Posted on 02/18/2016 2:38:43 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Donald Trump's threatened to sue Ted Cruz to keep him off the ballot because of his Canadian roots -- but two New Yorkers have beat him to the punch.
The pair filed papers in Manhattan Supreme Court Thursday asking the court to order Cruz off the ballot in the the New York State Republican Presidential primaries, arguing he's ineligible to run because he was born in Canada.
Cruz has insisted that he is qualified to be President because any child born abroad to an American citizen gets American citizenship automatically.
When Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, his mother was an American citizen. She was born in Wilmington, Delaware. His father was a native of Cuba who became a citizen of Canada after Cruz was born.
In court papers, Barry Korman and William Gallo say Cruz "has publicly admitted that he was born in Canada" and New York State election law says "a person shall not be designated or nominated for a public office or party position who is ... ineligible to be elected to such office or position or ... meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications."
They point out that Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution says "no person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Therefore, they contend, Cruz is "constitutionally ineligible" to become President.
Cruz maintains he is a "natural born" citizen, because his mom was a citizen.
The action against the NYS Board of Elections was filed by Manhattan attorney Roger Bernstein.
New York's Presidential primaries are April 19.
Cruz is facing similar challenges in at least two other states.
No, Congress was not given authority over “naturalization”. Congress was given authority over the rules of naturalization which is a much larger set.
Naturalization does not and can not occur at or before birth. It only occurs after birth. That is specifically defined in Title 8 section 1101 subsection A part (23). If someone is born a citizen, they do not ever need to be naturalized. There is NO requirement for US citizens to renounce any status confired by any other nations - as the laws of other nations are irrelevant to US citizenship laws.
Further the code you pointed to, USC Title 8 Section 1481 deals only with the voluntary loss of citizenship. Note the word “voluntary” in section A:
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
Further, I challenge you to identify any such actions taken by Sen Cruz.
Library of Congress, Immigration & Naturalization (1840-1950)
Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.
also ...
The Library of Congress, Immigration & Naturalization (1790-1922)
The 1st major exception to this 1790 Act was that "derivative" citizenship was granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men. From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen. (Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.) From 1790 to 1940, children under the age of 21 automatically became naturalized citizens upon the naturalization of their father.
So what changed that offered that Ted Cruz could retroactively be a citizen at birth? The laws of immigration and naturalization. If you need a law to make you a citizen at birth, you are not a citizen by nature, one born to parents (plural) who are citizens, you are a naturalized citizen.
What matters is the relevant law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Are you a ‘living’ constitutionalists? If so, you are at the wrong website.
What I don’t get is even the naturalization act of 1790 says something like “... provided that it shall never descend on someone who’s father is not a citizen...”
Cruz isn’t even eligible to be a Senator. Much less a President!
Deu 17:14 When you come to the land which YHWH your Elohim is giving you, and shall possess it and shall dwell in it, and you shall say, Let me set a sovereign over me like all the gentiles that are around me, 15 you shall certainly set a sovereign over you whom YHWH your Elohim shall choose. Set a sovereign over you from among your brothers, you are not allowed to set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.
Gen 10:1 These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sons were born to them after the flood.
Gen 35:22 ... Now the sons of Jacob were twelve.
Num 1:2 Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, by clans, by fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, every male, head by head.
Mat 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
Only those of father's who are of the natives, aliens are to be treated the same, they are allowed to serve in other capacities, however, ONLY a son of a native father is to serve in the highest office of the land.
Cruz is very much eligible to be a senator as one only needs to be a citizen, either naturally through their father or through the naturalization. Only the presidency requires one to be a natural born citizen.
your ignorance is astounding!
No, what is relevant is the Constitution and Laws at the time of Sen Cruz’s birth. Remember that the Constitution is modified by Amendments and the naturalizations acts have been repealed and replaced many times since 1790. For example, a woman no longer looses her citizenship for marrying a non US Citizen.
Again, the current will of congress and sum of all laws statutes, amendments etc is expressed in USC Title 8 section 1401. And as you pointed out, ONE of the ways that citizenship is obtained at birth is being born pursuant to subsection A on US soil. That is how the majority of citizens who are citizens at birth obtain their citizenship. But that is not the ONLY possible way. Subsections B through H define the other means by which a person is born a citizen.
Then educate me or better yet, let me quote the actual text to you:
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Just as there is no limiting clause on the subject of bankruptcies, there is no limiting clause on the rule of naturalization.
1) Notice they couldn’t find even the cheapest slip & fall lawyer to file this action, because even they value their law licenses. So the Trump-inspired morons had to file pro se.
2) The guys on this thread cheering this frivolous action are the same ‘tards who thought it was great when Trump’s first Birther attack against Obama launched 100 pro se suits in the 2012 cycle. And how’d they work out for you? By making the Republicans look like idiots, you helped re-elect Obama.
your ignorance is astounding!
Again, you are quoting laws of immigration & naturalization ... your ignorance is astounding!
I understand that.
Cruz was born a Canadian by birth, a citizenship that even he acknowledges by his 2013 renunciation of citizenship.
So now show me how he became an American citizen.
That’s all I’m asking for.
