Posted on 02/07/2016 6:49:10 AM PST by Robert DeLong
Anchor babies should not be citizens.
BTW, I rescind my contention that Marco Rubio is deemed to be a "natural born" citizen since neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. He became naturalized along with his parents.
I doubt that the Founders would have considered Cruz a natural born citizen.
And..If Cruz is a natural born citizen then so were the children of Princess Grace when they took their first breath. The children of a Mexican drug lord in Mexico would also be if his wife were an American citizen under the same circumstances and reasons. These are the very people that our Founders wanted to be excluded from the position of President and Commander in Chief.
Got a link?
I've not seen a direct quote from Cruz on this.
Apparently that is not true, otherwise we would not have had 8 years of Obama Birther Conspiracy Threads ... According to these guys, Obama is AOK, mother is a citizen and father had residency at some time prior to birth - regardless of his actual POB - so the whole Birth Certificate issue is moot. AND - any court could have, at any time, simply cited what you said and the controversy would be over.
Instead, they refused to make any decision at all, citing standing or any other reason to NOT make a decision.
Personally, I tend to think that the father needs to be a citizen and the birth must occur in such a manner that the US has jurisdiction over the child - meaning ambassadors and our military overseas - are natural born. But that is just my opinion.
As I mentioned in my post, there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue and a ruling from the court would be welcome here. They are more than willing to stick their nose where it does NOT belong, so I am really puzzled that they utterly refuse to get involved here.
This is legislation and has nothing to do with the constitutional requirement. That would take an amendment.
All this tripe does not dissuade me from voting “W.A.S.P.”, which neither dear ol’ Rafael Eduardo Cruz, or Marco Rubio, and for that matter, Dr. Carson, qualify.
Hold on, Robert, it may be too early for you to throw in the towel.
Neal Katyal was an O appointee to the OSG, so we should not be surprised to learn which side of the issue he is inclined to argue.
Paul Clement, who appears to have an excellent Republican history, was a Bush appointee - and held a top place on presidential candidate McCain's USSC appointment list. Clement is expected to also hold a top place on the Cruz and Rubio lists.
A quick read reveals the U.S. authority for much of the argument Katyal and Clement make is based on birth abroad to two parents. Most telling is that it does not address the constitutional status of either the child who happened to be born a few feet into our country to two illegal parents, or to one who holds a foreign birth certificate and a foreign parent.
Of course, it may just be Clement wishes to help save our nation from Hillary and, willing to overlook any critical legal analysis, supports Cruz or Rubio as an expedient.
On the other hand, the legal argument presented above could be considered as a show of loyalty to two of the top-tier candidates who have troublesome citizenship by an author who would welcome a USSC appointment.
P> The USSC early-on held that whatever one's view of NBC happens to be, its highest form would be birth within the country to two parents.
My question for Clement would be on what basis does he determine the founders intended by their express use of NBC - only in the case of the highest office in the land that of Commander-in-Chief - that foreign birth to a foreign parent would suffice?
Clement, with his fine legal abilities, would quickly recognize what controls is not the view of others then or now, but what usage the founders intended.
No, because he would have been considered to have renounced his (natural born) citizenship if he hadn’t come by age 23 and spent 5 consecutive years here after the age of 14 and before the age of 28.
What about living abroad with and adopted by a parent in a country that does not allow dual citizenship like Indonesia.
thanks, and my real reason for posting this was to see if this can actually put the issue to rest or not. I think the consensus tells me that it is not. Ted Cruz needs to get clarification and now. As far as I am concerned Marco Rubio needs to drop out immediately due to ineligibility.
Section 8 - The Text (abbreviated)
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Doesn’t change the requirements for President. If it did, it would have been written.
“He became naturalized along with his parents.”
That is incorrect. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 authorized a child born within the jurisdiction of the United States with alien parents to acquire naturalized at birth U.S. citizenship, provided the child complies with any additional conditions. Due to the citizenship being authorized by the statutory naturalization law, Marco Rubio is a naturalized citizen of the U.S.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
That's what I said, Marco Rubio is a naturalized citizen, not a "natural born" citizen, and he became a naturalized citizen when his parents became naturalized citizen. He personally did not have to go through any process to obtain citizenship. That was granted when his parents were naturalized.
Sorry, but you did not understand the item that was incorrect. The incorrect statement was “he became a naturalized citizen when his parents became naturalized citizen.” It is incorrect because Marco Rubio was born and naturalized at birth on 27 May 1971, whereas his parents were naturalized years later in 1975. In other words, Marco Rubio was naturalized years before his parents and not “when his parents became naturalized.”
Of course not.
But then you are trying to twist it up into another ‘If a frog had wings’ thing.
If NBC had been paramount in their thinking they would have spelled out its meaning in ‘some’ detail.
My assumption is that following the Revolution, there were a significant number of British Loyalists who could have somehow gotten into POTUS and slid us right back to King George and the Founders were trying to insure that did not happen. That generation didn’t need NBC to be written out, they knew it by heart.
Sorry, I was away at my usual Sunday morning services at the Church of John Moses Browning (the range)
Looks like others have adequately answered the questions
However, see the post by Whisky-X Post # 39 According to what he has posted Ted Cruz is a naturalized, not a "natural born", citizen per the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952.
I still believe there is enough in question about what constitutes a "natural born" citizen for there to be a Supreme Court ruling. However, with the makeup of the Court I shudder to think how that will come out, for it might include anchor babies as being deemed "natural born" citizens. I wish this had happened before so many liberals were placed onto the court.
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.