Skip to comments.
Trump supporters file 'birther' lawsuit against Cruz in federal court
The Hill ^
| 02/12/2016
| Bradford Richardson
Posted on 02/12/2016 11:22:56 AM PST by GIdget2004
Donald Trump supporters have filed a lawsuit challenging the eligibility of one of his primary rivals, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), to run for president.
The lawsuit, filed Feb. 3 at a district court in Alabama, seeks a judgment "declaring that Rafael Edward Cruz is ineligible to qualify/run/seek and be elected to the Office of the President of the United States of America" due to his Canadian birth. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, to an American mother.
The five plaintiffs â Sebastian Green, Shannon Duncan, Kathryn Spears, Kyle Spears and Jerry Parker â are all backing Trump in the Republican primary, according to AL.com.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
TOPICS: Canada; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: birthers; birthorama; cruz; cruznbc; nostanding; orly; repositorycruz; tinfoilhat; trump; trumpkoolaid; ufocrowd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280, 281-298 next last
To: Springfield Reformer
Dishonest as ever, and merits no serious reply. FReepers can believe you, or they can read the cases themselves. Makes no difference to me. Breaking my “do not reply rule” for that short remark, so readers don’t take my silence as approval.
261
posted on
02/14/2016 3:38:21 AM PST
by
Cboldt
To: Cboldt
Disappointing but not entirely unanticipated response. Convenient too. Most FReepers aren’t trained in reading the law. Only a skilled analyst could save them from my alleged “dishonesty.” But instead of responding to the substance of my claims, you attack the character of the messenger. Your choice of course.
BTW, to others who read this, I also invite you to read the cases and offer constructive criticism. I have found that even though I am trained in the law, a detailed discussion with good FReinds is fun and often leads to helpful new insights that I appreciate.
My true position on the eligibility issue is that the current court will probably never take it up, because of the political question doctrine, but if it did take it up, it would find in favor of Cruz, probably, but not without calling into question the reasoning of some of those earlier cases. In Bellei, there is this tension between the plenary power of Congress to speak to these issues, versus the reality that the system does seem to result in a “second class” form of citizenship, which the cases try to deny, but it’s just true. Perhaps it is unavoidable. But it would help somewhat if an amendment were adopted that cleared this up. Just sitting on the ambiguity isn’t the right path. IMHO.
Peace,
SR
To: Springfield Reformer
IF Congress believes that citizenship at birth requires no Naturalization, then they have no constitutional authority on the matter.
Corrupt judge or no corrupt judge.
263
posted on
02/14/2016 10:11:22 AM PST
by
Maelstrom
(To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
To: Springfield Reformer
Thank you for taking the time to explain this important issue-
[[There was NO direct affirmation in the holding or the supporting logic to the holding that Bellei was in fact naturalized.]]
That’s what I thought- others have made it appear that there had been a determination that Bellei was naturalized- at least that’s how I understood their arguments in various threads concerning the Bellei case
[[The Bellei Court even extends the congressional power to set conditions for native born citizens to retain their citizenship, citing Perkins v Elg.]]
Another pertinent point- and the fact that it uses ‘native born’ further establishes the idea that beyond a reasonable doubt that even native borns are subject to statutes in order to retain citizenship- Treason for instance is a law which strips citizenship of any citizen, NBC, Native, or naturalized if convicted- the act of treason is an act which strongly indicates intent to expatriate- and Cases like Belei were cases which showed the courts weighing in on ‘intent to expatriate’ of the plaintiffs- As you point out, requirements for born abroad of citizens is different, yes, but as you state, Congress has the authority to impose requirements to retain citizenship- They do NOT determine who is a citizen, only who can keep citizenship because certain actions result in a conclusion of ‘intent to expatriate’
[[this Court has said it will apply a more lenient standard in matters of “’immigration and naturalization.’’’ Ante, at 435, n. 11 (quoting Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 82 (1976)). But that language arises in a case involving aliens. The Court did not say it intended that phrase to include statutes that confer citizenship “at birth.”]]
