If Vattel is the authority cited for the natural born citizen requirement as written into the constitution, then Vattel is also the authority for children born to citizens serving their country abroad.
Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
Thanks for that graphic, I had never seen it before.
Cruz’s father also liked and supported America. Obamas worked for Americas downfall.
I would say it isn't addressed by our nationality laws rather than it isn't recognized in U.S.
SCOTUS recognized the concept of dual nationality in Kawakita v. United States.
From the State Department's Foreign Affairs manual:
7 FAM 082 DUAL NATIONALITY AND U.S. LAW -- GENERALLY(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005)
Current U.S. nationality laws do not explicitly address dual nationality, but the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.” See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
7 FAM 081 SUMMARY(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005)
e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person. A foreign country might claim you as a citizen of that country if (a) you were born there; (b) your parent or parents (and sometimes grandparents) are or were citizens of that country or (c) you are a naturalized U.S. citizen but are still considered a citizen under that country's laws. (The oath you take when you are naturalized as a U.S. citizen (8 CFR 337.1) doesn’t mean the foreign country does not still regard you as a citizen of that country.) Public inquiries about the citizenship laws of other countries should be directed to the embassy or consulate of that country in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1185(b) (Section 215(b) INA) and 22 CFR 53.1 require that U.S. citizens exit and enter the United States on a U.S. passport, with certain limited exceptions (22 CFR 53.2).
One can presume, that even in Dicta a Supreme Court Judge would know what the f*** he is talking about. In his contemplation of the 14th amendment, Chief Justice Waite said:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Given that the 14th amendment says precisely "in words", who shall be a citizen...
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.
It is obvious that Chief Justice Waite did not accept the 14th amendment as defining a "natural born citizen."
Whether dicta or not, a Supreme court judge cannot possibly be mistaken on this point. It requires one to believe they were too stupid to notice the 14th amendment.
That is not true. The only two ways to gain US citizenship before 1868 were Naturalization and birth to American parents. In the 1855 Naturalization Act, US law declared that all alien women who married American men automatically became US citizens. Since there was no ius soli in 1855 that means that all people born to American Fathers were de factorequired to have two US citizen parents to be considered natural born citizens from at least 1855-1868. All American children had two US parents unless they were naturalized or illegitimate.
And in fact, the Supreme Court has said that NBC and the 14th are restatements of the same principle, in effect during colonial times, and never changed.
Yeah, that is your interpretation of what they said, but even if your interpretation was correct, that doesn't mean that SCOTUS got the decision right. SCOTUS has also said that the government has the power to force American citizens to buy health insurance, and Obamacare is a tax not a penalty, Roe v. Wade etc. The Supreme Court changes it's mind and has contradicted itself before. There is no way to say they wont' do it again. They likewise are not consistent on citizenship, depending on the point in American history you look at their rulings.
In any case, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, your citizenship was inherited solely from your father, and in many countries the the wife automatically would inherit her husband's citizenship from the husband. The citizenship of the child passed solely through the father's line except in the cases of unknown parentage. In the 20th century, the principle of dual citizenship was introduced to the law, and both parents were given the right to pass on citizenship to their children. This is completely anathema to the principle of the president being a natural born citizen. You cannot actively accept two countries citizenship after the age of 18 and still be considered yourself eligible for the presidency.
Thus when I say citizenship is inherited through the parents, I am referring to general parentage that existed before both parents were capable of passing on the citizenship of separate countries to their children. The key parent involved in natural born citizenship was typically the father owing to cultural circumstances which existed at the time of the Founding. The Founders never intended to have a dual citizen parent.
As for Rubio, who had parents awaiting citizenship, he was BORN here to parents who were here legally, citizens in waiting. Both are eligible
______________________________________
“waiting” is not suffient...
Either the parents are American citizens at the time of the birth making the child a NBC and eligible
or they are not and the child is merely an American citizen and ineligible...
Like Bobby Jindal...his parents were not AC so he is ineligible...
What nationality is the father of Ted Cruz ???
If he was an American citizenn there might be a case...
However if the parents were living in Canada as “Canadians in waiting” then NO...
“”American citizens in waioting” is nopt good enough...
I was a so called “citizen in waiting” when my son was born and was naturalized when he was 8 months old...
although his father was an American citizen when our son was born, the baby was not a NBC...
