Posted on 01/11/2016 4:27:13 PM PST by NaturalBornConservative
:: Cruz's Dilemma
- By: Larry Walker, II -
The concept of natural born Citizenship is clear and concise, to anyone with a rational mind. Although some may wish to contort its meaning to fit the presidential candidate of their choice, natural law is incapable of such bias. It takes two parents to produce a child, one male and one female, but you would never know it if your source of information is the lamestream media. By its logic, only one parent is sufficient.
Epigrammatically speaking, if both of your parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of your birth, you are without question a natural born Citizen of the United States. The location of your birth matters little. You could have been born in Kenya, Canada, Panama, or perhaps on the Moon, but as long as both parents were U.S. Citizens, at the time of your birth, you are without question a natural born Citizen.
According to Vattel's Law of Nations, Chapter 19 § 212: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights... The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."
You can think of natural born citizenship as free and clear citizenship. In other words, the rights of the parents (plural) are passed to their children. Thus, when both parents are U.S. Citizens, their offspring are natural born U.S. Citizens, free and clear. No other country has a claim of right. Comprende?
However, if at the time of your birth, your father was a Citizen of Kenya and your mother of the U.S., this would pose a problem. Oh no! What's the problem? The problem is duality. Under such circumstances, the child would be a Citizen of Kenya (a British subject pre-1964) by virtue of its father, and equally a Citizen of the United States by virtue of its mother. There's nothing free and clear in this circumstance. Upon the age of consent, such a child may claim citizenship with one country or the other; however, citizenship does not equal natural born citizenship.
You might not like the result of the above graphic, but that's simply the way it is. Here are some recent examples.
Is John McCain a natural born Citizen? John McCain's parents were both U.S. Citizens at the time of his birth, thus he is a natural born Citizen. It matters not that he was born on a military base in Panama. He could have been born in Siberia. No matter where he was born, McCain is a natural born American Citizen by virtue of his parent's common nationality, at the time of his birth. You got that?
Is Ted Cruz a natural born Citizen? Ted Cruz's father was a Cuban Citizen and his mother a U.S. Citizen, at the time of his birth. Thus, whether born in the U.S., Cuba, or Canada (where he was actually born) he is not a natural born Citizen of either.
Cruz was born with citizenship rights to both Cuba and the United States. Although he may have chosen U.S. citizenship, at the age of majority, natural born citizenship is not something one chooses. Natural born citizenship is a right passed from one's parents at birth. As such, Ted Cruz is no more a natural born Citizen than is Barack Obama.
The U.S. is filled with undocumented aliens, birthright Citizens, permanent residents, dual status Citizens, naturalized Citizens, and natural born Citizens. Whether the children of undocumented foreigners, born on U.S. soil, are U.S. Citizens by birthright is questionable. However, without question, such children are not natural born Citizens of the United States.
The main issue is this. According to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, "No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President." So where does that leave Ted Cruz? Is he a U.S. Citizen? Sure, if he affirmed. Is he a natural born Citizen? Due to the citizenship status of his parent's, at the time of his birth, he clearly is not.
Is Ted Cruz eligible to run for the presidency? Technically no, since he is not a natural born Citizen. But since you allowed Barack Obama, who is plain as day not a natural born Citizen, why stop Ted Cruz or anyone else for that matter? If it weren't for that confounded Constitution, we could nominate whomever we yearned, without conscience. But, since we do have a blessed Constitution, it's up to us, rather than fainthearted federal judges, to see that it is upheld.
Reference: #NaturalBornCitizen
And how many times does it have to be said that Congress has been given the enumerated powers under Article I Section 8 over the rules of naturalization. That includes who are citizens at birth (naturally born) as well as those who are NOT citizens at birth.
The Constitution .... ALL OF THE CONSTITUTION, must be honored, respected and followed. You are the one who is attempting to remove or ignore an enumerated power of congress.
I am a Cruz supporter for the office of President because Barack Obama broke the rule, and it would be silly for us to insist that it be followed now that the broken rule can work in our favor.
I have not the slightest doubt that Ted Cruz's allegiance is to this nation and none other, and for that reason he meets the spirit of the law in my opinion.
We shouldn't obey rules that Democrats break. That just castrates us.
1) who is a citizen at birth (naturally born) 2) who is not a citizen and must be naturalized
You keep repeating this, but that doesn't make it true. Congress does not create "natural" citizens. It creates Adopted citizens. Natural citizens are created without any resort to statutory law. It's that simple.
Why do you keep posting this ridiculous graphic. The Dems will destroy Cruz on this issue if he’s nominated.
I certainly do comprende, but I doubt that Larry Walker does, or he would not make the foolish statement that "No other country has a claim of right."
That would not explain the case of Donald Trump, unquestionably a Natural Born Citizen under Walker's criteria: two US citizen parents, and born in the US. That ought to be the end of the story, yes?
