Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind
So sorry! Fighting the cat off the computer desk, and she decided to hit *post* before I was actually done.:-)

--------

Anyway - with that Constitutional adoption window closed, typically people born abroad to citizens were considered citizens, but they were naturalized ones.

North Noonday Mining Co vs Orient Mining Co found in The Federal Reporter, page 527, Copyright 1880.
All persons born or naturalized In the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. A person born in a foreign country out of the Jurisdiction of the United States whose father is not a citizen of the United States can only become a citizen by naturalization.

Wong Kim Ark, 1898
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,..

Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad, By United States. Dept. of State, Page 141, 1906
A person born in a foreign country, out of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose father is not a citizen of the United States, can only become a citizen by naturalization. The foreign born son becomes a citizen by being himself naturalized, or by the naturalization of the father during the minority of the son.

----

You at least appear to understand both sides of the argument. Wish I could say the same for others.

39 posted on 01/14/2016 9:27:54 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am a person as created by the Law of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: MamaTexan

Let’s look at the other side of the argument....

Your argument seems to refer to what judges of the past have decided on the matter.

However, as we know from Roe vs Wade and the Dredd Scott decision, Judges can be wrong.

I prefer, not to look at subsequent court decisions, which can be overturned, but the ORIGINAL INTENT of the fundamental law of our land.

Cruz — full name: Rafael Edward Cruz — was born in Calgary, Canada, in 1970. His family was living there because his father was working for the oil industry at the time. They moved when he was four. Cruz grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School.

In 2013, the first-term senator — already considered a prospective presidential candidate — released his birth certificate, which shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. (A situation similar to Obama, whose mother was born in Kansas and father was African.)

Most legal scholars maintain that Cruz is in the clear despite his Canadian birthplace.

But is the issue 100 percent settled? Not exactly.

Three constitutional provisions are obvious:

1) The candidate must be 35 years of age and

2) a resident of the United States for 14 years.

3) The third qualification: He or she must be a “natural born citizen.”

What does it mean to be a “natural born citizen”?

Most legal experts contend it means someone is a citizen from birth and doesn’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.

If that’s the definition, then Cruz is a natural born citizen by being born to an American mother and having her citizenship at birth. The Congressional Research Service, the agency tasked with providing authoritative research to all members of Congress, published a report after the 2008 election supporting the thinking that “natural born” citizenship means citizenship held “at birth.”

There are many legal and historical precedents to strongly back up this argument, experts have said.

Those precedents were the subject of a recent op-ed in the Harvard Law Review by two former solicitor generals of opposing parties, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, who worked for Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, respectively. They wrote that “natural born” had a longstanding definition dating back to colonial times.

British common law recognized that children born outside of the British Empire remained subjects, and were described by law as “natural born,” Katyal and Clement wrote.

“The framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like ‘natural born,’ since the (British) statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War,’” they said.

Additionally, the first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens. Many members of the inaugural Congress were also authors of the Constitution.


49 posted on 01/14/2016 9:40:56 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson