Posted on 01/11/2016 4:27:13 PM PST by NaturalBornConservative
Does it matter? The rights and privileges of a naturalized citizen are exactly the same as a natural born citizen with the sole exception of eligibility for the Presidency.
Unless she's going to run for President, it won't make a hill of beans difference.
But for what it's worth, the case of children born to Americans serving abroad is covered under the Vattel doctrine of natural law.
So your daughter would be considered "natural born" according to Vattel.
Indonesia has a law (I've seen it) that specifies if an Indonesian man marries a foreign woman who has children before the children turn the age of five, the children are automatically adopted as Indonesian nationals.
Barack Obama had Indonesian nationality.
Does the country of the parents' birth have the sovereign right to extend its protection and nurture to the children of its citizens as Natural Born Citizens if that is the wish of the polity?
Yes. Jus Sanguinus makes sense. Jus Soli is Stupid and Feudal.
The issue involves the citizenship status of one's parents at birth. As long as 14 years a resident, and 35 years of age, the above is irrelevant.
Two things to note.
1) this census was taken AFTER Sen Cruz was born (1970).
2) It was not LEGALLY POSSIBLE for his mother to be a Canadian citizen as Canada required 5 years of residence to apply for citizenship. Since the Cruzes moved to Canada in 1967, this requirement could not have been met. His mother was a US Citizen at his birth.
That is not what the current US Code states. Then again this is all going nowhere.
Without confirming or denying that this is in fact an accurate representation of Indonesian Law, I can tell you that if an Indonesian woman marries a foreign man and this couple has a child born in indonesia, that child will not be considered an Indonesian by birth, ever.
Actually I just checked and I have learned that everything I am saying about this situation has been invalidated by changes made to the Indonesian nationality law in 2006. So I need to specify that I am talking about the previous, pre-2006 situation.
“Hmmm. I wasn’t aware of this maneuver. The U.S. doesn’t formally recognize dual citizenship, but doesn’t explicitly forbid it.”
I think it’s one of those “don’t ask, don’t tell” kind of situations.
Interesting how we can both understand the same facts and yet draw different conclusions.
The Founders, as you claim, were concerned at the very least that a father's nationality could affect the interests and loyalty of his child.
The situation is now changed such that we must recognize that a mother's nationality might also do so.
The conclusion you draw is that some tendency to disloyalty must be accepted. The conclusion I draw is that none should be accepted.
It's obvious that the Founders intentionally meant to exclude some citizens. The number I would exclude is only slightly more than the Founders, as you claim, would have excluded, leaving many, many millions more candidates than those from which our Founders could choose.
Your claim is that a person can be the "natural born citizen" of more than one nation. I will not accept that this is what our Founders intended.
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.