I have debunked this a dozen times, yet still people don't get the message. You are wrong. McCain was indeed born *ON* the American base in the Panama Canal zone.
Link to Washington Post article.
Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
My friend, like me, is middle aged, so, no, it’s not recent. Canada has much more lenient immigration laws than the US.
Senator Cruz and your Bahama baby would probably still be a natural born citizen according to the original intent of the Framers, so long as both parents were US citizens, the child did not retain any dual citizenship loyalties, and the parents had at some point resided in the United States. Here is how the First Congress defined "natural born citizen" in the Naturalization Act of 1790:
And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That person heretofore proscribed by any State, shall be admitted as a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed
Many "birthers" say that you have to be both born in the US and be born to two US citizen parents in order to be natural born citizen. That your parents should be US citizens is clear, but it is not clear that you must be born in the territory of the US to be a natural born citizen. This uncertainty arises from short-sighted Congresses making changes to the US Constitution without clearly specifying how those changes may affect to other parts of the Constitution in unintended ways.
Before the adoption of the 14th amendment in 1868, there were only two ways to become a US Citizen. The first was through the bloodline of your parents (i.e. natural born citizens)as mentioned above. The only other way to receive citizenship before 1868 was through Naturalization. When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, it introduced a new third method for a person to become a US citizen which had not been mentioned in the Constitution. This new type of citizenship is called "ius soli" or the "law of the soil." This principle states that a person becomes a citizen by being born in a geographical area rather than by inheriting citizenship from their parents' bloodlines. It's relationship to natural born citizenship has been argued ever since.
The boys’ birth certificates were issued at the Army hospital. My daughter’s was issued by the U.S. Consulate in Liverpool, UK.
Yes, from what you describe and according to U.S. law, your children are U.S. citizens at and from the time of their birth and are NBC’s and eligible to hold any office in the US including POTUS.
That's incorrect. U.S. military installations abroad are not considered U.S. soil for the purposes of citizenship. The following text is from the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual.
7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF “IN THE UNITED STATES”
c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
With all due respect BuckeyeTexan; I believe you are incorrect in your interpretation of that manual. What that manual is addressing are the children of foreign nationals, i.e. non U.S. citizens who work at U.S. military installations or U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad or who otherwise give birth to children on the grounds of a U.S. military base or U.S. embassy or diplomatic facility. Such children of foreign nationals born on the grounds of a U.S. military or a U.S. diplomatic facility are not considered having been born on U.S. soil for purposes of being considered born an American citizen as they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories
As Ax and his spouse were BOTH U.S. citizens at the time of their children’s birth AND Ax was an active duty U.S. military service member, his children meet the requirements of U.S. citizen at birth; his children are considered to be U.S. citizens from the time of their birth, no different if they had been physically born on U.S. soil, regardless of what country Ax was serving in at the time and whether or not they were born on a U.S. military base or not. There is a requirement to register the birth through the U.S. consulate but that is AFAIK routinely done for U.S. service members whether their children are born on base or even off base in a private non-U.S. military hospital. Their physical place of birth is not the determining factor here, it is the citizenship of the parent or parents and other factors such as how long one or either of the parents resided in the U.S.
Please read this BuckeyeTexan as the last FAQ addresses the very same question that the manual you referred to was addressing:
Q: I was born to a non-American mother inside a US embassy compound during civil strife in my home country. Am I an American citizen?
A: No. US diplomatic or consular facilities abroad and US military installations abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire US citizenship by reason of birth there.
In other words, the a child of a foreign national who may happen to be born on the premises of a U.S. facility overseas while their non-U.S. citizen parent(s) are present there and provided they do not meet any of the requirements of U.S. citizenship, i.e. having at least one U.S. parent…etc., such as in the case of a foreign national(s) working there as an employee, there seeking refuge in due to political strife, or there in the process of requesting asylum in the U.S., is not considered to be born an American citizen by virtue of having been born on a U.S. facility overseas as this is not the same as having been born on U.S. soil. This is very much quite different however from Ax’s and his children’s’ situation as my previous link explains it quite clearly.