He cannot be POTUS ...he is ineligible...
OUr daughter born in the US a few years later AFTER I was naturalized is a NBC and is eliglible to be POTUS next year when she will be 35...
There is no time limit...
You can be naturalized on Monday and your child born the next day Tuesday will be a NBC...
However if you are still “in waiting” and your child was born on the Sunday of that week, the day before you were naturalized, tough TEA bags..
he or she is not a NBC...
because you were not American citizens as yet...
Thanks, Doc. That fact could change things considerably.
If Vattel is the authority cited for the natural born citizen requirement as written into the constitution, then Vattel is also the authority for children born to citizens serving their country abroad.
Some freepers are more knowledgeable than others, but even the less knowledgeable ones want to express their opinions. This is not a reason to ignore the more knowledgeable ones.
Since Cruz is Hispanic, those who question anything regarding him should be assumed to be racist. It’s the insulation president Stoner enjoys.
If you start adding amendments every time the loony left redefines a term, you would have hundreds of amendments and adding amendments would never stop.
NBC was specific in it’s meaning at the time and clearly the FF didn’t want anyone with dual loyalties running the country much less having a president that could claim the throne of another country because of birth right.
We don’t need an amendment, we just need people with the courage to say a dual citizen is not eligible for president.
If Cruz isn’t eligible because he is a dual citizen, then clearly Zippo isn’t eligible because he is a dual citizen.
Letting the left tie themselves into knots trying to explain why Zippo is eligible but Cruz isn’t may be trap that has been set.
And a natural born Canadian Citizen. And a Natural born Cuban citizen. So if Canada goes to war with the United States, which side does he fight on?
If Cuba decides to draft him, can they make him fight us?
No, this won't cause any problems at all.
They are good citizens. After looking at our current administration, they wouldn’t take job if it were offered.
What is this false information which you keep promoting? (That there were OTHER Presidents without American Parents.)
There was only ONE, and we didn't discover this about him until just a few years ago. During his life, he made great efforts to cover it up.
I said specifically that dual citizenship is not OFFICIALLY recognized.
You left off the word “OFFICIALLY.” What is meant by that is dual citizenship is not legal in the US because it is not in our laws as an officially recognized citizenship status.
That snip you posted backs this up:
“Current U.S. nationality laws do not explicitly address dual nationality, but the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a “status long recognized in the law”
Long recognized in international law. Not so specifically in US nationality laws.
Dual citizenship gives a person rights of nationality in more than one country. *Dual allegiance* ( as in obamas’ case), permitting a foreigner to the Presidency was what John Jay warned against, and why the original wording of the qualifications to be President were changed to what they are now and have never been amended since being signed.
To a greater degree in Canada than in the US - due to laxer immigration protocols, Communist sympathizing government since trudope and greater proportion of foreign born folks as a percentage of the population.
Saying it loudly doesn't make it any less stupid. The voters don't get to decide what is "Arms", nor do they get to decide what is "speech."
The meaning of terms of art are not subject to voter approval.
I agree, and I hope he stays away from you lot.
Vattel’s Law of Nations is not United States Law, which I quote.
The reason Barry Goldwater was eligible to be President is that the Arizona Territory, in which he was born, was an incorporated territory, and expected to fully become part of the United States. (There was a major fight within the Republican Party over this issue. Gov.George Romney was born in Mexico with citizenship derived from his U.S. citizen parents but he was not an NBC. His son made it a point to emphasize his eligibility in 2012.)
The Panama Canal Zone, from the very beginning, was an unincorporated territory (same goes for Puerto Rico and Guam). We leased the land containing the Canal Zone from Panama - they never signed away national sovereignty to that land. Today it is completely Panamanian.
People born in The Panama Canal Zone, like those of Puerto Rico and Guam, are recognized as statutory U.S. citizens courtesy of the U.S.Congress, but they are not Natural born Citizens.
(See Wikipedia for details.)
Because Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, if they migrate to the U.S. mainland, any children born within the United States proper, I believe, are considered Natural born Citizens but not those born on the island of Puerto Rico.
Hey! I don’t make the laws! I’m just reporting what I’ve found.
Incidently, Sen.John S. McCain accepted over $100,000 in donations from George Soros during the 2008 election.
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.