National Review Online: The Cruz Birthers

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343914/cruz-birthers-eliana-johnson ^

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.

Snip~

Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”

Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

The bottom line is Bingham reveals that if you have a parent that has allegiance to another sovereignty besides the United States, you are not a natural born Citizen. His statement is perfectly logical.

[Vendome]

They were not dual citizens in the context that Universities often give out honorary degrees.

Honorary degrees, like honorary citizenship are awards of appreciation.

If you were awarded a honorary degree in law you could not apply to the bar.

Similarly, Honorary citizenship would not entitle you to even apply for, much less receive a passport.

The are awards that have effect of the regular earned status or in this case of having citizenship bestowed upon you and granting you all the rights, protection from that country, nor would it bind you to any obligations of that country.

Yer not a citizen but, merely an esteemed friend.

In the case of Cruz, he is currently a Natural Born Citizen of Kannaduh. He is bound to obligations of Kannaduh, as well, entitled to all rights and privileges of Kannaduh.

If Cruz were take his children to Kannaduh, under their laws, they too are citizens and if he were in the middle of a nasty divorce, his American born wife, who is not a citizen of Kannaduh, would have little recourse in demanding Cruz return the children to America.

Kannaduh would be bound by it’s laws to protect and defend the rights of the little Kannadianuhs and they would shrug their shoulders.

They would tell the USA their hands are tied and as Kannadianuh citizens, who are with a parent, also a Kannadianuh, are welcome to stay. They are in their country and welcomed home.

Arabs pull that crap quite a bit. They decide they don’t want to be married and take their children back home to his country of origin.

The children being citizens under their laws cannot be compelled to return.

[Kansas58]

The purpose was to exclude the children of diplomats. Again, you have a straw man argument.

I agree with Bingham, however you are wrong in your interpretation of Bingham.

Bingham does not use the words “only” or “must” or “always” -— Bingham states one path to NBC, Bingham never excludes other paths to NBC.

[Vendome]

Cruz is obligated by two countries and can even avoid jurisdiction to the United States in time of war and leave for Kannaduh.

If he were drafted there wouldn’t be a thing the US could under the law to compel his return to the USA and serve his obligation under draft.

[MamaTexan]

"Yeah, let's repeal the Amendment whose purpose was to make sure everyone understood "them n*****s were citizens, too." "

I can ascertain nothing in the discussion where you said anything about how the 14th should be 'repealed' or that you were against it's original purpose in any way shape or form.

Your only statement that I saw was that the 14th had been abused....which at this point in time could be said for just about every Article, Clause, and Amendment in the Constitution.

IMHO, the screech of 'racism' is a false flag in order to stop the discussion because you are hitting way too close to the truth.

-----

Is he a liberal? Well, he ain't no conservative, but neither are quite a few number of people who call themselves such, in my opinion. Offense for the mods? That, I can't say. It's really not my call to make.

[Kansas58]

You are making a semantic argument where none really exists.

There are two forms of Citizenship in the United States:

Natural Born

Naturalized

It is pedantic of you to go into great detail about the age 35 issue, which is CURED BY TIME, or the residence requirement, which also, can be CURED BY TIME!

[Kansas58]

Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen.

Birthers will soon have a chance to lose on that issue, like they always lose.

[Kansas58]

You are a liberal in one area, obviously.

You support Judicial Supremacy, you advocate taking power from the Congress, to determine eligibility for POTUS, and giving that power to SCOTUS.

That is the very definition of liberalism.

[Jeff Winston]

He is not whining at all. He is calling attention to the fact that your statements revealed yourself to be a liberal which many here have suspected you to be.

He essentially said that the 14th Amendment was a bad thing, implying either that it should be repealed, or should never have been passed in the first place.

The entire purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that black Americans would not be deprived of their civil rights and their United States citizenship.

So what else am I supposed to think? Especially when DiogenesLamp has made extreme statements in the past?

On one occasion, he baldly stated, because I disagreed with him, that if I were to be taken out and shot, he would cheer.

I'd call that a significant good track record of extreme position on his part.

[Vendome]

Make your argument.

