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 ...
It’s the Chicago Way...
To me, the eligibility requirement for president in the constitution clearly mentions two levels of citizenship. A regular citizen is eligible if that person is living during the adoption of the constitution. After that, only a natural born citizen is eligible.
Why?
Because during the adoption of the constitution the first generation of citizens could not be Natural Born because there was not yet a country. After the adoption, this first generation of citizens would create a second generation ofchildren. These children would be the first Natural Born Citizens of the country.
Now, I could be wrong.... That is why we need the courts to clarify the definition once and for all.
Again I agree.
Yes. It’s in his bio.
He became a Canadian citizen while in Canada. His wife did not. At the time under the then-current Canadian immigration law, Canadians could not hold dual-citizenship, so the implication is that Senior had to renounce his Cuban citizenship to acquire his Canadian citizenship.
Following that same pattern, when he became a US citizen, he renounced his Canadian citizenship.
That is where "born" status comes into play. One has to play out any courtcase in one's mind, because "natural born citizen" actually is in the Constitution. What the Constitution doesn't detail is whether that is through place of birth and through blood, or if it is only through place of birth, so I would have to say that any reading of the Constitution has to include both, since it doesn't limit it to just one or the other. All the 14th does is point out thaty place of birth applies to anyone who is born here. (Sadly, giving rise to anchor baby citizenship.)
Since "natural born citizen" clearly includes the word "born", then that would logically extend to all those born of citizens. This is necessary due to the equal treatment understanding of the Constitution, for allowing the children of some citizens to have all the perquisites of citizenship, but denying those to others would seem to be an unequal treatment. For example, discrimination against soldiers, or businessmen, or travelers is the only way to view denying citizenship to their children when they themselves have not renounced their citizenship, and in the case of the first 2 groups, also have been pursuing interests of the nation in their absence from the geography of the USA.
So, if these children are born with my name, and born with my property, and born with my access, and born with my blood, (and even born with my income tax deduction), then it appears the state has already recognized them.
My point is that anyone attempting to revoke their citizenship would lose....probably in Congress itself, but certainly in the Courts.
This is just my opinion, but I don't think it is an illogical opinion.
Rafael Bienvenido Cruz came to the US from Cuba in May of 1956 when he was 18 years old to attend the University of Texas. He moved to Calgary, Canada in the 1960s and while living there for eight years, he became a Canadian citizen. He was not naturalized in the US until 2005.
So he was a Cuban citizen for about 30 years, a Canadian citizen for another 35 years and a US citizen for only the past 8 years, although he moved here over 57 years ago.
I will pray about it, as you have suggested. My initial belief is that the strategy that they are using - Cloward-Piven on steroids - is to overwhelm us with so much that we can never respond. By the time we respond to one attack on liberty and everything that is American, they’ve already done 5 more attacks, and the media has made sure the lie has traveled around the world twice before the truth can get its shoes tied. And because of that we need to attack the root of their power and not just keep scrambling with the branches that are in our face constantly.
The root of their power is their ability to keep the regular people at bay - their ability to keep us from MAKING DC LISTEN. I think it’s because they know we have no LEGAL power over them. Once they enter politics they’ve got the whole system protecting them from any of us little guys who would notice their crimes, lawlessness, or the unconstitutionality of their actions.
I think the first step is to make it so that we the people have legal standing to hold the system accountable. I don’t think we’re going to get much of anywhere until that happens.
But I’ll pray about it.
but then again, he probably lost his Canadian citizenship, ten years after he returned to the US and once again was a Cuban citizen. Actually, he might have always been a Cuban citizen, with dual Cuban/Canadian ciitzenship during that 18 year period.
Loss of Canadian citizenship generally occurred in the following cases:
o naturalized Canadians who lived outside Canada for 10 years and did not file a declaration of retention
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Citizenship_Act_1946
Ted Cruz knows better than any of us that what the Constitution says or what he believes it says means nothing. All that matters is what a compromised Supreme Court says it means. Until there’s been a legal ruling, nothing is in the bag. You don’t seem to get it but the man who is fighting the Obamacare that John Roberts ruled constitutional and who noted that Obama is getting away with all kinds of unconstitutional actions.... lives in the real world, I believe. Which is one of the big reasons that I like him. I think he knows he is vulnerable and that the media is setting up the issue in order to MAKE him vulnerable. Until we have a legal ruling, nothing is in the bag. All I’m saying is let’s get that legal ruling before we go claiming that this thing is in the bag. If we can.
And if we would all hold together we could get a state to pass a law that would give the issue standing and force a ruling. Arguing against the need to have the ruling in the bag will actually KEEP us from getting it in the bag. You wouldn’t want to do that, would you? You would want to have a court case that makes the definition legally binding, wouldn’t you - before we have to commit to a Presidential candidate?
