Posted on 01/14/2016 8:19:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Not aiming to convince you of anything, I won't reply to anything you post to me, but here is what SCOTUS said about a person born abroad to a citizen mother, who obtained US citizenship at birth pursuant to an Act of Congress. He was stripped of his citizenship for failure to meet US residencey requirements that have since been repealed. He sued to get his citizenship back. He lost.
"naturalization by descent" was not a common law concept, but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment. ...And a few remarks made by the dissenting justices. Notice the full agreement of all justices as to the nature of the citizenship grant in the first place. The issue in Bellie was whether or not his citizenship could be stripped from hi, All justices agreed that Bellei's citizenship was a "gift from Congress".We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.
the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent.
it is conceded here ... that Congress may withhold citizenship from persons like plaintiff Bellei
plaintiff Bellei, whose claim to citizenship is wholly, and only, statutory.
Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do
That the [US residency] condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light of the conceded fact [NO DISPUTE, this is the hallmark of SETTLED LAW] that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not "second-class."
The dissent's argument is that citizenship under the 14th amendment (either born in the US, or naturalized in the US) can't be stripped. If Cruz is a 14th amendment citizen, he is in the "naturalized" bucket.
Bellei was not "born . . . in the United States," but he was, constitutionally speaking, "naturalized in the United States." Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress. It provided in part:I'll admit those to be cherry-picked for effect, but certify they accurately reflect SCOTUS sense of whether Bellei was naturalized citizen-at-birth, or natural born citizen-at-birth.
"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."1 Stat. 103, 104. This provision is the earliest form of the statute under which Bellei acquired his citizenship. Its enactment as part of a "Rule of Naturalization" shows, I think, that the First Congress conceived of this and most likely all other purely statutory grants of citizenship as forms or varieties of naturalization. However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898):
"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."
I just don't see a good-faith argument that Cruz is an NBC.
Can't blame that on Donald Trump.
Cruz brings it with him wherever he goes on his campaign trail to the White House.
A message shortly? It will never happen.
It will require a deposition.
Ted has done hundreds and hundreds of interviews and he often listens to a bullshit lead-in while nodding his head and saying “yeah yeah”, “sure” and then he proceeds to tear the interviewer a new asshole.
If one takes the “yeah yeah”, “sure” in isolation, then a dishonest writer will spin whatever lie they want. And the press does just that every day 24/7/365. And you should know that.
You will never see a sworn statement filed in a public venue. Mark my words.
Well researched and presented..thanks.
I asked this question earlier this morning, and so far, no responses...
Is it possible for a Natural Born Citizen to be a Dual Citizen at birth?
(I have researched, and as of yet to find a reference that confirms).
Yes, I see those documents here: http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams317.htm
What about this from the same source?
According to related U.S. laws governing “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories,” the following conditions had to be met in order for Ted Cruz to legally claim U.S. citizenship at birth via these naturalization statutes, through his mother.
The U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14th birthday.
If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:
• Serving honorably in the U.S. armed forces;
• Employed with the U.S. government; or
• Employed with certain international organizations.
Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.
Ted’s parents were at no time serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, employed by the U.S. Government or by any of the certain international organizations, during their eight years in Canada, between 1966 and 1974. Further, Ted’s father Rafael, was at no time a legal citizen of the United States prior to naturalizing in 2005, from Canada. Rafael’s known legal citizenship status as of 1970 was Cuban, not American.
This is an EXAMPLE of a US CRBA Form
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that the parent or parents of Ted Cruz ever filed a CRBA form with the U.S. Government in or around 1970, which is why Ted Cruz released a copy of his Canadian citizenship records and not any U.S. citizenship records. At present, all FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests filed in search of any U.S. citizenship documents to confirm the true official U.S. citizenship status of Ted Cruz have been denied access. All citizenship records for Ted Cruz are sealed unless and until Ted Cruz agrees to allow any such records to be released by either U.S. or Canadian agencies.
As a result, there remains no authentic evidence to support the claims that Ted Cruz is either a “natural born” or “naturalized” citizen of the United States.