The same sort of rules apply to the children of foreign diplomats serving in the U.S. – the children of foreign diplomats born to them while they are serving in the U.S. in the capacity of being registered foreign diplomats, are not considered U.S. citizens at birth by virtue of them having been born on U.S. soil and neither are children born of parents on temporary visitor visas (vacationers) as they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The same applies to U.S. citizens temporarily travelling or working abroad. If I, for just one example, am a U.S. citizen working for a U.S. company overseas working on a DOD contract for instance, I have not applied for or established permanent residency there, nor have I applied for citizenship in that foreign country, any of my children born overseas are U.S. citizens at birth providing I have met the U.S residency requirements and I register the birth of my child at the U.S. consulate, that child born overseas is a U.S. citizens from birth and no different as if they had been born in Lancaster PA.
The same would apply if I was a U.S. citizen vacationing in France on a temporary visitor visa and gave birth to a child while I was there. As long as I had met the U.S. residency requirements and registered the birth with the U.S. consulate, my child would a U.S. citizen at birth and not a French citizen.
I have debunked this a dozen times, yet still people don't get the message. You are wrong. McCain was indeed born *ON* the American base in the Panama Canal zone.
Link to Washington Post article.
To answer your question: Yes, I certainly can.
Please note: I have said before, accurately, that Vattel was influential IN THE REALM OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
So, to repeat the question I asked you before:
The actual text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution says:
The Congress shall have Power... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations...
The "law of nations" was NOT simply defined by Vattel. Although he was an influential writer on the subject, there were a bunch of others.
The reference to the "law of nations" in the Constitution is a reference to the law of nations. It is NOT a reference to Vattel's book on the topic.
In fact, the Constitution speaks of "OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS."
Did you know there was another book, FAR more widely read and used than Vattel, that has a chapter on precisely that topic, with a title that is almost verbatim to the phrase as used in the Constitution?
The author was quoted by the Founding Fathers SIXTEEN TIMES more often than they quoted Vattel.
And his book's chapter is titled, "OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS."
That being the case, and given that he was quoted by the Founders SIXTEEN TIMES more often than Vattel, and given that I can certainly show where the notably thrifty Founders spent precious public funds to purchase his work for use in the Senate, would you not now agree that this book, which specifically treats "Offenses Against the Law of Nations," and not Vattel's, is likely the source of the phrase "Offenses against the Law of Nations," as used in our Constitution?
*IF* he was born outside of the United States. She was too young to confer citizenship *IF* he was born outside of the United States.
For some reason, people keep leaving off that qualifier.
Respectfully, claiming citizenship via passport application is irrelevant to one’s eligibility for the presidency, which is the thread topic.
With regard to being eligible for the presidency, the State Department stipulates that being a natural born citizen by statute does not necessarily make one eligible for the presidency. We don’t have a definitive ruling to go by.
As you know, there are only two classes of citizenship: citizen at birth and naturalized citizen. However, being included in the former is not an automatic guarantee of eligibility for the presidency. Some who are granted citizenship at birth have retention requirements placed upon their citizenship. Those born on U.S. soil have no such conditions placed upon their citizenship status.
So there is legal precedent demonstrating that all “citizens at birth” do not share the same status.
It wasn't just to protect this country from someone that had loyalties to another country but to protect other countries from a president making a claim to the throne(how's that) of another country.
It kept the US out of the constant wars that were taking place between countries in Europe when one ruler made a claim to another countries throne based on birth right.
NBC means being born an American citizen and only an American citizen at the time of your birth.
If a person is born in this country to two parents who are not citizens of this country but neither parent can pass citizenship to the child from the country of their origin, then the child would be a NBC of this country.
If the parents cannot pass citizenship to the child, their citizenship becomes irrelevant as to the child's citizenship.
“Before the adoption of the 14th amendment in 1868, there were only two ways to become a US Citizen. The first was through the bloodline of your parents (i.e. natural born citizens)as mentioned above. The only other way to receive citizenship before 1868 was through Naturalization. When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, it introduced a new third method for a person to become a US citizen which had not been mentioned in the Constitution. This new type of citizenship is called “ius soli” or the “law of the soil.” “
You are completely wrong. There was no “two citizen parent’ requirement, not at the time of the Constitution, and never since. And in fact, the Supreme Court has said that NBC and the 14th are restatements of the same principle, in effect during colonial times, and never changed.
