Posted on 01/14/2016 8:19:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If you thought some in the conservative media lost their minds over President Obama's birth certificate, you were right. But the current brouhaha over Ted Cruz's place of birth -- in which Donald Trump reprises his role as chief instigator -- might be even more compelling, in its own way, because of the civil war it has sparked on the right side of the press.
Witness this week's heated exchange on MSNBC (of all places) between conservative provocateur Ann Coulter and Republican media strategist Liz Mair. Coulter insisted that Cruz -- born in Canada but a U.S. citizen from the moment he left the womb, thanks to his mother's citizenship -- is not eligible to be president. Mair asserted with equal force that Cruz is eligible and at one point charged that Coulter is "in no way conservative." Card revoked!
(Coulter is an ardent supporter of Trump, the GOP presidential front-runner; Mair heads the anti-Trump super PAC Make America Awesome.)
And Coulter -- for those keeping score -- has changed her position on this subject. That's awfully convenient, since no one would stand to gain more from Cruz's disqualification than Coulter's favorite candidate.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause.U.S. Department of State
Thank you so very much for your comment. It was graciously said, and it gladdens my heart to know that I’m not putting everything out there (as I see it) in vain! :-)
lol No I’m not. Honestly, I don’t know whether he’s a citizen or not and I wish he would settle it & do it right because I’m sick of this already. REAL sick of it. I disagree with him plenty & this is a PITA and a diversion from those things.
It does annoy me when someone who should know better plays evasive & less than honest games, though. Life is too short & our country is at stake.
Good grief & I thought I could ramble. I’ll bet when y’all get into disputes with your spouses, you could get rich selling tickets.
Wearing your hearts on your sleeves & enlarging every perceived slight is not a good way to go through life. It’s bad for you. People will hurt your feelings/ p*ss you off enough without you imagining stuff. Believe me.
Both Trump and Cruz can be counted has belonging to to the elite class. The problem for the establishment is that they are rebels. My problem with Trump is that he is not a conservative, and If he were to be elected, do we know which way he would go? Cruz is very much a movement conservative.
“The United States does not acknowledge dual citizenship but other countries do.”
___________________
I’m not finding that. Do you have a link? Rahm Emanuel is reported to be a dual citizen of USA and Israel.
Jorge Ramos holds dual citizenship..Mexico. He brags that he votes in both countries.
Dual Nationality - Travel State - US Department of State
travel.state.gov/...citizenship.../citizenship...du...
Bureau of Consular Affairs
The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries.
Does the United States Allow Dual Citizenship? - Reeves ...
www.rreeves.com/articles/immigration_en_11278.php
Nov 6, 2014 - While United States immigration law does not expressly mention dual citizenship, the Supreme Court in Kawakita v. United States stated that dual nationality is “a status long recognized in the law†and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to responsibilities of both ...
Well, it has no choice but to deal what the laws of other countries say, just as our states must acknowledge the laws of other states. Better not to know, right? There are many, many people who CAN vote in more than one state.
RE: She was natural born - born of two citizen parents - but HE was NOT born in the country, so his citizenship cannot be equal to hers. It is merely derived from it.
Nope, since one of his parents was American, he DERIVED his American citizenship from her AT BIRTH. He did not need to be naturalized like others have to.
Therefore, he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN — A US Citizen AT BIRTH.
RE: I see. So you’re totally ignoring Vattel and disallowing the Founders specific words on over reliance on Blackstone.
What law in the universe tells us that Vattel is the be-all and end-all of the understanding of the framer’s intent and men like Blackstone are then inferior to him?
The 1790 Act reveals that the members of Congress — many of whom were heavily involved in the writing and ratification of the Constitution — understood that children of U.S. citizens who were born abroad should be “considered” as “natural born” in the sense that they did not need to undergo any naturalization process and were accordingly legally entitled to be considered U.S. citizens at the time of their birth — THE SAME as an individual born within U.S. borders.
The fact that Congress memorialized this common understanding in the 1790 Act does not, in any way, suggest that such children born abroad “had to be naturalized”; quite the contrary.
In short, while Trump and Harvard Law prof Laurence Tribe are correct that the U.S. Supreme Court has not definitively grappled with the full meaning of “natural born citizen,” the available evidence suggests that if/when the Court ultimately must grapple with it, the evidence points strongly in Cruz’s favor.
