Posted on 01/20/2016 8:03:53 PM PST by Jeff Chandler
Some folks, including Don Trump, think Senator Cruz is not entitled to run for president because he is not a "natural born" citizen. This matter was debated when John McCain ran for the office, yet it seems that the correct answers are still not generally appreciated. So...
...is Senator Ted Cruz qualified to be president? Yes, because the 1790 Immigration Act declares flatly that people in his circumstances are "natural-born" citizens. That law followed the adoption of the constitution by about two years, and some of the founding fathers of the nation were in the Congress at the time. One knows, therefore, exactly what the constitution means by "natural-born".
John McCain's case is extraordinary. He is not a "natural-born" citizen because he was naturalized by act of Congress [snip]
So McCain, who should and could have been legally declared "natural-born", was naturalized instead. Congress never subsequently addressed the clumsy situation, though it could have laid the issues to eternal rest with a federal law precisely defining "natural-born"--as the 1790 act did.
(Excerpt) Read more at newterrapingazette.com ...
Nope, not wasting my time wading through that disingenuous mess.
His mother was a citizen at the time he was born. The parents must be citizens, not natural born citizens. Natural born citizen is only required for President.
The reason for the change is how Congress and the nation has changed when it comes to women voting and holding office, and also our acceptance of dual citizenship.
***********************************
“Living” document?
Words have meanings.
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.
This would seem to be an act which naturalize someone who meets these specific requirements into the status of NBC. But is it?
Notice the words "shall be considered as" have been emphasized. Anybody who tells you that the 1790 Act is a definition is misleading you. When Congress passed S.Res.511 telling you that this Act contains a definition, it did so deliberately (misled you). In the ordinary use of the English language, the phrase "shall be considered as" is as assignment of pretend, of "legal fiction," not an assignment of definition.
Social security regulation 20 CFR 416.1856 says, essentially, a person up to the age of 22 shall be considered as a child. That doesn't mean a person is in fact a child until they reach the age of 22, it means that the law will play make believe. "Legal fiction," is so common in statutory law, as to be unremarkable.
Viewing the phrase "shall be considered as" as creating legal fiction, what the founders said about the subject in the 1790 act was this:
the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States are not natural born citizens, but for purposes of law, we will pretend they are
The Act, on its face, disproves the contention that Cruz is an NBC. It doesn't help his case, it demolishes it!
Some people take advantage of ambiguity in the words of the 1790 Act, resulting in argument over whether on citizen parent is sufficient, or the contrary, that two citizen parents is mandatory. There is a legal answer to this question (men only), but it doesn't matter.
When you grok what the 1790 Act says, actually in plain English, when you grok that is expressly excludes what is described (children born abroad) from the conclusion (NBC), then it doesn't matter if the child had one parent, two parents, three parents (donor sperm), four parents (donor sperm and donor egg), or even zero parents (test tube baby).
The justices in the 1971 Bellei case cited this Act of Congress, and knew exactly what it said. Did they treat is a a message from the past, defining NBC? They did not.
The legal fiction created by this act was repealed in 1795. The justices didn't have to argue it away, and plus, Bellei is, say all 9 of the justices, unremarkaby, naturalized.
At this point, many people deploy "magic thinking" and relapse into believing that a person can be "natural" (which is better thought of as "under the constitution") and naturalized (which is better thought of as "NOT under the constitution, but only under an Act of Congress") at the same time. They want to believe, so badly, that a person born abroad of a citizen parent is an NBC, that they become, on this point, literally kooks.
It's not an issue in real life. These magic thinking people want to preserve the dream that their child can grow up to be president. The kids are citizens, but they are not 100% American at birth. A person born in Canada of a Cuban father and US Mother is not 100% American at birth. It's not their fault. They may turn into the best advocate for America, but they were born mixed. We the people can abandon the constitution via stupidity. Hell, I think we have.
I think the OP concludes that McCain was naturalized, and therefore not NBC.
