Posted on 01/12/2016 10:09:44 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.
The Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of President." The concept of "natural born" comes from the common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept's definition. On this subject, the common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England," while aliens are "such as are born out of it."
. . .
Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator's parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth.
Oh...the Soddies.
Yabut, did it make his father a citizen, and did it make him born in the USA?
Chester Arthur’s father wasn’t born in the U.S., but Ireland, and I’m not sure ever became a citizen, including before his birth.
And so what if Cruz wasn’t born on American soil? Do you somehow stop being American if you’d go on vacation, or take a job for awhile in another country? Would your American citizen child have allegiance to whatever country he was born in and lived in for four years, rather than to the U.S.?
So you admit you don't care about following the Constitution. Either you accept all of it or none of it...Just like the Bible.
Do you know when Cruz's mother became an American citizen? The answer is when she was born!
American law says that Cruz is NOT eligible and the more you and other say that, the stupider you all look!
Actually American law says Cruz is eligible. 8 U.S. Code § 1401: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; (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...
...and the more you and other say that, the stupider you all look!
We're so stupid we actually take the time to research the issue and find the applicable laws. What's your excuse?
So you define “natural-born citizen.” What does it mean exactly?
Evidently you have not read a word i have written as i have NEVER cited English common Law. IN FACT I have argued against it.
You mean like the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision, written by Chief Justice Waite:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Minor v Happersett (1879)
Your answer in #388.
There’s no mention there of what happens when a child who parents are either both American citizens, or one is, happens to be born on foreign soil, or even on the frontiers of America that weren’t states.
Also no mention of what happens when parent is a natural-born American citizen and one isn’t.
And I see it says anyone born on American soil is possibly a natural-born American citizen, regardless of their parents’ status.
I was just reading a New York Times article on that. No getting past its biases.
But in terms of Ted Cruz’s allegiances, and teachings from his father, do you see communism in him, and in his past?
Certainly whether or not it’s true he fought for Castro against Batista, he was a teenager in a volatile country in those years. And he did turn on communism after leaving Cuba. And because of the Cuban Revolution, he couldn’t return there.
No, in fact, it probably had a great deal to do with his positions.
Certainly whether or not it's true he fought for Castro against Batista, he was a teenager in a volatile country in those years. And he did turn on communism after leaving Cuba. And because of the Cuban Revolution, he couldn't return there.
Don't know about that. I read some time back that he was jailed for supporting Castro. That's all I said.
Chester A. Arthur, Republican President
Chester Alan Arthur was born October 5, 1829, in Fairfield, Vermont.[a][5] Arthur’s mother, Malvina Stone, was born in Vermont, the daughter of George Washington Stone and Judith Stevens. Malvina’s family was primarily of English descent, and her grandfather, Uriah Stone, fought in the Continental Army during the American Revolution.[5] His father, William Arthur, was born in Dreen, Cullybackey, County Antrim in what is now Northern Ireland; he graduated from college in Belfast and emigrated to Canada in 1819 or 1820. Arthur’s mother met his father while William Arthur was teaching at a school in Dunham, Quebec, just over the border from her native Vermont. The two married in Dunham on April 12, 1821, soon after meeting.[5] After their first child, Regina, was born, the Arthurs moved to Vermont. They quickly moved from Burlington to Jericho, and finally to Waterville, as William received positions teaching at different schools.[5] William Arthur also spent a brief time working to join the legal profession. While still in Waterville, William departed from his legal studies, as well as his Presbyterian upbringing, to join the Free Will Baptists, spending the rest of his life as a minister in that sect.[5] William became an outspoken abolitionist, which often made him unpopular with members of his congregations and contributed to the family’s frequent moves.[6] In 1828, the family moved again, to Fairfield, where Chester Alan Arthur was born the following year; he was the fifth of nine children.[7][8] He was named “Chester” after Chester Abell, the physician and family friend who assisted in his birth, and “Alan” for his paternal grandfather.[b] The family remained in Fairfield until 1832, when William’s profession took them on the road again, to several towns in Vermont and upstate New York. The family finally settled in the Schenectady, New York, area.[9]
The family’s frequent moves later spawned accusations that Chester Arthur was not a native-born citizen of the United States. When Arthur was nominated for vice president in 1880, a New York attorney and political opponent, Arthur P. Hinman, initially speculated that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old. Had that been true, opponents might have argued that Arthur was constitutionally ineligible for the vice presidency under the United States Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause.[10][c][11] When Hinman’s original story did not take root, he spread a new rumor that Arthur was born in Canada. This claim, too, failed to gain credence.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur
Was there ever any evidence presented that Arthur’s father ever became an American citizen? He certainly wasn’t a natural-born one, either way. So “natural-born” already here didn’t mean the child of two “natural-born” parents.
Well, I believe the standard was either a US Embassy, or military base...and maybe to parents in foreign service to the US.
Also no mention of what happens when parent is a natural-born American citizen and one isn't.
The type of parental US citizenship is not relevant.
And I see it says anyone born on American soil is possibly a natural-born American citizen, regardless of their parents' status.
If you read it again, I think you'll find that it appears the Justice doesn't think much of the anchor baby concept.
I know the "what's your excuse" wasn't aimed at me, but for purposes of finding Cruz eligible under the US constitution, you should be able to do so from the text of the constitution. Some parts of the constitution can be evaluated without a statute. 35 years old? Check, 14 years of residence? Check, NBC, well, what does the constitution say about citizenship, first.
If you can't make a person a citizen using the constitution, then you sure can't make them a natural born citizen.
Or is the constitution not applicable?
Or is a statute superior to the constitution?
A quick and dirty paraphase no doubt. Folks here aren't composing formal legal argument. The cosntitutional condition is at least "subject to the jurisdiction," and whether or not that includes invaders is an open question.
Maybe that’s why the illegal aliens are literally getting away with murder.
Why are stupid articles written by stupid people still being posted here on Free Republic. This is where I go to get away from that kind of stuff. We threw the British out of this country and wrote our own laws don’t you know?
>>>There’s no mention there of what happens when a child who parents are either both American citizens, or one is, happens to be born on foreign soil
Well, I believe the standard was either a US Embassy, or military base...and maybe to parents in foreign service to the US.
The SC ruling excerpt has to do with who is a citizen, not the Constitutional NBC issue directly.
And beliefs and maybes aren’t legal rulings. The situation wasn’t legally clear for service people as questions were raised about John McCain with his Panama birth to a service parent.
>>>Also no mention of what happens when parent is a natural-born American citizen and one isn’t.
The type of parental US citizenship is not relevant.
You brought up to me that Cruz’s father wasn’t an American citizen, as if, then, that was relevant to his NBC status. And there is also no mention in the ruling you excerpt from about what happens when one parent is a citizen of any type and the other isn’t, which is what I was getting at.
>>>And I see it says anyone born on American soil is possibly a natural-born American citizen, regardless of their parents’ status.
If you read it again, I think you’ll find that it appears the Justice doesn’t think much of the anchor baby concept.
I got a possible sense of that the first time, although it seems his opinion is vague on that, but what does him not thinking much of it matter, since it is indeed primarily how citizenship is being established - birth on American soil without respect to the citizenship status of either parent.
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.