natural born citizenship is acquired by the natural law which is the opposite of and exclusionary of unnatural statutory law.
“The courts will affirm the fact that Cruz is an NBC. It’s a trivial legal exercise. There will be no doubt, despite any wishful thinking on the deniers’ parts.”
It is not as if the Federal judicial branch of the U.S. Government has not repeatedly committed gross violations of the U.S. Constitution on an annual basis. All one needs to do is look at how these Federal Courts have corrupted the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens along with numerous other parts of the Constitution and its Amendments. It is always “a trivial legal exercise” when the judiciary commits gross violations of the law, especially in a totalitarian dictatorship as exemplified in the Russian Federation, the Soviet Union, and the NAZI courts of Germany’s Third Reich to name just a few. In all such cases what is true, right, and valid remains in the right whether or not a corrupt government and a corrupt citizenry are willing to acknowledge it so.
“I don’t fear the left, or Yahoo, when it comes to Sen Cruz’ ability to know right from wrong.”
How are you with the ability of his father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, to know the difference between right and wrong? His father helped Fidel Castro and his Communists to deceive the U.S. Government into believing Fidel Castro and his men were fighting to establish a democratic republic even after he fled Cuba to become a Cuban citizen refugee in the United States and Canada. Do you think this father knew the difference between right and wrong when he participated in those acts? Do you suppose the parents knew the difference between right and wrong when they entered into marriages and then found it necessary to obtain divorces? How can Senator Cruz know the difference between right and wrong when he willfully ignores the obvious differences between unnatural born citizens and natural born citizens?
“This is so ridiculously settled, but you refuse to listen.”
That is exactly what Al Gore, the Clintons, Obama, and the rest of the Democrat-Communist menagerie have to say about the fraudulent Global Warming, Climate Change, Polar bears going extinct policy issues.
“Yes, he is the son of a US citizen. Case closed.”
Maybe he is and maybe he is not lawfully a U.S. citizen. You can help everyone determine whether or not the grant of U.S. citizenship was subsequent to a lawful or an unlawful claim of the child’s birth to a wed or unwed U.S. citizen mother resident in the United States longer than one year prior to the son’s birth.
Note, however, acquiring U.S. citizenship by grant of citizenship in accordance with U.S. statutory law regarding a jus sanguinis relationship with a U.S. citizen mother is the application of unnatural law to produce unnatural citizenship that is the exact opposite of and excludes any possibility of natural law and natural born citizenship.
Correct. And the vast majority of American conservatives, who stipulate to the above conditions which prevail in the Federal Judiciary, have reviewed the facts and concluded that Ted Cruz is indeed an NBC, under non-controversial judicial precedent.
So, is your position basically that even if the courts uphold the fact that Cruz is an NBC, you still won't accept the ruling based on the obvious fact that federal courts have been abusive in the past?
I guess that means that you won't accept the reality of the situation that Cruz is an NBC no matter what any court says. That's a very convenient rationalization.
Ted Cruz is an NBC, and the argument against him being one isn't even close.
So after your ludicrous notion has been repeatedly slapped down by US courts (and it WILL be) you can smugly conclude that it's all because of rampant corruption in the federal judiciary.
If that's not your stance, then please inform us under what scenario, if any, you would accept the fact that Ted Cruz is an NBC. Is there any such scenario? If not, then this discussion is pointless.
I, for one, am willing to accept the court's ruling in this instance, since it's obvious to most rational Americans that Ted Cruz was an American citizen at birth, and thus an NBC. He was never naturalized, and those two types of American citizenship are the only two that apply in this day and age.
Some people just get an idea in their head, and no matter how wrong-headed it is, they just can't let go of it.
IMHO, you are committing this error in the case of Ted Cruz. But, hey, I have an open mind. I will stand corrected should the Courts prove me wrong. Will you?
Or have you made up your mind to disagree no matter what?
Eventually, you will accept reality, and vote for Cruz. Or not. But he is an NBC, and only the lunatic fringe thinks otherwise, which is not the case in the other issues you cited wherein the federal courts have erred.
So have fun with your whimsical opinion regarding Ted Cruz's NBC status. Your self-marginalization has been duly noted.
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.