Posted on 06/10/2014 7:11:53 PM PDT by Olog-hai
To be precise, the USA didn't allow people to practice dual citizenship as adults prior to the late sixties.
Do you understand the difference?
And the USA cannot block -- nor has ever tried to block -- another nation from exercising their own citizenship laws. If Canadian law called for Cruz to gain Canadian citizenship, neither Cruz nor the USA could keep them from so doing.
For that reason, many Americans who were born overseas after WW II were advised not to return to the country of their birth because they might be eligible for the draft -- as the country of their birth considered them citizens under their laws. This, despite their being full-fledged American citizens under our laws (and fully eligible to run for the Presidency, by the way).
Hey, Millie, the CATO Institute article proving Cruz is eligible to run has been posted to you before. I know because I’ve done it myself. Have you even bothered to read it? Do you want it again? Or are you just determined to continue in your mistaken belief?
That is one good-looking family.
born in another country... most likely to a foreign mother... and eligible as a ‘natural born citizen’?
whatever.
you’re not interesting in logic or law, just propaganda to try and boost your guy.
you’re quoting a canadian and personal friend of TCruz??
LOL
obvious conflict of interest is obvious
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
LOL
obvious conflict of interest is obvious"
I'm quoting an article posted by the owner of the forum to rebut this "Cruz is ineligible" nonsense. I guess you should take it up with him. *shrug*
You presume too much.
Most of the cases involved were children born to American servicemen and their wives, when they were stationed in a jus soli European country or Korea post-war (the problem didn't exist in Occupied Japan).
You would deny citizenship to such children?
you’re confusing citizenship with being a natural born citizen
‘natural born citizen’ is a subset of ‘US citizen’
btw, you mentioned WW2. very few wives went overseas with their husbands in WW2. there were far more incidents of illegitimate kids being born to US servicemen and women of whatever country they were in.
Stop complicating things—a wonderful candidate can simply renounce his/her foreign citizenship to be eligible.
It’s the final step one takes to establish eligibility! /s
it would seem
‘natural born citizen’ is a subset of ‘US citizen’
No, there is no such distinction. It doesn't exist. Again, let me allow you to read the pertinent portion of the sentence that devastates your attempt to twist this idea to your liking:
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,-birth and naturalization.
That line states crystal clear that the Constitution recognizes only if a person is born with citizenship or is naturalized as a citizen after birth.
There is no 'subset' to discuss. There is no 'subset' that exists. If you are a citizen at birth you are a citizen at birth. And if you are a citizen at birth, you are a 'natural born citizen'.
Period. End of story. Don't like it? Take it up with the Supreme Court. They are the ones who wrote it.
This was a ridiculous argument when people tried it against Obama and it was a ridiculous argument when people tried it against Chester Arthur and it was a ridiculous argument when people tried it against Charles Curtis and it remains a ridiculous argument against Ted Cruz. The reason why it is ridiculous is that being born a citizen makes you a natural born citizen. The idea that there is a magic third form of citizenship (or the idea that it is a specific 'subset' of someone born a citizen) is not based on anything found in the laws or jurisprudence of the United States.
This is like leaving the Toledo Mudhens to play for the NY Yankees. A no brainer.
I mean really, if I’m a US citizen and I’m pregnant and I travel to Mexico on vacation and happen to give birth....you telling me that my child is a Mexican and not an American citizen???
That’s ludicrous. I hope Ted has some legs.....
(and I didn’t mean you as in YOU)
No, there is no such distinction. It doesn't exist.
if there is no distinction... then why did the founders bother to make the requirement in A2S1?
their point was to insure a foreign king could not assume the office. this is why the person had to be natural born so that there was no foreign allegiance, at least by birth.
using your 'logic', any anchor baby could be POTUS. william and kate could fly to NYC, have a kid, fly back and that kid would be a natural born US citizen as well as the next king of england. the EXACT situation the founders were looking to avoid.
as for the supreme court, they've discussed it four times. each time recognizing both parents and on the soil as the requirement.
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582
but hey, you keep ignoring the obvious and keep going on about how 'your guy' is special and is eligible, completely ignoring the Constitution
I said POST-war.
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
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.