Do you like suprise endings?
Can you read and keep track of details?
If so this is a read you could enjoy.
You can jump to the end and get the ending, but you will not know how the court arrived there.
This case will take you back through common law to Roman law and beyond to arrive at it's conclusion.
Enjoy!
That was said In Dicta and not part of the decision.
I’ve read the entire case....holding and dissent.
Pretty dam% dry and unforunately not significant whatsoever in being determinate one way or another on Cruz’s eligibility.
So, was that considered, “natural born?”
No, we're all a bunch of retards that need you to explain things to us.
Do you like suprise (sic) endings?
I like surprise ending so surprise me, just do it early it the thread.
But let me think about it a little more. Everyone knew Washington would be President so I would look at his status first.
Does not apply to Cruz.
CITIZEN and NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Cruz was NOT born in the United States.
His parents WERE NOT RESIDENT in the US at the time of his birth.
BOTH if his parents were NOT US Citizens at the time of his birth.
A tree is a plant, but not all plants are trees.
Jefferson was quite explicit on the matter of citizenship.
George Washington, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin ALL note the dependence on Vattel’s Law of Nations during their deliberations on Framing the Constitution.
this was without a doubt the worst reasoned and worst supported decision the Supreme Court ever made.
The dissent is interesting, though.
Is every opinion of the Supreme Court infallible?
Minor vs Happersett is more illuminating on natural born citizen
I guess the customs agent picked on the Wong Kim.
Is this to which you are directing our attention:
“The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.”
Well, so much for trying to challenge people to read and become informed so a civil discussion can be started.
Some have indicated they have knowledge of the case.
Very sad since it covers common law from China to US law in the late 1800.
The thread should just be pulled.
To my mind this was a case that eventually led to what we call today a "anchor baby".
It's easy enough to see that the parents, both Chinese nationals, were here as guest workers, in todays parlance. neither of them promoted the US or wanted citizenship via naturalization, and neither is there evidence that the offspring they left behind wanted that either. So they remained Chinese nationals here temporarily.
The case originated from a California statute that cut off the Chinese guest worker program and sought to reduce the numbers. When the son of the Chinese nationals went to china to visit them, he found to his surprise that he was not granted access to return to the US without immigration papers.
The court pulled every possible cite and made them appear to support the man's claims of citizenship by birth. And since then has been used to make anchor babies a fact of our lives.
It has zero relevance to ted Cruz and legal pathways to natural born status as it only deals with birth on native soil.
Is this guy a native born? sure....but does that make him a automatic naturalized citizen?
I contend it did not, because the parents may have been under the physical jurisdiction of the US, but they never expressed allegiance to it, nor did they renounce their Chinese allegiance.
The boys physical presence at birth only placed him in the jurisdiction. he should have petitioned the court to allow him to stay pending a application for citizenship via naturalization.
Hence there is a difference between native birth and natural born as well as some likenesses. These issues must be determined by facts in evidence and not just opinions on unrelated case law or even related case law unless the case is exactly the same.
Personally, the reason we are arguing this is that neither the court or Congress is inclined to fix it. They want it to be a matter of debate for each and every case.
ON, NTSA