His birth certificate is from Canada. In order to establish American citizenship for a child born overseas to an American parent or parents (plural), there is a document that must be filed with the American embassy within a certain period of time AND the parents must provide documentation of their own citizenship. It is a ‘’CR something’’, I forget the numbers part.
This would only establish that Cruz is a citizen of the United States. And I don’t want to/ won’t get into a bickering match wrt to natural born or not.
But the documentation he needed to provide, since they were in Canada, is the one from the embassy. Yikes, this one only proves he’s a Canadian citizen. That doesn’t help!
I’m not at all sure I would trust the motives of Politico, now or ever. They would dearly love to promote anything that might undermine a republican and/ or a conservative. Ditto Talking Points Memo (where I thought this was first published) or any other lefty/ left leaning site.
Think. The mere fact that they’re the ones doing the legwork on this should tell us exactly what they’re planning to do. And while you are thinking, the last time we had a contested election, we had not had full blown communists & known revolutionaries in our WH, Congress, & throughout our government as we have for what will be almost the previous 8 years. Consider the unrest we’ve seen during that time. Consider the law enforcement that has been assassinated in cold blood and the federal overreach out west.
We were a MUCH more stable, stronger country in 2000 than we are now.
That’s a little too close to jeopardy imho.
That’s all Trump was saying. Get a judgment
In my mind if CRUZ goes down so does BHO and that may be the end plan
CRUZ is a patriot he loves his country and the constitution ! Would he be as our founders and place his sacred honor on the line ???
Have made some points that seem to be indicative of TC and DT working to that end. If accomplished many D people will be wearing orange. And others will be extremely discredited
No further comments
I already told you that I did write him, so stop with the circular nonsense and insults. Shame on you right back at ya.
Again!
FROM J.B.Williams: “Sworn statement and affidavit being released shortly
Freedom is not for the weak of mind or spirit. “
YOU will be the first to know, if and when he gets back to me.
This is an EXAMPLE of a US CRBA Form
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams317.htm
[snip] Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that the parent or parents of Ted Cruz ever filed a CRBA form with the U.S. Government in or around 1970, which is why Ted Cruz released a copy of his Canadian citizenship records and not any U.S. citizenship records. At present, all FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests filed in search of any U.S. citizenship documents to confirm the true official U.S. citizenship status of Ted Cruz have been denied access. All citizenship records for Ted Cruz are sealed unless and until Ted Cruz agrees to allow any such records to be released by either U.S. or Canadian agencies.
As a result, there remains no authentic evidence to support the claims that Ted Cruz is either a “natural born†or “naturalized†citizen of the United States.
It literally says they are to be considered as, not that they were.
SCOTUS views this act as within Congress's power to naturalize. Subsequent case law as well as the title of the 1790 act call it "naturalization." There hasn't been a situation that required probing whter or not the act was constitutional, until Cruz, and by now the act is repealed.
Congress could entirely repeal the act, the current act, and person's born abroad to one or both citizen parents would not be citizens. What Congress giveth, Congress can take away. If Congress can take away the citizenship, it is naturalized citizenship.
1. The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution's Art. I, S: 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. ...The first congressional exercise of this [naturalization] power, entitled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress. It provided in part:
"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."1 Stat. 103, 104. This provision is the earliest form of the statute under which Bellei acquired his citizenship. Its enactment as part of a "Rule of Naturalization" shows, I think, that the First Congress conceived of this and most likely all other purely statutory grants of citizenship as forms or varieties of naturalization.
Nobody disagrees with that.
If the Act of Congress is removed from view, what is the result?
That's the crux of the matter *legal scholars* are typically lawyers and they are not going to stick with original intent. They have a vested interest in continuing the charade that man can control Natural law.
(If you think that's silly, just think of all the legal hubbub over transgender laws.)
----
IMO, they best way to know what the Founders meant when they said *natural born*, you have to go with what they used.