The interpretation of the 14th amendment giving rise to anchor baby "citizenship" is a relatively new phenomenon, and one that some Asian parents take advantage of via "birth vacations," not to overlook the more numerous Central American parents who are in the country illegally. In the case of "birth vacations," the parents are both non-citizens, and the child is removed to his parents' country for upbringing, etc. But, they are born citizens.
Wong Kim Ark set up an interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction" so that everybody on US soil, except ambassadors, is swept in. This interpretation is contentious, with the opposing side finding that "subject to the jurisdiction" means more than having to avoid criminal acts, violations of law, having recourse in the courts for torts and crimes committed against the alien while on US soil, etc., and instead means that the person is obliged to perform the duties associated with citizenship, e.g., be subject to the draft. IIRC, the initial proposed text of the 14th amendment included something in the nature of "and not subject to the jurisdiction of any other country." That material was removed and there is no historical record explaining why (may have been viewed as duplication/superfluous, or may have been viewed as too narrow)
Plyler v. Doe reinforced the broad interpretation, including anybody (but ambassadors) on US soil, and by FN 10, appears to extend the birthright of citizenship to children born of illegal aliens. I refer to an Ann Coulter piece only because it is easy to read ... Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies - August 4, 2010. Here is a link to Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
-- My point is that anyone attempting to revoke their citizenship would lose ... --
If you mean that the government can't revoke citizenship, I disagree (Losing US Citizenship), but revocation is done on a case by case basis against people made citizens by operation of a naturalization statute. In the WOT, this comes up in Congress against ANY citizen. See Senate bill authorizes feds to revoke citizenship of Americans. Any citizen is able to revoke his own citizenship.
As to your hypothetical children (being born abroad, I assume), citizenship statutes condition the grant of citizenship on various US residency and age criteria. For example, If Obama was born outside of the US, he is not a citizen, even though his mother (assuming it's that Dunham chick) was one. He fails the statutory criteria in place in 1963.
But, I do agree that had they been recognized as citizens, they remain so unless they choose to give it up.
We need a ruling. Until we have one, there will continue to be lots of different opinions, usually with well-reasoned justification. The only opinions that matter are the judicial ones that are in the books and thus legally binding. That is what we need, and we need it BEFORE the next Presidential “game” starts so that the rules can’t change in the middle.
You’re a reasonable and good man and you’re in good company here. We love this country. Some are acting as if being concerned for this country is a bad thing. Of course we’re concerned about this country. Anybody who isn’t at this point is brain-dead.
Right now there are precious few legal moves that we the people can make before the tree of liberty ends up being watered. One of the few things we can do is give ourselves legal standing through our state laws. In this issue that means that we, collectively, can get standing to get a decision on constitutionality through mass action - the action of a state legislature. The same thing has happened regarding border enforcement, healthcare exchanges, etc. The unconstitutionality of the federal government has ONLY one thing holding it in check legally right now, and that is the states. That is the one place where we the people still have legal teeth.
What happens when the courts rule wrongly? We learn how we have to fight it. For instance, if the courts say that Eric Holder can get away with refusing to protect our borders, we know we need to impeach Eric Holder and pass laws that extract penalties of an AG who blocks the enforcement of our borders. We need to help the victims’ families win wrongful death lawsuits against Eric Holder’s pals. Etc. The purpose of finding out if one door is shut is so you can find a different door if you have to.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/old/features/general/citizenship/canada-first-citizenship-act.htmlCitizenship law of 1947 (In effect until 1977. Ted Cruz born in 1970) It did not permit dual/multiple citizenships. Canadians who chose to become citizens of another country had to renounce their Canadian citizenship. This was not all that unusual. Today, many countries still do not permit individuals to have dual or multiple citizenships, or only allow individuals to maintain dual citizenship until they reach a certain age (at which time they must choose which country’s citizenship they wish to keep).
The dual citizenship rule was a big problem for Canada that resulted in the "Lost Canadians" that subsequent law fixed.
The expectation, however, was that Canadians did not have dual citizenship.
And, as your quote says, there was no formal "proof" required. That implies that the expectation was still there.
It's like going to the voting booth. There might not be "proof" required, like an ID, but the expectation is that your are to be a resident of that state. MOST understand that and comply.
I appreciate the fact- and logic-based debate between you guys. This is the kind of back and forth that is supposed to happen when a case is argued. It is way past time for the case to be argued where it’s SUPPOSED to be argued: in a legally-binding court.
We’d STILL be arguing about hanging chads if the courts had not done their duty in 2000. And the country would be divided worse than the Hatfields and McCoys after going that long with 2 groups duking it out in forums but nobody having standing to get a LEGAL resolution. We cannot allow the courts to keep claiming that none of us has standing to get LEGAL resolution of a controversy before it tears a nation apart. There is one way for we the people to get a class-action suit before the courts that requires a judicial response: through the actions of a State.
