Posted on 01/16/2016 5:15:49 PM PST by John Valentine
By the way, it should be noted that that entry in the Foreign Affairs manual is no mere error. It is an intentional deception.
That's the fallacy, in a nutshell.
There are several statutes that convert a person who otherwise would not be a citizen, into a citizen, merely by the circumstances of birth meeting the conditions stated in the statute.
In order to be naturalized, one's citizenship must depend on an Act of Congress. That's awkward phrasing, but that's a form of definition for "naturalize."
“Those born outside the US to US citizen parents and thus inherit the parent’s citizenship.
Those born not-a-US-citizen but naturalized into citizenship.”
Those are both parts of the one form of acquiring citizenship by naturalization. One is naturalized at birth, while the other was naturalized after birth. They are both governed by statutes for the naturalization of alien born persons using the power granted by the Constitution to the Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. The principle for naturalizing the alien born at birth was established in Anglo-American law by the Naturalization Act of 1541 by which Parliament grated the alien born child of an English father to acquire the status of an English subject at birth. Sir Edward Coke in Calvin’s Case 1608 described this naturalization at birth as the practice of a subject made (datus) rather than a subject-born (natus).
George Romney was born of 2 citizen parents in Mexico. He would have been naturalized at birth (by statute) just as Cruz was.
He then returned to the US before reaching the age of his majority and married a natural born citizen.
Naturalized citizens have natural born children when they're born in the US, so of course Romney was eligible.
The cases are not the same, and I'm not a Romney fan either.
That is false, and your entire argument rises or falls on this point.
You fabricated this point out of thin air, and you will not let it go.
citizen by birth is not equivalent to citizen at birth
And the first rule of writing a contract what every law student is taught is ????? ..... “say what you mean”. The fact remains the constitution does not say the president must be native born. George Tucker may have used both terms interchangeably... and discussed the difference between a monarch and a democratic republic.... and who knows how many of the framers held the same opinion he held.... but the constitution says what it says, and it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say. That’s just my opinion... obviously.
Actually the framers didn’t think they needed to define “Natural Born Citizen/Sovereign”. Of the 3 books George Washington stole from the NY Public Library, one was The Laws of Nations” Written by a Frenchman, the upshot understanding of the time of the writing of the constitution was that Sovereignty/Citizenship flowed only by the nationality of the father, regardless of place of birth. Thus a natural born British dad, who became a French citizen, could have a natural born French child in Canada. Its all about allegiance. The intent of the framers was to prevent a president with duel allegiances from becoming president. I’ve written a few treatise here on the subject with English translations from the French since I don’t read French.
Congress can pass laws to add clarity, specificity and certainty under the authority of the Constitution, and do so regularly. In fact, you can consider this as the entire US Code.
Wrong, and simple reasoning proves it. When the Founders wrote the Constitution they had an understanding of the definitions of each word that they used. If natural born was to be defined by a future Congress they would have indicated as much. They didn’t, and this proves that natural born had a singular meaning, not subject to the whims of future legislative bodies. Also, if it had no special meaning there is no reason to say anything other than “citizen at birth.” It is self-evident that Congress can instantly naturalize anyone born anywhere by statute. This is why Cruz was a citizen at birth, Congress passed a law granted citizenship to the children born abroad to U.S. Citizens. This is not a special circumstance guaranteeing a fondness for America, it is an allowance for naturalization in utero. Statutes are required, therefore there is nothing “natural” about the citizen.
Agreed that it was intentional and not in error. Intended deception? All intentions are questionable where Obama is concerned.
What I know for certain is that they felt the need to clarify it in writing because we forced them to do so. The eligibility discussions at FR over the years have forced many reactions.
Where online is his birth certificate posted ?
Wrong. The Constitution was written in plain English. It is accessible to anyone. U.S. Code in no way interprets the Constitution, if anything it typically debases it. Your assessment has zero validity. I’m trying to be nice...
Wrong. The Constitution was written in plain English. It is accessible to anyone. U.S. Code in no way interprets the Constitution, if anything it typically debases it. Your assessment has zero validity. I’m trying to be nice...
Absolutely. Vattel was all about jus sanguinis, and so were the Framers.
This has been totally mangled by 19th century jurisprudence, resulting finally in the phenomenon known as anchor babies.
It’s a shame and some of the posters on this thread who are appalled by anchor babies will defend with all their strength the jus solis based jurisprudence that created them. Some, even to the point of reading things into the Constitution that just aren’t there.
Look I like Ted Cruz a lot, but there are real legitimate issues surrounding Ted Cruz on “natural born” status. His mother and father both became citizens of Canada before Ted was born. So if anything Ted is a natural born Canadian citizen. His mother and father moved back to the United States when he was four years old. His father remained a Canadian citizen until he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he applied for and became a US Naturalized citizen in 2005. So the entire family were considered, and considered themselves, to be Canadian citizens. That means Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen residing in the United States up to the age of 35. So who really is confused, and employing twisted, warped and bent thinking?
Of whom do you speak?
> His mother and father both became citizens
This has not been established.
The father says he became a Canadian citizen, when don’t know when this occurred. The campaign claims the mother did not become a Canadian citizen & says it would be impossible, which is not true. Why would the father become a Can. cit. and the mother not? Why would the campaign lie about the possibility of her becoming a citizen?
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.