Posted on 08/11/2013 2:54:35 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Potential 2016 presidential contender Donald Trump spoke to ABC's Jonathan Karl Sunday morning and reignited the birther issue that he helped spark back in 2011, questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama's birth certificate and wondering whether Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, was eligible to president. "Was there a birth certificate?" Trump asked. "You tell me. Some people say that was not his birth certificate. I'm saying I don't know. Nobody knows. And you don't know, either, Jonathan. You're a smart guy, you don't know, either." "I'm pretty convinced he was born in the United States," Karl said. "Ah! Pretty convinced," Trump said, and rolled over Karl's objections that he was 100% sure Obama was an American citizen. "Pretty sure is not acceptable." Trump made Obama's birth certificate a major issue in his aborted 2012 run for the GOP nomination, ultimately leading to Obama releasing his longform birth certificate. Karl asked Trump if the Canadian-born Cruz was eligible for the office. (Cruz's mother is an American citizen.) "If he was born in Canada, then perhaps not," Trump said. "That will be ironed out. I don't know the circumstances. If he says he was born in Canada, that's his thing."
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Has Cruz been naturalized?He was "born a citizen" by operation of naturalization statute.No. He was born a citizen and therefore did not need to be naturalized.
Why did you purposely leave out the end of my sentence?
I said born in the US “OF CITIZEN PARENTS.”
I don’t like it when someone puts quotation marks around what I said and then leaves out part of the quote. It is misleading.
Ted Cruz and others would not have US citizenship without meeting the requirements of the Congressional (man made) statutes. People born here of citizen parents don’t need a statute. They derive their citizenship naturally from their parents. It’s that simple.
I think you mean the “Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth” statute.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
The section of the statute that pertains to Senator Cruz qualifying as a citizen of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person:
All citizenship is bestowed by man. Nations are political entities created by men. God created us; we created nations. This is not a religious debate -- it's a political one.
Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, December 22, 1970, to a US citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father.
Relevant law in December 1970 is Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(a)(7) (66 Stat. 163, 236)
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
Statutes at Large available online:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/citation2.result.STATUTE.action?statute.volume=66&statute.pageNumber=163&publication=STATUTE
My brother who was killed in the battle for Okinawa and myself who served overseas in WWII were born in the USA. We didn’t need to be naturalized to be a citizen, but we were not ‘natural born’ as I read the discussions by the Founders.
Cruz is foreign born as McCain, ineligible for unique citizenship requirement of natural born for Presidency, Article 2 Section 1.
What remains in question is how Cruz became an American citizen. Sure the mother is an American citizen, but what date, how long, etc... because the statutes changed IN REGARDS TO MOTHER’S CONFERRING CITIZENSHIP TO A CHILD BORN IN ANOTHER COUNTRY TO A NON-CITIZEN FATHER.
It’s the same questions with Zero. If Zero was born abroad, and if Stanley Ann Dunham is his mother, she could not have conferred citizenship to a foreign born son.
Section 301 (a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was the relevant citizenship law at the time of Zero’s birth....requirement was that the parent had to have been physically present in U.S. at least 19 years old to confer citizenship. She was born Nov 29, 1942 and was 18.
Has it even been determined if Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth?
I bet that If it’s Cruz v. Clinton in 2016, your confusion and doubts will vanish overnight.
James “Father of the Constitution” Madison in a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789 said:
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”—Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from Their Register of Debates; and from the Official Reported Debates, by John C. Rives By United States Congress, Thomas Hart Benton
A lot of people speak of the Founders and the Framers as if they spoke with only one voice and were of one mind on issues. They weren’t, and that’s why so many of the major provisions of our constitution and the structure of our government resulted from compromises.
Has nothing to do with me. Try reading the law lightweight. Cruz stands up for Constitutional issues but when it comes to his own ineligibility he plays dumb and spreads disinformation on purpose for public consummation. That’s violating an oath. That’s treason. So another one can walk the plank, makes no difference to me.
So, if you want to defeat Cruz on the NBC issue, you're going to have to make your convoluted pitch to the American people because, in this country, the people pick the electors who pick the president.
So you weren’t around for the American school system middle school civics lesson that to be President one has to be born on U.S. soil. And you can’t prove Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth. Not that the ruling class or mainstream propaganda press ministry would care either.
If your middle school teacher thinks that Cruz is not eligible, he/she will have to make his/her pitch to the electors and I would suggest that he/she start making that pitch to the voters who select the electors.
