I'm confused about this Cruz Citizenship thing

[bigdaddy45]

So I saw several years of complaints that Obama was born in Kenya. Lets assume he was. His mother is an American citizen; there isn't any dispute there. And, in the minds of those who believe he was born in Kenya, that means he's not eligible to be President.

Lets move to Ted Cruz. He was born in Canada. His father wasn't a US Citizen at the time of his birth. His mother was. So if Obama being born in Kenya supposedly matters, why does Cruz being born in Canada NOT matter?

[philman_36]

The cable act was just the first effort at allowing women to retain their own citizenship. (and therefore pass it on to their children.)

So the children became citizens through the naturalization process, right?

Doesn't that mean they were NOT natural born citizens?

[WildHighlander57]

Xzins,

For the citizen parent, it was 10 years residency in the us, 5 of which after the age of 14.

0’s mom was only 18 when 0 was born; too young to convey citizenship if the kid was born outside the us and its possessions.

Thus the mad scramble by 0 and his minions to post fake docs & stonewall any investigation into where he was born.

Now, Cruz’ mom was old enough to convey citizenship.

IMHO, the fact that Cruz’ dad is now a citizen and 0’s dad didn’t get citizenship speaks volumes .....

Cruz’ dad fled a communist regime, and worked hard to provide for his family...

But 0’s dad just wanted to chase girls and hadn’t the moral character that was a prerequisite of citizenship.

Cruz has my vote.

0 has my scorn.

[Nero Germanicus]

The difference between the birth circumstance of Obama and Senator Cruz is that Senator Cruz was born in Canada.
Hawaii had a Republican Governor when Obama was first running for president, Governor Linda Lingle and she said:
“You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this.It’s been established. He was born here.”

Since then the state of Hawaii has issued six different confirmations and Letters of Verification of his birth there and no court in the land has ever ruled that he wasn’t born in Hawaii.
Despite all the fuss, those who doubt Obama’s eligibility haven’t filed a CRIMINAL compliant in any court alleging fraud, election fraud, forgery, identity theft or document tampering.

[combat_boots]

Had I the money, I would have filed. 0bama is as nearly entirely fraudulent as the dollar bill in my soap bar.

[Nero Germanicus]

It doesn’t cost a penny. You take your evidence of alleged criminality to a prosecuting attorney such as a city attorney, a county attorney, a district attorney, a state attorney general’s office or a U.S. Attorney and if the evidence is solid, they take it from there and convene a Grand Jury investigation.

[Nero Germanicus]

Under Hawaii law (Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18(b)[point 9] if anybody wants to inspect a birth record and they are not on the list of persons designated by law to have “a direct and tangible interest” in the birth record, what you need is “an order from a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
In non-legalese, go to a real court, convince a judge that they should issue a court order for release of the birth certificate and you’ll get to see the original.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

[Bubba_Leroy]

Just what "statutes", specifically, apply to natural born citizen?

All statutes apply to both natural born and naturalized citizens. Only Our Glorious Leader Obama is not subject to any statutes.

Seriously though, this is not rocket science. You can use an online venn diagram maker to follow along.

Every person that is present in the U.S. can be categorized as either (a) a citizen or (b) a non-citizen. Those two categories cover everyone.

All citizens can be further categorized as either (1) natural born Citizens or (2) naturalized Citizens. Those two categories cover every citizen.

All non-citizens can be further categorized as either (1) legal aliens or (2) illegal aliens. Those two categories cover every non-citizen.

That covers everyone in the U.S., except of course Our Glorious Leader who is above all.

The term "natural born Citizen" is used one time in the Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, which states in its entirety: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Nowhere in the Constitution is the term "natural born Citizen" defined. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution is the term "Citizen" defined.

The 14th Amendment (which was adopted 90 years after the Constitution was ratified) was written to expand citizenship to include former slaves. It states, "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 does not state that to be a citizen you have to either be born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If it did, then it would impose new limitations on citizenship.

Here is where the venn diagram will come in handy. If all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens it does not mean that all citizens are born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If it did, then you would lose your citizenship anytime that you leave the jurisdiction of the U.S. It is a non sequitur. Similarly, all illegal aliens are aliens but not all aliens are illegal aliens. All Democrat Congresscritters are crooks, but not all crooks are Democrat Congresscritters.

It also does not support the claim that if illegal aliens cross the border and have children here, their children are automatically U.S. Citizens, since that argument completely ignores the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requirement, but that is an argument for another day.

[philman_36]

Just what "statutes", specifically, apply to natural born citizen?

All statutes apply to both natural born and naturalized citizens.

Again....Just what "statutes", specifically, apply to natural born citizen?
Which statute specifically, must a natural born citizen resort to as evidence of their citizenship?

