Posted on 02/16/2016 8:43:51 PM PST by omegatoo
The following shall be nationals and citizens 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 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, 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 (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical- presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
“The Naturalization Act of 1790 was amended”
Yes. Laws change.
“with the particular offending sentence removed and replaced”
Go back and read 1790 and 1795. The latter did not simply remove and replace some offending phrase. The entire act was replaced. Nothing alike.
You, like every other person who disagrees, must simply dance around this embarrassing issue. You are calling the founders who ratified the Constitution fraudulent usurpers of the Constitution. There are no two ways about it. Either it was or was not constitutional.
“But remember that the then-prevailing assumption was that citizenship status followed the father. “
Matters not. As I said before, laws change. Women could not vote, own property, or hold office. Now they can. Indians and blacks who were born on US soil were not citizens. That changed too. And the applicable law in this case made Cruz a citizen at birth, not by naturalization, but by “naturally” conferring his mother’s citizenship on him.
“shall be considered as natural born... not that they literally are natural born”
Just another mental backflip to make this embarrassing piece of history go away, but it won’t. The same exact words are used in the act to describe naturalized citizens. They were “considered” to be naturalized, which means legally, that’s what they were.
There simply is not a magical “natural” conveyance of citizenship apart from law. The distinction does not fit.
Citizens are either naturalized or natural born. The Constitution recognizes no other kind. If citizenship is conveyed at birth from a parent, then the child is a “natural born citizen”. If citizenship is given some other way, it is naturalization.
Well, there is ‘’natural born’’ and then there is ‘’Caesarian.’’
And your reply is proof that your reading comprehension is lacking.
This post addressed only those who are stating that Cruz is not a citizen, specifically because his parent’s didn’t fill out a form. The ignorance those posts display is terribly annoying and begs correction, which is what I have done with this post. Period.
Love,
O2
“The answer is that with the election of obumber and voters who care more about their candidate then the laws, we have became a nation of men. Thanks for that by the way.”
Don’t blame me for Obama or the failing of the US to follow the rule of law. You have no idea what I have done or not done to stop this.
I am for following the original intent, not parsing words interpreted through modern scholarship and legal opinions years removed from the founders.
The original intent of the founders was to reject British common law along with jus solis, and embrace natural law, Vattel, and jus sanguinis. That is apparent by what they wrote.
If his mother did not renounce her US citizenship then he would have dual citizenship from Canada and the US...or would he also have Cuban? Canadian and Cuban citizenship or US/Canadian/Cuban. Would he have Cuban citizenship from his father? Don’t think I’ve seen anyone mention this. Was his dad a Canadian citizen when Ted was born?
However, the founders chose a higher standard than citizenship...they chose “natural born” to be eligible for POTUS>
No president in American history has ever been born outside American territory.
I’ll vote for Cruz if he’s nominated, but this precident makes me uneasy.
I’ll go with Cruz. I’d rather go down in flames with someone bwho might be ineligible than a pretender. And if the country goes under, it will go under because of a Democrat.
You're ignoring the two most important points from my reply:
1) The act only says they "shall be considered" natural born citizens. Not that they are, as noted by Professor Natelson. You might poo poo this, but it doesn't make the problem go away. Your evidence, therefore, is not very strong.
2) Citizenship would have passed paternally anyway, so it's irrelevant for Cruz.
Most of your post, essentially, is just one big dodge/strawman.
Matters not. As I said before, laws change.
Constitutional law stays the same, unless there is a constitutional amendment.
And the applicable law in this case made Cruz a citizen at birth
It could not have, because, by either Vattel's definition of Natural Born citizen or Blackstone's, Cruz is not a natural born citizen.
Citizens are either naturalized or natural born.
If Congress must pass a law to grant you legal status, by definition you are naturalized, even if you are naturalized at birth. The fact that the law could be repealed and replaced with something else shows that this was Congress acting only on their powers to make laws regarding naturalization. Hence the name, "Naturalization Act."
1790 Naturalization Act (An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization)
ST’s working title was ‘Bughunt At Outpost Nine’.
It’s first scene was taken from Triumph of the Will.
OK, it was fascism but who cares about rules and law and other boring stuff? Nah, no can grok that stuff. The important thing is winning, driving inexorably to the lair of the Brain Bug and putting the blocks to it.That exotic perv Doogie Howser looked pretty chic in that Oberstuhrmfuher outfit, hmmm?
I hope you defeat that respiratory illness like school children grinding Madagascar hissing cockroaches into goo as their teacher laughs hysterically. You will be a Citizen.
But you still won’t be able to run for, what was it, Sky Admiral? Lord of Saturn’s Rings? Any who ....
Who can remember all that unless you have it right in front of you?
We’ve been having to do Uniparty’s job for way too long.
Let’s toss them out.
Maybe. But the deomocrats surely will.
“The 14th Amendment created an implicit distinction among 14th Amendment native-born citizens, and statutory native-born citizens. “
The 14th amendment did not cover all citizens, only specific cases.
The 14th does not address “natural born” citizenship. The 14th could and did apply to both natural born citizens AND naturalized citizens. It does not change that there are still two and only two kinds of citizens.
The founders who enacted the first naturalization act disagreed with your definition of natural born citizen. I’ll go with them.
Cruz is a natural born citizen and can become president.
So by your post of 1790 Naturalization Act and what you bold.. and Obama born in Kenya is natural born...funny no one claim that before
Read the link. Yes you are correct, however, it does cover Ted Cruz which is why I chose that to add it in my response. Ted Cruz is considered native born by the 14th Amendment, making him a native born citizen, but unfortunately not a natural born citizen.
I am so sick of this argument. It is not whether he is a CITIZEN, it is whether he is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
I am not advocating wither way.
But, people keep saying someone is or is not a citizen, and that is not the argument!!!
It is CITIZEN, NATURALIZED CITIZEN, and NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
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.