Posted on 01/06/2016 3:40:06 PM PST by gwgn02
Show me where that is written or established as any legitimate -- and legally binding -- conclusion. You can't, because it isn't.
I happen to agree with that but it does not change the fact that "the law" says they are citizens by birth and thus if a citizen by birth is the same as a natural born citizen then whether you like it or not, under your definition of an NBC that Chinese kid is an NBC and eligible to serve as POTUS.
No, the LAW does not state that, but some court rulings have (rulings that have NOT been affirmed by SCOTUS). Hence, my previous comment that it is not the law but the misapplication of the law that has created the confusion (and all the problems).
The law clearly states CHILDREN of CITIZENS, both plurals, but that can only be read as a CHILD of a CITIZEN if there was only one child born of the union of the father and mother. In which case, only one parent need be an American citizen to have that CHILD a natural-born citizen.
Weasel. Words...Please provide the appropriate link to the above..thanks.
If they are “weasel words,” they are weasel words proclaimed by legal scholars (which I do not claim to be) and recognized law.
Give me a few minutes to dig up some links for you.
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.
Humor me for a moment. Go to scribd.com. “Citizenship terms” There is an easy to read table, “Citizenship Terms Used in the US Constitution. Terms defined and Legal Reference”.
See if that document agrees with your above statement..Not throwing rocks, just curious..thanks.
Here is a start:
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
I have no doubt that Cruz is a citizen, as you point out, he is a citizen because the relevant statute (8 USC 1401(g)) says so.
But dicta in Rogers says that citizenship at birth by operation of statute creates a naturalized citizen, under Congress's power to create rules of naturalization.
Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
That's pretty darn common.
There is no legal statute conferring natural born citizenship. There was a short-lived Act from 1790 to 1795 that attempted to confer that status upon children born abroad to citizen parents provided that the father met certain requirements. Beyond that, nothing. It's a requirement for the Presidency under the Constitution. Under statutory law, no such distinction is made.
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who is born in the United State of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Sure looks like the law to me.
It is intellectually dishonest to argue "it the law" when "the law" fits you're agenda but then argue it's not the law then "the law" does not fit your agenda.
If there are only two types of citizens; citizen by birth; citizen by statute then yes that Chinese anchor baby is according to you and natural born citizen of the United States of America and eligible to serve as POTUS. However if NBC means what I know it means than no the Chinese anchor baby is not allowed to serve as president. And neither are all the other single parent children I sited in my earlier posts.
There was a CHANGE made yet somehow you keep insisting that we have to follow the outdated, or erroneous version. I don't see anywhere that the category of natural born citizenship was removed from the types of citizenship we have but I plainly see where the category of natural born citizenship was REMOVED from those not born on United States soil or jurisdiction. This indicates that the location of birth has relevance to the condition of natural born citizenship.
Yes, but it doesn't necessarily make it federal law.
So, by your reasoning anyone can serve as POTUS, because, according to you “natural born citizen” is nowhere defined in law.
No, that’s not my reasoning. It’s clear from various court decisions that a child born to two citizen parents under US jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, but it’s not clear that a child born under other circumstances is a natural born citizen. That does not mean that such a child is not, but it creates doubt. Such doubt apparently can be resolved, again according to various court decisions. However, there has been no occasion to resolve such doubts up to now.
Quite a few legal scholars and authorities disagree with you.
But, hey, let’s see how the Cruz status plays out in the courts (and it WILL go to the courts), and we’ll be stuck with that, at least until future courts look at it again.
If Cruz is ruled to be ineligible, and that ruling stands, then you can vote for a Mexican anchor baby when one runs, since that anchor baby was born in the U.S., and thus has more standing then Ted Cruz had.
I guess, then, that it’s likely I am not a natural born citizen, since at the time of my birth, here in the U.S., though my father was a U.S. citizen, my mother was not.
Hell, had I known I was likely not a citizen I may have told Uncle Sam to shove it up his ass when he called my number.
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.