Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: The Final Harvest

1758 ... the law of nations defined natural born citizen. it would have been known to the founders.

“the natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”

TCruz was, per his own definition, a NBC of the US, Cuba and Canada. problem is, you cannot be a NBC of more then one country.


23 posted on 09/05/2015 3:04:46 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: sten

Good luck with your “theory” .. you’ll need it.


54 posted on 09/05/2015 6:41:58 PM PDT by CyberAnt ("The fields are white unto Harvest")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: sten

H. Brook Paige v. James Condos, Secretary of State of Vermont and President Barack Obama: Robert R. Bent, Presiding Judge
“While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude wthat his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”—Vermont Superior Court, November 14, 2012


57 posted on 09/05/2015 6:56:13 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: sten
“you cannot be a NBC of more then one country.”

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.

77 posted on 09/05/2015 10:51:55 PM PDT by Marcella (CRUZ; Prepping can save you life today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson