Posted on 03/29/2016 9:55:02 AM PDT by jstaff
When Sundance replaced Mark Levin in the hearts of so many Freepers, I should have taken the hint. The site has become almost totally partisan. That partisanship is leading to such incredible, slanderous commentary that you would have to look twice to see if you are at FR or DU. We talk about a circular firing squad, and here one pops up. We are destroying our chance to move the ultra left out of the White House by trying to destroy each other.
So finally, sadly, I think it is time for me to go, I don't want to be a part of it anymore. I have mostly enjoyed my time here, it used to be a great place, and I was happy to add what little support I could to keeping it up.
To Jim: please check your mail. I sent you a request to delete my account information, but I guess you haven't seen it yet. Good luck with FR and I hope it survives this election cycle without any real bloodshed.
Mods: Please delete my FR account.
Scumdance is a blogger at the "Conservative Outhouse" whose "contributions" are frequently parroted here.
I agree with all of your reasoning except for the first sentence which the case you cited contradicts:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html
Points to Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), defines those persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Paragraph (7) of § 301(a) includes in that definition a person born abroad “of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States” who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301(b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301(a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years.
After quoting the above section of that Act, Justice Blackmun then explains: (Page 401 U. S. 817)
“The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to bestow citizenship at birth, but to take it away upon the person’s failure to comply with a post-age-14 and pre-age-28 residential requirement. It is this deprival of citizenship, once bestowed, that is under attack here.”
As you know, a “Natural Born Citizen” can never have that designation taken away or changed or defined by statute or ammendment.
It is this reference to “citizenship at birth” that Cruz and his supporters uses to rationalize and justify (wrongly so) that he is eligible to be President.
Thus, “citizenship at birth” has now become defined by statute and case law, BUT it does NOT define “Natural Born Citizen” as you so rightly pointed out.
Well, they aren't around here any more, for the most part. IIRC, they got the zot.
Keep to the facts please.
I posted: I'd bet a significant number of the most vitriolic will be gone by December at the latest.
That is either fact (as in, yep, I'd bet that) or projection: "a significant number of the most vitriolic will be gone by December at the latest."
If projections are to be forbidden, well, that will sure dampen discussion, now won't it?
True, that.
Yup. Good analysis by Political Junkie Too.
This one has been very rough in that we have two anti-establishment candidates battling for the lead. Cruz had the early attention of most FReepers but looks like Trump is leading now. Cruz was dong very well before getting rattled and giving up his original game plan. I think he would’ve done better by staying above the fray and staying on message. Attack mode is not working for him. Trump has successfully knocked out every opponent that attacked him. And now we have the GOPe (seemingly) riding to Cruz’s rescue, but we all know that’s a ruse. If they were to bring down Trump, they’d dump Cruz in a New York minute.
My goal is to defeat the godless America-hating, constitution-hating, capitalism-hating socialist democrats and I will support our nominee no matter who he is 100%. Hoping most FReepers will hang in there with us for the main event
Then ignore the thread, how simple is that? Of course you had to throw in the last 2 cents didn't you?
Just don't read the comments. Things are no different here than they are on other discussion groups. Don't expect people who are commenting to actually read the article in question. That's not how it rolls on the internet.
Please tell me what 8 U.S.C. is? What Article & Clause of the Constitution does it apply to?
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
“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,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized
...
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”
...
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners…It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”
...
“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”…Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.
...
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
Justice Gray cites the Slaughter-House case as well as the Happersett case.
So in 8 U.S.C. we have those who are born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, that is, they are not the children of any foreigners, they are the children of US citizens. All others are naturalized as Congress, under the authority given to them, they could deem others as citizen at birth, however, those citizens are not natural born as they were citizens of a foreign country at birth. Which is why Ted Cruz had to renounce his Canadian citizenship. Per the laws of Canada at the time, and since his parents had filed for and were lawful permanent Canadian residents, Ted Cruz is a natural born Canadian. One can not be a natural born of 2 nations per the laws of expatriation.
And that is why Cruz, when he came to the US, he came as a “non-quota” immigrant because his mother never formally renounced her US citizenship. I believe she held dual citizenship and may to this day. And since they will not release the documentation proving otherwise, I also believe there are a lot more skeletons in the Cruz closet than that of Obama!!!
That was, at best, a “3”.
8 U.S.C. is a statute or “ACT” passed by Congress as part of the U.S. Code (like the IRS Code is an ACT):
U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
Otherwise cited as: Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.)
and for this discussion, specifically Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
This ACT does not ‘apply to’ the Constituion, but is created by Congress under the authority thereof.
Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress) of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power:
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
and is one of the specific powers granted to Congress.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
However, the Constitution does NOT give Congress the power to change the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.
patlin, I don’t understand your point.
Your arguments and points seem to agree with mine.
Are you arguing against my points or in support of them.
It surely seems to me that you also believe that Cruz is not eligible to be POTUS because he is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen”.
Exactly how is this presidential campaign cycle any different from those of 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012? The "talk about a circular firing squad' you mentioned...is it established FReepers or newly registered that may be Dem trolls/disruptor anarchists? FR has had a great influence, a great voice these many years and do not doubt the opposition means to silence this site.The forum is extremely frustrated that not only Obama was elected once (white guilt?), but that given his then four year legacy, was reelected.
