Posted on 01/24/2016 2:17:53 PM PST by Isara
Sunday on Fox News Channel’s “MediaBuzz,” while discussing the controversy over if his birth in Canada to an American citizen mother causes him to be not eligible to run for president of the United States, Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz ..... no “actual voters” ask him about the issue.
Cruz said, “We were in the midst of a bus tour, 26 counties in six days, enormous enthusiasm, but from what you look, looking at the media, it was a great field test. We would do, at pretty much every event, a press gaggle -by the way, a lot of other candidates don’t do press gaggles. I take questions all the time. Half to two thirds of the questions from the reporters would be about Donald Trump and the latest attack, the latest Tweet. When you go into the town hall, one county, 7,000 people, in one county we had 700 people. 10% of the county came out. Another town with 600 people, 150 came –”
He continued, “But here’s my point, Howie. When we do town halls and actual voters would ask questions, nobody would ask about the silly birther attack nobody would ask about Donald Trump. They ask about the real problems facing this country. How do we defeat ISIS? How do we stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? How do we protect our Second Amendment or religious liberty? How do we get more jobs?”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
> Your argument that this is a form of naturalization relies on the fact that the provisions are found in an act with the word nationalization in its title, but that is entirely non-determinative. The statutory requirements for citizenship by birth could just as easily have been found in an act called the “National Sagebrush Preservation Act,” but that would not mean that citizens by birth are therefore “sagebrush”.
Seriously?
you.all.seem to operate is if the media and the DC power establishment loves you and Cruz like he a liberal icon ...that they will let you slide ...cut you slack on any bit of loose rope ... when the fact is any loose rope they're going to try and hang you with it
Rule 1 If your.left the press and powers that be will let you get away with murder... your Bill Clinton
Rule 2 If your right that will find a way to get you even if you're done no wrong....
. it's like people here are new to being on the conservative side.... you should know how the games played ....that ther are different rules if your left compared to if you're right..
If you think Cruz will find any law ruled on his side your crazy... have you actually paid attention the last 8 years?... really you think you're going to get any loves in the Roberts court? ...with the left and DC you can never ever let them get even a toe the door...
It not about just if your right or wrong...it about giving the left an inch of justification to take you down....up to and including the dem going to the Supreme Court if Cruz got elected and disqualify him....
The Roberts court the courts that rewrote Obamacare to save it...the courts that found for gay marriage the courts that we all think someone’s got some kind political leverage over
After Gore Bush in 2000...where the left is convinced the election was stolen from them by the Supreme Court...
and after 8 years of birther trying to take down Obama
do you have any, any, doubt at all the left will do anything it takes to take down Cruz?... they just need to have something to hang some justification on....and the got it....and with a GOPe that is more than willing and the Dems the rope if it's Cruz if they want to hang...and a Supreme Court that sure seems to be inside the Obama's hip pocket
Cruz needs to take this damn seriously and so.do.his supporters.... and you guys are just blowing it off.... that is just stupider than s***
The door on this needed to be nailed shut before Cruz every got in.....the fact he did not is why.it.now biting him in the ass... all i can say is thank God its now at the very first primary and not in the general election
Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. I don't write the laws, I only report them. You don't seem to like this fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.
Titles of Acts or Sections
Although "it has long been established that the title of an Act 'cannot enlarge or confer powers,'" the title of a statute or section "can aid in resolving an ambiguity in the legislation's text." As Chief Justice Marshall explained,"[w]here the mind labours to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes everything from which aid can be derived." A title or heading, however, being only "a short-hand reference to the general subject matter involved" and "not meant to take the place of the detailed provisions of the text," can provide only limited interpretive aid. Thus, a heading may shed light on the section's basic thrust, or on ambiguous language in the text, but it "cannot limit the plain meaning of the text," and "has no power to give what the text of the statute takes away."
Thus, while the Title of an act might give some guidance as to the meaning of the substantive text of the act, it is not determinative.
A more complete reply:
8 US Code 1401: Nationals and Citizens of the US at birth-
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:
Provided
, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
Provided
, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
Please note that this section of the US Code does not concern it self with naturalization.
8 US Code 1101- Definitions:
(23) The term “naturalization†means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
Please note that naturalization means the conferring of nationality AFTER BIRTH, including by “Collective Naturalization” - also AFTER BIRTH. Citizenship by Birth is incongruent with all forms of naturalization contemplated by the US Code.
LOL! You're definitely trying to 'float' something, but it's too brown and smelly to be straw.
IF, as you contend, Vattel asserted that everyone born outside the country of a citizen (or citizens) was natural born, there would have been no logical reason for him to have made the exception concerning children of diplomats or military members....but he did -
§217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
Children born outside the country to citizens who are NOT in the military or NOT in the diplomatic service may receive their citizenship through decent, but it is not the pure and unquestionable citizenship required to be natural born.
It is a form of naturalization.
----
As it is plain you are not seeking knowledge but merely attempting to reaffirm your own bias, reply if you wish.
I won't respond again.
Meant to PING you to #105, but of course only remembered that AFTER I had hit 'post'. LOL!
You really don't know what you are talking about and selective and misleading quotations won't help your cause.
btt
Naturalization can occur at any time.
It’s called collective naturalization.
I love it when people “prove” some one is a “natural born citizen” by citing naturalization laws - and to make it even more hilarious the phrase isn’t even in the law!
IMO - this entire *redefinition* of natural born has more to do with the push for globalism than it does Original intent.
Ray, collective nationalization applies to living persons who are granted US citizenship en mass, as for example all the people living in the Luisiana Purchase when it became part of the United States. It does not include unborn children. It is totally different from and distinct from and does not include citizenship by birth.
For example, check this:
8 U.S. Code 1402 - Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899:
"All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth."
This is collective nationalization: 'All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941."
This is not: "All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth."
Any time AFTER birth, you mean.
8 US Code 1101 Definitions:
(23) The term "naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I have posted this before, maybe even to you.
You ask: "When did Canada become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?"
Obviously Canada has not become subject to the jurisdiction of the Unite States, and I think you know it. Yours was a gratuitous rhetorical question, but it was the wrong one.
The right question is "When did Ted Cruz become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?" And the answer to this one is clear: the moment he was born.
You see, this is the law. You can check it out here, the entire relevant section for you perusal. Check out section 'g'. You might not like it, but it is the law.
Also, FYI, this is not a form of 'naturalization' as some have claimed. Naturalization is defined in 8 US Code 1101 as follows:
(23) The term "naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
Now for the substantive part:
8 US Code 1401: Nationals and Citizens of the US at birth-
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:
Provided
, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided , That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
then there is citizenship by derivation, or derivative citizenship, where the child becomes a citizen upon naturalization of the parent
Collective naturalization refers to any class of persons who by authority of Congress are declared to be citizens. As, for example, the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens.
Frankly I am having a bit of trouble truing to decipher this. So let me repeat for clarity, and this is not my opinion, this is the US Code: The term 'collective naturalization' refers ONLY to living people, in other words people who are already born, i.e. AFTER BIRTH, when for one reason or another it becomes necessary to provide citizenship to an entire group of people, as for example in the case of annexation.
Collective naturalization NEVER refers to citizenship at birth. NEVER. Repeat, NEVER.
Please read and understand the law on the subject. Naturalization - ALL FORMS OF NATURALIZATION - only applies to individuals who are already alive and not already citizens. It NEVER applies to citizenship at birth.
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.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703
Not only is he not a Canal Zone baby....McCain is a COLON baby.
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.