A very important point- the court’s decision had to do with those who are naturalized, not those, like you say, who are citizens at birth
[[The Court to my knowledge has never said, or held, or reasoned that statutes automatically conferring citizenship “at birth” upon the American child of American parents receive a more lenient standard of review (emphasis added)]]
Bingo- Courts have said however, from time to time, that there are only two ways to be a citizen, either by constitution, of by naturalization (and it’s what was said in the Bellei case I believe) which would, on the surface, seem to indicate that only those born on soil are citizens, however, as you point out subsequent cases have indicated otherwise, and that jus sanguinis, citizenship by descent, which is a sovereign’s right to pass along, is a viable source of citizenship
[[The definition in 1101 is upstream of both those, and Miller makes it abundantly clear that in 1101 Congress is saying it doesn’t see statutory citizenship at birth as naturalization.]]
Thanks, you have mentioned this to me before, but in different wording which I didn’t fully grasp at the time- this above makes it clear-
264
posted on
02/14/2016 10:26:42 AM PST
by
Bob434
To: Springfield Reformer
Contrary to the assertions made, the intent of Congress is clear: the statute states “citizen”, it does not state “natural born citizen”.
265
posted on
02/14/2016 12:18:49 PM PST
by
Ray76
(Our gov has become hideously deformed by the hand of the Dem-Rep-Uniparty. They must be abolished.)
To: Ray76
His post assumes the conclusion. Many of the statements and arguments that follow are absurd on their face. Same pattern to these arguments, over and over. Cherry pick some sentence or paragraph, spin some sophistry, and voila, the assumed conclusion is true.
Fools the rubes, that's for sure.
266
posted on
02/14/2016 2:59:39 PM PST
by
Cboldt
To: fireman15
You apparently do not read the stuff that
I cut and paste thoroughly,
because those FACTS
PROVE THOROUGHLY, that TED CRUZ IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN !
TED CRUZ is by far, the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE we've got !
FACT: Cruzs fathers Cuban nationality at the time of Cruzs birth, is irrelevant, according to the law at that time,
just so long as he was a LEGAL Immigrant at the time of Ted Cruz's birth,
AND both of Ted Cruz's parents were legally married to each other.
What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?
The 14th Amendment IS a part of the U.S. Constitution and states in SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So, under that power to legislate, Congress legislated and the President signed into law: When ONE parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national,the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child,with five of the years after the age of 14.
... While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,amendments since 1952 HAVE ELIMINATED THESE REQUIREMENTS.
When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK".
They married, moved to Calgary, Alberta, and in late 1970 had their first and only child, Rafael Edward Cruz.
Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz.
Cruz's mother was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent.
Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School (1952) in the U.S., as well as Rice University (1956),so clearly she meets the residency requirements.
Source
In 1957, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.
Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.
"Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father, "and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."
Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born.
His father went there after having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out.
He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen.
The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.
"I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."
The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 48 years after leaving Cuba.
Why did he take so long to do it?"I don't know. I guess laziness, or I don't know," he says.
So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
AND HOW
Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time,
for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.
267
posted on
02/14/2016 5:15:00 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
> Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to “Nationalize” him.
So what? The naturalization statute did not require that. Cruz required a statute to naturalize him. There is no requirement that a naturalization statute require a judge or court. The statute states “citizen”, it does not state “natural born citizen”.
268
posted on
02/14/2016 6:01:33 PM PST
by
Ray76
(Our gov has become hideously deformed by the hand of the Dem-Rep-Uniparty. They must be abolished.)
To: Ray76
Hey DUMMY !
Look at the
FOUNDING FATHERS' DEFINITION of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN !
1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives
As
Hans von Spakovsky wrote in his Commentary
"An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":
... The Constitution, federal law, and the historical understanding of the Framers, as well as prior British legal traditions and law, all support this view.
In a recent article in the Harvard Law Review, two former U.S. Solicitor Generals, Paul Clement (who served under President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (who served under President Barack Obama) stated:
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning:namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth
with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that,subject to certain residency requirements on the parents,
someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.
Thus, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be eligible to run for presidentbecause the Austrian native had to go through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen.
Certainly the Framers of the Constitution held this view of “natural born” citizen.
