Posted on 01/11/2016 7:16:27 PM PST by TBBT
ection 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), defines those persons who "shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." Paragraph (7) of § 301(a) includes in that definition a person born abroad "of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States" who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301(b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301(a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years.
(Excerpt) Read more at supreme.justia.com ...
Case did not involve a person born outside USA, nor a person without both parents citizens of USA at her birth, for that matter. Tangerine maybe but not an orange.
A naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen, however. Apples and oranges
A national of the USA and a citizen of the USA are both nice things but we can’t just add the words together and come up with a natural born citizen. Three different things actually.
Respectfully , and regrettably have to disagree. The case did not
Involve a person born outside USA, nor did the plaintiff lack both parents being American citizens at her birth. Different situation entirely
Great. When litigation takes place, those arguing and briefing for Senator Cruz won’t need no stinking authority. They can just show the court your cartoon. That will certainly carry the day.
I'm not a lawyer...or a student of the law in any way but this lowered bar just to accommodate our “strict constitutionalist” conservative just doesn't feel right.
Years ago people on FR proved that Justia took and left stuff out. It’s as worthless as snopes.
Keep in mind that one can be a “national and citizen of the United States at birth” and not be a “natural born citizen.” The former speaks of the circumstances of one’s birth, the latter to its quality. Indeed, the whole point to the statements made by the justices in the Bellei case is that Bellei was born an American citizen - but that he was “naturalized” (not natural born) because his citizenship at birth was only obtained per the statutory limits established by Congress.
OP doesn’t realize that Rogers v. Bellei does not help his cause. 180 degrees to the contrary.
You posted current law as to “citizens,” which is completely irrelevant to the issue.
The only time naturalized or other legal created citizenship would apply to presidential qualifications was at the time of adoption of the US Constitution as it says in black and white.
The Clause at issue is this one please note it distinguishes natural born citizen from citizen.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;...”
The only time a legal-created citizenship mattered for president was “... at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” and this aint 1776 no more.
You must be referring to a different case. This case has ...
The facts are stipulated:1. The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei (hereinafter the plaintiff), was born in Italy on December 22, 1939. He is now 31 years of age.
2. The plaintiff's father has always been a citizen of Italy, and never has acquired United States citizenship. The plaintiff's mother, however, was born in Philadelphia in 1915, and thus was a native-born United States citizen. She has retained that citizenship. Moreover, she has fulfilled the requirement of S: 301(a)(7) for physical presence in the United States for 10 years, more than five of which were after she attained the age of 14 years. The mother and father were married in Philadelphia on the mother's 24th birthday, March 14, 1939. Nine days later, on March 23, the newlyweds departed for Italy. They have resided there ever since.
3. By Italian law, the plaintiff acquired Italian citizenship upon his birth in Italy. He retains that citizenship. He also acquired United States citizenship at his birth under Rev.Stat. S: 1993, as amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, S: 1, 48 Stat. 797, then in effect. [Footnote 2] That version of the statute, as does the present one, contained a residence condition applicable to a child born abroad with one alien parent.
âForeign infiltration?â It applies only to the presidency and vice -presidency. What is does is to tailor the office to fit George Washington and the founders, and to prevent any foreign prince from being made our chief Magistrate.
Ahhh, nevermind. I see you were talking about Minor v. Happersett.
Oh, is the queen of Jordan resident in the United States? As for Churchill, his mother became a British subject and lived the rest of her life in England. Cruzâs mother was a temporary resident of Canada.
No.
What I saw Cruz say is that a child of one American citizen is a Natural Born citizen (despite being born out of the country).
It seems like a very gray area.
Not being a lawyer I prefer the simpler explanation:
a child of 2 American citizen who is born in the USA.
Even the lawyers disagree so what do I know - but one parent with a kid born wherever seems like a really low bar.
yes. foreign infiltration. Why don’t more people get it?
Bellei was born in Italy to citizen mom and alien dad.
Yes! ( But that case did not even involve natural born citizenship or eligibility for Potus. It dealt with immigration law - naturalized citizenship - different critter entirely — and especially Congress’ power to take it away once bestowed — Apples and watermelons ). Good try — and now I’m going to bed. All the best to you, fhc.
There are some problems with Justia...... Justa warning.
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.