Posted on 01/06/2016 3:40:06 PM PST by gwgn02
Trump said Cruz “has had a double passport.â€
Trump didn’t provide and we didn’t find evidence that Cruz, who relinquished his dual citizenship in 2014, ever carried passports for the U.S. and Canada–nor, Cruz’s camp advises, did he ever apply for a Canada passport.
We rate the claim False.
There you go. Trump lies again to disparage Cruz.
www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
Copy that into your browser and hit enter.
I have confirmed that the text is accurate.
This document has the text of both Acts, 1790 and 1795
Thanks for the link. I read that, and more. The bottom line is, as long as a parent (i.e., at least one parent) is An American citizen at the time of the child’s birth, no matter where the birth occurs, that child is a natural born citizen (”natural born citizen” simply meaning that someone is an American citizen at birth, and does not have to go through any naturalization).
So, one or both of Ted Cruz’s parents were American citizens when he was born, then he is a natural born citizen and can be president.
However, if neither of his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth (in his mother’s case she would have had to renounce her American citizenship or have it legally stripped) then Cruz would be ineligible to serve as president.
Thanks for the link. I read that, and more. The bottom line is, as long as a parent (i.e., at least one parent) is An American citizen at the time of the child’s birth, no matter where the birth occurs, that child is a natural born citizen (â€natural born citizen†simply meaning that someone is an American citizen at birth, and does not have to go through any naturalization).
So, if one or both of Ted Cruz’s parents were American citizens when he was born, then he is a natural born citizen and can be president.
However, if neither of his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth (in his mother’s case she would have had to renounce her American citizenship or have it legally stripped) then Cruz would be ineligible to serve as president.
“Natural born citizen” simply means that someone who falls within the specified criteria is a citizen at birth (meaning that person doe not have to go through a naturalization process).
Under U.S. law, a person is a natural born citizen if he or she is born of a parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of that birth, no matter where the physical birth occurred.
Someone on this thread — and I don’t know of it was you or not, but that is irrelevant — said that to be a natural born citizen BOTH parents had to be U.S. citizens at the birth of that person. That is just wrong. I am a natural born citizen (meaning I was automatically a U.S. citizen at my birth) even though my mother was not a U.S. citizen, and had not lived in the U.S. for five years when I was born. But, my father was a U.S. citizen, as were his parents, and his grandparents (even though two of his grandfathers fought for the Confederacy).
Would you please address the issues I raised in my last reply to you?
Some adult female gets infatuated with say an ISIS fighter and goes to Syria, gets knocked up and has a child. That child lives with his dad until he is an adult then the child comes to the USA and that child is a NBC and can run for president? This scenario is exactly why the founders put the NBC clause into the Constitution. Void it and you or your children will regret it.
Not true.
Natural Law is different than government law. Natural Law was referenced in the very first sentence of our founding document.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I say again natural law supersedes government law and natural law is what gave us the right to be our own nation. Government law said the founders were traitors, natural law said they were patriots. Government law says two men can get married Natural Law says marriage is between a man and a woman. Only a Natural (law) Born Citizen may constitutionally serve a President of the United States.
There are three types of citizenship
* Natural Born Citizen, two citizen parents born on soil (exceptions for foreign born if parents are abroad in service to country)
* Citizen by birth, foreign born to citizen parent(s)
* Naturalized citizen, a person made a citizen by statute.
I note on the following
The authors cite to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and ignore the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795, with the lead of then-Rep. James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, repealed it and specifically changed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."
James Madison the "father of the Constitution" changed the wording from "natural born citizen" to "citizen". Madison was no dope and the change was to prevent a foreign born from becoming Commander in Chief. But this also serves to illustrate that "citizen at birth" does not mean "natural born citizen".
See more at
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/harvard-law-review/
A natural born citizen is so because of Natural Law not government laws. Some one born on soil with two citizen parents is a natural born citizen because no other sovereign but the sovereign of the soil he was born on has any claim to his elegance.
Sure. It is YOUR interpretation that the “natural born citizen” of the 1790 Act was changed to “citizen” in the 1795 Act, apparently to change a definition. Unless I am reading you incorrectly, you seem to be implying that there is a difference between the “natural born citizen” of the 1790 Act and the “citizen” of 1795 Act, such that the “citizen” of the 1795 Act would be ineligible to serve as president.
If that is your interpretation, it is unique to you, and it is not an opinion held by legal scholars or recognized law.
Simple test: (1) Is Ted Cruz an American citizen? Yes or No; If Yes, then (2) Is Ted Cruz’s citizenship natural (i.e., established at his birth), or was it the result of the citizenship naturalization process? Yes or No.
If your answer to #1 is Yes, then #2 must either be “natural” or “naturalized.” If not naturalized, then Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and can serve as president. I submit to you that the law would hold that Ted Cruz’s citizenship was not a naturalized citizenship, and thus he can serve as president.
You are completely wrong. The “Laws of Nature” as stated in the DOI is not at all associated with the term “natural born citizen” as applied in American jurisprudence.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God do not ANYWHERE establish citizenship. They do, however, apply to natural (i.e., inherent or God-given) RIGHTS.
No, and nowhere did I ever imply that they would. A child born of two Chinese parents (i.e., they are not U.S. citizens), is not a natural born American citizen if born in the U.S. That baby is a Chinese citizen. Good grief, read what I've been saying over the last several posts. By your logic, are you implying that because I was born in the U.S. to a citizen father but a non-citizen mother, I am not a natural born citizen? American law requires that at least one of the parents must be a U.S. citizen at the birth of the child in order for that child to be a natural born citizen. That child can be born anywhere.
I didn’t say I was cool with it, I was merely pointing out the law.
There are several laws that I am not “cool with,” but they are laws, nonetheless.
A Chinese anchor baby is a citizen by birth. And according to you a citizen by birth is a natural born citizen. Dido the children of GI's all over the world. Didi the children of trophy wifes in say Iran. All according to you natural born citizens eligible to serve a POTUS since they too have an American parent and thus are citizens by birth.
Also, one of the problems with the “birthers” and Obama is that it really didn’t matter if he was born in Hawaii or Kenya or anywhere else, as long as his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth (i.e., she had not renounced her citizenship or had it stripped).
The law has nothing to do with it. Natural born citizen is a reference to Natural Law, G#d's Law.
One more time
A natural born citizen is so because of Natural Law not government laws. Some one born on soil with two citizen parents is a natural born citizen because no other sovereign but the sovereign of the soil upon which he was born on has any claim to his elegance.
Never until zero has anyone served as POTUS that was known not to be a NBC as NBC was known at the signing of our Constitution. The lack of respect for out Constitution shown by those that wish to elect Cruz is a disgrace.
Cruz is no more a natural born citizen than Frank and John are married.
So...as a courtesy to us un-educated rubes, please list the different categories of citizenship and how one lands in each of the categories.
Thank you.
see 28 in this thread
Not by statutory or codified law, but by practice and misapplication. The 14th Amendment, for instance, does not establish automatic citizenship on an "anchor baby," because that baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but is subject to the jurisdiction of the country of which his parents are citizens. Politicians and jurists with agendas interpret laws to reflect their own biases. That's why the lefties torture the clear and unambiguous meaning of the 2nd Amendment's "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," (an independent clause), and try to make it dependent on (the dependent clause) "A well regulated militia;" and why they misinterpret the 18th century "well regulated" to mean "well controlled," and not the "well-functioning" that was clearly intended.
Separately, before 1934, a US citizen mother could not transmit her US citizenship to a foreign born child. Citizenship of one parent was sufficient, but that one parent had to be the father.
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.