Talk about deflating. Did not help that the GOPe kept setting forth 'RINO' candidates that so many of us, upon entering the voting booth, had to hold our nose once again.
Also did not advance our political passion that many of the "Tea Party' candidates seemed to fall in line with the UNIPARTY that exists in Washington.
I guarantee previous FR purges/abandonments environments were much more intense, more derisive that what you had experienced these past 9 months.
Well bye!
8 USC is a compilation of all the Acts (statutes) passed by Congress on the subject of Immigration, Naturalization & Nationality
http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml;jsessionid=3EA9EAAC6FB75030A18B28757F339971
A positive law title of the Code is itself a Federal statute. A non-positive law title of the Code is an editorial compilation of Federal statutes. ... The distinction is legally significant. Non-positive law titles are prima facie evidence of the law, but positive law titles constitute legal evidence of the law in all Federal and State courts (1 U.S.C. 204).
http://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title8&edition=prelim#.xhtml
* This title has been enacted as positive law. However, any Appendix to this title has not been enacted as part of the title
Both Title 8 & Title 26 do not have the * before them, therefore they are but a compilation of all the statutes that have been passed. They are an outline per say, one must go to the statute for further clarification of any given part of the code.
Therefore, one cannot go into a court of law and just cite 8 USC, Section 1401 (a), they must go to the actual statute at large and pull the language from the actual statute which is what I repeatedly do and the most current statute on the subject when Ted Cruz came to the US states that Ted was recognized as a “non-quota” immigrant and thus the reason he will not release his records. Same for Rubio because that same law governed his nationality at birth and the statute also states that all children born to Cuban refuges in the United States are aliens at birth.
Since naturalization is part of the 14th Amendment, then 8 USC, Section 1401 would contain both types of citizenship, A1 & A2, natural born and naturalization, both of which require exclusive allegiance to the United States either at birth or naturalization in the United States, they both occur “IN” the United States and that is why, although the law allows benefits to a child born to an American abroad that are retroactive back to the time of birth, the US only has power and authority to grant US citizenship within the jurisdiction (borders) of the United States.
My only disagreement is on the # of classes of citizenship.
The case that you cited, Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) holds the Opinion of the Court, written by Justice Blackmun, that Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), defines those persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
This means that Congress created a NEW CLASS of CITIZENSHIP, which they designated as “Citizen at Birth” and specified conditions and requirements to retain that citizenship.
This was within their power, but it did NOT redefine “Natural Born Citizen”.
My point is that ALL challenges to NBC have been tossed or lost because of technicalities due to the lawyers ignorance of the proper method in which to approach the court which first begins by filing with the court, a proper brief that establishes the key arguments. I have read a lot of the briefs filed and frankly, they are all lacking the key argument, that of the 1868 Expatriation Act and the statutes of 8 USC that deny dual citizenship of any kind, at birth or naturalization. If another country could claim you as having allegiance to them when you were born, then constitutionally, you are a naturalized citizen, period.
LOOK AT MY TAG LINE.
It doesn’t matter what laws Congress passes, Cruz is NEVER going to be eligible to be POTUS. Only a Constitutional Ammendment that COMPLETELY REMOVES the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is the only way he could qualify.
Now as to your “positive law”, “NOT positive law”, that citation is referenced by SCOTUS Opinion of the Court written by SCOTUS Justice Blackmun, and in your MAIN case citation of:
Rogers v. Bellei (1971) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html
in your post #233:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3415184/posts?page=233#233
THIS IS YOUR ARGUEMENT, NOT MINE. I merely pointed out that ‘citizen at birth’ is NOT ‘Natural Born’ AND that the proof lies within your own post #233 in that case you cited.
WHY are you trying to provoke me with false flags?
LOOK AT MY TAG LINE.
It doesn’t matter what laws Congress passes, Cruz is NEVER going to be eligible to be POTUS. Only a Constitutional Ammendment that COMPLETELY REMOVES the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is the only way he could qualify.
Now as to your “positive law”, “NOT positive law”, that citation is referenced by SCOTUS Opinion of the Court written by SCOTUS Justice Blackmun, and in your MAIN case citation of:
Rogers v. Bellei (1971) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html
in your post #233:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3415184/posts?page=233#233
THIS IS YOUR ARGUEMENT, NOT MINE. I merely pointed out that ‘citizen at birth’ is NOT ‘Natural Born’ AND that the proof lies within your own post #233 in that case you cited.
WHY are you trying to provoke me with false flags?
Tom Selleck
very hot
thanks for making this thread more scenic
And so 8 USC yes, 8 USC does not redefine ‘natural born’, the problem is, the ‘at birth’ after 1401(a) where the statutes are clear, ‘at birth’ is retroactive upon the parents seeking, filing and receiving it for their child and even then, there are additional requirements the child must fulfill for that citizenship to be perfected. A ‘natural’ born person's citizenship is perfected the moment they are born without the aid of any statute, even without the aid of a birth certificate.
Again, anyone whose citizenship relies on anything past 8 USC, Sec 1401(a), is a naturalized citizen because the US does not have authority to govern the nationality of those born in a foreign country while that person is living in the foreign country of their birth. Justice Scalia covered this quite extensively in one of his lectures last year, how US law has no authority outside the jurisdiction 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.