Posted on 02/13/2016 9:12:01 AM PST by Dana1960
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. a retired colonel with 29 years of experience in the US Army Reserve, argues that Senator Ted Cruz entered the United States illegally as a child in 1974. His parents failed to file a CRBA form which is required by US law. Ted’s parents did not fill out the required form until 1986.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Do you know if a child born in the US to two us citizen parents (both NBC or native born parents) need to show a birth certificate to apply for a passport?
..........................................................
The answer is yes. One must supply an original birth certificate validated from the State in which born.
A CRBA may not absolutely have been required. Presumably, a claim to US citizenship could have been made later based on other documentation (passports, birth certificates). Whether that would mean that one wasn't a citizen from birth or not, I can't say.
It does seem like there's a slippery slope, here: is citizenship established weeks or months after through a CRBA the same or different from citizenship uncontested at birth or from citizenship established years later through other documentation? Are you a citizen from birth in all three cases? If a CRBA makes you retroactively a citizen from birth would a later process result in a different status?
I never said it had been. Go back and read what I wrote.
Even if you are already sold on Cruz’s status, the whole issue is such an incredible brain buster that it’s fun just trying to keep up with all the twists and turn
______________________
If we think determining the citizenship status of Ted Cruz is a brain twister, what about the citizenship status for 12-30 million people? Some will be easy, but a percentage of folks will have a similar brain twister I fear.
The US has a lot of work to do.
If you’re talking about British Common Law, it doesn’t clear anything up. Vattel’s Law of Nations was the origin of the term “Natural born citizen.”
That was pretty funny, no matter who you are. :)
Or it could mean she added him to her passport, because maybe she traveled back home to her parents in Delaware to show off her new son.
CRBA not required document
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html
. You cannot just assume the validity of the regulation.
Now what does THIS mean?
It means that we’re so pathetic that we have three top candidates for President of the United States, two of which may or may not be eligible to hold the office. Seriously? Out of millions of people in America, this is the best we can do? And the fourth guy on the list is a Mexican at heart. More pathetic.
The Cruz thing, at least, has been floating around for years and he knew it.
If I were a Cruz or Rubio donor or financial supporter, I’d be pissed off to have been bamboozled. They never should’ve announced until holding in their hands paperwork absolutely declaring them as “eligible”.
Thanks for your comment.
It is a perfect example of the obtuse and ignorant that is being exploited.
It means nothing that Cruz technically could have Canadian citizenship and it also means nothing that Trump has an equivalent status Scottish citizen.
It’s idiocy.
Trump is a Scottish citizen.
So what?
Same for Cruz as a Canadian citizen.
bbbbbbbbbbbbb
Bump
I’m tired of you Trumpsters attacking Cruz’s mother. She’s far more a citizen than Trump’s wife.
How about Cruz’s father? Seems he was Cuban, then Canadian, finally American just a few years ago.
I'm an Army brat. I went to school with hundreds of Great American Army brats whose mothers were foreign (Filipeno, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Haitian, German, Eastern European etc), their fathers were patriot soldiers, they were born overseas. My friends, my neighbors, my classmates are natural born citizens and it infuriates me to see them called otherwise.
The same Trumpsters endlessly bitching about anchor babies have no respect for an American women who happened to be working as a computer programmer in the oil industry which needed her in Canada at the time she gave birth. She never renounced her citizenship and she and her son deserve respect.
Why does Trump hate American women so much?
From IN THE MATTER OF M, 7 IN Dec. 646 (B.I.A. 1958) ...
Following the present view, in order to retain his United States citizenship and in accordance with the provisions of section 301 (b) and (c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, applicant was required to come to the United States prior to his attainment of the age of 23 years and immediately following any such coming to be continuously physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, which physical presence period must follow the attainment of the age of 14 years and precede the age of 28 years. Applicant came to the United States on May 10, 1952, at which time he was 17 years of age, and has been actually physically present in the United States continuously since that date except for the period of 26 days when he went to Mexico to get an immigrant visa in July 1956. His absence of 26 days in July 1956 did not break the continuity of his physical presence, in view of section 16 of P.L. 85-316 approved September 11, 1957, which provides:In the administration of section 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, absences from the United States of less than twelve months in the aggregate, during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required, shall not be considered to break the continuity of such physical presence.
Therefore on May 10, 1957, applicant had completed 5 years' continuous physical presence in the United States and had fulfilled the retention requirements of section 301 (b) and (c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. His application for a certificate of citizenship will be granted.
Apologies for the false alarm, unless of course, Congress has changed its mind on THAT aspect too!
Fairly complex interplay between the 1934 and 1952 Naturalization Act, relating to physically presence of the "new" citizen (not presence of the US-citizen parent, but US presence subsequent to birth). many people had citizenship, lost it, then got it back - all automatically by operation of law, combined with their life experiences, where they lived.
ref “The fig leaf resolution for McCain ...their justification for McCain being eligible they cited his two parents being citzens. He was born in the country of Panama. Still not eligible...”
On McCain’s NBC, you are wrong by every Constitutional and legal standard, including the British Common Law definitions of Natural Born Citizen which so many are citing to attack Cruz on. All of the legal scholars on this issue agree that children born to diplomats and service members serving their country overseas (where they are subject to all of the laws of their nation of origin)are Natural Born Citizens of their parents’ country.
It’s a famous misattribution. I’m sure that from hell, Oswald wishes he actually said it.
“At birth, by being born to an American parent!
********************************************
Only if the citizen parents files for a CBRA”
Hubby and I were stationed overseas when our first child was born, e.g. 1965, on a military reservation and I had to go down to the U. S. Consulate after his birth, and produce the birth certificate that was given to me by the US Army Hospital, and register his birth even though both my husband and I are U. S. Citizens. After we got back to the States, when baby was about 2 1/2 years old we had to have a passport picture of our son taken, make out all kinds of paper work, which at that time, was the same that an legal immigrant makes out when he or she becomes a US citizen, and we had to appear before a Federal Judge (who was in Baltimore, MD) and take the oath of citizenship for our son. To this day, our son has all those papers and when he applied for a passport, several years after he got married, he had to produce those papers and it didn’t matter that Mom and Dad are US citizens, but that’s what we went through.
If Cruz's parents got him into the US without a baby passport or birth certificate proving him a US citizen they must of carried him in the spare tire well. Note also that even so, it's not proof of non-citizenship and they could obtain a CRBA anytime up until 1988.
About "natural born citizenship"; according to the both parents citizen theory neither Adams nor Jefferson qualified because their fathers died well before citizenship could have been assumed or conferred.
Back to Rubio, my real concern in this discussion is that Magic Marco would lend legitimacy to anchor babies' right to sit as president (which I note is already being claimed on some internet sites).
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.