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

Skip to comments.

CRUZ releases birth certificate
Dallas Morning News ^ | 8-18-13 | Todd Gillman

Posted on 08/19/2013 6:05:19 AM PDT by praytell

WASHINGTON — Born in Canada to an American mother, Ted Cruz became an instant U.S. citizen. But under Canadian law, he also became a citizen of that country the moment he was born.

Unless the Texas Republican senator formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries, legal experts say.

That means he could assert the right to vote in Canada or even run for Parliament. On a lunch break from the U.S. Senate, he could head to the nearby embassy — the one flying a bright red maple leaf flag — pull out his Calgary, Alberta, birth certificate and obtain a passport.

(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: certificate; certifigate; coldcaseposse; congress; corruption; electionfraud; eligibility; govtabuse; mediabias; mikezullo; naturalborncanadian; naturalborncitizen; naturalborncuban; naturalbornsubject; obama; sheriffjoearpaio; teaparty; tedcruz; voterfraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last
To: 3D-JOY
Two citizen parents who is born in the USA was the law until all the abstractions of McCain and Obama

And it could be why McCain was 'chosen' despite his fall in the polls/no money; and then a sudden rise/money flowed in from where?

51 posted on 08/19/2013 8:24:49 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

Yes, same thing..........American mother, non American citizen father. Sen. Cruz is not eligible to be president.....JUST LIKE OBOOHOO!!!


52 posted on 08/19/2013 8:28:11 AM PDT by jch10 (The greatest threat to America is the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

And in accordance with the Constitution, the very first Congress pass the very first rules of naturalization in the naturalization act of 1790 which state that a natural born citizen is a citizen of US Parents regardless of where the child was born. This was later clarified (by Congress) to require only one US citizen parent who has lived in the US for the required number of years.

The Constitution specifically grants in Article 1 section 8 the power to Congress to make the rules of naturalization. That includes who requires naturalization and who does not.

Now I have quoted and cited specific constitutional authority, acts passed by our founding fathers and the law of the land. I can further site SCOTUS rulings and other legal precedent. What do you have to offer, other than merely your opinion?


53 posted on 08/19/2013 8:34:10 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Mr Cruz does NOT need to immigrate for the law to apply to him. Please read the whole of section 1401 and in specific subsection A which states that any person born on US soil is automatically a US citizen at birth. Theses are part of the rules of naturalization specifically as an enumerated power delegated to Congress in Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution.


54 posted on 08/19/2013 8:37:38 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Revel

Anyone who claims that Mr Cruz is a natural born citizen has read the Constitution (Article 1 section 8), the first acts of congress (Naturalization Act of 1790) and Title 8 section 1401 in it’s entirety. You know, law of the land stuff.

Now your turn to cite the constitution, laws of this land or even court rulings to support your position.


55 posted on 08/19/2013 8:41:04 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

“And in accordance with the Constitution, the very first Congress pass the very first rules of naturalization in the naturalization act of 1790 which state that a natural born citizen is a citizen of US Parents regardless of where the child was born”

And it was repealed 5 years later making your argument ‘Null & Void’.


56 posted on 08/19/2013 8:41:55 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401:
Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;


57 posted on 08/19/2013 8:48:05 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
Representative John Bingham, the father of the 14th Amendment who was well aware of the founders original intent defined a natural born Citizen as this: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Just wanted to repeat this for the sake of some here.

58 posted on 08/19/2013 9:02:54 AM PDT by bgill (This reply was mined before it was posted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
Has Obama renounced his Kenyan citizenship or Indonesian citizenship?

Even if he did renounce whatever foreign citizenship he has, he still wouldn't be a NBC.

59 posted on 08/19/2013 9:08:05 AM PDT by bgill (This reply was mined before it was posted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: praytell

“On that same day, Senator Claire McCASKILL, a Missouri democrat introduced a bill titled Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. Oddly, the bill was co-sponsored by both Senators Barack Hussein OBAMA II and Hillary Rodham CLINTON, both who were running against McCAIN at the time the bill was introduced. Despite the specificity of its title, the bill (SB 2678) was an attempt to change the legal definition of a natural born citizen as referenced by Article II, Section I, clause V of the U.S. Constitution, a move that by default, would arguably and preemptively take away any constitutional challenges against the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.

