Posted on 05/21/2013 9:52:10 AM PDT by Ray76
Ted Cruz was born "Rafael Edward Cruz" December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
His mother is US citizen Eleanor Darragh.
His father is Cuban citizen Rafael B. Cruz. (naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2005)
Eleanor Darragh and Rafael B. Cruz were residents of Canada for at least four years from 1970, possibly earlier, until 1974. They conducted business there as Rafael B. Cruz and Associates, Ltd.
Where they "permanent residents"?
Is Ted Cruz a "natural born citizen" of Canada?
Revised Statutes of Canada 1970:
This is not true. Washington, Madison, Jefferson were all considered natural born citizens in 1787. This is clear from Madison's discourse on citizenship on Smith's eligibility.
Anyone born under a Colonial government was a natural born member of that State, even though the State had transitioned from Colony to State.
And historians are in broad agreement that the purpose of the grandfather clause was not to provide eligibility for those born in America. It was to provide eligibility for James Wilson (born in Scotland), Alexander Hamilton (born in the Caribbean) and other foreign-born patriots who had risked their fortunes and lives to bring our country to birth.
Too bad the 14th Amendment does not mention “natural born citizen”.
The law says what it says. You can not read in what is not there nor read out what is there.
Jefferson was born in Virginia Colony in 1743. How do you propose he was a natural born citizen of a country which didn’t exist until he was 33 years old?
But that is exactly what you're doing.
You are reading in "naturalized citizen" or "citizen not natural-born" for "citizen."
The wording of the law itself does not specify whether the "citizen" is "natural born" or not. One has to conclude that by figuring out the intent.
Since everybody generally understood that anyone born a citizen was a natural born citizen, that's what it means.
But it did exist, as explained by Madison.
The Commonwealth of Virginia most certainly existed in 1743. Madison explained that just because the colonies threw off the rule of the king, and entered a status in which they became free States, did not throw them back into a state of nature with no laws and no relationships of people to each other and to the society.
Yes, they instituted a new constitution (in most cases, although in a couple of instances they didn't even do that, but continued to operate under the same colonial charter they had always had).
But it did not change the relationship of the people to each other, or the basic relationship of the people to the Commonwealth. They had been natural born members of the Commonwealth before, and becoming independent did not change that.
Jefferson had been a natural born member of the Commonwealth of Virginia before Independence, and he remained a natural born member of that same Commonwealth. The Commonwealth joined with others to form a greater union, and they defined members of the greater union (the United States) as the people who were members of any one State.
So if a person was a natural-born citizen of Virginia, upon the forming of the United States, he became a natural-born citizen of the United States by virtue of being a natural-born member of one of the States that comprised it.
This is an accurate understanding of the way the Founders and Framers understood and defined citizenship.
What incoherent nonsense.
No, it's not incoherent nonsense. It's the way the Founders and the Framers understood citizenship.
I was just thinking: This guy is getting a good education here. I ought to CHARGE for this. I hope he appreciates it.
But obviously, you don't.
Sorry, I see you were referring to post 300 and not post 306.
In any event, even post 300 is well supported by our history and legal precedents.
You have a responsibility to make yourself clear. You didn’t.
This is true today as it was at the adoption.
8 U.S.C. § 1401(G) “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:”
It is indisputable that a naturalization statute can produce a “citizen at birth”
Art. II in relevant part: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"
In your construction, a "citizen at birth" by naturalization statute is a "natural born citizen"
In your construction: "No Person except a natural born citizen citizen at birth by naturalization statute, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"
Since “Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen” ”citizen at birth by naturalization statute” there is no difference between the two clauses of Article II. Such a construction is impermissible.
You're not making any sense, Ray.
Of course there's a difference.
All persons who were "natural born citizens" were eligible. This included Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and so forth.
Persons who were "citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution" were also eligible. This actually included all of the aforementioned natural born citizens, so it wasn't written to make them eligible.
So who was added by that clause?
It added James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton (who most likely would've become President if he hadn't died in a duel with the Vice-President of the United States at a young age), and all of the other foreign-born patriots who had come over here and risked their lives and fortunes for American independence.
So there is a very clear difference between the two clauses.
Yes, the second clause - AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN - also included everybody who was already in the first category.
But it wasn't written to be in effect solely that week.
The day after the Constitution was adopted, children were born.
They were not included in the second clause. They were not citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
They WERE included in the first clause, if they were born US citizens.
So the two clauses refer to two different groups of people. Yes, there's some overlap. But over time, the overlap vanished.
The first group was composed of all natural born citizens, or (to use Bayard's term) US citizens by birth.
Such people, whether born in 1741 or 1961, are eligible.
The day the Constitution was ratified, that group included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and everyone else who had been born in the Colonies that were now the "United States."
The day after it was ratified, new people began to be added to the group of natural born citizens by birth.
The second group included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and everyone else who was a citizen at the time of ratification.
It included all natural born citizens (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc.) PLUS James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, and many others who had been born outside of those Colonies, but who had become naturalized citizens of a Colony or State since birth.
As time went on, that group dwindled to zero as the Founding Generation died off.
So the two groups were different. Overlapping, but different.
Do read it again a few times. I’m sure you’ll get it.
Or, to put it more accurately: All those affected by the overlap died. Those who were natural born citizens, living at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, became extinct.
This doesn't actually solve anything. It just creates an "illusion" of having addressed something. For some people that is enough, but others want the truth.
The Truth is not subject to a majority.
Then you have a substantially different opinion on the issue than do your allies. Perhaps you should inform Jeff Winston of your opinion on this? Someone needs to wake him the F*** up.
The jus soli argument for the United States is based on the black-letter law of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The 14th amendment is a conditional (subject to the jurisdiction thereof) Jus Soli law. I am perfectly aware of this, however virtually all of the people who take your side claim we adhered to Jus Soli BEFORE the 14th amendment. Apart from that, the 14th amendment does not create "natural" citizens. "Natural citizens" do not require the operation of the 14th amendment, just as Justice Waite pointed out in Minor.
It's becoming increasingly clear that you lack the first clue about how common law works;
I probably know more about it than do you, but I am constantly arguing with people on your side who do not. I am simply repeating to you what YOUR SIDE HAS LONG BEEN SAYING. That *YOU* alone hold a different view, I now recognize, but given that *YOUR* view is also inaccurate, (but in a different way) I can hardly be blamed for mistaking it for the other erroneous view.
it does not supersede statutory law.
Of that I am fully aware. That is axiomatic, and only someone new to this topic would even suggest that the people discussing it are unaware of this fact.
Your fake venn diagram and now this demonstrate that you do not understand sets, nevermind plain English.
Black ones most certainly did.
That's precisely the way it was. That is an ACCURATE representation of the history and the law.
Your absolute refusal to accept a REALITY that you for some reason don't like is either trollish, or just plain silly.
And here I was starting to think you might be a halfway reasonable person.
Your diagram is not a valid diagram. The purpose of venn diagram is to show sets, their intersection, relations, etc. Yours did none of this, it was a blob of color.
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.