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
THANK YOU!
Obama, on the other hand, is definitely INELIGIBLE as well as UNFIT, and should have been REMOVED (never happen).
Sorry, the author is incorrect.
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates the exclusive power to Congress to define the rules of naturalization. That includes who is and who is not born as a citizen.
Congress has expressed it’s will through a number of acts that started with the Naturalization act of 1790 which specifically sets the precedence that a person does not need to be born on US soil. This act was repealed and replaced and subsequent acts have been repealed and replaced until we get to current law which is expressed in title 8 section 1401 which defines US citizens at birth (naturally born as opposed to naturalized).
Sen Cruz qualifies as a US Citizen at birth because of his US Citizen mother. Thus Sen Cruz was already a US citizen at birth (naturally born).
Send this to Rush and Greta.
Very well explained
Amrn and Amen to natural law.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3382200/posts?q=1&;page=61
See post 66. Excellent example of WHY BOTH parents must be US citizens.
That is a non sequitur. It does not follow that Congress having the power to naturalize, can create "natural citizens" using their power of naturalization.
No. No. No. No. No. That is errant nonsense.
That is like saying because water is wet, it defines fire. No. No. No. No. No.
All acts of Congress which create citizens are "naturalization acts."
Ping
I agree with what is presented here. Not sure who came up with the notion that only the mother had to be a U.S. citizen. That was never my understanding of the meaning of natural born citizen.
Possibly because of the current whut hut occupier.
US law does not require both parents be US citizens. The Naturalization act of 1790 does not require both parents be US citizens.
... “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
Notice the open nature of the wording. It is not restrictive in that it does not require BOTH parents.
Congress has expressed it’s will through a number of acts that started with the Naturalization act of 1790 _________________________________________
How many times does it have to be said that Congress can not amend, interpret or change Article II. It can do all manner of things involving immigration, but it can not change Article II. The Constitution is what it is. Love it and respect it, don’t try to change it without going through the amending process.
“Sen Cruz qualifies as a US Citizen at birth because of his US Citizen mother.” While the other half bestowed Cuban citizenship. See how that works?
Vattel had it right. I am a Cruz supporter. For any office other than President of the United States of America for this reason and this one only.
I don’t give a rip what you say. What does the constitution say ? And after that what does SCOTUS say. That is all that counts
Forget the fact it is incorrect. Other than that. M
Denying the specific enumerated power of Congress because it does not fit your agenda does not change the fact that Congress was SPECIFICALLY given that power under the Constitution.
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.
It does not matter what you think
In 1787, the mother's citizenship was irrelevant. A woman acquired her husband's character upon marriage. Whatever citizenship she previously held is irrelevant. If she married an American man, she became an American automatically. If she married an English man, she became a subject of Great Britain, automatically.
Even English law, which so many WRONG people on this web site say the US embraced, requires an English father for children born abroad.
If a child is born abroad to a foreign father, England didn't recognize the child as a British subject.
I stopped reading at that point. That's one of those phrases that triggers my crackpot radar.
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.