Although the bill failed to progress in the Senate, the same lawmakers introduced a non-binding resolution (Senate Resolution 511) on 10 April 2008 to again ostensibly recognize McCAIN as a “natural born citizen,” the resolution contained broad language that could be applied to OBAMA.”

McCaskill’s S.Res. 511


60 posted on 08/19/2013 9:08:34 AM PDT by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter; taxcontrol
“And in accordance with the Constitution, the very first Congress pass the very first rules of naturalization in the naturalization act of 1790 which state that a natural born citizen is a citizen of US Parents regardless of where the child was born” And it was repealed 5 years later making your argument ‘Null & Void’.

Now, you tell me, who knew more what "natural born citizen" meant when used in the Constitution, those who wrote that 1790 bill and the one who signed it, or you?

Remember, George Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention and many members of the Congress in 1790 had been part of bringing about the US Constitution. Remember that the Constitution was ratified in 1787, and the law of 1790 was only 3 years later.

They used "natural born citizen" in the 1790 law to describe the child born to US citizens who were overseas at the time of the child's birth. Who is right about the use of that term, them or you?

61 posted on 08/19/2013 9:15:45 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
I would argue that our side is the side that has following the rules as part of it's platform. Although, we do not always follow the rules.

Maybe if we did, we would be known as the side that always follows rules instead of the the "hypocritical" side.

62 posted on 08/19/2013 9:17:37 AM PDT by nitzy (You can avoid reality but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

They used to say I wuz crazy...

...but I showed ‘em

I SHOWED ‘EM ALL!!!!


63 posted on 08/19/2013 9:19:57 AM PDT by Mr. K (Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and then Democrat Talking Points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
One can be a citizen by place of birth or by bloodline. Cruz is a citizen by bloodline.

That discussion on bloodline is here in State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1131. Specifically, it says about the presidency:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.‖

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.

In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes

As you can see, the pamphlet concludes that a statuatory natural born citizen is not necessarily a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Note first that it does not say: "such a person is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

Note second that in arguing "not necessarily" that the pam recognizes that a counter-argument can forcefully be made that the person is a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Also note that saying "does not necessarily imply" indicates that the record does "seem to imply". Otherwise, the formulation "does not necessarily imply" would not be used. The forumulation would be: "does seem to imply that the citizen is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

The bottom line is that bloodline citizenship has been called "natural born citizenship" by no less than the Founding Congress and signed by President George Washington.

So, in short, the analysis is that the record “does seem to imply” that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency, although it “does not necessarily imply” that such is the case.

In sum, the weight of the debate is on the side of those who say that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency.


64 posted on 08/19/2013 9:22:13 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
One can be a citizen by place of birth or by bloodline. Cruz is a citizen by bloodline.

That discussion on bloodline is here in State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1131. Specifically, it says about the presidency:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.‖

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.

In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes

As you can see, the pamphlet concludes that a statuatory natural born citizen is not necessarily a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Note first that it does not say: "such a person is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

Note second that in arguing "not necessarily" that the pam recognizes that a counter-argument can forcefully be made that the person is a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Also note that saying "does not necessarily imply" indicates that the record does "seem to imply". Otherwise, the formulation "does not necessarily imply" would not be used. The forumulation would be: "does seem to imply that the citizen is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

The bottom line is that bloodline citizenship has been called "natural born citizenship" by no less than the Founding Congress and signed by President George Washington.

So, in short, the analysis is that the record “does seem to imply” that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency, although it “does not necessarily imply” that such is the case.

In sum, the weight of the debate is on the side of those who say that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency.


65 posted on 08/19/2013 9:22:24 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Revel
Have you ever wondered why it is that every candidate choice put before you is inherently flawed.