I am aware there was much discussion at the Constitutional Convention as eligibility qualifications for POTUSA. What you quote indicates to me that Madison was ambivalent as to a rigid requirement. I prefer to include Franklin’s presentation to Washington referencing Vattel’s writings and the resulting wording for eligibility. Such is not ambivalent as to place of birth coupled with parentage. How ever accepting what appears to be emphasis on ‘place of birth’ I want the fact as to deposed Muslim President of Egypt having given birth to two sons in the USA that these two men would be eligible for POTUSA by reason of place of birth. I cannot believe the Founding Fathers with their knowledge of the world would have set a criterion that would could allow such a possibility.
The Founding Fathers established a constitutional amendment process that allows for alteration of any and all of their original thinking on any issue. They made it difficult to alter their work by amendment but not impossible. In modern day constitutional interpretation, the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is the definitive statement and it applies to “all persons...”
Justice Scalia, for example, said the following in oral arguments in a citizenship case:
(Jus soli citizenship is based on the land of birth and jus sanguinis is citizenship based on parentage).
In the oral arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (No. 99-2071), Justice Scalia made it clear that his view is that natural born citizenship, the requirement to be president, is based on jus soli (birth in the United States).
Here is the relevant section from the transcript:
Justice Scalia: “… I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
[Ms.]. Davis (Appellant’s Attorney): Yes, by the same token…
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?
[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?”
I just don’t think we’re going to find any judge or justice anywhere in 21st century America who doesn’t believe that jus soli isn’t the fundamental requirement for natural born citizenship.
My copy of the 14th Amendment in Section 1 states’ All persons born or naturalized in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Note it addresses just plain CITIZENS not Natural Born Citizens. This is the same explicit distinction made in Article I and Article II. As such I don’t see any Constitutional conflicts. I repeat that according to a definition of some that only ‘place of birth’ gives substance to eligibility for POTUSA they must admit that Morsi’s two Muslim sons are eligible for POTUSA. I think the the Founding Fathers were well aware of the implications of place of birth and parentage and tied the eligibility knot.
“Yearnings to be with her own Natural Kind” William Wordsworth.
The essential equivalency of "natural born citizen" with "born citizen" is understandable when one considers that there already existed prior to the framing of the Constitution the term "natural born subject." With that term there was no question it meant the same as "born subject." It's just the case that no one used the term "born subject" (at least, not that I've seen), just as no one used "born citizen."
If they had meant to allow the broader category of “born citizen” they would have succinctly stated such and not bothered to include the further restrictive qualification of being a natural born Citizen, which clearly must exclude many types of mere “born citizens.”
This argument begs the question at every turn. If the Framers simply utilized terminology already present in English law (and there is ample evidence they did just that throughout the Constitution), then "natural born" isn't a broader term to start. It's just a preferred term that utilizes already familiar wording rather than create a truncated phrase ("born citizen") that would have been new and awkward.
Even today this usage remains the same. One may refer to a person as a "natural born athlete." Or, equivalently, one might say someone was "born an athlete." Is the former meant to be more restrictive in some way? No. Both are used to indicate the same thing -- someone who was gifted with athletic talent by nature.
That's how language works.
Who are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens that naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature at birth, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else? The answer is obvious – those born exclusively in country jurisdiction to existing U.S. citizens.
True, but an irrelevant observation when as to understanding the meaning of "natural born citizen." The Framers expressed no concern whatsoever about the allegiance of someone born on U.S. soil.
And this observation comports with what we know about the meaning of "natural born" in the period leading up to the drafting of the Constitution. We know that "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were in many instances used interchangeably (e.g., the Massachusetts naturalization acts; the Vermont Constitution of 1777). And "natural born subject" had a jus soli meaning that was true irrespective (in general) of the status of the newborn's parents. So when the Framers chose "natural born citizen" the most reasonable construction is they did so understanding the prevailing usage of "natural born subject.
By contrast, it defies logic to suppose a) that the Framers used the term "natural born citizen" to convey a previously-unused notion of "requiring two citizen parents," b) that they did so contrary to the previously accepted, interchangeable use of "natural born" by reference to "subject" and "citizen," and c) that they ascribed this "new" meaning to the English "natural born" while making absolutely no mention in the Constitutional debates or contemporaneous correspondence that is what they were doing.
We have to base conclusions about what the Framers meant by looking to the words they chose and understanding the meaning of those words in the historical context.
Gibberish. There might have been a fleeting moment of quasi-lucidity where she seemed to be implying B.O. has derivative citizenship through M.O.
This has got to be a spoof. Or else it’s very very sad.
A tortured soul.
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.