They had a deep understanding of British common law and applied its precepts, particularly as explained in Blackstone’s Commentaries, throughout the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama (1888) recognized that“the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact thatits provisions are framed in the language of the English common law,
and are to be read in the light of its history.”
Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States
if the American people make that choice.
One of those precepts of British law wasthat children born to British citizens anywhere in the world,even outside the dominions of the British Empire,
were “natural born” citizens of the Empire
who owed their allegiance to the Crown.
This historical understanding is explained in great detail by the Supreme Court in a well-known 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
The First Congress, which included many of the Framers of the Constitution, codified this view of a natural born citizen.
A mere three years after the Constitution was drafted, they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790,
which specified that the children of U.S. citizens born“out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
The modern version of this Act is found at 8 U.S.C. §1401.
It contains a list of all individuals who are considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
Paragraph (g) includes:
A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien,
and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions
for a period or periods totaling not less than five years,at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970;
his mother, who was a U.S. citizen by birth from Delaware, was in her 30s at the time.
She met Cruz’s father, who was born in Cuba, as a student at Rice University.
These facts show thatCruz’s family background clearly meets the standard set out in the federal statute for being a natural born citizen who did not have to go through any naturalization process to become a citizen.;
That was also the case for Senator Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state,
and Governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico.
The bottom line is that Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States if the American people make that choice.
The same is true of my wife, who was born in Manila.Her father, whose family had been in America since shortly after the Pilgrims got to Massachusetts,
was temporarily working abroad for an American company—just like Ted Cruz’s father.
My wife is not likely to run for president,
but there is no question that she—like Ted Cruz, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain—is eligible to be president
and to swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it , too (
even though it DOES NOT APPLY)
!
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,That any Alien being a free white person,who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the Stateswherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court thathe is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by lawto support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
And the children of such person so naturalized,dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, thatthe right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Provided also, thatno person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
269
posted on
02/14/2016 6:29:13 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
Is that supposed to be a picture of the 1790 NATURALIZATION ACT?
A NATURALIZATION ACT repealed in 1795.
A NATURALIZATION ACT which does not apply to a person born in 1970.
270
posted on
02/14/2016 6:31:55 PM PST
by
Ray76
(Our gov has become hideously deformed by the hand of the Dem-Rep-Uniparty. They must be abolished.)
To: Ray76
You really don't do ANY research, DO YOU, DUMMY ?
In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a lawthat required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.
After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.
The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.
Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.
Did you know ...
Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenshipif she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.
Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:
1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives
271
posted on
02/14/2016 6:42:08 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
Zzzz.
The act in force at the time of birth controls.
272
posted on
02/14/2016 6:55:19 PM PST
by
Ray76
(Our gov has become hideously deformed by the hand of the Dem-Rep-Uniparty. They must be abolished.)
To: Ray76
That's right!
On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen",
MAR 11, 2015, Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement
... While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape,
at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15× Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a "natural born Citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution.
Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a "natural born Citizen" even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.16× Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President,
wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain's birth.17× See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).
Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain's candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord.
The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency,resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was "inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the 'natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States,
as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term 'natural born Citizen.' "18× S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008).
And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state.
Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party's presidential nominee in 1964,19× and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.20×
There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle.
The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.
Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues.
To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a "natural born Citizen."
Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve.
But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization.
And the phrase "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.
Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent - - whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone - - is a U.S. citizen from birth
and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.
* Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of Law, Georgetown University.
** Distinguished Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University; Partner, Bancroft PLLC.
273
posted on
02/14/2016 6:57:19 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
Keep relying on naturalization acts.
274
posted on
02/14/2016 7:00:28 PM PST
by
Ray76
(Our gov has become hideously deformed by the hand of the Dem-Rep-Uniparty. They must be abolished.)
To: Ray76
"The act in force at the time of [TED CRUZ's ] birth controls."
That's right!
as far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8.The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...
As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote: " ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly saysthat Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
that Congress considers invalid.
Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clearthat each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that housemeets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.
If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.
Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate disputeor any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rulesbut it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.
Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."