You sound like a good many friends of mine who, being liberal, like to spout off declarative statements of absolutes but, can never really make their case.

If Cruz were to be called by the draft and he wanted to avoid it all he would do is walk across the border and into Kannaduh.

The USA would not be able to sole jurisdiction, by way of citizenry and Kannaduh would say “Hey, he’s our guy two. Don’t mind helping you most of the time but, as a citizen of Kannaduh he is welcome for as long as he likes”.

The fact that he was not born in the USA, of one American Parent and never renounced his citizenship, qualifies him as dual citizen, with divided obligations and loyalties, which he exercise anytime.

One is wholly one thing or another or two parts of other things.

Not NBC ...

[Kansas58]

You ask me for proof or documentation, yet you provide nothing at all to back up YOUR claims?

So what, even if your hypothetical came to pass? It does not in any way prove me wrong.

The Founders did not want a Naturalized Citizen to be the President. That is ALL they intended to do, with the wording.

You have NO conclusive proof that I am wrong on that point.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I tell you what - we'll continue with the pointless argument over the dissent when you make some reasonable attempt to answer the questions posited to you in post #281.

The questions in 281, to the extent they're reasonable questions, would have made sense to ask during the arguments in front of the WKA court--I don't know if anyone did. But now, after the decision's been rendered and we're arguing about what it means, they're pointless. You might as well ask me "how could the court decide Obamacare was a tax when...?" Valid question, but moot at this point.

Nevertheless, I reread them:

1] A year after final Constitutional Ratification, the Founders passed the Naturalization Act. Why, IF such a positive law authority existed, did they Founders NOT proclaim themselves to *natural born citizens*?

Because it starts, "Be it enacted...That any Alien" and they weren't aliens?

2] The next Naturalization Act, concerning aliens, was passed in 1795, repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act, thus closing the window for anyone to claim being a *natural born citizen* UNDER that Act. So how did the Wong Court rationalize using an Act that had been repealed?

I don't see any evidence that the WKA court "used" the 1790 act in their decision. They mentioned it as part of their long review of the ways Congress had dealt with citizenship, but that's all.

3]The Ark court attempted to us the 14th Amendment in their rationalizations, but the words on the floor of the House specifically said foreigners and aliens were NOT included in the 14th Amendment, as shown here. So how can the Ark court rationalize him being a *natural born citizen* via the 14th Amendment when the authors OF the 14th Amendment said it did not include foreigners or aliens?

Already answered (#286).

Okay, your turn. Why did the dissent object,

"I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that 'natural-born citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country...were eligible to the Presidency"

if that's not what the dissenter thought the decision meant? (I can't see why you call an objection to the decision's impliications by someone on the same court "pointless," unless you're trying to wave it away.)

[MamaTexan]

You support Judicial Supremacy, you advocate taking power from the Congress, to determine eligibility for POTUS, and giving that power to SCOTUS.

ROFLMAO! You do bring a whole new meaning to the word 'delusional', don't you.

No, I propose leaving it EXACTLY where the Founders intended.... under the original definition of Natural Law.

That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted - 23 Feb. 1775

Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.
James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791

Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1791

I consider the war of America against Britain as the country's war, the public's war, or the war of the people in their own behalf, for the security of their natural rights, and the protection of their own property.
Thomas Paine, On Financing the War, 1782

-----

The Founders used the term *natural born* because the definiton of that term outside of its orginal meaning;

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

is beyond the legitimate power of any branch of government to change.

Get it?

Got it?

GOOD!

Now please be kind enough to take your 'liberal' hogwash elsewhere. Thank you.

[Vendome]

No one proved you wrong, even if you are.

You made a declaration statement with no argument.

I did make an argument, despite your claim, which is to absolve you reading, comprehension and making a compelling argument, much less atempting.

The hypothetical I gave have actually been exercised by real people and you can Google it yerself.

So one couldn’t make the claim that Cruz is a dual citizens and obligated to both and can avoid one or the other by merely exercising his rights while domiciled in either country?

I have an appointment to go on. Feel free to look up the scenarios or maybe another Freeper can step in for my stead.

[elengr]

The entire purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that black Americans would not be deprived of their civil rights and their United States citizenship.

