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 ...
Forget Wong Kim Ark. Read the frikin’ US Code.
Wong Kim Ark did not and could not rely on our current law, embodied in the US Code.
Congressional grants of citizenship are naturalization.
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.
Like it or not this is the law. Citizenship by birth is NOT naturalization.
Citizenship by statute is naturalization.
This won't be true no matter how many times you repeat it.
Read the US Code.
I have posted the text and given the reference so you can check it out for yourself. Naturalization is a process for making citizens of persons who have ALREADY been born. You can't naturalize someone who has yet to be born and if that person is a US Citizen at birth, there is no need for naturalization. That's the law in the United States; whether you approve of it or not, or whether it satisfies your sense of right and wrong, or your personal aesthetics notwithstanding.
How much easier can I make it for you?
You state another falsehood. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is a territorial notion. In order for the US to reach citizen Cruz, it needs the cooperation of the Canadian authorities using extradition.
What Cruz has when his is born is a claim to US and Cuban citizenship, as well as citizenship in Canada by operation of the Canadian constitution and laws. A US court would find this, it's a straightforward case with no cloud over the citizenship or domicile of either parent, no adoption, and no question of fact on the US residency of the US citizen mother.
You reject the contention that a US court considers the laws of other countries in citizenship cases, which is another kooky position to hold. There is no way to know that Cruz is a citizen of Canada without resort to Canadian constitution and law. There was no way to find that Bellei was a citizen of Italy without resort to Italian law. Citizenship by acquisition (jus sanguinas) also involves ascertaining the wedlock of the parents in light of the constitution and laws of the country the child is born in.
US DOJ Immigration Law Advisor - Vol 2. No.11 - November 2008
SIGIFREDO SALDANA IRACHETA v. HOLDER - No. 12-60087 - 5th Circuit (2013)
In any event, the parties seem to now implicitly agree that the Constitution of Mexico says nothing about the legitimation of children, and do agree that the applicable law is the Civil Code of Tamaulipas.
The case is an interesting read.
What's funny is that you chided me within the last week with this outburst ...
And this, after I specifically asked very politely not to go off on a bunch of irrelevant riffs if you don't know the relevant law.Look in the mirror, Mr. Valentine.The relevant law is UK law.
It is the UK, not the US who decides who they consider their nationals, just like is is the US, not the UK who decides who we consider our nationals.
If it didn't work this way, there would be no such thing as a dual national. I will only add that it works this way despite your defective thinking on the subject. You obviously weren't consulted on this matter by the world's governments in the past, and I doubt you'll be getting a call any time soon.
You wave off Rogers v. Bellei and numerous other cases that have been cited to you. Your assertion is not supported by case law, and in fact, case law stands for the opposite of what you claim. Citizenship-at-birth to those born abroad is always naturalization.
Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and "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."
Scalia Concurring Opinion in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
The INS handbooks and similar references are chock full of imprecise contentions. The imprecision is useful shorthand for operation of the INS. But it isn't the law, and you know it isn't the law, and yet you persist in spreading falsehood. That is despicable, on your part. But, I must say, you are at least consistently despicable.
I’m disappointed that you have decided to depart from our prior civil discourse.
‘Subject to the jurisdiction’ is not even primarily a territorial notion. First and foremost it relates to whether or not a government can assert a right of sovereignty over an individual for the purposes of taxation, military service, jury duty, issuance of a passport, access to consular services, etc. Surely there may be a territorial element asserted in determination, but if this phrase were exclusively territorial as you say then it would be utterly redundant in the 14th Amendment as written.
Then, surely, you are not suggesting that Americans, such as myself, who are resident in another country are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ That would be an astonishing assertion that is simply not true. I can tell you that, whether you are aware or not, the United States considers me VERY much subject to their jurisdiction, and I am so, as a matter of law, not mere opinion. If I were not a citizen of the US I probably could not be forced to submit IRS Form W9 to my foreign bank each year or face legal consequences - and not just in the US. Extradition has nothing to do with it - and this reference demonstrates your misunderstanding of the the phrase actually means.
I am not going to get into a discussion of Ted Cruz here. You know the facts and I know the facts, and they re what they are.
But, I will repeat my contention that the United states will not allow the operation of foreign laws to determine who is and who is not a US citizen.
The US certainly will do so if required to determine whether person is or is not a citizen of Italy, Canadsa, France or West Baboonistan. I have never denied this, so your making a point of it is a gratuitous red herring. This was never my point and you know it.
I’d welcome a return to your previous civil demeanor.
I will only say that the US Code is not an INS handbook.
I think that's a lie too, but so what either way.
-- 'Subject to the jurisdiction' is not even primarily a territorial notion. --
Oh? So you are going to side with the dissent in WKA for now, and later you are going to side with the majority.
No matter, when citizen Cruz is born in Canada, he is not subject to US jurisdiction no matter how you slice it. The US doesn't even know he exists. In order for the US to know he exists, he must be presented to the US for the purpose of adjudicating his claim to US citizenship.
You are just playing word games. You are dishonest in argument. You see the word "extradition," then spin off a couple paragraphs of crap as a diversion.
-- I will repeat my contention that the United states will not allow the operation of foreign laws to determine who is and who is not a US citizen. --
That's a strawman of your own making. You, putting words in my mouth.
-- I'd welcome a return to your previous civil demeanor. --
Don't hold your breath. Your presence on this forum is a disservice.
Re. MILLER v. ALBRIGHT, the petitioner never was a United States Citizen by birth as she failed to meet the requirements prescribed by statute. Therefore she was in essence demanding to be naturalized. This the Court rightly refused to do. Not on point. I will comment on other citations in due course.
Well said!
It is also not case law.
Did you not see the case of IRACHETA v. HOLDER?
You have reverted to multiple lies in a feeble and misguided attempt to distract from the fact that it was YOU trying to put words into my mouth that were never there that compelled my reply in the first place.
Just for your edification I have NEVER sided with the majority in WKA.
We’re done here.
Not on point because she lost, but would have been on point if she won?
The dishonesty runs deep in you, Mr. Valentine, very deep.
At this point, I don’t even trust Rafael Cruz on any judicial bench.
Sundance has a GREAT expose on a Cruz SuperPAC that is headed by McConnel’s lawyer spending millions on ads including on Mark Levin’s radio program.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Attorney Heads Pro-Cruz, Anti-Trump Super PAC...
Not on point at all, either way. She was not a US citizen at birth and that’s the end of it.
You are a very dishonest person, Mr. Valentine. Persistently so.
It’s very simple: Congress has the power to make a uniform rule of naturalization, citizenship which depends upon a Congressional act is naturalization.
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.