-PJ
The crystal clarity of the 1790 Act is opposite the clarity that most people assign. The Act says a child born abroad to a citizen parent is not an NBC, but we'll pretend he or she is. This is a legal fiction. Legal fictions are so common in the law, as to be totally unremarkable.
Mom was never a Canadian citizen. But if she did become one, she can renounce it and become a citizen of whatever country will allow it, by that country's laws. Nobody is stuck with citizenship for life, if they don't want it.
With reference to only the US constitution, and the Act of congress that it authorizes, Cruz is naturalized, and is not an NBC.
Read what you replied to again. It says that Trump's mother was a citizen of the US when Trump was born.
The test for NBC is the citizenship of the child's parents when the child is born, not the citizenship of the child's parents when the parents were born.
That's right.
So when people say Cruz needs a naturalization law, no matter the year it was passed/enacted,
to grant/confer him citizenship...doesn't that mean he's an alien in need of naturalization?
Not to my recollection, it wasn't.
What I recall was a preemptive move on the part of the dhimmicrats to "bless" McStain's candidacy. That served to rob argument of 0bongo's candidacy - at least with the GOPe.
Conservatives were dismissed as "birthers" and the illegitimate king assumed the throne.
The significance of the 1790 law is that it demonstrates what the common understanding of the term NBC was at the time. Namely, that being a citizen due to being born abroad to Americans is to be natural born.
____________________________________________________________
My take is the opposite of yours, their understanding made them remove “Natural Born” from the law.
I agree. I was responding to what he wrote which was (in part) “No Foreign Parents” Yes Trump’s mother was Naturalized but she was still a foreigner as she was born in another country.
Again, My understanding of Natural Born Citizen is: A person who is considered a citizen at birth is a Natural Born Citizen. This would include Trump, Rubio and Ted Cruz. I also understand no matter what I say won’t change the mind of Trump supporters about this fact.
I agree. I was responding to what he wrote which was (in part) “No Foreign Parents” Yes Trump’s mother was Naturalized but she was still a foreigner as she was born in another country.
I believe that Trump, Cruz and Rubio are all NBC.
I was responding to what he wrote which was (in part) “No Foreign Parents” Yes Trump’s mother was Naturalized but she was still a foreigner as she was born in another country.
I believe that Trump, Cruz and Rubio are all NBC. As I disagree with your interpretation of NBC. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
This is demonstrably false, but already beat to death, and you don't need a personalized presentation.
-- This would include Trump, Rubio and Ted Cruz. --
Rubio and Cruz are ineligible, for different reasons. The question here is Cruz, only.
-- I also understand no matter what I say won't change the mind of Trump supporters about this fact. --
Sorry you see the constitution as a partisan document.
CRBA. That’s it!
So, this must mean Mrs. Cruz kept dual citizenship status for herself, between Canada and USA, that made her eligible to apply for CRBA status for Ted. Right?
The CRBA form proclaims what? That Ted was naturalized?
The question is how does CRBA of 1970 line up with today’s definition of a Naturalized Citizen?
It’s not just me, this thing is going to court on some grounds and with standing, right?
Someone could post that citizenship section from the Naturalization Study Guide and see the question, the issue and the discrepancy, for nerds that want to understand it and see the issue laid to rest in black and white, and not just because Cruz said it. You know what I mean?
CRBA doesn't recite "Congratulations! You are naturalized!" But yes, it stands for that. Citizen of a birth abroad is always naturalized.
The definition of born abroad citizen being naturalized has NEVER been otherwise. I can't think of a body of law that is more settled than this, seriously. Thousands of cases, perfectly uniform on this point.
I've laid it out for the nerds. I'm not going to keep repeating it. Nerds are smart. They look things up for themselves.
There are many court cases. Cruz is asserting the falsehood that citizenship at birth is NBC, offers no legal authority beyond his claim "there is no disagreement", then says the case should be tossed for standing (here he offers legal authority!). He says the only venue that can decide this is the electoral college, after the general election, and Congress, after it has the electoral votes.
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.