Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.
"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I’ll let xzins speak for me to your posts.
If just not being naturalized means a person is natural born, then there would be no need for him to renounce his Canadian citizenship. He could be a country of every nation in the world and still be a natural born US citizen, if just not having to naturalize to be a US citizen makes you a natural born citizen.
That’s one of those issues where different inferences can be made.
The laws involving a person renouncing US citizenship also comes in to play. A person who has renounced their US citizenship is not a US citizen at all, but if being BORN a US citizen is all that is meant by natural born citizen then a person could not even be a current US citizen and still be a “natural born citizen”.
What I’m trying to say is that there are a multitude of inferences that can be made, and they might all make sense to different people, but the only ones that are legally binding are the ones actually decided by the judiciary. We need the judiciary to tell us what the rules of the NBC game are BEFORE we get 2 seconds away from the final buzzer. It doesn’t matter what the players say the rules are. What matters is what the OFFICIALS say the rules are, and no way is it a fair or right game if the players are not ALLOWED to know the rules before the game starts. It’s pure crap, the idea that the officials can tell us it’s none of our business what the rules are, until after we’ve already lost the game according to their unknown, hidden rules.
With all due respect, xzins can’t tell me whether you would have any problem with a court giving a clear ruling on what NBC means.
What the “birthers” that you so deride have been asking all along is for the courts to simply give us a ruling so we know where we’re at. Is that objectionable to you?
Aagh. He could be a CITIZEN (not “country)) of every country...
See the congressional record of the discussion regarding the 1790 law. I’m away from my regular computer, so I can’t get to it immediately, but I did quote it elsewhere on this thread yesterday. They use Blackstone and specifically the section regarding children born to overseas subjects.
If you’re using an annotated Blackstone, then you’re using Blackstone.
You still haven’t given a definition of “natural born”, but I’ve shown the Constitutional section regarding the body with the authority over that legal area. In short, their laws are Constitutionally binding.
And your aren’t reading what I wrote. I said that TO BE a citizen, you had to either be naturalized or be born a citizen. Nobody forces any immigrant to be a citizen. But in order TO BE a citizen, there are only 2 options.
If you know of a 3rd, please tell me.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 1 of 69
UNCLASSIFIED (U)
7 FAM 1130
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT
(CT:CON-474; 08-19-2013) (Office of Origin: CA/OCS/L)
7 FAM 1131 BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF ACQUISITION
7 FAM 1131.1 Authority
7 FAM 1131.1-1 Federal Statutes
(CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)
a. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is governed by Federal statutes. Only insofar as Congress has provided in such statutes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of “jus sanguinis” under which citizenship is acquired by descent (see 7 FAM 1111 a(2)).
b. Section 104(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1104(a)) gives the Secretary of State the responsibility for the administration and enforcement of all nationality laws relating to “the determination of nationality of a person not in the United States.”
….]
7 FAM 1131.2 Prerequisites for Transmitting U.S. Citizenship
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Since 1790, there have been two prerequisites for transmitting U.S. citizenship to children born abroad:
(1) At least one natural parent must have been a U.S. citizen when the child was born. The only exception is for a posthumous child.
(2) The U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically present in the United States for the time required by the law in effect when the child was born.
Note how “acquisition of U.S. citizenship” is under the power granted to Congress by the Constitution under the power to govern naturalizations and delegated to the U.S. Department of State for administration of the naturalization laws.
Note also how there are no minimum residency requirements for an actual natural born citizen or the parents of the natural born citizen, but there are such minimum residency requirements for the children born abroad with U.S. citizen parents. This occurs because the 1855 and later legislative acts granted the right to “acquire” U.S. citizenship after birth abroad with the U.S. citizenship being thenceforth retroactive to the date of birth. Until and unless the U.S. citizenship is “acquired” and not subsequently “revoked” for fraud or other cause, the person born abroad has no U.S. citizenship despite any potential right to claim and acquire that citizenship.
The law at the time said one’s citizen parent must be older than 18 to confer citizenship? That’s odd as 18 is usually considered adult age for most legal purposes. The drinking age is an exception of course.
What was the necessary age at the time Ohama was born to confer citizenship?
What exact statute states this?
How old was Ted Cruz’s mother when he was born?
If you have these answers I’d be most grateful. Thanks.
Yeah...sure.
That why this part is called
Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England; And Its Introduction into, and Authority Within the United American States
-----
You post nothing but vagaries. Get back to me when you have some evidence other than 'because I say so'.
Thanks for y’alls replies!
My point in raising that question to Butter’ was to get us to thinking about where each man’s talents best lie.
Cruz is the lightning rod target for the high-voltage Left Stream Media.
Lee is more of a subdued speaker, an administrator.
Cruz is the Mercurial Leader, Lee is the Office Manager, IMHO.
Together they make an excellent team.
If the Republicans can win a Majority in the US Senate, then who should be chosen Majority Leader?
Right now I trust only Cruz and Lee for that job.
2014 is all about winning the US Senate, and increasing the Republican hold of the US House.