Well, no, not if dual citizenship is dragged into the argument, because we in the US don't get to determine who other countries might consider one of theirs. This is not a new problem. Britain used to have quite a sordid history of dragooning US citizens off sailing ships under the excuse that they considered them subjects of the Crown.
And, under British law, unless certain criteria were met back in 1942 of which there is no evidence at hand, Donald Trump would be without a doubt a British national as he stands, lives and breathes this very day.
Donald Trump is until this very day entitled to a British passport merely for the asking and the payment of a nominal fee. His British nationality is derived from his mother, who while admittedly a naturalized citizen of the United States, also just as factually remained a British national, because under the law of Britain the fact of taking on US citizenship does not invalidate or end British nationality.
It is too simplistic to equate Natural Born Citizenship to the concept of undivided citizenship for the simple reason that every country on earth has the right to determine for themselves their own qualification requirements for citizenship and they are often not mutually exclusive.
The argument that Ted Cruz cannot be a Natural Born Citizen because he also could claim a foreign citizenship is fallacious and absurd. The same thing is also true of Donald Trump, and Trump is without any doubt a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
So is Ted Cruz.
I said Vatell had it right. Do as you please. I will not compromise as a matter of conscience regardless of what those who would destroy this country do. I will not follow their lead by continuing with the charade. A matter of maintaining personal honor in my case. If it was wrong then it is now no matter how highly I regard a candidate.
It doesn't matter what any of us think. What matters is what some ignorant stupid liberal judge thinks.
We already know what they think about Abortion and Gay marriage, so the odds of them being correct about this are pretty slim.
But being correct has never been relevant when you have power.
As often as you like. Nobody who grasp how this stuff works is going to pay any attention to it.
You are trying to force the law of 1787 to bend to the will of 1952, and that is just foolish. You can't change the requirements of the Constitution by statute. You have to do it through amendment.
With all due respect taxcontrol, please consider the following.
What many people do not seem to understand about Congresss power to define the rules of naturalization is the following. Congresss power to define those rules is not plenary.
More specifically, the congressional record shows that John Bingham, Bingham the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which addresses citizenship, had indirectly indicated that not even Congress has the power to define natural born citizen with respect to both parents being citizens of the same country and owing allegiance to no other country.
”I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” - John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866. Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend. (See top half of 2nd column)
I got this off another post, and it makes alot of sense..
“citizenship shall not descend to persons whose ***fathers*** have never been resident in the United Statesâ€
Before the 19th Amendment, women had no right to vote. Only citizens could vote. Women were considered to carry the status of their husbands and were under the authority of their husbands.
Regardless of a woman’s origins and birthright, she was categorized according to her husband’s status. Whether she was German, Mohican, French, Iroquois, or born of American colonists, her citizenship status mattered not to the birth of her children. It was the FATHER who determined the birthright.
If a woman was not born of a citizen father, she was in effect ‘naturalized’ by marriage to a citizen American as long as the marriage was considered legitimate.
Therefore, the only criterion of consequence was a child born to an American citizen father inside a marriage considered as legitimate.
The TWO CITIZEN PARENTS was never codified, it was assumed as the default circumstance in legitimate marriages. The ‘two citizen parents’ is thus an artificial construct to create an additional category to the only real and true categories of citizenship. The real categories of citizenship are two in number, natural and naturalized.
Tossing the baby out with the bath water is not a good long term strategy.
As Lincoln said, better to give up a limb to save a life, then give up a life to save a limb.
How does a Swiss citizen, dead before the US’s founding, writing in French merely describing a definition for BRITAIN, constitute a definition for the new country to come?
That’s my tag line.
Naturalization act.
That is an act of congress.
Minor vs Happersat, the judge states that all born outside of the states are naturalized, by will of congress.
This ruling has now stood as fact for more than 100 years.
In the opinions, they state citizenship is not passed by blood line outside the states.
So Ted has a big problem.
Because law of nations is what they used in Philadelphia at Independence Hall when they wrote the Constitution. It’s the book George Washington checked out in NYC before he was sworn in on Wall Street.
Because the founders made it a part of our history, so it is.
I would like to know what your position is on the concept of citizenship via the operation of natural law insofar as to whether it implies that every person born has a natural allegiance that makes that person a Natural Born Citizen of a place, someplace, anyplace.
I ask this because I have to wonder, if this conjecture is true, how it is that there can be such a thing as a “stateless person”.
I have a specific example in mind that I may share depending on how this question is answered by the consensus of opinion here.
In case you haven’t noticed the baby has already gone out with the bath water. All that remains are those who value their principles based their experience, powers of reasoning coupled with parental instruction and upon the writings of men such as Vattel, Locke, Paine...
As I said, do as you please.
This is why Trump said Cruz should seek a declaratory ruling from a judge. Glad you agree.
Scotus ruled on this, minor vs Happersat. All births outside of states, they are naturalized as opposed to natural. Period. It’s in the ruling.
Ted is done.
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.