True, that. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted expressly to grant U.S. national citizenship to all de facto fellow countrymen who were born within the sole jurisdiction and boundaries of the USA, but were born of a special class of parents (i.e., former slaves) who, but for their enslavement, would themselves have been citizens.

Most former slaves were born jus soli - of the country's soil, yet a Constitutional amendment was required to just make some of these, our fellow countrymen, citizens. That’s right (and plain as can be). Many former slaves who were born on U.S. soil were legally being denied citizenship by certain states because they were born to non-citizen parents! (They were not born jus sanguinis – of citizen blood.)

Clearly, jus soli was not enough to make them citizens (let alone natural born Citizens). That the Fourteenth Amendment exists at all is proof positive that the founders did not consider jus soli sufficient by and of itself to confer natural born Citizenship status – blood and dirt were both required.

The above train of thought is perfectly consistent with the founders’ expressed intent to prevent our commander-in-chief from having any foreign affinities, loyalties or allegiances. The natural born Citizen clause ensures that the circumstances of our president’s birth provide no claim by any foreign power that our president could be a direct subject or citizen of that power. That means that our president must not be born within the jurisdiction of any foreign power of which the USA recognizes their jus soli birthright citizenship, nor may he be born to parents (jus sanguinis) either of whom the USA recognizes as being legitimately claimed as subjects or citizens of a foreign power. Note that when an alien naturalizes as a U.S. Citizen, he does so by legally severing all ties to any former land(s) and swearing sole allegiance to the United States.

Blood and dirt – perhaps not perfect, but the founders recognized it as doing the best job of protecting sovereign Citizens of our great nation from the danger of a usurper gaining the presidency (and sadly, the danger that comes from defying their wisdom we are experiencing first hand today).

[Kansas58]

You are arrogant beyond belief.
I am far more conservative than you, you are a liberal in that you care nothing about the law at all. You care about results.
You have decided what YOU (almost alone) want, and you pervert the “law” to suit your ends.
On this, you represent pure liberalism.

You have no clue, obviously, about what I have done for the Conservative cause. I am sure my efforts and my accomplishments in that regard would put you to shame.

Have you ever gotten anyone elected to office? Have you ever gotten a single piece of legislation enacted?

Have you ever WON in Court? (I have countless times, even representing myself at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals)

You do not have “standing” to call me or any other rational, common sense anti-birther a “liberal”.

The VAST majority of the conservative movement thinks that radical birthers like you are kooks.

I am betting that the vast majority of Free Republic posters thinks that those who claim Rubio and Cruz are not Natural Born Citizens are kooks.

NONE Of the Founders believed as you have stated that they believed. You can NOT claim to speak for the dead, and they never supported your crack pot theories when they were alive.

[Kansas58]

My point, of course, was not that your hypothetical NEVER happened, my point was, very clearly, that IT HAS NO BEARING ON OUR ARGUMENTS HERE!

Lets look at it this way, what if CANADA drafted Cruz, would Cruz be obligated?

The clear wording says “foreign allegiance” -— I think you will agree that Cruz could ignore any draft notice from Canada, he is NOT and NEVER WAS obligated to obey any such Canadian draft notice.

[MHGinTN]

JW works for little barry bastard boy, trying to legitimize the degenerate liar-in-chief. And you expected the slug to be honest and admit it? It is seeking outlandish responses, possibly to post at DU or huff-in-puff.

[CityCenter]

Not only do I think they are kooks, I think they are racists at worst and xenophobes at best.

[Longbow1969]

The VAST majority of the conservative movement thinks that radical birthers like you are kooks.

Yup. So much so that constitutional scholars like Mark Levin will throw them off his show if they try to spout their idiocy. No serious conservative organization or legal foundation wants anything to do with birtherism. This birther nonsense is driven by cranks and conspiracy theorists and will never amount to squat. If Cruz wants to run for President, he will have no problem doing so. Same for Rubio or Jindal. Serious people are never going to care about the made up birther definitions of what an NBC is. It's sad watching these people waste their energy on something so dumb, when we could really use their tenacity to further the conservative cause in real, serious ways.