Replies

it is WELL KNOWN the Founders wanted to insure no foreign king would ever become POTUS. they also wanted to insure no split loyalties in such a person, at least by birth. This is the EXACT reason they used the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ instead of just ‘citizen’, as they had for every other position they defined.

furthermore, they used a term WELL KNOWN to them and those with similar backgrounds. in 1758, a book called ‘the law of nations’ defined the term ‘natural born citizen’ as someone being born of a two citizen parents.

additionally, the US doesn’t actually have ‘birthright citizenship’ (being born on the soil) as some believe was introduced by the 14th Amendment. this can be seen in statements by those who wrote the statement, as well as the statement itself... as the citizenship is awarded to the child, if the child’s parents reside in the state and are subject to its jurisdiction (illegals do not reside in a state nor are they subject to its jurisdiction). Canada is the only developed country that still has birthright citizenship.

therefore, as for BH0bama, his citizenship could only be awarded through his mother... unfortunately, she was 18 and not able to do that under the clause ‘five years after the age of 14’. any claims he was born in hawaii are irrelevant, as the US doesn’t have birthright citizenship. which leaves his citizenship to come from his father. as such, per the definition used by the Founders in ‘the law of nations’, 0bama is not a natural born citizen and should never have been allowed on the ticket, let alone being able to assume the position.

now for TCruz, when he was born, his mother was old enough to transfer US citizenship, therefore he is a US citizen. He was also born in canada to a cuban father... which results in him also being a canadian and cuban citizen. as a bonus, he would also have british citizenship by being born in a commonwealth. therefore, being born to parents of different citizenships, TCruz is not a natural born citizen, as defined by ‘the law of nations’

So sorry, sten, you have so much of this wrong, both in terms of you analysis, an in terms of the underlying assumptions you make about the law and historical context. I’m kind of worn out with all of this, so I’m not going to try to clear up your misunderstandings on this issue right now. Maybe tomorrow. But, I have already put everything up on this thread, if you want to try to read it with a clear head and open mind, maybe you can work through some of your issues.

Until later...

OK, Sten, here is your more complete reply. Some others on this thread could benefit from a reading of this as well.

it is WELL KNOWN the Founders wanted to insure no foreign king would ever become POTUS. they also wanted to insure no split loyalties in such a person, at least by birth. This is the EXACT reason they used the phrase 'natural born citizen' instead of just 'citizen', as they had for every other position they defined.

So far you are on pretty solid ground.

furthermore, they used a term WELL KNOWN to them and those with similar backgrounds. in 1758, a book called 'the law of nations' defined the term 'natural born citizen' as someone being born of a two citizen parents.

Not exactly. Vattel's The Law of Nations is written in French and makes no mention at all of the term "natural born citizen".

Vattel

Vattel refers to 'naturels' and 'indigenes', and Vattel does admittedly conjoin birth within a country ('dan le pays') and citizen parents ('de parents citoyens'). But, this language does not require that both parents must be citizens. The plural 'citoyens' follows the plural of 'indigines'. In English one might say, "All the students and their parents are in the room," without meaning that both parents of each child are present. In fact, and very importantly, Vattel himself confirms this when he states, 'il faut etre ne d'un pere citoyen', or in English, 'it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen.' A father is only one of two parents. So, contrary to your assertion, Vattel does not insist on the notion that both parents be citizens.

additionally, the US doesn't actually have 'birthright citizenship' (being born on the soil) as some believe was introduced by the 14th Amendment. this can be seen in statements by those who wrote the statement, as well as the statement itself... as the citizenship is awarded to the child, if the child's parents reside in the state and are subject to its jurisdiction (illegals do not reside in a state nor are they subject to its jurisdiction). Canada is the only developed country that still has birthright citizenship.

US birthright citizenship, i.e. 'jus soli' with no reference at all to 'jus sanguinis', is an outrage and abomination, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.

therefore, as for BH0bama, his citizenship could only be awarded through his mother... unfortunately, she was 18 and not able to do that under the clause 'five years after the age of 14'. any claims he was born in hawaii are irrelevant, as the US doesn't have birthright citizenship. which leaves his citizenship to come from his father. as such, per the definition used by the Founders in 'the law of nations', 0bama is not a natural born citizen and should never have been allowed on the ticket, let alone being able to assume the position.

Ok, here you go pretty far astray. First, you are correct that Barack Obama's citizenship could have been bequeathed to him only by his mother, since his father was not a citizen. But you are wrong to conclude that she could not have done that because "she was 18 and not able to do that under the clause 'five years after the age of 14'".

You are referring to the Immigration and Naturalization Act Section 301(g) which at the time of Obama's birth, granted citizenship to the foreign-born child providing 'the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for... ...a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen... ...is required to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.' But the Immigration and Nationality Act only applies to births OUTSIDE the United States, not to births within the United States. Hawaii was part of the United States when Obama was born.

You are also wrong to conclude that if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he would have been unable to inherit his citizenship from his mother, but only from his father. That is wrong. He was entitled to inherit citizenship by birth from either parent or both under the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment. There is NO question about this. NONE. See Minor v. Happersat among others for confirmation. If Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and I have serious doubts about that due to my personal familiarity with facts and circumstances that go far beyond the public record, he would most assuredly be a Natural Born Citizen.

now for TCruz, when he was born, his mother was old enough to transfer US citizenship, therefore he is a US citizen. He was also born in canada to a cuban father... which results in him also being a canadian and cuban citizen. as a bonus, he would also have british citizenship by being born in a commonwealth. therefore, being born to parents of different citizenships, TCruz is not a natural born citizen, as defined by 'the law of nations'

Ted Cruz is indeed a US citizen by birth, having been bequeathed that status by his mother who was herself a natural born citizen of the United States. The fact that Canada, through the operation of its own law, considered him to be a citizen of Canada is relevant to nothing at all. Canada could just as easily denied him citizenship on equally valid grounds if that had been the law they chose for themselves. It's just not relevant.

I don't know whether Cuba would have considered him a citizen or not - that would depend on their law, and whether they still considered Rafael Cruz to be a citizen. I just don't know. But I do know that this is equally irrelevant.

As for your suggestion that he would have British nationality as a result of Canada being part of the Commonwealth or a "Dominion": well, that's nonsense. He would have no more claim on British nationality than any other Canadian; that is to say, NONE. Nor would Britain have any greater claim on him than any other Canadian; again, NONE.

To conclude, Ted Cruz IS a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America, under the standard outlined in Vattel's The Law of Nations, under the Constitution of the United States, and under any other standard you can name. Sure, Lawrence Tribe is right that this is not "settled law" - but only because there has never been a decision by the Supreme Court on the matter. But don't kid yourself. There is no doubt, none at all, that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and is both eligible and, in every possible way, qualified to be President.

More Vattel for you, in English translation:

"The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

In modern times, when both mothers and fathers are equally respected as bequeathers of citizenship at birth, this paragraph would read as follows:

"The country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father or a mother who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

Applying this to Ted Cruz, it is readily seen that he would discount Canada as for Cruz, Canada would be 'only the place of his birth, and not his country'.

Whereas, with respect to the United States, 'the country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.'

Please, meet Ted Cruz, Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America.

Fixed html:

More Vattel for you, in English translation:

"The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

In modern times, when both mothers and fathers are equally respected as bequeathers of citizenship at birth, this paragraph would read as follows:

"The country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father or a mother who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

Applying this to Ted Cruz, it is readily seen that he would discount Canada as for Cruz, Canada would be 'only the place of his birth, and not his country'.

Whereas, with respect to the United States, 'the country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.'

Please, meet Ted Cruz, Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America.