Posted on 08/27/2013 2:27:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas — love him or hate him — continues to stride across the national stage. With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret: Ted Cruz was born in Canada.
But does that mean that Cruz’s presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses? Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards, having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate?
No, actually, and it’s not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a “natural born citizen” of the United States, the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency. (The Founding Fathers didn’t want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.)
What’s a “natural born citizen”? The Constitution doesn’t say, but the Framers’ understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents — in a manner regulated by federal law — and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.
Snip~
So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Not having studied the particular case in depth, my take is the court was saying the case needed to be decided on what, exactly, the statute gave to the petitioner but the petitioner was trying to claim he was 'losing' something based on a citizenship to which he was never originally entitled.
--------
Not to mention there is not a single shred of evidence in the Founding ear to support the authority for a 'presumptive citizenship'.
I think it’s possible to argue that Greisser was “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” I think Bayard was stretching it, but I think it’s possible to at least make that argument.
But by the intention of those who wrote the 14th Amendment (and I’ve read these debates now) I really don’t think it’s possible for a reasonable, well-informed person to argue that children born in the United States to US citizens or to RESIDENT aliens are “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
And both Obama and Cruz are clearly eligible.
Actually, the 14th has no bearing on your citizenship - as pointed out in M v. H.
You are a true natural born Citizen. And that form of citizenship pre-dates the 14th. And it even pre-dates Congress. There had to be citizens before there was a Congress. Of course at the time the Citizens (capital C) were Citizens of states. And were still Citizens of states after the formation of the nation and Congress. Congress was charted (via the Constitution) to create UNIFORM naturalization for ALL the states since each had varying forms of naturalization and were allowed to do so under the original Articles of Confederation.
Natural born citizens (born to citizens parents in country) need no or amendment to be citizens.
Native-born citizen (born in U.S.) IS currently broken down into two different sub-classifications: native-born citizen OR natural-born citizen. One OR the other.
Direct, current proof that NOT all native-born citizens are natural-born citizens.
No, you're reading it wrong, because you're reading it with your birther glasses on.
It isn't "direct, current proof that not all native-born citizens are natural-born citizens."
It's direct, current proof that not all natural-born citizens are native-born citizens.
If you're a native-born citizen, then you're a natural-born citizen.
But there are natural born citizens - and Ted Cruz is a great example - who are not native born citizens.
Native born, generally, refers to persons born in the United States. If you were born in the United States and were born a citizen (i.e., you weren't the child of a foreign ambassador) then you are certainly a natural born citizen.
If you were born a United States citizen in Canada, because one or both of your parents was a US citizen, then you are a natural born citizen for the purposes of the Constitution and Presidential eligibility. But you are not a "native born" citizen.
And the purpose of the restoration statute was to restore to those women the exact kind of citizenship they had had before it was stripped from them.
Yes, I am a natural-born citizen, but I am also a citizen under the 14th Amendment, even though I did not need it to affirm my status. But thank you for your effort to clarify the matter.
Now you come along and assert that the NATURALIZATION LAW which Congress passed in 1934 and that collectively naturalizes anyone born in a foreign country of an American mother means the EXACT SAME THING as Bayard's understanding of "Citizen at birth."
And this is why we regard you as a habitual liar. You constantly make these equivocations between one thing and another without taking into account the fact that they are very different.
Let me summarize your point.
A "citizen at birth" is a very, very different thing from a "citizen at birth."
And anyone who disagrees with this is a "habitual liar."
Wow. You got me, dude.
I'm not sure what "legal purposes" you want an Exposition of the Constitution of the United States to serve.
As far as the "education of youths" goes, yes, it was used in our colleges and seminaries, and Bayard was pleased that it was.
The question is whether it was accurate. The Great Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, the acclaimed Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and the famous Chancellor James Kent, all of whom were among the absolute top legal authorities in the United States, as well as other distinguished legal experts, all attested that it was.
So once again you're doing what birthers do. You have your pet theory, and when the evidence completely and flatly contradicts it, do you say, "Gee, I might be wrong?" No, of course not. Instead, you try to discredit the evidence, even when it stands on the firm ground of having been approved by the most expert authorities of the early United States.
“””by the intention of those who wrote the 14th Amendment (and I’ve read these debates now) I really don’t think it’s possible for a reasonable, well-informed person to argue that children born in the United States to US citizens or to RESIDENT aliens are “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
And both Obama and Cruz are clearly eligible.”””
Neither Cruz nor Obama were born in the U.S. to resident alien parents. Cruz was born in Canada. Obama was born to an alien father who was only temporarily in the U.S. on a student permit set to expire on August 9, 1961.
Even the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark specifically stipulates in the ruling that one’s parents must have an established PERMANENT domicile in the U.S. at the time of one’s birth in order for one born in the U.S. to acquire birthright citizenship.
BOTH Cruz and Obama are ineligible.
Nope. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 says the courts have not ruled definitively on such a person's eligibility. I won't quote it again because you know the drill.
Yes, I could.
You are correct that the courts have not ruled definitively on such a person's eligibility.
My point is, whether the courts have ruled on it or not, from the point of view of history, the related law that we do know, and the intention of the Founders, such a person is eligible. And if Cruz runs and a case reaches the Supreme Court, they will rule that he is eligible.
It is in my mind a mere formality that the courts haven't (yet) ruled that a Ted Cruz is eligible.
“””No, you’re reading it wrong, because you’re reading it with your birther glasses on.
It isn’t “direct, current proof that not all native-born citizens are natural-born citizens.”
It’s direct, current proof that not all natural-born citizens are native-born citizens.”””
No. Read the law, Jeff, this time much more carefully:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That hereafter a woman, BEING A NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN, who is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated or who has resided continuously in the United States since the date of such marriage, shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=a1Aclme7AMkC&lpg=PA173&ots=onepage&q=173&f=false page 173
By CURRENTLY stating the restored U.S. citizenship of such persons as thus:
“The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922”, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20130314041654/http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
NATIVE-born citizens Jeff. If you still don’t get that, read the quoted law above the first link again.
NATIVE-born citizen (born in U.S.) IS currently broken down into two different sub-classifications: native-born citizen OR natural-born citizen. One OR the other, WHICHEVER status existed before the loss of citizenship.
Direct, current proof that NOT all NATIVE-born citizens are natural-born citizens.
“The question is whether it was accurate. The Great Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, the acclaimed Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and the famous Chancellor James Kent, all of whom were among the absolute top legal authorities in the United States, as well as other distinguished legal experts, all attested that it was.”
As has been pointed out to you many times, this is inaccurate. With the exception of Marshall there is no evidence that any of them read Bayard’s book. They approved the planned purpose and organization of the book.
Once again you are engaging in puffery.
To continue the thought experiment (see post 146).
Suppose the child was fourteen years old when the family returned to the US.
In Case 1 where the US and GooGooGaGaLand have a treaty the child, now adult, visits his childhood friends any number of times without incident. He maintains friendships and associations with the foreign country.
In Case 2 where the US and GooGooGaGaLand do not have a treaty the child, now adult, visits his childhood friends any number of times without incident. He maintains friendships and associations with the foreign country.
Scenario A
The child, now adult - let’s call him “X” from here on - is elected to the US Legislature. A dispute of some sort arises between the US and GooGooGaGaLand. As a Representative or Senator the direct influence, the power, the vote, of X is diluted by his membership in a multimember body. His desire not to harm his friends is understandable, it’s entirely human. The effect of any partiality is mitigated.
Scenario B
X is elected US President. A dispute of some sort arises between the US and GooGooGaGaLand. Congress passes a bill detrimental to GooGooGaGaLand. His desire not to harm his friends is understandable, it’s entirely human. X vetoes the bill. The effect of any partiality is still mitigated, his veto could be overridden, but the power of the individual is diluted to a much smaller degree than in the Legislature, it will take the joined power of many individuals to overcome the veto - the partiality - of this one individual.
