Posted on 09/05/2015 1:47:06 PM PDT by iowamark
basic logic confirms the intent of the Founders.
1. they wanted to insure no split allegiances, at least by birth
2. they wanted to insure no foreign king could ever be POTUS
as such, they chose the phrase ‘natural born citizen’... a phrase known to them whose meaning was common knowledge, not only to the common man, but to the courts (as the ‘laws of nations’ proves)
their intent of using the phrase to insure against split allegiances, was due to the fact the person could not have multiple citizenships at birth.
according to TCruz himself, he was a NBC of the US because his mother transferred citizenship. while she did... and he is a US citizen... he also was a cuban citizen at birth because of his father and a canadian citizen due to birthright citizenship in canada. by his own logic, this would make him a natural born citizen of three countries... which isn’t possible
obviously, he’s not eligible. if you think he is, you best push him to get it clarified by the SCOTUS and not some lib judge that would love to help him get the nomination
if that were the case, TCruz was a natural born citizen of the US, Cuba, and Canada.
obviously, that’s the exact kind of thing the Founders were looking to avoid
obviously
it’d be up to the GOP to appoint a replacement.
which wouldn’t have much momentum... and would lose handily
a good plan, if they can get it going
A replacement wouldn’t lose. The anger generated would be so extreme that a replacement would blow anyone else out of the water. If nothing else, this large field of 17 will go down to the wire with 3 or 4 names extremely prominent.
The citations in this piece are astonishingly misleading. The entire list is completely unsupported by the case law which it purports to rely upon, when it does purport to rely upon. Where it relies upon general assertions they are simply wrong.
The Founders and Framers made provision for any and all of their original thinking to be altered by constitutional amendment.
In 1868, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amndment was adopted and since then, whoever qualifies as a “Citizen of the United States At Birth” also qualifies as a natural born citizen.
If Senator Cruz is in the top tier of candidates for the nomination at some point, I’m betting that his eligibility will be challenged in courts and via state election boards.
I am staying out of this. I do have an opinion but it is really a matter for the courts and Congress. I will say this, if Cruz is the nominee (and I am happy to vote Cruz) the Rats are going eat him alive on this issue, so it is good to have this discussion now and not in Oct 2016.
Obama was born on US soil (Hawaii) to a US citizen mother. Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, there is no precedent.
There are but two types of citizenship, natural born and naturalized. The constitution does not give power to Congress or the courts to confer or deny natural born status to anyone. The power to establish a process to naturalize is given to Congress and not to the courts, thus court cases should not be part if the debate. Congress has decided that some people born on U.S. soil are citizens and some are not. Those that are declared citizens are technically naturalized at birth by law. Those who are not declared citizens, such as children of foreign diplomats, are excluded by law.
If your citizenship is established by law, then you are not natural born.
There are not very many combinations to consider. Whether the father is a citizen, the mother is a citizen, either or both parents have multiple citizenships, and where the child is born. The only combination that is without question is born on us soil of citizen parents.
Congress and the courts have spoken on all the other combinations. The fact that they have written laws about it shows that they think they have jurisdiction. They have amended the Constitution by editing the dictionary.
Arab and Iranian men shop for western wives. There are a lot of US citizen females currently living in Iran married to Iranian men. Are their children also Natural Born Citizens of the USA? Does simply having an American citizen parent make one a NBC of the USA? Interesting topic, I will follow it closely.
Didn't any of them watch "Not Without My Daughter"? *smh*
He got nothing but a Sense of the Senate Resolution not unlike the Senate voting to make pink turkeys honorary members of the Thanksgiving day gay pride parade.
LOL
yea, that’s complete fantasy.
the 18th amendment was about giving citizenship to the slaves, and the indians by extension. it says absolutely nothing about reclassifying or redefining the concept of a natural born citizen.
GOP candidates won't do it, as they've shown time and again they don't have the stones.
the dems, on the other hand, wouldn't hesitate and would harp on it until it was heard by the SCOTUS
by your reasoning, any citizenship you are born with makes you a natural born citizen of that country.
for myself, i would therefore be a NBC of the US and Britain.
for TCruz, he would be a NBC of the US, Cuba, Canada and possibly Britain.
if you logic held, then a person could be a natural born citizen from multiple countries... which flies in the face of reason when you consider the Founders chose the phrase to insure against split allegiances, at least by birth.
it would also contradict the definition of a natural born citizen as described in 1758 in the ‘Law of Nations’, a text well known to the Founders.
sorry, it’s just not feasible
My grandson was born in London, England, of a British mother and American father (my son). That very day he was issued an American Passport as an American citizen and he was also a British citizen that very day. He has dual citizenship.
When he comes to this country, he gets in the American line with other American citizens to enter the country. If he wanted to run for US President, he would have to give up his British citizenship so he would have only one allegiance to a country, the United States.
The same was true of Cruz. He had dual citizenship, the US and Canada. He has given up his Canadian citizenship so he has only one allegiance to a country and that is the United States.
I have written this over and over as some Freepers invariably bring this up and show they don't understand how US citizenship works. I hope this is the last thread about this.
I think they're still going to go at it. These same people won't bring up McCain being born in Panama.
you are mistaken.
it’s not not about whether or not he can give up his citizenship. it’s whether he had more then one citizenship to start with.
i am in the same situation as your son. my allegiances were split at birth between the love of my birth country and that of my mother’s. this sympathetic feeling towards another country is the ‘split allegiance’ the Founders talked about. it’s not about whether or not i filled paperwork to drop my British citizenship/passport.
the other point would be the concern of the Founders that no foreign king could be POTUS. using the logic on display in this thread, it would be possible for William and Kate to fly to NYC, have a kid, fly home, have him become king at 18, move to the US at 20, and run for president at 34. giving up his British citizenship wouldn’t matter, as he would be the British king.
this just further proves the point. the Founders were well aware of the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in 1776 as the ‘law of nations’ was published in 1758 containing the definition of on the soil and of 2 citizen parents... leaving no possibility of another citizenship. a ‘pure’ citizen, if you will.
No. I am saying that Congress can only define the terms of naturalization. If someone is declared to be a citizen at birth by law, they would not be an NBC.
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.