I noticed that in '08. If they'd gone strictly by the letter, The Boy Wonder's ticket would have been kicked out. McLame's too because technically he wasn't born on a US base although some claim US held the city of Colon. Nader's running mate, Gonzalez' mother was born a Mexican citizen so we'd have had a mess with that one heart beat away.

66 posted on 08/19/2013 9:24:22 AM PDT by bgill (This reply was mined before it was posted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Revel
Have you ever wondered why it is that every candidate choice put before you is inherently flawed

I noticed that in '08. The Boy Wonder wasn't in any shape or form eligible. Going strictly by the letter, which we should do, McLame wasn't either. He wasn't born on the US military base but in Colon although some wanted to let that slid. Nader's running mate, Gonzalez's mother was born a Mexican citizen which would have been a disaster with his "one heartbeat away". What are the odds of the top three tickets being at the very least questionable unless it was intentional. One is an oopsie. Two is a wake up call. Three is an outright concerted effort.

67 posted on 08/19/2013 9:32:20 AM PDT by bgill (This reply was mined before it was posted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Truth2012

Did you mean “renounced”?


68 posted on 08/19/2013 9:37:02 AM PDT by Churchill Gomez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: praytell

Citizenship rules in Canada are irrelevant if Canadian rules don’t follow natural law.


69 posted on 08/19/2013 9:39:54 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Bet he does...”release his college transcripts”

What Cruz really needs to release are records on how he financed his college education. This is the what Obama absolutely refuses to declassify, wonder why!

70 posted on 08/19/2013 9:46:28 AM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

I’m sure that you know the founders put a clause in the Constitution, making every citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of Constitution eligible to be President.

If you didn’t know that, read Article II. If you did know that, you should be ashamed for what you are trying to do.


71 posted on 08/19/2013 9:47:59 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

If Ted Cruz decides to run for the presidency and he’s the best conservative and strongest candidate running, I’ll be supporting him to the HILT!! FUBO!!


72 posted on 08/19/2013 9:55:01 AM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol; WhiskeyX
"Sorry but you are incorrect. Title 8 section 1401 subsection G clearly shows that Mr Cruz has US citizenship from birth. Thus he is a naturally born citizen and has never required naturalization."

Huh?

Congress has the Constitutional power to write laws to determine who may be a "natural born Citizen?"

Since when?

Please cite that authority in the Constitution.

73 posted on 08/19/2013 9:59:33 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

North American Union! Include Mexico and we need not have to worry about illegals. Invade and give the downtroden peons some rights! Kick out the 400 families that run everything and bring freedom to Mexico.


74 posted on 08/19/2013 10:08:29 AM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Like all laws, the U.S. Code is based on the constitution and, as we all know:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” — Minor v. Happersett (1874).


75 posted on 08/19/2013 10:11:45 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Loosen your obamaroid kneepads, obamaroid.


76 posted on 08/19/2013 10:13:19 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Cite the Constitutional authority that gives the Congress the power to write laws to determine who may be a “natural born Citizen.”


77 posted on 08/19/2013 10:21:39 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Since the Constitution states in Article 1 Section 8 as one of the powers of congress is to establish the rules of naturalization.


78 posted on 08/19/2013 10:26:10 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

It was replaced 5 years later by congress who further clarified the rules of naturalization as is their enumerated power.


79 posted on 08/19/2013 10:28:06 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: justlurking; WhiskeyX
"I am sure that you know..."

Well, you got that part correct. However, since you want to make shame a part of this dialog, lets look at the rest of your defective argument.

Article II: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...

My query expressly referred to a child sired by an Englishman at a point in time after adoption of the Constitution, for the sole purpose of avoiding the issue you try to raise (I was tempted to refer to the War of 1812 to underscore my point).

80 posted on 08/19/2013 10:33:28 AM PDT by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." This from a guy who never had a real job and his family starved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: justlurking; WhiskeyX
"I am sure that you know..."

Well, you got that part correct. However, since you want to make shame a part of this dialog, lets look at the rest of your defective argument.

Article II: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...

My query expressly referred to a child sired by an Englishman at a point in time after adoption of the Constitution, for the sole purpose of avoiding the issue you try to raise (I was tempted to refer to the War of 1812 to underscore my point).

81 posted on 08/19/2013 10:33:34 AM PDT by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." This from a guy who never had a real job and his family starved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
From the article:

"Unless the Texas Republican senator formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries, legal experts say.

That means he could assert the right to vote in Canada or even run for Parliament. On a lunch break from the U.S. Senate, he could head to the nearby embassy — the one flying a bright red maple leaf flag — pull out his Calgary, Alberta, birth certificate and obtain a passport.

“He’s a Canadian,” said Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, past chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section.

The circumstances of Cruz’s birth have fueled a simmering debate over his eligibility to run for president. Knowingly or not, dual citizenship is an apparent if inconvenient truth for the tea party firebrand, who shows every sign he’s angling for the White House.

He was born with dual citizenship, and therefore dual allegiance. He owed allegience to a foreign power until such time as he lost or renounced his born with foreign citizenship.

It could very well be, that Sen. Cruz is trying to take this issue to the national stage by getting the drive by media to talk about dual citizenship.

If he is sucessfully in doing that, he will be doing this country a great favor.

Because then, Obama's born with dual citizenship and therefore dual allegience owed comes in to question.

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

To which can now be added...

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY CANADA?

82 posted on 08/19/2013 10:34:14 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
"Since the Constitution states in Article 1 Section 8 as one of the powers of congress is to establish the rules of naturalization."

Think about what you just wrote. Which is correct.

Naturalization.

Do you think "naturalized" citizen = "natural born" citizen?

83 posted on 08/19/2013 10:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I’m supporting the eligibility of Senator Ted Cruz to be on the ballot in either the presidential or vice-presidential slot against Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat. In case you hadn’t noticed, Obama is ineligible to run in 2016.


84 posted on 08/19/2013 10:39:04 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: praytell

He should have described it as a “Presidential Candidate Standard Disclosure Package.” :)


85 posted on 08/19/2013 10:39:51 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY
And I've said this before:

I really doubt that what the framers had in mind was to make the children of soldiers serving in Germany ineligible.

There are a lot of kids born on US military bases to US citizen parents...and born in hospitals of foreign countries...and I really doubt the intentions of the framers was to say they couldn't one day be president.

86 posted on 08/19/2013 10:45:36 AM PDT by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Rules of naturalization means ALL RULES - including those who do need to be naturalized and those that don’t (natural born citizens). The first expression of that authority was the Naturalization Act of 1790 in which you will find the exact term “natural born citizen”.


87 posted on 08/19/2013 10:46:00 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: praytell

Cruz acquired citizenship derivatively through his US citizen parent by operation of law Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(a)(7), the citizenship was temporary and conditional, for citizenship to be retained actions must be taken per Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(b).

By operation of these statutes Cruz is in law “citizen”.

See 66 Stat. 163, 236

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/citation2.result.STATUTE.action?statute.volume=66&statute.pageNumber=163&publication=STATUTE


88 posted on 08/19/2013 10:46:39 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
"Rules of naturalization means ALL RULES - including those who do need to be naturalized and those that don’t (natural born citizens). The first expression of that authority was the Naturalization Act of 1790 in which you will find the exact term “natural born citizen”."

Naturalization rules apply to natural born Citizens?

You've got some twisted logic there.

Is the Nat Act of 1790 still in force?

Why did they repeal it 5 years later with that languange removed, if they had the authority?

89 posted on 08/19/2013 11:03:41 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Purpura & Moran v. Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo


90 posted on 08/19/2013 11:07:00 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Don’t forget the part about “being a free white person” - that must still be in force too, right?


91 posted on 08/19/2013 11:08:08 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Naturalization rules apply to natural born Citizens?

Technically, the Founders and their contemporaries were not natural born citizens. The United States did not exist when they were born.