I would really like this to happen so that the issue can be decided once and for all.
Indicating the murkiness of the law.
Well, I am willing to leave it up to the Jury, which is to say, the voters.
It was a naturalization act. The citizens THAT ACT naturalized had children that should be considered natural born.
It was repealed 5 years later by many of the same men who wrote the original act.
If they had wanted the practice to continue they either would have not repealed the 1790 act in its entirety, or placed the same clause in the 1795 act, but they did not.
Trying to justify Cruz's citizenship on a privilege ONLY the founding generation is entitled to is a dangerous concept.
You're basically overthrowing the entire POINT of enumeration in the Constitution just to make a particular candidate eligible.
If there is nothing else I've learned from these threads, it's that trying to have a conversation with someone who operates on the Once Upon a Time theory of Law is futile. Have a nice day.
No, definitely NOT in vain! It's required, for a bunch of different reasons.
Besides, you gotta do what you gotta do or Fate will eventually do some version of the "Jonah" subroutine on you. Why go there?
As near as I can tell? You just put the truth out there as best you can, and then let go of your attachments as best you can.
You did your part. What they do with it, it is what it is.
Personally, after a point, it's the "why they do" part that's most curious to me.
As a mystery, it's like junk food for thought and I almost can't stop myself from pigging out on it.
I bet I'm not alone in that, too, so once again, my hat tip to the genius of Trump!
Life skills learned, just a natural or what, I can't be sure, but whatever it is, he's got all of it in this race. Not sure what to make of that, either.
Fwiw, in your posts, you have that "firm, but good and patient parent" vibe about you that strongly suggests you've survived and thrived through one or more teenagers.
I find that to be rare, instructional and inspirational.
Again, my thanks!
In 1970 if she resided in Canada for 12 of the 18 months prior to the application she, as the wife of a Canadian citizen, may have been granted Canadian citizenship.
Kind of the same here. Mysteries bug me in a fun but (still sometimes aggravating) way. I can't help asking Why?... and I can't rest until I at least think I've figured it out.
you have that "firm, but good and patient parent" vibe about you that strongly suggests you've survived and thrived through one or more teenagers.
At the same time, no less. We have twin girls. :-)
Thanks again for the encouragement, BTW.
-- Therefore, he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN -- A US Citizen AT BIRTH. --
You haven't responded to my other question, but that's okay. I have your number now.
RE: You haven’t responded to my other question, but that’s okay. I have your number now.
You’ve written so many things that I might have missed the question.
Could you kindly repeat your question so that I can respond to it?
I notice you are avoiding making a direct statement of your conclusions. Is Cruz NBC? What does the SCOTUS rule in Rogers v. Bellei say about citizenship for birth abroad? Is it "natural" or "naturalized?"I think you answered the first part in the affirmative, you find Cruz to be NBC. I am not taking that as you believe SCOTUS would rule that way, or that you find the law is definitively settled that way, only as a statement of your personal conclusion.
For the second question, you're more or less stuck saying something like you don't understand the case, or that's for the courts to decide (IOW, innocent ignorance of the law); or you have to claim the case says citizenship for citizen-at-birth abroad is "natural", or at least "not naturalized" (same thing, IMO).
If you say you read and understand the case, and that the case says citizenship for birth abroad is "not naturalized," then, well, never mind. I think I have your number anyway.
Enjoy the (candidates) debate. Thanks for the civil exchange.
RE: Trying to justify Cruz’s citizenship on a privilege ONLY the founding generation is entitled to is a dangerous concept.
You’re basically overthrowing the entire POINT of enumeration in the Constitution just to make a particular candidate eligible.
__________________________
Look, I am not trying to overlook the constitution just to make Cruz eligible. I think this exchange is precisely THE POINT — to find out what the original framer’s INTENT were.
So, you yourself said that it was a naturalization act. and THE ACT had children that should be considered natural born.
But why pass that act in the first place and give these children privilege?
Therefore, regardless of what they did LATER (e.g. 1795 ), the fact is It is not entirely clear because the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.
But legal experts say a child’s citizenship can be determined based on:
1) Where he or she is born and
2) Who the parents are.
Birthplace is the simplest test. The Constitution was amended after the Civil War to make clear, as the 14th Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens of the United States.”
Now let’s look at the 1795 naturalization act.
The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by INCREASING the period of required RESIDENCY from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or “first papers”, which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen.