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Monday, March 10, 1794, Volume 2, page 44
Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone's Commentaries, and Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=002/llsj002.db&recNum=42&itemLink=D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_LF5V::%230020043&linkText=1
Vattel said - The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Blackstone said - Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king
Desipte what *legal scholars* tell us, this is much MORE than the simplistic born in the country that we're always told. Blackstone's definition is the same as Vattel's.
The dominion of the crown IS the country, but you can't be born in the Allegiance of the King unless your parents are already subject TO it.
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.
-Minor v Happersett (1879)
----
Now Blackstone did state children born overseas were STILL natural born, but this was because the laws of England didn't allow for someone to separate from the Allegiance of their Sovereign..which was kind of what the American Revolution was all about.
But the Founders did leave us a warning about using Blackstone too much -
But some late incidents having given rise to an opinion, that the common law of England, is not only the law of the American States, respectively, according to the mode in which they may, severally have adopted it, but that it is likewise the law of the federal government, a much wider field for investigation is thereby opened; of the importance of which, the general assembly of Virginia, at their session in the winter of 1799, have thus expressed their sentiments, in behalf of themselves, and their constituents.
"It is distressing to reflect, that it ever should have been made a question, whether the constitution of the United States on the whole face, of which, is seen so much labour to enumerate and define the several objects of federal power, could intend to introduce in the lump, in an indirect manner, and by a forced construction of a few phrases, the vast and multifarious jurisdiction involved in the common law; a law filling so many ample volumes; a law overspreading the entire field of legislation; a law that would sap the foundation of the constitution, as a system of limited, and specified powers."
St. George Tucker
He published his mother’s birth certificate. She and he came back to Texas when he was four years old and was raised in Texas Black’s Law Dictionary says that Natural born includes the children born to Americans citizens temporarily residing abroad. That’s the fact base. Given that George Romney ran for president without anyone challenging his eligibility, what we have here is political opposition based on the ambiguity of an undefined term in the Constitution. But as for comparing Obama and Cruz, Obama did not return to the United States until he was almost a teenager, and he lived in a state that is twenty-five hundred miles from the mainland, and inhabited mainly by people of Asian and Pacific Islander descent. He was raised by grandparents who had little personal attachment to our political system and had a mother who was alienated from it. He was tutored by a Communist, and from what we can gather, when he weren’t off to OCCIDENTAL hung around foreign students. Not until he went to Chicago, did he associate with ordinary Americans. There is also in “Black†something called “natural affection†which translates in plain speech to “Person Loyalty.†I haste never felt that Obama has any natural affection for the United States. But there is no reason to doubt that Ted Cruz has it in abundance.
No, I hadn’t seen that one...thanks!
They can pursue the issue because Trump has raised it. They cannot win in court. They have no standing.
What Trump would do is call up big sis or talk to her over the dinner table and ask her advice how to handle the situation !
Wouldn’t you think he already has- or she broached the subject with him; just in conversation, and that’s how this got his (Trump’s) attention?
Speaking of attention, people like him are generally very detail oriented- which is part of the reason they are so successful. It doesn’t seem odd (as in coming from some ulterior motive) that he would worry about something like this. Seemingly small problems can become big ones. Quickly. It’s learned the hard (knocks) way.
Not when the law is properly read. A person is a NBC of 1 or zero nations. A person who is NBC of zero nations is born a citizen of at least one nation, and maybe of two.
But the arguments are going to be aired, and about 0.5% of the public will read and understand the arguments. The press will mis-represent the arguments, and the general state of the debate will be shool-yard taunts.
Is bet the farm. His daughter Tiffany is headed to law school in the fall. She is said to idealize her aunt.
No, it said children of citizens naturalized under the act who were born abroad were to be considered AS natural born.
Do you think the Founders intended for naturalized citizens to give birth to natural born citizens abroad in perpetuity, or do you think it might have been so if a child should be born abroad to citizens naturalized under the Act while they might be travelling back to their former country in order to wrap up any business they may have would still have its citizenship protected?
That generation would have been the first truly natural citizens of the country.
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.