Posted on 02/03/2016 5:59:48 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
There are two types of citizens..
For the purposes of this conversation that is generally true. Note, however, in other times in history there are many more “types of citizens” than just two.
“1.) Natural Born (from birth)”
Almost true, but not quite. A natural born citizen acquires citizenship by birth. A natural born citizen acquires the citizenship involuntarily due to the natural circumstances where there is no other foreign sovereign to whom a duty of obedience and allegiance is due by birth.
2.) Naturalized (having to go through a process to change from being non-citizens to citizens).
True. A naturalized citizen acquires citizenship after birth either by retroactively conferring citizenship at birth or by conferring citizenship after birth. A naturalized citizen acquires the citizenship voluntarily by electing to adopt the citizenship of a parent or parents versus the adoption of the citizenship of the foreign jurisdiction and sovereign where the birth took place.
“It makes perfect sense that we would not want someone with past allegiances to be our President. The founders were correct in putting this very logical restriction in place.”
As it is well documented by John Jay and others.
“By statute, by law and by historical tradition, Cruz has been a citizen from the moment he exited his mother.”
Yes, Ted Cruz acquired naturalized foreign and Canadian citizenship at birth, perhaps naturalized Cuban citizenship at birth, and naturalized U.S. citizenship at birth, due to the divided duties of obedience and allegiance to multiple sovereigns at birth.
“He did not breath any breaths when he was not a citizen.”
Yes, as a naturalized citizen of two or three sovereign states.
“He falls into category 1. His citizenship was not attained through a process of changing from one thing to another but instead because of the circumstances of his birth (his citizen mother).”
He acquired two or three conflicting citizenships simultaneously, which also immediately invalidated any possibility of the child being born in the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States required to qualify as a natural born citizen.
“Are you arguing that there are actually 3 types of citizens?”
No.
“1. Natural Born”
It is impossible for Ted Cruz to be a natural born citizen, because his U.S. citizenship was not and could not be acquired within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
“2. Naturalized”
Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen by the authority of the U.S. naturalization Act of 1952 in the paragraph (7) provision for a U.S. parent to qualify the child born abroad to acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth or after birth.
“3. Something in between????? That makes no sense and would have been a completely arbitrary thing for the founders to worry about enough to put in the Constitution.”
No third type of citizenship in this case. Naturalization includes naturalization at birth and naturalization after birth. See:
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic” acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.
“They have a Dutch father and dual citizenship so therefore were not born as sole American citizens.”
Such persons are naturalized U.S. citizens unless they lost their U.S. citizenship by failing to comply with the residency requirement.
“”sole” has nothing to do with it. There is no restriction on having other entities recognize you as a citizen.”
Yes, there are such restrictions, but those restrictions are not enforced due to other considerations of law. Nevertheless, no statutory law has any bearing on whether or not by nature the child is born with only one duty of obedience and allegiance to a sovereign being possible. That is a fact beyond the reach of manmade law.
“I grant citizenship of Nitzlandia (my sovereign 10 acre slice of heaven) to all Freepers. Does this mean you can’t run for President now?”
No, because your grant of citizenship does not vest any duty of obedience or allegiance upon the child under natural Law, the Law of Nations, customary law, or natural law. Your law has no effect except within your jurisdiction in the form of statutory law, if any at all. All forms of citizenship granted by the authority of statutory law is naturalized citizenship, meaning a citizen made, whether made at birth or made after birth. Citizenship bestowed by birth due to there being only one sovereign to whom allegiance may be owed is natural born citizenship.
“The Constitution is only concerned with the relationship between the individual and the U.S. not the relationship between the individual and another entity.”
That is absurdly wrong on its face given John Jay’s explicit purpose of putting the natural born citizen clause into the Constitution for the specific purpose of excluding any person with a foreign allegiance at birth or after birth.
He has said so!
And wow one to talk, you literally just posted that you knew what was in his head.
Prove it. I reported his actions, not what I thought that he was thinking. You are the one that intimated what he knew and didn’t know at the time.
You Cruz kool-aid drinkers think that any action is justified by the out come. Even when that action weakens our Constitution. You are the one that is going against our Constitution.
“Maybe someday if we’re lucky, we can have the anchor baby of a Viet Cong run for president. We currently have the son of a pro-Castro rebel running.”
Would probably be less of a Communist than who currently occupies the White Hut.
That’s why there’s a SHTF plan and why Americans keep and bear arms regardless of government attempts to infringe.
You would have excluded Ronald Reagan.
Yes, it s an Elections Board, not a court, and, therefore, this decision has no precedential value in a court, all the more so because it does not discuss any actual authority nor cite any in its opinion. There is in Illinois law, of one reads it, an appeal from the Board to the County Clerk of Court but a news article seems to say that Joyce claims he has no funds for an appeal. If that is true he is no doubt seeking such funding. What would happen if that efforts succeeds is anyone’s guess; it would presumably go through several appellate levels with, at some point, some authority having to be cited. At this point, contrary to what some assert, there is no binding authority in the form of an opinion directly on point from the SCOTUS, contrary to what assert, and the SCOTUS would have the final say.
And where in it is there any actual, specific, controlling, legal authority supporting the decision?
Go to this site. Click on link to Illinois Board of elections. Read the decision, in it’s entirety. Lodge your complaint with them. Leave me alone.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/02/illinois-board-of-elections-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/
I read the decision in its entirety before I posted. Nowhere in it did I see a single citation to any legal authority. What I read was a conclusion unsupported by any authority whatsoever, although the submitted Objection and its Response cited a good deal of authority. If I am wrong please show me where the opinion cites some actual legal authority. If you can’t find any citations, please tell me how, exactly, does such a conclusion unsupported by any citation to any authority create a precedent that could be argued in a court? Perhaps you could tell me. Why does it bother you for this simple fact to be pointed out?
As I said, if you have issues with the decision take it up with the folks who made it. Maybe they have time to discuss it with you.
Why post if it irritates you when someone responds? This is, after all, a forum for the exchange of ideas, thoughts, observations and opinions.
What irritates me is someone who can’t, or won’t, stick to the topic. In my original post, 5 days ago, I said that the suit was not dismissed due to lack of standing, that there was a judgement that Cruz is a natural born citizen, nothing about the merits of the decision. But I am sure you realize that, you just want to stir up some stuff so you can holler “Cruzer”. You need a little bit more polish in your attack, it is way too obvious that you are just out trying to build your Trump credentials.
Good Night.
Have you been drinking? Or smoking something?
See what I did there? Just go off on a totally off track comment? Pretty smooth, huh?
Where is “Popular Grove?” There’s a Poplar Grove, IL, as in the tree. But “Popular Grove?”
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.