You've evaded my simple question, not answered it.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

The Hawaiian state health official who personally reviewed Barack Obama's original birth certificate has affirmed again that the document is "real" and denounced "conspiracy theorists" in the so-called "birther" movement for continuing to spread bogus claims about the issue.

Oh yes yes, and Nancy Pelosi vetted and vouched for Obama herself.

Dr. Chiyome Fukino...in a rare telephone interview with NBC.

Oh yeah, and we all know what purveyors of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...the NBC RATagandists are.

[Political Junkie Too]

Article IV of the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and trumps state law.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

I should add for those who don't look it up that the Article IV full faith and credit clause gives states the right to prove the public records of other states. Therefore, a state's Constitutional right to prove public records supercedes an individual's state privacy right.

A state should be allowed to prove to its own satisfaction that the public records of another state are legitimate. They shouldn't be forced to take another person's word for it.

-PJ

[Nero Germanicus]

You mean Article Six, the Supremacy Clause.

Article Four gives to the states “Full faith and credit” over their own records.
What Hawaii says is an official record of their state must be accepted in every other state and by the federal government. When the Republican Governor of Hawaii confirmed that Obama was born there, every other state and Congress backed off.

Article Four, Section 1:
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

[Nero Germanicus]

The full faith and credit clause says just the opposite of what you said. If any state says a record is legitimate and official, that record will be accepted as legitimate and official in every other state.

One more time: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

[rxsid]

No need for confusion.

Only need to know one thing.

Cruz is a "citizen" by Congressional law. His mother meet the age and residency requirement set forth by Congress, at that time, in order to "pass" US citizenship to her son who was born in a foreign land.

Congress, thank goodness, doesn't have the authority to write law to determine who may be a "natural born Citizen." Else, the Congress from 2008-2010 could have written a law saying anchor babies are "natural born Citizens."

Cruz is a citizen by statue.

[Political Junkie Too]

But you didn't address the "shall be proved" part.

-PJ

[DiogenesLamp]

So the children became citizens through the naturalization process, right?

Doesn't that mean they were NOT natural born citizens?

That is my understanding. These acts created a condition unimaginable to the founders; That of "dual citizen." In 1787 you were either one thing or another, not both.

[Vanbasten]

Yeah, because a law passed by congress cannot accomplish more than one thing! That would just be crazy.

[DiogenesLamp]

Since then the state of Hawaii has issued six different confirmations and Letters of Verification of his birth

No they haven't, and I wish you would stop misleading people about this. EVERY SINGLE THING THEY'VE SAID is crouched in ambiguity. They never say anything which is definitive. It's always crouched in "there is some sort of record in our files" deflection of the point.

They won't let anyone see the original document, and they WON'T certify anything conclusively. Their position is basically "Take our word for it, but no, we won't show you proof."

I think it is a special class of IDIOT who thinks state privacy laws trump constitutional requirements, but we have become a nation filled with f***ing idiots, and our governance is coming more and more to resemble insanity.

[DiogenesLamp]

It doesn’t cost a penny. You take your evidence of alleged criminality to a prosecuting attorney such as a city attorney, a county attorney, a district attorney, a state attorney general’s office or a U.S. Attorney and if the evidence is solid, they take it from there and convene a Grand Jury investigation.

That's not how this works at all. The legal system takes one look at your evidence, says "Sour grapes for losing the election, and besides, we are not going to DARE rule against "Historic first." And then they say you don't have "standing."

Nero Germanicus then comes along and counts that as another "Win" in his tabulation of court cases he always likes to trot out, and which he seems to think proves something.

[DiogenesLamp]

Under Hawaii law (Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18(b)[point 9] if anybody wants to inspect a birth record and they are not on the list of persons designated by law to have “a direct and tangible interest” in the birth record, what you need is “an order from a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction.”

I would say that verifying that someone is eligible to hold the office of President is a pretty "tangible interest". As a matter of fact, this is a no brainer. Had Barack not been Black, every state election official would have demanded to see proof that he wasn't born in that foreign country that we had constantly been told he was born in.

But because of "Historic first", nobody wanted to be the child who pointed out the Emperor was naked. Everyone was scared to death of attracting any negative publicity on themselves for demanding to see his bona fides. It was just a larger example of this.

Again, I predicted all of this back in 1995 when Republicans were trying to figure out who to run for President. I told anyone who would listen that we need to pick a prominent black conservative because I KNEW he would have people falling all over themselves to support his candidacy because of "Historic First."

That could have been *OUR* man up their enacting conservative policy instead of that Liberal idiot. But there is a good reason we are known as the "stupid party." We picked Bob Dole.