Posted on 01/07/2016 9:35:59 AM PST by Isara
Scalia did not say the second one if I remember correctly. I think it was Justice Stevens.
If that's NBC, welcome to Obama land.
As far as I know there is still no US Birth Certificate as his mother didn't pursue it upon return to Texas.
It would be nice for a Federal court to clear this up with a declarative ruling.
I think Scalia may place some significance to the 1790 immigration act as passed by Congress that define Natural Born Citizen as not necessarily "Jus Soli".
you’re asking me to do your homework? really??
That is your GUESS. What I know is that we have his ACTUAL WORDS about Jus Soli during a court case and during an interview.
Thanks for your informative post to me. I certainly don’t claim to be an expert here.
When I see the Liberal Media jumping all over this ‘story’ as a way to attack and destroy Cruz, it causes me stop and question why we’re helping them.
At the end of the day, if this does go before a court, Cruz will be deemed to be a U.S. Citizen, eligible to be President.
All of the other ways require filing and confirmation of eligibility as well.
No. Sen. Cruz said he didn’t have a Canadian passport. trump lied about this (like so many things).
Well, for one thing, it meant not requiring any future laws that weren't yet written in 1787.
If you have to have a law subsequent to 1787 to make you into a citizen, you aren't a "natural" citizen.
1. yes, I agree that 2 wrongs do not make a right.
(just as a practical matter, I think..guess.. that the courts will run away from finding against such a candidate now if only because that would force the courts to review the validity of the entire eight years of O....the courts COULD say that his actions in office were ‘presumptively valid” despite his ineligibility....but that would still leave the courts with the unenviable, difficult task of reviewing those actions nonetheless)
2. our American constitution recognizes that we have lots of individual liberties but, like the Soviet constitution, it has become a mostly-dead letter. especially (but not entirely limited to) in the last 7 years
3. Pray for America
Outright lie.
Well, since you were so quick to the post, I assumed you had a valid link that you were quoting from. Do you know what “CNTRL-C” does and how it supports your assertion?
Meh.
I’ll just assume you made all that shit up and move on.
Thanks
Citizenship exists independently of certification of citizenship. Certification, be it CRBA or passport or Certificate of Citizenship (8 U.S.C. 1452; USCIS Form N-600) require presentation of evidence to the satisfaction of the examiner.
But citizenship alone, that is a circumstance-determined event. If the circumstances satisfy the statute, citizenship is attached.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in WedlockAcquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born AbroadA child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child's birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
You have a confidence in this outcome that I cannot possibly share. I am long accustomed to the courts behaving one way when it benefits liberal causes, and a totally different way when it benefits conservative causes.
Apart form that, I know of a very prominent supreme court case in which they emphatically state that a person born outside the jurisdiction of the United States can only be a naturalized citizen.
People will say "That's just Dicta", but still, it represents the Opinion of the Supreme court at that time.
Link?
Yes, in the post. Two of them. One to a page about N-600 Certification of Citizenship, and one to Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad, which was excerpted in a blockquote.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=birthright+citizenship+countries
the first result:
showing only the US and Canada as the only two developed nations supporting birthright citizenship... which is inaccurate, since the US has never legally recognized it (legal laziness). in fact, the 14th amendment specifically states citizenship is only bestowed to those born to parents under the jurisdiction of the US. illegal aliens do not qualify... as was the intended result per the one that wrote the amendment
To maintain that McCain enjoyed jus solis because he was born in the Canal Zone is risible and absurd. If that were the case, any offspring of Panamanians born in the Zone would be anchor babies. But they are not. McCain is a citizen via jus sanguinis alone.
I saw those but they do not support your topic sentence.
Yes. He’ll have to fight for it.
I just don’t trust any court now to decide in his favor. These are judges that are bought or blackmailed.
If this elections goes up against Sanders, not Clinton, we’re going to need someone who does fight to win.
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.