92 posted on 08/19/2013 11:08:29 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I think Ted Cruz has secretly met with Mike Zullo of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse to discuss strategy on getting this issue to the forefront and the media is falling for it.


93 posted on 08/19/2013 11:11:08 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
This was later clarified (by Congress) to require only one US citizen parent who has lived in the US for the required number of years.

Clarified? Next thing we know they are gonna "clarify" 11 million illegals into "natural born citizens."

The Constitution specifically grants in Article 1 section 8 the power to Congress to make the rules of naturalization.

And once more, you are going to cite the power to "Naturalize" in an effort to prove that someone is a "natural citizen." ?

You are advocating a theory that leaves the meaning permanently open ended. In other words, it means whatever congress says it means. That is nonsense. It has a fixed meaning that was understood in 1787 and cannot be changed by Congress by passing a law.

94 posted on 08/19/2013 11:11:44 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

What’s the point of posting that New Jersey Administrative Law Judge’s opinion?


95 posted on 08/19/2013 11:14:40 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Technically, the Founders and their contemporaries were not natural born citizens. The United States did not exist when they were born. "

Of course. Which is why they grandfathered themselves in. Right? Otherwise, there would be no eligible citizens until 1811.

96 posted on 08/19/2013 11:17:00 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Technically, the Founders and their contemporaries were not natural born citizens. The United States did not exist when they were born. "

Of course. Which is why they grandfathered themselves in. Right? Otherwise, there would be no eligible citizens until 1811.

97 posted on 08/19/2013 11:17:03 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
The author lied to the readers. Ted Cruz DID NOT immediately become a U.S. citizen at birth. His parents or he had to APPLY to the U.S. Secretary of State for approval of a request to claim U.S. citizenship. Consequently, Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen upon approval of the U.S. State Department, and he is not a “naural born citizen” of the United States.

Sorry, but you are ABSOLUTELY AND CATEGORICALLY WRONG.

Persons born to US citizens abroad are United States citizens AT BIRTH, and before any documentation of the fact is ever issued. Just like persons born in the United States are citizens AT BIRTH and before they receive official documentation in the form of a birth certificate.

98 posted on 08/19/2013 11:17:17 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY
Two citizen parents who is born in the USA was the law until all the abstractions of McCain and Obama.

No, it wasn't.

It was never, ever, EVER the law in the United States, and to say it was is simply a lie.

There is not one single significant authority in the entire history of the United States who EVER said it required birth on US soil PLUS two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen or eligible to be President. NOT ONE.

The claim was made up out of whole cloth by birthers who didn't like Obama. Now the FALSE CLAIM is being turned against Ted Cruz.

99 posted on 08/19/2013 11:21:08 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

If you have to point to a positive (man-made) law or man-made regulation then that nullifies the ‘natural’ part of ‘natural born Citizen’ it would seem.

Puerto Ricans are actually US citizens ‘at birth’. But they are naturalized ‘at birth’ under collective naturalization. Since naturalized citizens are not natural born citizens it is obvious that just being a citizen AT birth is no a criteria for meeting Article II, Section 1 requirements.

Even some websites that specialize in visas and citizenship issues indicate that to be a citizen AT birth BOTH your parents must be US citizens.

See here:

http://www.visalawyergroup.com/frequently-asked-questions/naturalization

From above link:

“2. Who is born a United States citizen?

Generally, people are born U.S. citizens if they are born in the United States or if they are born to U.S. citizens:

By being born in the United States

If you were born in the United States (including, in most cases, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), you are an American citizen at birth (unless you were born to a foreign diplomat). Your birth certificate is proof of your citizenship.

Through birth abroad to TWO United States citizens

In most cases, you are a U.S. citizen if ALL of the following are true:

Both your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born; and
At least one of your parents lived in the United States at some point in their life.”

Notice the strong requirement that BOTH parents must be US citizens.

Such is not the case for Mr. Cruz.


100 posted on 08/19/2013 11:25:20 AM PDT by bluecat6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next 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