After that we can re-focus on the 2016 POTUS Race.
I urge all y’all to focus on the US Congress in 2014, and not the 2016 POTUS race.
Endless speculation on who should or shouldn’t run for POTUS in 2016 diminishes the probability that we will win back the US Senate and increase our control of the US House.
Let us here resolve to give the Republican Candidate for POTUS in 2016 a REPUBLICAN House and Senate. He/She is counting on us to do so!
All in good time my FRiends, all in good time.
What you have not shown is the section that says they can be denied citizenship when they present evidence that they meet the statuatory criteria. So, “acquired” means taken up at a point in time that which is already acknowledged in the terms of citizenship by birth. I’m not at my normal computer, so I can’t find it at the moment, but even in the FAM that idea is preserved down a few paragraphs from the section dealing with blood or geography as the basis of one’s citizenship.
The most recent law (newer 1401 replacement) governs even the FAMs, and it says something along the order of the following shall be citizens at birth:
a. those born in the US to citizen parents.
and somewhere down the list it has those born overseas to US parents. I don’t recall the sub-paragraph letter or number. But, if one is a “statuatory citizenship”, then all in that same major paragraph are also statuatory citizens.
And, indeed, we are required even to document that we have been born in the USA....birth certificates, baptismal records, etc., are legal means of doing so.
Annotating something is using that something with an explanation added from a different source.
Look up thread. You’ll see the posts from the congressional record at the time that 1790 was discussed.
Are you sure about that? Statutory law is written law passed by a legislature. Are you really suggesting that the U.S. Code is not a compilation of the U.S. Statutes at Large?
You quote a manual as a legal statement.
No, I quoted the State Department FAM as a statement of U.S. policy on interpreting citizenship statutes passed by Congress.
{temper tantrum, feet stomping ensues}
I'm not sure why you think I'm stomping my feet or throwing a temper tantrum. I am calmly and rationally refuting your statement that there is no such thing as statutory citizenship.
I’d have to look up the references, but the law at the time said that a person had to be a resident of the US for at least 5 years after the age of 14 in order to confer citizenship to a child born outside the country. The law was changed after a time, but the law that was in effect at the time is the legally-binding law for the years that it was in effect. If you look at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf it lists the requirements and has a time window within which the US-citizen parent had to be at least 19 years old.
On p 17 it says, “c. Birth to Citizen and Alien: Unlike section 301(d), section 301(g) (formerly
section 301(a)(7) INA) does not require a continuity of stay. However, on the
whole, its requirements for transmitting U.S. citizenship to the foreign-born
child of a U.S. citizen and an alien are much more stringent: for children born UNCLASSIFIED (U)
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 18 of 69
UNCLASSIFIED (U)
prior to November 14, 1986, the U.S. citizen parent must have had ten years of
physical presence, five of which were after reaching age 14, in the United
States or its outlying possessions; for children born on or after November 14,
1986, to transmit citizenship the U.S. citizen parent needs five years of physical
presence, two of which were after age 14, in the United States or one of its
possessions.
“
Xzins, that link gives the State Dept’s understanding in this way:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who
acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore,
eligible for the Presidency. UNCLASSIFIED (U)
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 8 of 69
UNCLASSIFIED (U)
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person
except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104)
provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born
... 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.”
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in
modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural
born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is
such a citizen for Constitutional purposes
I agree with what you said, with the exception that I believe we also need to be laying the groundwork NOW so that the courts will have had to give a ruling on the definition of NBC BEFORE the 2016 primary. The urgency right now is not for US to decide whether Cruz is eligible but to figure out how to make the courts tell us the definition for NBC before we choose our 2016 candidate.
Thinking about the strategic possibilities for the trustworthy people we have is important, and our time is better spent on that than on debating what in the end can only be decided by the courts. IMHO.
Thanks for your reply.
All I ask is that y’all think about what is best for our Republic, in a rational, timely fashion.
So, even the FAM admits that the 1790 law DOES seem to imply such a person is eligible for the presidency.
FR will not be used as a tool to bring down Ted Cruz. We support him here 100% and if he runs will do all we can to help him. If you wish to claim he’s ineligible, you’ll have to do it elsewhere. Trolls will not last long on FR. Trolling against our very best conservative candidates will not be tolerated on FR.
Damn the RINOS!!
Damn the GOP-e!!
Run, Ted, RUN!!
” I am calmly and rationally refuting your statement that there is no such thing as statutory citizenship.”
On the contrary, statutory laws are the legislative enactments of Public Laws. Any form of citizenship acquired by the authority of a statutory law, which is a Public Law enacted by a legislature, is a statutory citizenship given by an artificial enactment of law and not by inherent natural law. See Coke (1603 IIRC), datus versus natus.
According to the article at http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/26/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-president/ , Ted Cruz’s mother was in her 30’s when he was born.
Agreed. There is too much at stake for us to give in to emotional squabbles. There is too much real work to be done, and we need to hold together.
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.