Posted on 02/07/2016 6:49:10 AM PST by Robert DeLong
Got it thanks.
“That generation didnât need NBC to be written out, they knew it by heart.”
Yes, and they knew it by heart because it was common knowledge that a child born in England with alien parents was not eligible to hold government offices ranging from the Privy Council down to the lowest of the local officials. Even though the English practice was to describe such persons with alien parents or birth abroad as natural born subjects, in actuality they were formerly described as persons to be considered as natural born subjects, and by habit the “considered as” part of the description was omitted, despite the fact they were still naturalized subjects carrying around the description of natural born subjects to confuse later generations.
Your statement captures the founder's intent perfectly and their language does not detract from that intent!
Jay, in his letter, was specifically talking about the CIC and foreign entanglements by virtue of birthplace and parentage. As I have argued elsewhere, it is inconceivable General Geo. Washington have agreed that NBC extended to one born in England to an English parent.
Then this whole issue will be easily satisfied by obtaining a ruling from the court that Cruz is a natural born citizen. IIRC there is at least one challenge pending. But I predict the court will punt and cite some reason for NOT making a ruling.
I could care less which way the court decides - but I am of the opinion that 8 years of controversy over this is more than enough and since we are again facing questions about the actual definition - we need a definitive ruling.
No, when Ted was born, his parents hadn’t been in canada long enough to qualify for Canadian citizenship.
It would have been afterward, and it was only Teds dad who got Canadian citizenship.
OK, I see that Ted’s father became a Canadian citizen in 1973, so that makes Ted Cruz a Canadian Anchor Baby, just as Donald Trump said recently. Still unsettled law, but it probably will become irrelevant in a couple of months when Donald Trump warps up the nomination.
Remember that when that was written, the citizenship of the wife followed that of her husband.
I.e., when she married, she changed citizenship if the man wasn’t the same citizenship as her.
You're right and, fwiw, according to this: 4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen".
As it is, many have tried to get the SCOTUS to take a peek at obama's situation, but all such cases have "lacked standing", doncha know.
These days, "Supreme Court Renegades" might be more accurate and comes with a cooler/more accurate acronym as a bonus.
So...here we are. Just faking it and free to make it up as we go.
Not good. "For lack of guidance, a nation falls..." (Proverbs 11:14).
“No I am not saying it did change the requirements for President. I was just referring you to the Naturalization Act of 1790 in my earlier post, which talked about children born to citizens living in a foreign country at the time of the child’s birth.”
A commonly found argument is the false claim that the Naturalization Act of 1790 says a child born abroad with U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen. In fact, the Naturalization Act of 1790 says the exact opposite by making such a child a naturalized U.S. citizen. The problem is with the failure of the reader to comprehend the sentence, where it says “shall be considered as a natural born citizen.” In fact, the use of the “considered as” phrasing is legal terminology meaning the child born abroad will be “considered as” if or accepted as (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) if the child were born with some and not all of the conditions of citizenship enjoyed by an actual natural born citizen.
How much more clearer can it be when the Supreme Court said: “can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
You actually have to follow the entire conversation between that person and myself to understand the context, not that that is worth it though as I have deferred to your excellent references regarding the issue.
Just providing clarification for all of the readers of those posts. It is a frequently disputed reading of the phrase, and most readers skip over most of the other posts.
The term “Natural Born Citizen” is not a term defined by any governmental law. It is a term defined by Nature itself.
The cornerstone of Natural Law is self-evidence. Whensoever there is a conflict between this self-evidence and any other thing, there is no binding Natural Law at work.
Thus, when lineage became passed through both father and mother, the self-evidence of the father’s nationality dictating the child’s ended. Now, for self-evidence to persist, both parents must be citizens of this nation with a child born within its borders for it to be a Natural Born Child.
Congress was given the power, by the Constitution, to Naturalize citizens. A Naturalized Citizen can be from any land, adhering to the laws and oaths that bind him to a new nation, “naturalizing” that person into citizenship.
Congress NEVER had the power to do anything other than that with respect to citizenship. However, having the power to do such a thing, it was assumed they had unlimited powers with respect to that thing. Thus, Congress HAS the power to Naturalize citizens AT BIRTH, without requiring any *process* for that Naturalization.
This doesn’t create a Natural Born Citizen. It creates a Naturalized citizen who need not be processed by a bureaucracy to become a citizen.
The point is moot, as we are no longer living under Constitutional Law.
In fact, he liked to start the class a bit of minutia as a way for introducing a new section or concept. Interestingly enough "natural born citizen" was one of those teasers (long before Obama was a US senator). To cut to the chase, my professor's opinion was that if citizenship was granted as a right (no bureaucrat approval required), then that person was a natural born citizen. Now I'm certain that there are a lot of wrinkles in applying that concept, but if you start from that position, then a lot of clarity can be brought quickly to an individual case.
They defined, maybe, one case where someone is not a natural born citizen. They did NOT define what one is. If, after all these years that is still unclear - I can not help.
All the opinions out there are just that, mine included.
That is what happens when courts refuse to rule on matters, they remain unclear and subject to endless debate.
FWIW, I tend to agree with you on the definiton - but my opinion is meaningless.
It's only moot when you have no desire to return to Constitutional law.
If that is the case, then it would mean “anchor babies” are “natural born” citizens. Do you believe that is what the Framer’s had in mind?
What about living abroad with and adopted by a parent in a country that does not allow dual citizenship like Indonesia.
Interesting. Cruz was born in Canada in 1970 to an Cuban national or a Canadian citizen father and a US Citizen mother. This would make Cruz a natural born citizen of Canada and an automatic naturalized US citizen.
Canada did not allow dual citizenship in 1970 and so would not recognize any claim to US citizen status.
There is no way that Cruz can be a Natural Born Citizen of the US. Citizen? Yes, naturalized at birth but not NBC.
The fact that Canada did not recognize any claim to US citizenship has no bearing on whether the US would recognize a claim to US citizenship. Our State Department, for example, doesn’t care whether you have citizenship in another country. It’s irrelevant, for example, to the question of whether you, as a US citizen, are eligible to have a US passport.
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.