Posted on 02/05/2016 8:22:26 PM PST by kathsua
Foreign born US Presidents
http://www.usanewsandinformationservice.com/uspresidentsfb.html
Right. I've had same thoughts.
Lol, his mother was not any more in allegiance to Canada than the soldier or ambassador.
Allegiance only changes when you renounce citizenship.
If Trump were a conservative, the cultists could oppose Cruz on issues. Since he is a leftist posing as a conservative, the only thing they can oppose Cruz on is a phony birther issue.
Desperate.
Ted Cruz is already on the ballot in almost every Presidential Primary state. It is too late for any Loony Lefty to challenge his eligibility.
If Cruz is the nominee, the SC will not have the guts to throw him off the ballot. Book it.
They also will move at the speed they did in bush v. Gore.
I think you're on to something there. Was Cruz a Canadian citizen by virtue of the location of his birth? If so, then he is not "natural born". The whole idea of "natural born" is to make very sure that the person in question has a built-in allegiance to the USA only.
Just my opinion. I'm sure many FReepers will disagree with me. And the Supreme Court probably would disagree with me as well.
Good stuff RC one. Good visual aid too.
It’s definitely wort pointing out again that every president born after the first Constitutional Convention (1781), was an American president, starting with Martin Van Buren, born in 1782.
Every president before him was born in American-English colony and was an American English president.
Al Hamilton, born in the British West Idies, was an ... American citizen, and pursuant to Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 was eligible to run for either office.
Some here are conflating “citizen” with “natural born citizen”. They are two entirely different things for the purposes of understanding Article 2.
The Framers wanted successful candidates for *only these two jobs* to be citizens born in America.
Considering the past seven years, it isn’t difficult to understand their reasons.
Will never happen!
Amen my brother!
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 84--101 1829 (2d ed.)
Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailorsâ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)
The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
It is significant to note that in a more recent case, in 2001, the Supreme Court indicated that under
current law and jurisprudence a child born to U.S. citizens while living or traveling abroad, and a
child born in the geographic United States, had the same legal status. In Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS,162 the Court explained that a woman who is a U.S. citizen living abroad and expecting a child could re-enter the United States and have the child born “in†the United States, or could stay abroad and not travel back to this country and have the child born abroad, and that the child in either case would have the same status as far as U.S. citizenship:
[T]he statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens
abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’s birth and the other chooses not to return, or
does not have the means to do so.163
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
As I said, it won’t matter.
He will lose Voters because of it no matter the Ruling.
Doesn’t make me happy since he is my first choice, but I’m a Realist and I have Immunity (tagline).
So a female ambassador to Japan giving birth in a Tokyo hospital gives birth to a Japanese citizen and not an American?
How absurd and desperate the Trump cult is.
The Donald and his lawyers agree with me.
[[And the Supreme Court probably would disagree with me as well. ]]
The supreme court does disagree=- as per the post above-
We could avoid the legal drama with Canadian-born Cruz, who I admire, avoid open borders Rubio and Trump, the silly putty candidate and run with a solid, thoughtful conservative in Jim Gilmore.
Wrong.
One is natural born when a citizen at birth, requiring no naturalization process to become a citizen nor foreswearing of citizenship in another country. Mom-to-be - American citizen - takes a job in Canada. Baby born while she is there. Baby is citizen at birth. Not naturalized later, but natural born citizen
Congress is given the power to define by statute.
Posting the wrong answer a trillion times will not make it true.
Is not determined by “soil” when birthed. Determined by a parent who is a citizen of the United States. Not two parents, according to applicable statute, one parent.
This is not a trick question. The law is not designed to deny natural born status to a baby whose mom served or worked across a boundary line, or who went shopping across a boundary line one day, suddenly the baby came, and you fantasize the founders wanted to make sure that after she comes home across the boundary line with her baby she birthed on the other side, her baby can’t grow up and run for President???
You lack a scintilla of perspective on what NBC was ever about in reality.
Your insistence is disconnected from everything. It is arbitrary and absurd on its face to think that a Ted Cruz or the offspring of an American serving overseas is who the founders wanted to stop from running for POTUS.
please see my post above- and read the CRS report which shows that your scenario is correct- it’s absurd to believe a child born abroad to a us citizen is then a citizen of another country- The SC said there is no difference between the child of a citizen mother born abroad or on land- neither child needs to go through a ‘naturalization process’ as would a child who’s parents are not citizens at all- therefore the child born to a US citizen abroad is an NBC - there was also a federal case recently that determined basically the same thing- which you can find in that report
This is discussed in the New Englander and Yale Review Volume 0003 Issue 11 (July 1845) where it is stated:
It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.
This is the Canadian citizenship act of 1947 that asserts that Ted is a NBC of Canada:
Re-read Article 2, Section 1, clause 5.
Then ask yourself, ‘Why did they use two terms: natural born citizens and citizens?
It’s not that difficult.
All of the presidents prior to Van Buren were America “citizens”, formerly British citizens. They were not born in America. The USA did not exist when they were born. They had to have someone running things so they allowed citizens to be eligible or they would have disqualified everyone alive. Because everyone alive was born before America existed.
Ok?
If they meant what you understand, they would have just used the word citizens.
But they didn’t. Can you follow the logic here?
Cruz was a Canadian citizen. Now he may be an American citizen. But by the logic of the Framers he would not qualify as being a NBC, not having been born at the turn of the 19th century, before America was made, born on American soil.
Sometimes I feel like I’m trying to explain algebra to my bulldog ...
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.