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
Oh, I wish I had time to answer this. I've got a dozen pieces of evidence to show you the connections between events and people that led up to the US Revolution.
Since I don't have time, i'll get straight to it. Vattel put the idea of revolution in the heads of the Colonists. It was *HIS* idea to create a Republic.
According to John Adams, it was William Otis that sparked the revolution. Otis belonged to a social club of Boston lawyers who debated philosophy. He got his hands on a copy of Vattel's book back in 1764, and it inspired him to push for revolution. Here's an excerpt from one of his pamphlets that he was handing out at the time.
Here is what Vattel wrote in 1758:
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
Which resulted in this: (Precursor to the US Constitution.)
Vattel put the idea into their heads. And why not? Switzerland had been a Republic since 1307. It was the ONLY Republic in the World at the time.
That's all I have time for.
The 14th amendment was not passed until 1868. Until then, there was not a single restriction on Congress's ability to define citizenship any way it wanted to. Further, the 14th amendment with regards to citizenship, only limited congress's power by reinstating jus soli.
So other than the 14th amendment which specifically addresses citizenship, and the other more general provisos of the various amendments (equality clause, etc), the naturalization clause of Article I Section 8 is without restriction.
/s
Larry boy Tribe just admitted on CNN that the reason he thinks this is important is.....
He wants people to stop and think who Cruz would appoint to the Supreme Court, that being Conservatives that he and libs disagree with.
Tribe does not like Cruz politics and he thinks it would be devastating to his side.
Thats what he just said in the nutshell
DNA can prove who your father is. It cannot prove where you are born. It doesn't get much more "natural" than nature. (The word "Nature" , "Natural" and "Nation" are derived from the same root word, which means "of birth." Native, Nativity, and Natal are other permutations of the same root. )
Jus Soli is silly. England adopted it to cement Scotland into the United Kingdom. It may be more practical for an Island nation where people seldom get in that don't belong there, but for a nation of our size, pegging citizenship to the fact you happened to be inside our borders is just silly.
You’re wrong, because Trump’s mother was a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth.
Now the Birthers.org website, which has been among those questioning Obama’s eligibility, reports that Trump’s mother did indeed become a U.S. citizen before the birth of Donald. It displays a small image of a signed naturalization receipt for Mrs. Trump on March 10, 1942, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, four years before Donald was born.
Read more at: http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/281157/#I6uMwqQqXCgCGaxP.99
Congress can, though, make laws regarding who will be considered native born and naturalized.
So....Yes, I will vote ( reluctantly) for Cruz if he is the Republican candidate but in NO POSSIBLE WAY would any of our Founding Father have considered a man born abroad and with dual citizenship ( until very recently) a natural born citizen.
I would just prefer the issue go away. That Might make it go away, but I predicted over a year ago that this issue would haunt his campaign.
“The “rules of naturalization†means:
1) who is a citizen at birth (naturally born)
2) who is not a citizen and must be naturalized
If you don’t like that, then change the constitution.”
This is how I’ve always understood it as well. For example, I have a daughter who was born in the Philippines. I’m a U.S. citizen, my wife is a dual citizen of both the U.S. and the Philippines. My daughter, though not born on U.S. soil, did not have to be naturalized. All we had to do was apply for a U.S. passport to “claim” her citizenship, and to accomplish this, we were only required to show that ONE of her parents (we chose me since I was born in the U.S.) is a U.S. citizen. Now my understanding is that my daughter is “natural born”, since she was never required to go through the naturalization process. Unless I’m missing something, it would seem that the same criteria would apply to Cruz.
Who do you think our Founder’s referenced at that time?
Yes, Congress pass all legislation and expresses it’s will via acts. “Rules of Naturalization” includes who is and who is not a citizen and further, who is a citizen at birth or naturally born as a citizen and has no need of naturalization.
As for Minor vs Happersat, that is a very far off characterization of what the court actually said:
The court observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization” and that the Constitution “does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”
The court observed that some authorities “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”— but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth. (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. at 168)
The current law as expressed in title 8 section 1401 describes who are citizens at birth (i.e. naturally born citizens)
By all means, let’s continue to disregard “the rules” the democrats have disregarded for the past seven years. What difference does it make now? The country is in ruin, so hey, let’s keep it going, right? WRONG!
Congress can, though, make laws regarding who will be considered native born and naturalized.
It is comparable to Adoption.
It is the difference between a child born of blood, and one accepted as a member of the family.
The Children of Naturalized Aliens also do not have to go through a "process." The lack of a "process" does not make them any less naturalized than their parents.
The concept in law is called "Derivative citizenship." The citizenship of the children becomes derived from the Naturalized Parent.
The issue of Ted Cruz's citizenship has nothing whatever to do with the voting rights of women and how they might or might not have been affected by the 14th Amendment.
It is true that courts often graze over a larger pasture than the section where they were originally tethered. that is what is called dicta. And even in the Dicta on Minor v. Happersat will you find anything like what you reference.
That's why I doubt you have ever read the opinion.
But, for your edification, this is indeed found in Minor v. Happersat:
"Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided... ...that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also."
Given that the limitation to offspring of males only has since been lifted, Minor v. Happersat actually holds precisely the opposite opinion that you appear to believe.
What is wrong with out country now will not be corrected by strict adherence to Article II. We are facing a far greater crises than that.
We must first have a man who is loyal to our country, and secondly knows what must be done, and thirdly has the will to do it.
Barack Obama has already opened the door to non-natural citizen Presidents, and it would be foolish of us to make that the most important criteria for addressing our problems. We have plenty of Natural Citizen candidates who are just total F***ing idiots. (Bush, Huckabee, Pataki, Cristie, etc.)
We could hardly do worse than Obama if we grabbed the first Frenchman off the streets of Paris.
Very well done. Elegantly and eloquently expressed and presented.
It’s actually much simpler than most make it out to be.
If the individual was made a citizen by nature, ie was born in this country to two citizen parents, they are a natural born citizen.
If they were made a citizen by virtue of our immigration and naturalization laws passed by Congress, they have been naturalized, ie “made as if they were natural born citizens,” by statute.
It’s quite apparent that Cruz’s citizenship status at his birth was totally reliant on the existing provisions of our immigration and naturalization laws, the ones put on the books in 1952. Prior to 1934 he wouldn’t have even been granted citizenship at all, much less have been considered in any way “natural born.”
Hence, he is not a natural born citizen, he is a citizen by statute, and therefore not eligible to the office of president.
Trump's mother was indeed a US citizen at the time of Donald Trump's birth. I have said so multiple times, but that fact has NO bearing on whether or not I am right or wrong. It is irrelevant.
I have to wonder about your reading comprehension skills. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote once again and see if you can figure it out. Or maybe you are just being willfully obtuse.
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.