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
And:
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
There is NO DIFFERENCE between a NBC and a 14th Amendment citizen - they embody the same people “by the fewest and fittest words”...
Oh good grief!!!
"Cruz was born and spent the first four years of his life in Calgary before his parents returned to Houston. His father was jailed and tortured by the Fulgencio Batista regime and fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution[40] but "didn't know Castro was a Communist" and later became a staunch critic of Castro when "the rebel leader took control and began seizing private property and suppressing dissent."
Cruz's father was never a Communist and infact, is a Soutern Baptist minister in the Dallas area!
I am claiming that the U.S. Constitution delegates powers to many persons and entities. A local jury in a criminal case can decide in a criminal case that the facts do not warrant a conviction no matter how strong the prosecution's evidence and no matter what any judge might think the jury should have found. That may seem unfair to you, but that is our system. The Congress can declare war against another nation even if all the judges think that the decision involved a misunderstanding of the facts by the Congress. That is our system. The President can veto a law even if every judge in the country thinks he is doing so because he is mistaken as to some important facts. Again, that is our system.
You seem to be concerned that the voters and their electors might make a factual mistake in deciding whether or not a candidate meets constitutional qualifications. Of course, they might make a mistake. Everyone who is granted the power to make a decision in our country might make a mistake. People might disagree as to what the facts are and what the facts mean, but that does not mean that every decision is reviewable by a court. That's just our system.
The Supreme Court is not granted any power by the Constitution to pick our presidents. The voters and their electors are quite capable of resolving questions concerning qualifications.
Do you at times wonder why the Supreme Court has not accepted any invitations to rule on the factual questions concerning Obama's qualifications? Well, now you know why.
Do you think Ann Dunham gave birth to Ted Cruz?
Yes, it's a mystery how people can read and learn things.
Baffling, it is.
By the way, Aristotle predated Vattel by about 2,300 years.
"Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?...Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;
...But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.
...a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;
That's a misunderstanding. There was never a question about whether she was a citizen or not; nobody claimed she wasn't. The court wasn't trying to establish that at all.
Cruz’s father was also a US citizen at the time of his birth.
He wasn’t but it doesn’t matter. Cruz was born an American citizen by virtue of his mother’s U.S. citizenship.
____________________________________________
OK couple of Q’s
1. What nationality was his father ???
2. What was Mom doing in Canada ???
3 how long did Mom live in Canada ???
4 how old was Ted when he immigrated to the US from Canada ???
5. When did such a ready convenient status of being called an American citizen regardless of birth begin ???
I look at the situation of my 2nd great grandfather, Guy, who was born in Canada...
Guy’s father was born in Canada, the son and grandson of American citizens, born in Albany and New Rochelle NY...thus his father was an American citizen...
Guy’s mother was born in Vermont again the child and grandchild of American citizens...thus his Mom was also an American citizen...
So Guy was an American citizen at birth...
Yet when my gg grandfather was a teenager and left New York for Melbourne, Australia and the goldfields about 1850 he was listed as a “British subject” on the ships manifest...
Like Ted Cruz, Guy should have been eligible to be POTUS...
IN FACT HE WAS MORE ELIGIBLE THAN TED..
Oh dear...
You are simply wrong.
There are only two forms of Citizenship, in the United States:
1.) Natural Born
2.) Naturalized
The only intent of the Founders was to make sure that Naturalized Citizens could not become President.
If you became a Citizen at the moment of birth, you are, by definition, a Natural Born Citizen.
No legal expert in the entire country disagrees with me on this point.
Ted “lightning Rod” Cruz.
I hope he jumps in head first, the sooner the better.
Let’s see what he can do.
Why don't you just come clean and admit you don't care to have any requirements at all? If the shadow of an American fell on them at some time in their life, that is all that is necessary for you to regard them as qualified.
You bring absolutely nothing of any value to this conversation.
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.