Is there any good reason for us not to do this through our state legislatures?
My brother and I were both born in the United States; my brother in NJ in 1948 and I in NY twelve years later.
My mother was also born in the United States in PA. Her parents were also born in the United States as were her paternal and maternal grandparents, her maternal great grandparents emigrated from Germany to the US in the 1850’s to Pennsylvania – I have their immigration and naturalization papers to prove it.
But my father was born in Norway and came to the US when he was about six years old in 1927, his parents legally immigrated here, and even though they struggled through the Depression, they both worked full time jobs and purchased a house in NJ, had two more sons who were born here and my grandparents eventually applied for US citizenship during WWII, but since my father by then was over 21 when they finally became naturalized, their naturalization did not automatically confer to him.
While they still had family in Norway and were concerned for them during the war, including my grandmother’s father who was a newspaper editor back in Kristiansand and who wrote anti-Nazi editorials and ended up having to go into the mountains with the Norwegian underground when the Gestapo put a price on his head, my grandparents by now considered themselves Americans and not Norwegians. They eventually travelled back to Norway for a visit but that wasn’t until the late 1960’s and all they could say was how happy they were to come back “home” to the USA and what a great and wonderful country the USA was. (And for what it’s worth, when they had a flight layover in Germany, my grandmother refused to get off the plane because she didn’t want to set foot on German soil – she really knew how to hold a grudge - LOL!)
And another fact: my great grandfather wrote some letters to my father during the war. Being that the letters came from a Nazi occupied Norway and written in Norwegian, they were opened and read before reaching my father but not redacted as what my great grandfather told my father was “Kill some of those rat bastard Japs for me”, “We look forward to our liberation from those damnable Socialist Nazis” and “God Bless you and the God Bless the USA!” I wish I could have met my great grandfather as he was an amazing and wonderful man.
Right after Pearl Harbor, my father at the age of 18, tried to enlist but couldn’t because he was not yet a Naturalized Citizen but a year later he received a draft notice. Glad to serve his country (the USA) even though he was working a job that was considered essential to the war effort and one that could have entitled him a deferment, he sworn allegiance to the United States Of America while taking the military induction oath and he served in the SPT in the US Army Infantry, was awarded two Purple Hearts and several combat metals including two metals for valor in battle.
He came home after the war a year later met and married my mother. My father had applied for his naturalization before and while he was still serving in the army but government being government, his paperwork got lost more than once. He started the process again once he came home but did not become naturalized until shortly after my brother was born, due mostly to one of his military discharge papers having a mistake on it and showing he served in Europe and not the Pacific war theater, typical governmental and bureaucratic SNFU, delaying the process. The judge who performed his citizenship swearing in when my brother was an wee infant, told my father that as far as he was concerned, and although certainly not a legally binding opinion, that this was in his opinion a “formality” and that my father had become a US citizen when he took the military oath and by virtue of his service to his country.
I was born after well after my father became a fully naturalized citizen.
So my question is for you hard core “birthers’; is my brother not a “Natural Born Citizen” where as I am? Would my brother NOT be eligible to become POTUS where as I WOULD be by virtue of my father’s naturalization status when I was born vs. when my brother was born? Is my US born brother really subject to and beholding the laws of Norway where as I am not? And FWIW, if Norway tried to claim my brother as their citizen, knowing him, he’d tell them to go pound sand where the sun don’t shine because my brother is just about as true red white and blue and a conservative flag waving patriotic American as anyone I know, as was my father.
Funny, my brother’s birth certificate looks no different from mine. There is no foot note on my brother’s birth certificate stating that he’s a “citizen by birth” but not a “natural born citizen”. My brother did not have to become “naturalized”, did not have to renounce any Norwegian citizenship or claim to him.
During the Vietnam War when my brother registered for the draft, even when he tried to volunteer, he wasn’t told that being merely a “citizen by birth” and not a “natural born citizen”, that he had to prove his allegiance to the United States as he might have a natural allegiance to a foreign country - Norway. My brother’s poor eye sight and bad knees due to playing football in HS was what kept him from enlisting BTW and disqualified him from being drafted, not his citizenship status. And when my brother applied for his US passport, he did not have to provide any more or less documentation that I did when I applied for mine. Both our certified state birth certificates and state driver’s licenses were good enough. Our US passports look no different.
When my brother worked as courier delivery driver and delivered documents to the US Capitol, several US Senate office buildings and on occasion to the White House and had to undergo a back ground check and obtain a security clearance, his citizenship status was never brought into question and nothing on his security clearance differentiated him as being a “citizen by birth” vs. a “natural born citizen”. I went through a similar security clearance check a few years later it was no different. When we had a relative who applied for a job with the NSA, he used my father as a reference. When the folks from the NSA came to our house, they asked lots of questions about our relative, his character and such and they noted that they had reviewed my father’s military service record and made mention of how distinguished it was, but never once did they make any mentioned of his “foreign birth”. I’m sure they looked into it but it didn’t garner any questioning from them.
There are in reality only two types of United States Citizens by law – those who are born here – i.e. “Natural Born Citizens” and those born overseas, not to a US citizen parent or parents, citizens by birth of another country who have to become “naturalized”.
If persons born in the United States who do not have two US citizen parents (either by birth or by naturalization) at the time of their US birth are not NBC’s by birth, then tell me how or why such a person doesn’t have to become “naturalized”? By what and by where does any official documentation; a US birth certificate, US passport, state issued driver’s license, a federal security clearance¸ etc. show that there is a difference between a Natural Born Citizen and a Citizen By Birth?
None of you hard core birthers can, because there simply is no difference or distinction.
I would however make the distinction on so called “anchor babies”. In my opinion, if a person is born on US soil to illegal immigrants, they should not be granted birth right citizenship. And although something I’d like to see changed, unfortunately that is not what is done currently in practice and we need to work to change this. I have no problem however with the children born in the US to two parents who are legal and document immigrants, permanent alien residents who have the intent and are working toward citizenship being granted birth right citizenship. The children born here of Illegal aliens on the other hand and in my opinion should be deported along with their parents.
Senior actually renounced his Canadian citizenship when he received US citizenship (maybe before when he applied), but in his bio he says he renounced Canadian citizenship.
Which is additional circumstantial evidence that he renounced his Cuban citizenship when receiving US citizenship. Otherwise, he would have renounced both at that time.
You know, I have thought about that. What would happen if a state legislature defined "natural born citizen"? Obviously, it would only apply to their state, but wouldn't it have to be upheld in other states under the 14th amendment.
Sounds like you come from great stock. America is the richer for having you here. And I hope and pray that America can get back to where the free world looks to America and says “God bless America!”
You ask great questions. I haven’t studied this issue thoroughly but I do know that somewhere in the early legal documents/commentaries it was said that a person initiating the naturalization process shows intent that basically counts as naturalization for these purposes.
But the arguments deserve to be answered LEGALLY. Your brother deserves an answer. Ted Cruz deserves an answer. It is wrong for our judiciary to be keeping all these people in legal limbo. Would you agree? They’ve done it by claiming it is nobody’s business whether Obama, McCain, and even foreign-born-with-no-US-citizen-parents Roger Calero were natural born citizens. Would you like your argument to be actually heard and sorted out so that you can get legally-binding answers for your brother and for Ted Cruz?
As long as you don't hang much hope on the effort, there's good reason to get the states to clarify the criteria and means (show of evidence) to qualify for being named on the electoral ballot.
I'm of a mind that there will be lawsuits whether or not there is a state statute that purports to define natural born citizen, and the lawsuits will make claims about what constitutes qualification. There were suits against McCain, and those would be a good point for review.
I can picture the Senate passing a resolution as it did for McCain. Has no binding value in Court, but it shows that there is no opposition in the Senate should that person win the electoral college.
I'm also of a mind that SCOTUS won't touch the issue unless and until Congress finds that a person openly known and admitted to be born off of US soil is qualified to be president. IOW, there can be a thousand lawsuits in lower courts, and SCOTUS will brush them off as not ripe (see McCain suits). How they act if Cruz is elected is a crap shoot. They may find the matter not-judiciable (see Marbury v. Madison for a sort of parallel - Court said Marbury was right, but the Court lacked jurisdiction) or a political question.
My thought is that something like that would force the federal judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of it. If a state directly defined NBC it would test the idea of federalism and who the Constitution authorizes to define NBC. That might be as far as a federal ruling would go with it. That is, they might just rule that the state acted out of line in defining it so the court doesn’t have to address whether the definition the state gave was constitutional. So you might get a ruling regarding whose responsibility the NBC definition is but not a ruling on what NBC means.
We know that the states have the Constitutional duty to run Presidential elections, so if NBC wasn’t specifically defined in a state law but a particular definition was relied upon for the administration of elections, the feds couldn’t find the state out of line from a federal v state standpoint. But they would have to rule on whether the state was violating the federal/constitutional definition of NBC.
For the feds to hear it they’d need a case, which means that the law itself would have to grant specific standing for normal people to challenge it. If standing was given to anybody, then it wouldn’t have to be somebody claiming to suffer particularized harm - which would mean that it could use ANY definition for NBC and not necessarily one that would exclude somebody from eligibility and thus create a “particularized harm”.
That’s how it seems to me anyway. Am I making sense? Is there something you’re seeing that I’ve got wrong or that I’ve not taken into account?
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.