The Act specified that naturalized citizenship was reserved only for “free white person[s].”
It also changed the requirement in the 1790 Act of “good character” to read “good moral character.”
During the 1790’s many in the U.S. were concerned that the growth in the number of political refugees, particularly those men and women driven out by the revolution in France, might prove inimical to American liberty.Even though America has been and remains today a nation of immigrants, its citizens have viewed immigrants with a certain apprehension. As such, the process of immigration itself has been a problem for the country’s leadership.
Alarmed by the influx of so many immigrants, Congress on January 29, 1795 modified the Act of 1790, raising the period of residence from two years to five years before a person could be naturalized.
But prior to that time and continuing ever since, federal law has also said a child’s citizenship is derived from his or her parents.
Lawyers (who were aware of the 1795 act) point to the Naturalization Act of 1790 adopted by the first Congress. It said that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
In fact, More recent immigration laws say a child born abroad to an American parent is a citizen by birth, but the phrase “natural born” has been dropped.
RE: You’re basically overthrowing the entire POINT of enumeration in the Constitution just to make a particular candidate eligible.
Where have I done that? What I am trying to do is to ARGUE that the original intent of the framers INCLUDE a child’s parent’s citizenship as a precondition for meeting the “natural born” clause.
You have to first convince me that Cruz’s circumstances of birth DO NOT MEET that requirement. If you can, then yes, I’ll agree with you.
But you haven’t. Citing the 1795 naturalization act, which has little to do with the issue of being natural born isn’t helping.
RE: If there is nothing else I’ve learned from these threads, it’s that trying to have a conversation with someone who operates on the Once Upon a Time theory of Law is futile.
OK, let’s do this then -— If Cruz is nominated, could someone go to court and challenge his qualifications?
I think Yes, but most lawyers predict they will not get far. In 2008, several “birthers” filed suits contesting Obama’s qualifications, even though he was born in Hawaii in 1961.
RE: I notice you are avoiding making a direct statement of your conclusions. Is Cruz NBC? What does the SCOTUS rule in Rogers v. Bellei say about citizenship for birth abroad? Is it “natural” or “naturalized?”
OK, let’s get to that issue.
Rogers v. Bellei was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequent to that citizenship.
Do you see the word “reasonable” ? How is it reasonable to require a minor ( Ted Cruz was one ) to fulfill residency requirements when his parents were overseas?
But even then....
The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis).
Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship.
NONE of the above affects the circumstances of Ted Cruz’s birth at all.
PRIOR TO AGE 5, Ted Cruz MOVED to Texas.
PLUS. The statute under which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978. so , the point is MOOT.
RE: I think you answered the first part in the affirmative, you find Cruz to be NBC. I am not taking that as you believe SCOTUS would rule that way, or that you find the law is definitively settled that way, only as a statement of your personal conclusion.
YES IT IS. With one proviso -— someone can show me that the original intent of the framers CLEARLY states that this is otherwise.
RE: If you say you read and understand the case, and that the case says citizenship for birth abroad is “not naturalized,” then, well, never mind. I think I have your number anyway.
Let’s correct that — the case CLEARLY ACCEPTS that a citizen born with one American parent IS AMERICAN PROVIDED he meets the law’s requirements. Cruz MET ALL OF THEM. These requirements were subsequently repealed.
Therefore, because he met the law’s requirements, he meets the requirement of being NATURAL BORN.
1) Born of an American mother. Therefore, BY LAW, Granted american citizenship at birth with certain preconditions.
2) failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements
It is UNREASONABLE to expect Cruz, who was a child to “reasonably” fulfill any residency requirements.
Plus, he was NEVER stripped of his US citizenship the way Aldo Mario Bellei was. How else could he become a Senator?
3) The courts warned Bellei that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship.
Cruz went back to Texas with his parents in 1974 FOUR YEARS after he was born.
4) The statute under which Bellei was in trouble was REPEALED in 1978.
Cruz not only was a citizen AT BIRTH ( i.e. DID NOT REQUIRE ANY ACT OF NATURALIZATION). He met every single requirement of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815.
* HE WENT BACK HOME BEFORE HE WAS 5.
* HE LIVED IN THE USA SINCE.
* THE ACT WAS REPEALED IN 1978.
Therefore, much as I want you give you the benefit of “Getting my number”.... alas, you have not.
No. I have got it. You answered in spades.
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.