The conservative media's civil war over Ted Cruz 'birtherism'

You’re welcome!

‘BY LAW, if one of your parents is a US Citizen at the time of your birth, so are you.

Otherwise, Obama would not have been eligible for President.’

As a person whose posting history proves I have engaged Obama’s defenders for six-plus years, I can tell you definitively that none of the Obots resorted to Stanley Ann Dunham’s American citizenship. They uniformly argued Jus Soli from start to finish.

Behind the Blue Wall,

Cruz’s mother wasn’t in Canada long enough before Ted was born to qualify for Canadian citizenship.

Excepted from a March 11, 2015, Harvard Law Review article, On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement:

The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of "natural born Citizen" has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth. The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are "natural born Citizens".

His mother is not him. And she would have needed to provide that document at the embassy when she registered his birth as having been born to an American citizen (herself).

George Romney, John McCain, & even 0bama are not the same situations (All are distinctly different) & have nothing to do with this. WE blew it to pieces on 0bama by letting it go. That’s a big part of WHY people aren’t going to let it go (Well, not the democrats. They’d be tickled as sh#t to see this go through, unchallenged unless *they* can it use to muscle their way into the WH for another 4 to 8 years. WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN or even take the risk)

Anyway, after 0bama, I think people have learned their lesson. If there’s even a whiff of a possibility that there could be divided loyalties (0bama-Muslims), it’s going to be Oh Hell No. Unfortunately, there is a connection between Cruz, CFR/ NAU/ Goldman via his wife AND his peculiar voting record in the Senate does nothing to dispel those concerns, but only escalates them.

RE: 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?

____________________

Here’s what I think -— PRIMARILY, the framers were concerned with LOYALTY, not accident of birth.

The key this clause is the concept of “allegiance” whether the individual has been born with allegiance to the king, or not.

Individuals born with allegiance to the sovereign are “natural-born” subjects; those lacking such allegiance are not. It is not, as some would imply , a question merely of being born within the geographic confines of the country.

I will admit that Madison, in explaining this phrase, said that acknowledges that “place is the most certain criterion,” but he is not suggesting that it is the ONLY criterion, as he states unequivocally that the “established maxim” is that the ultimate criterion is “allegiance,” of which the place of birth is but one (albeit “certain”) criterion.

As former Solicitors General Neil Katyal and Paul Clement have recently noted in the Harvard Law Review Forum (See this link: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ )

“All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States. . . .

The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

Therefore I understand that, the CONCEPT OF LOYALTY AND ALLEGIANCE were paramount in the minds of the framers.

The framers, being wise and intelligent as they were, know that it is possible for one to be born in the USA, yet BE A TRAITOR to this country ( See Benedict Arnold, or more recently, the Jihadist who shot and killed 14 people in San Bernardino ).

They also know that it is possible NOT to be born in this country, yet, love it more than anyone born here.

RE: none of the Obots resorted to Stanley Ann Dunhamâ€™s American citizenship. They uniformly argued Jus Soli from start to finish.

I was never one of those “birthers”

That’s not clear at all. Here is a Canadian document regarding the changes taking place wrt to immigration in Canada at the time the parents were moving/ moved there (1967, right?). I started it but have not finished going through it. See what you can make of it.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/legacy/chap-6.asp#chap6-4

Thank you so much, AuntB!

I won’t bet against you.

Taht is NOT going to happen.

Misses the point. The point is that a case can be made for Jus Soli. I read recently that Scalia has twice suggested that may be his position.

Probably not because Trump has this.

You have a point there, just as Glen Beck has a point when he mentions that Trump has essentially admitted to buying off politicians in the past. He has even bragged about it as one of his selling points, its part of the business acumen that makes him a ‘winner’. Now some would call that bribery, but of course that`s just how things are done, right? But it is funny how the guy seems so brazen about it that he actually brags, I mean that may say something about his comfort level with those ‘evil DC insiders’ he supposedly hates so much? But I`m sure the Rats won`t make mention of that against him, right?

Didn’t the Washington Post mock people who questioned Obama’s birth question?

“But it is funny how the guy seems so brazen about it that he actually brags, I mean that may say something about his comfort level with those â€˜evil DC insidersâ€™ he supposedly hates so much? “

Trump is trying to tell the UNinformed public how corrupt the system is. That PACS are picking our candidates. He could have never made contributions, unlike ANY other businessman. He didn’t need all this grief. But you condemn his honesty.

And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States. . . .

Most of what *current law* states is based on the 14th Amendment, yet the men who wrote, passed and discussed it said differently.

The definition entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866 during the discussion concerning the 14th Amendment:
â€œ[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . John A. Bingham
page 1291
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

On May 30, 1866, the co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr Jacob Howard, :
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Jacob Howard
center column, halfway down)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20

---

They also know that it is possible NOT to be born in this country, yet, love it more than anyone born here.

How much you love the country isn't the criteria, being a natural born citizen is.

Where were the Republicans when Obama presented that forged POS the media waved as his 'birth certificate'? Bending over pages in the cloakroom?

Yup.

Your interpretation appears to be incorrect, even if commonly accepted.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/presidenc1/fl/Does-Presidents-Have-to-Be-Born-On-US-Soil.htm

The Congressional Research Service concluded in 2011:

“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”

The predominant legal scholarship holds that the term natural born citizen applies, quite simply, to anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth, or by birth, and does not have to go through the naturalization process. The child of parents who are U.S. citizens, regardless of whether he or she is born abroad, fits into the category under most modern interpretations.

Continued the Congressional Research Service:

“Such interpretation, as evidenced by over a century of American case law, would include as natural born citizens those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of the citizenship status of oneâ€™s parents, or those born abroad of one or more parents who are U.S. citizens (as recognized by statute),11 as opposed to a person who is not a citizen by birth and is thus an â€œalienâ€ required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become a U.S. citizen.”

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Many eligibility lawsuits from the 2008 and 2012 election cycles were dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers’ difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=mlr_fi

http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2068&context=mlr

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/presidenc1/fl/Does-Presidents-Have-to-Be-Born-On-US-Soil.htm

The issue of whether a candidate was eligible to serve as president because he was born outside the United States arose during the 2008 presidential campaign. Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the party’s presidential nominee, was the subject of lawsuits challenging his eligibility because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, in 1936.

A federal district court in California determined that McCain would qualify as a citizen â€œat birth,â€ and thus was a â€œnatural bornâ€ citizen because he was “born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United Statesâ€ to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time.

Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Tea Party favorite who is widely seen as a potential presidential candidate in the 2016 election, was born in Calgary, Canada. Because his mother was a citizen of the United States, Cruz has maintained he also is a natural born citizen of the United States.

In the 1968 presidential campaign, Republican George Romney faced similar questions. He was born in Mexico to parents who were U.S. citizens. “I am a natural born citizen. My parents were American citizens. I was a citizen at birth,” Romney said in a written statement in his archives.

Legal scholars and researchers sided with Romney at the time, too.

Gift certificates from Tim Hortons, cases of Molson, paid in Maple Leafs, the list goes on and on. All Bernie has to say is you may not like my policies, but hey at least I’m eligible as an American....