Mark Levin explained this very well. If your mother is a citizen AND has lived in the United States for any 10 years AND at least five of those were over the age of 14, you’re a natural-born citizen.
Andrew Napolitano has made the same case.
This is a phony issue and the Establishment types are pumping it because they know they can’t win on issues.
The Democrats will try to disqualify Cruz — as Hillary’s people tried to have 0bama disqualified — but as with 0bama, it will go nowhere.
Frankly, Alan Grayson belongs in a mental institution. Are you sure you want to take his side?
That explanation is totally spurious . I can demonstrate that by pointing out that that contorted wishful thinking is simply not in the constitution.
The Constitution used terms of the day . “Natural born” was a special qualifier to “citizen” as apposed to “ foreign born” . It is really simple. It needs resolution before the Democrats pick the Court and the time. They will obtain an injunction and the Court will order that obama stay in office until it is resolved. want that?
Utter nonsense.
Everyone has known, forever and ever, that you had to be born on American soil. Believe it or not, if you went to school anytime before 1990 or so, it was actually taught ....wait for it....in the classroom, as part of civics.
I’d like to remind everyone, that this was the crux of the Obama controversy: not his mom (who was too young to convey citizenship, not everyone even looked at that) but WAS he born in the US or not. It was that solitary fact, and no other, that consumed people into finding the elusive birth certificate. No one worried that they would find some foreign national that was his mom...it was WHERE he was born.
Sen Cruz indeed should seek a declarative judgment...and soon. Because if you don’t think that a desperate Hillary Clinton, perhaps facing indictment, won’t take his ass into every court in the country over this, then you are nuts. She was the original Obama “birther.”
How cool would it be to lose the presidential election to someone under indictment, because your candidate wasn’t ineligible, sports fans?
I am a Trump supporter. I agree with Levin and Napolitano. Cruz is NBS by their logic. Cruz needs to go to court and get this taken care of. That is what Trump is saying too.
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.