Posted on 05/01/2015 4:17:31 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
American citizenship as a birthright has recently become a prominent issue in the ongoing immigration debate, and congressional leaders sought answers during a hearing Wednesday.
The House Judiciary Committee called upon legal experts to discuss whether the U.S. Constitution actually allows children born in the United States to be citizens, even if their parents are illegal immigrants. Under the Citizenship Clause, which falls under the Fourteenth Amendment, people born within the country or its territories are automatically granted citizenship
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Well, well, well. Had enough, have they?
In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth [20]. Consequently, the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen father cannot be a natural born citizen [41].
Thus, the modern-day consensus opinion (that birthplace alone confers natural born citizenship), though widely held, appears to be an assumption, not settled law or established fact.
Uhm...I said this before.
I was condemned for it because it didn’t match the opinion of others concerning Cruz.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t but I could have made a more convincing case than what is reported here. This is the most trivial of glosses on this subject I have ever read.
For all legal purposes illegal aliens should be considered temporary transients and not residents, and thus not being subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Their children would therefore not be natural born citizens.
Ditto that.
This is not going to be a Cruz-NBC thread. It’s a discussion of 14A citizenship to children of illegals born on U.S soil. Keep it within bounds. Thank you.
I meant to say “please.” Apologies!
That part of the BOR was put in place for a specific purpose whose time has long since come and gone. It has been thoroughly abused to it’s limit.
Cruz’s father had no citizenship to any country that I’m aware of at the time of Ted’s birth.
Castro had stripped any dissenter of Cuban citizenship.
What country was Cruz’s father a citizen of?
Only through convoluted logic and a total distortion of the 14th amendment could one conclude that an illegal alien non-citizen could miraculously confer legal citizenship to an individual simply by giving birth to that individual on American soil. But then there seems to be a lot of convolution and distortion going on these days.
Well, to be fair, there were no “illegal aliens” when 14A was passed, but I get ya.
You were condemned? Another example of the victim mentality. You were not condemned, you’re still here aren’t you? But the fact that you say you were ‘condemned’ should reveal to you as a learning observation about yourself that you play loose with words, meanings and concepts.
So let’s set you straight Ok?
Both of the decisions you describe took place before the 19th Amendment which effectively changes terms of your paragraph to father or mother.
Ted Cruz was born of an American citizen parent unlike the subject of this thread where the children are born of both a mother and a father neither of which is an American citizen and who furthermore are illegal and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of US Courts save for being subject to deportation.
Back to Ted Cruz, although he was born in Canada to his American citizen mother, she was ‘residing’ in Canada for work purposes only while maintaining her ‘domicile’ in the United States. She did not renounce her US citizenship nor did she perform any act to bring into question her LOYALTY and ALLEGIANCE to the United States.
There is a difference between ‘residence’ and ‘domicile’ in legal definitions. It is no different than if Thomas Jefferson as US Ambassador to France had children in Paris keeping a ‘residence’ there while maintaining his ‘domicile’ at Monticello, Virginia.
Giving birth to Ted Cruz in Canada from an American citizen parent who kept a legal domicile in the United States confers natural American citizenship upon Ted Cruz.
The fact that Canada confers its citizenship automatically on any child born on its soil knowingly or unknowingly to the parents or the child is irrelevant to Ted Cruz’ eligibility. A challenge that Ted Cruz may be considered a dual citizen by either the Canadian or US governments is moot because Ted Cruz officially renounced his citizenship to Canada which he or his parents never sought to begin with and in so doing he disavowed any allegiance or loyalty to that government which never existed to begin with.
Being born on soil that is NOT American soil or territory does not in itself disqualify the birth child from consideration as a natural born citizen. Madison addressed this question more than 200 years ago when asked of the status of children born to an American citizen father while transiting AT SEA or sojourning ABROAD. Madison clarified that such children were indeed ‘natural born’ in the sense that no naturalization was required.
Prior to the 19th Amendment, women that were married to an American citizen were automatically conferred American citizenship and any previous status they may have had that was not American was voided. It did not matter if the woman was German, Mexican, Sioux, Chinese or undocumented. She was automatically an American citizen by virtue of her marriage to an American citizen. Therefore, all children born to a married American citizen father were by default born to two US Citizen parents.
Yes, I agree. Cruz, as much as I respect him, does not pass Constitutional muster.
This is correct. But then again, the constitution is an irrelevant old document designed by a bunch of old white guys with white peoples’ privilege. As even our Kenyan Dear Leader has instructed us, the constitution would just get in the way of his progressive reforms if we let it — so quiet down and go watch some more idiot box programs about how wonderful it will be for you when you overcome the rest of your miserable Bible-clutching “throw-back” bigotry and get with the “gay lifestyle.”
“Being born on soil that is NOT American soil or territory does not in itself disqualify the birth child from consideration as a natural born citizen”
Let me set you straight
Yes it does.
A natural born citizen is one who is born on US soil of two US citizen parentz
Victim status?
Ogjstfu.
Wong Kim ark is used to assert that Cruz is a natural born citizen by people here who totally went after me for having a different opinion.
Here again the USSC asserted that Wong Kim ark was a citizen because he was born on US soil but it did not confer that he was a natural born citizen.
You cannot have it both ways
> “A natural born citizen is one who is born on US soil of two US citizen parentz”
No.
A natural born citizen is one that never needed to be naturalized.
Inglis v. Trustee predates the Fourteenth Amendmnent, and the defendant in Elk v. Wilkins was an Indian who was not under the jurisdiction of the U.S., or so the court ruled.
And what clause of the Constitution or federal legislation or Supreme Court decision defines it that way?
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.