Well, since all you have to respond with is ad hominem, there really is no further value in continuing this discussion.
Well we know the supremes won’t take the case since they wouldn’t take any of the filings on Obama. Cruz would be safe in the light of that.
The according to this, Ted is a naturalized citizen.
CHAP. CCXLIX- An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States. Approved July 27, 1868.
Right of expatriation declared.
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
Exclusive allegiance either at birth or upon naturalization ... as the statute goes on to say
Protection to naturalized citizens in foreign states.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.
Again, "EXCLUSIVE" allegiance at naturalization as it is for birth as a citizen is a citizen and there are only 2 ways to make one, naturally by being born to citizen parents (plural) or naturalized because at birth, you were a citizen of a foreign nation.
‘Citizen at birth’ and ‘Natural Born Citizen’ are two separate and distinct classes of citizenship.
‘Citizen at birth’ is defined by the laws made by Congress and Amendments to the Constitution. Thus, the definition can be changed at any time.
(BTW, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and the Naturalization Act of 1795 nor any other act since had reference to that special class of citizenship, ‘Natural Born Citizen’. They knew that ‘Natural Born Citizen’ was a term used in the Constitution and that Congress had to go through the amendment process to revise that term. In short, a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ was a person born of parents who were both citizens.)
Common sense and logic provides the meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’.
‘Natural Born Citizen’ is defined by the laws of nature and common sense.
When ‘born in the land and of citizen parents (note the plural form) there is no need for a law to claim citizenship; it is automatic as a ‘Natural Born Citizen’. No law, legislation, constitutional amendment or other man-made affectation is needed. No nation can long exist otherwise. Other classes of citizenship may evolve and change through laws, but not the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ class. (A law of nature, such as gravity, can not be changed by man-made laws. (A law that attempts to redefine ‘up as down’ will not prevent you from falling on your a** when you jump into the air; up is still up and down is still down.)
Definition of Natural in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
Simple Definition of natural
1: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
2: not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
3: usual or expected
Full Definition of natural
1: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong
2: being in accordance with or determined by nature
Origin of natural: Middle English, from Anglo-French naturel
Natural implies lacking artificiality and self-consciousness and having a spontaneousness suggesting the natural rather than the man-made world.
Since the continuation of a country’s existance is dependant upon the progeny of it’s citizens, it is logical and common sense that all children born on that country’s soil to citizen parents are themselves citizens.
No law is needed, it is logical and common sense to understand that a nation can not otherwise survive if such progeny are automatically or legislatively excluded from citizenship. Thus, they are ‘Natural Born Citizen’s.
Common sense and logic dictates that no law legislated by mankind or Constitutional Amendment or provision defining citizenship can possibly be considered to alter the true meaning of a ‘Natural Born Citizen’.
Laws which dictate requirements of potential citizenship at birth and laws which dictate requirements of naturalization for immigrants, are not natural regardless of the name given to such laws, but instead, simply establish a different class of citizenship. (This is recognized in Article Two, Section One recognizes and mentions two of the classes of citizenship.)
References FYI:
The Difference Between a U.S. Citizen and a ‘Natural Born Citizen’
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-difference-between-a-us-citizen-and-a-natural-born-citizen
The Final Authority On ‘Natural Born Citizen’ (Supreme Court cases defining ‘Natural Born Citizen’ with citations and quotes)
http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/01/13/the-final-authority-on-natural-born-citizen/
Emer de Vattel, who also defined a ‘natural-born citizen’ in his highly acclaimed and influential “The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns,†Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English) (and referenced in most of the those SCOTUS cases):
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19 Section 212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
A blog to discuss the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, “’Natural Born Citizen’†presidential eligibility clause:
Sample of essays: Article II “’Natural Born Citizen’†Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html
IMO the founders would not have wanted someone born of one or two british parents to be president, except those grandfathered in who were there prior to the war.
Cuban law or Canadian law or the laws of any other country is IRRELEVANT when determining US citizenship. Only US law applies
Sorry, but you are utterly ill informed. When one of the parents, especially the father, is not a US citizen, and the child is born without the United States, the status of the alien parent and the laws of the country in which that alien parent has attached his allegiance to is ESPECIALLY RELEVANT. The Canadian laws in 1970 did not recognize dual citizenship, therefore, when they gave that birth certificate to Ted's parents, they understood that child to be Canadian & ONLY Canadian.
It's called International Law and that Law applies whenever a child is born to parents of different nationalities and out of the jurisdiction of the nationality of at least one of those parents. The Cruz's had applied and received permanent legal Canadian resident status. They had built a lucrative business and purchased a home. And we know that at least Ted's dad finalized his Canadian citizenship in 1973 and so for all legal purposes, little Ted, in the eyes of the law did not become a US citizen until the father & child returned to the US and renounced the Canadian citizenship. The father did not do so until 2005 & that is why Canada considered Ted a Canadian, because at the coming of age, Ted did not renounce it himself as he should have. And being a supposed constitutional lawyer, I do not buy his lame story that he had no idea he had Canadian citizenship. If he is no smarter than that, or no more studious of the laws than that, then for that reason alone, he is not fit to serve as president of the US.
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.