Posted on 02/10/2016 7:23:23 AM PST by beachn4fun
There's been a lot of talk about whether Cruz is considered an natural born citizen, and therefore, eligible or not to run for President. There are different interpretations and I've been contemplating this issue and I want to throw this out for discussion:
If two American citizens are living in, say, Germany when their child is born; does that automatically make the child a German citizen? Or are they American citizens because their parents are?
Hmm...
Yet, in America, when a child of two non-citizens is born in the USofA, the child is automatically considered a citizen.
So, do we assume that because a child is born in another country they are considered natural born of that country and not natural born in the USofA?
Additionally, consider that Marco Rubio's parents were not US citizens when Rubio was born. Is he considered natural born because he was born in the US? Is that why no one is challenging his eligibility?
If Rubio is considered natural born because he was born in the US, then, Cruz should not be considered natural born because he was not born in the US, right?
Thus, my question becomes, is natural born considered to be a child born in the USofA to USofA citizens?
Please think on this and/or debate this. It is important that we understand this before voting this year.
And, if you are tired of hearing about this, then move on. You do not have to, nor are you forced to, stop and comment.
I believe the USA is the only nation with birthright citizenship and it is by legislation, not Constitution.
I don’t think any other countries actually use the “natural born” qualification, it seems to be something unique to the United States. There were similar types of citizenship in the past, at least in Britain, but they were called “native subjects” or something like that, and it was based on the nationality of their father.
More importantly though, whether another country designates someone as a citizen, of any variety, has absolutely no impact on their citizenship status in the United States. We are a sovereign country, and citizenship here is based on our laws alone, without being influenced by the laws of other countries.
For example, I have a friend whose grandmother was from Ireland, and due to Irish law, he can claim Irish citizenship. That doesn’t mean he loses his American citizenship, just because Ireland passed a law which considers him a citizen of their country. Our laws determine his citizenship status here, and the Irish laws are irrelevant to the question because they carry no weight in our territory.
Other states are following.
From Who & When will that legal challenge come?
Keep stirrin’ that pot, Yo!
If two American citizens are living in, say, Germany when their child is born; does that automatically make the child a German citizen? ................................. Are the parents of German ancestry? If they are they too are considered German Citizens, at least that was OK in 1936, maybe not today. If one was American and the other was German it would be a case of dual citizenship there. If the child was born in a US Post or Hospital to Americans, they would be considered American. My memory of that era has faded a bit, so they may have changed things.
This is unique to US law as far as I’ve seen. If Cruz becomes the nominee, the DNC will file suit in federal court challenging it and they your question will be answered.
An adage amongst lawyers is “never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”, so the DNC will not want to push this unless they have to, because as long as it remains undefined by a court, they might be able to use it to their advantage at some future time.
And make no mistake, the GOPe will be covertly supporting such a challenge, just not publicly. It is their clearest means of taking out Cruz if it comes to that.
Yes, but would they meet the criteria of "natural born"? This seems to be what needs to be cleared up as this was the argument for Obama as well as Cruz.
Yes, I understand this, it is what's causing some problems with interpretation of natural born.
I'm getting the impression it is a two-sided deal for Americans: as long as you are born in the USofA and/or your parents are USofA citizens, you are considered natural born.
My son was born in Germany in 1972. The laws may have changed since then, however, he was a German citizen at birth. Both my husband and I are American citizens, neither with German ancestry. He was born in an American hospital on an American base. It was necessary for us to immediately apply to the State Department for a Certificate of Live Birth to obtain/show that he is an American citizen and to have him put on my passport.
He has a German birth certificate and the State Department Certificate of Live Birth. He had to renounce his German citizenship at age 18 when he signed up for Selective Service.
If you study immigration cases, you'll find that what you say is not true. In mixed-nationality cases, it is not unusual to look at the laws of other countries, to settle the question of citizenship to the person. Of course, that is done from a basic framework of US law, but just to pick an example, the US residency requirements for a one-citizen parent vary, depending on if that citizen parent is in wedlock or not, as recognized in the foreign country. There is a pretty long string of cases "decided the wrong way" because the government misled the court about the contents of Mexico's constitution, when the controlling law (of matrimony or child-care) was actually that of a Mexican state. The outcomes of those cases are citizen vs. not-citizen.
The Democrats, who do you think?
Thanks for your input. See my post #9. If “my” interpretation is correct, then, Obama and Cruz are mute points and the debate of “natural born” needs to be put to rest.
I don’t know of suits in Iowa, I think not, because there is no entity to sue in a caucus state. NH allowed Cruz on the ballot, saying that it (NH) was not competent to find one way or the other on NBC. The IL election commission looked at the arguments, and summarily picked Cruz’s argument, without addressing the argument raised by the objector.
The GOP can disqualify Cruz without going to court. All it has to do is take his delegates, cite Rogers v. Bellei, and then let Cruz sue to get the delegates back.
“Of course, that is done from a basic framework of US law...”
Well, that is the key. If we pass a law that takes into account the parent’s citizenship status in another country, then the citizenship is still being determined by OUR laws, not by the other country’s laws.
If citizenship is truly based on other countrys’ laws, then what is to stop Canada from declaring anyone a “Canadian citizen” if they wish to stop them from being elected President? Absolutely nothing! Any podunk country on the planet could pass an edict and influence our elections if we did things that way.
What do you mean by "birthright?"
So far, both Iowa and N.H. have qualified both Cruz & Rubio without challenge.
Yeah, I have the utmost confidence in bureaucrats and liberal judges making sound decisions these days.
Jus Soli: The law of place, meaning the child was born in the US or its territories.
Jus Sanguinis: The law of blood, meaning one or more of the parents is a US citizen and has met the residence requirements to pass on citizenship.
These are long standing and well established in law.
Does that automatically make the child a German citizen?
German law determines that and has no bearing on US citizenship.
The flip side of that is what is to stop the US from declaring anyone a NBC of the US if Congress wants everybody in the world to be eligible for the presidency? Is your answer the same, "Absolutely nothing!"?
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.