Scenario C
There is a war and the Commander in Chief rules out bombing of a strategic GooGooGaGaLand city - the home of his childhood and his friends.
.
Now let’s introduce Case 3 - a child born within the US to US citizen parents. Let’s call him “Y”.
The existence or not of a treaty between the US and GooGooGaGaLand is of no consequence, Y can travel between the two countries without incident (short of the foreign country being beligerent/warlike).
While it is certainty true that Y may be a GooGooGaGaLand-phile, or that after the child’s birth the family may have relocated to GooGooGaGaLand, or that perhaps Y harbors some imagined ties or vestigial partiality due to familial heritage, in the vast majority of instances the likelihood of any real tie to GooGooGaGaLand is remote. How would this play out?
Scenario D
As in Scenario A, Y is elected to the US Legislature. A dispute of some sort arises between the US and GooGooGaGaLand. His desire not to harm his friends is understandable, it’s entirely human. It is very much more likely than not that his friendships are US. Like X in Case A, Y’s power is diluted, but it is likely of no unusual consequence: his interests are US interests.
Scenario E
As in Scenario B, Y is elected US President. A dispute of some sort arises between the US and GooGooGaGaLand. Congress passes a bill detrimental to GooGooGaGaLand. Y’s desire not to harm his friends is understandable, it’s entirely human. It is very much more likely than not that his friendships are US. As President he signs the bill into law.
Scenario F
As in Scenario C, there is a war. Y, the Commander in Chief orders the bombing of a strategic GooGooGaGaLand city. The home of his childhood and his friends is US.
.
Is the US more secure with a Legislator who is US born person of US parentage? Yes. And if the person is not the consequences are mitigated.
Is the US more secure with a President who is US born person of US parentage? Yes. And if the person is not the consequences could be severe.
The question posed in post 146, can a person who’s international status is dependent upon law or treaty be said to be a “natural born citizen”, is answered negatively. A status dependent upon law or treaty exposes an indelible tincture of foreign partiality, no matter how latent, and is a determining factor if not the single determining factor.
Are there exceptions? Certainly. Is it imperfect? Yes. It is not infallible. However, as a principle it is the strongest check practically devisable.
It is Jay’s “strong check” while avoiding “illiberality” in the admission of foreigners.
Yes, I've read it, Rides. Believe me, I've read it very carefully.
And there is absolutely nothing in those laws that in any way says that there exists such a thing as a native born citizen that isn't also a natural born citizen.
I think you need to read it carefully again.
I also believe the courts would rule in favor of Cruz’s eligibility. I just wanted you to acknowledge what we both know 7 FAM 1131.6-2 states on the subject. Thank you for doing so.
None. It's your source and you're the one trying to act as if a schoolbook had some meaning in law, not me.
-----
The question is whether it was accurate. The Great Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, the acclaimed Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and the famous Chancellor James Kent, all of whom were among the absolute top legal authorities in the United States, as well as other distinguished legal experts, all attested that it was.
No, Jeff, they did not.
Dane was 'flattered by their notice', so they had aknowledged the existence of the book.
They communicated to him 'their approbation of the plan of the work', so they thought it was a good idea.
They also approved 'the manner of its execution'', so they thought it was well organized and
expressed 'their opinion that it is well calculated for the attainment of the object for which it was intended', which was a book of history for schools.
So, no Jeff, there is nothing in your source to show they verified, agreed or even READ the book, much less condoned every word printed in the book OR that they felt the definition it contained had anything to do with current law.
------
So once again you're doing what birthers do. You have your pet theory, and when the evidence completely and flatly contradicts it, do you say, "Gee, I might be wrong?" No, of course not.
Oh, yes, I forgot your childish tactics. You know, the one you fall back on when squawking 'BIRTHER" or telling someone they're delusional or insane doesn't work.
Jeff's rule of constitutional debate is:
I'm right because I say I am!
LOL! How pathetic.
I intended to direct post 176 to you Rides3.
Posts 146 and 176 are meant to illustrate post 136
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.