NOTE:
nonjusticiable political question Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
One scholar explained: The political question doctrine holdsthat some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out. - - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vaguethat the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
A court can only decide issues based on law.
The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
The court will not engage in political disputes.
A constitutional dispute that requires knowledgeof a non-legal character
or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.
Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
What is the root word of
"Naturalization" ?
"Naturalize" ! "admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized), from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Not only could the Founding Father define
"natural born citizen", BUT ...
THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it
!
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,That any Alien being a free white person,who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the Stateswherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court thathe is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by lawto support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
And the children of such person so naturalized,dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, thatthe right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Provided also, thatno person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !
1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives
Finally, read the latest from links provided by the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.
READ IT VERY CLOSELY.
Constitutional Topic: Citizenship
... Citizenship is mentioned in
If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen?
Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
But even this does not get specific enough.
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inalso allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
- Anyone born inside the United States *
* There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition:
a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asEach of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
In 8 USC 1403, the law states thatanyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
was "declared" to be a United States citizen.Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized thatbecause McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
he was not actually qualified to be president.
However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):"a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
U.S. Nationals
A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.
U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.
(Continued)
275
posted on
02/14/2016 7:00:54 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
The ONLY naturalization act the matters is the one in force at the time of birth.
276
posted on
02/14/2016 7:01:18 PM PST
by
Ray76
(Our gov has become hideously deformed by the hand of the Dem-Rep-Uniparty. They must be abolished.)
To: Ray76
[You] "Keep relying on naturalization acts."
You have NO UNDERSTANDING of the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived !
You have no comprehension of the laws defining it.
What is the root word of
"Naturalization" ?
"Naturalize" ! "admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized), from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Not only could the Founding Father define
"natural born citizen", BUT ...
THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT ! And you ARE refusing the definition of
"natural born citizen" CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !
Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.
It was defined
for the United States, BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS !
The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it
!
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,That any Alien being a free white person,who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the Stateswherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court thathe is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by lawto support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
And the children of such person so naturalized,dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, thatthe right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Provided also, thatno person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
277
posted on
02/14/2016 7:03:07 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
Please pay close attention to this subtle point which is easily overlooked by zealots such as yourself: you are citing NATURALIZATION ACTS.
278
posted on
02/14/2016 7:04:20 PM PST
by
Ray76
(Our gov has become hideously deformed by the hand of the Dem-Rep-Uniparty. They must be abolished.)
To: Ray76
"The ONLY naturalization act the matters is the one in force at the time of birth."
FIRST, let's CORRECT that sentence.
The ONLY
naturalization act LAW the matters ... is ... the one in force at the time of TED CRUZ's birth.
FACT: Cruzs fathers Cuban nationality at the time of Cruzs birth, is irrelevant, according to the law at that time,
just so long as he was a LEGAL Immigrant at the time of Ted Cruz's birth,
AND both of Ted Cruz's parents were legally married to each other.
What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?
The 14th Amendment IS a part of the U.S. Constitution and states in SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So, under that power to legislate, Congress legislated and the President signed into law: When ONE parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national,the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child,with five of the years after the age of 14.
... While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,amendments since 1952 HAVE ELIMINATED THESE REQUIREMENTS.
When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK".
They married, moved to Calgary, Alberta, and in late 1970 had their first and only child, Rafael Edward Cruz.
Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz.
Cruz's mother was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent.
Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School (1952) in the U.S., as well as Rice University (1956),so clearly she meets the residency requirements.
Source
In 1957, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.
Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.
"Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father, "and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."
Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born.
His father went there after having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out.
He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen.
The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.
"I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."
The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 48 years after leaving Cuba.
Why did he take so long to do it?"I don't know. I guess laziness, or I don't know," he says.
So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
AND HOW
Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time,
for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.
279
posted on
02/14/2016 7:05:35 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Ray76
I SAY AGAIN, DUMMY:
You have NO UNDERSTANDING of the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived !
You have no comprehension of the laws defining it.
What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?"Naturalize" ! "admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized), from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
And you ARE refusing the definition of "natural born citizen" CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !
280
posted on
02/14/2016 7:07:20 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280, 281-298 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson