Posted on 02/16/2016 5:09:18 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Wouldn't he have to prove he lost votes to Cruz? And if he sues Cruz as ineligible but not Rubio, since many people also think that he isn't a natural-born citizen, then doesn't that remove his standing? How can he suffer damages from one ineligible candidate but not another?
I've read that ruling, as well as the objection (to having Cruz's name on the ballot) and various memorandums of law that "fed" the decision. Have you read those materials?
The application of that statement depends on how you define "a naturalization process at a later time."
As a practical matter, and as a matter of fact, no state in the US (nor the federal government) has knowledge about a person born abroad. It cannot reach into the vital records of a foreign country.
In order for a person born abroad to become known to the US, he or she must be presented to the government, along with a claim for US citizenship. If presented, this claim is ALWAYS adjudicated, and sometimes denied. The lawsuits that we see (hundreds of them associated with "citizen at birth" statutes) follow from denial of citizenship.
One legal fiction here is that "at birth" literally applies, in the eyes of the US government. It is entirely possible, and I'm sure it has happened, that a person meets the statutory requirements for citizenship, and never becomes recognized as one, because the claim was never presented for adjudication. And quite common, I;d say "the rule," adjudication of a citizenship claim does not happen "at birth," but in fact happens at a later time. Maybe a few hours later, maybe a few years later, maybe decades later.
What types of citizenship are there?
There are two types of citizenship:
1. Citizenship from birth
2. Citizenship through naturalization
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Dept. of Homeland Security.
Further, Harvard Law Review :
"All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States."The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress.
Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase "natural born Citizen" includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent."
On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" [Cites at the link.]
And where does your definition of “natural born” come from?
Simple. Any citizen created by Congress is not “natural born.” If your citizenship is per statute, lucky you. The only thing you can’t do is run for president.
--What types of citizenship are there?
There are two types of citizenship:
1. Citizenship from birth
2. Citizenship through naturalization --
That is exactly what the WKA describes. Exactly.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration thatcontemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. 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 [p703] 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 ...all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)
I’ve read the hearing offcer’s report and the Board’s decision. I started reading as many eligibility rulings as I could find on the Internet back in 2008 when the first candidate challenge (Hollander v McCain & The Republican National Committe) was handed down. I was curious as to whether someone born in the Panama Canal Zone was eligible.
I see the same pattern of state election board rulings, states’ Chief Election Officer rulings, state court rulings and (85) federal district/appeals court rulings that adjudicated Barack Obama’s eligibility (along with no congressional hearings and no legislative action) emerging for Senator Cruz and Senator Rubio.
Cites at the link.
I see divergence in that most venues don't reach the merits, but IL did.
How would you characterize the IL election board ruling on the merits? Was it thorough?
I would still be interested in the practical application of your view. E.g.: Is Cruz not a citizen? Is the USCIS categorization and policy wrong?
All the evidence points to him being a citizen by Act of Congress. I believe his mother met the residency requirements, that she was a citizen of the US at the time Ted was born, that she and Ted's father were married, and I also believe Cruz met the citizenship retention requirements.
-- Is the USCIS categorization and policy wrong? --
I'd call it "imprecise," but in a way that is useful for USCIS operative purposes. The vast majority of persons who submit claims of US citizenship for adjudication, on operation of 8 USC 1401 - 8 USC 1407, and 8 USC 1409 submit their claims to the State Department, not to USCIS. The State Department has its own set of "imprecisions" that suit its internal operation.
.
Cruz was a US citizen at the moment of birth.
This by the standards of the men that founded this country.
.
Cruz was born a citizen under the standards held by the founders.
No act of congress has ever changed that.
And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.
If the touchstone is "citizen-at-birth," these authors have overlooked the statutes that confer US citizenship at birth, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, to persons born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Would those persons "naturally" be citizens without an Act of Congress?
Would Cruz be a citizen without an Act of Congress?
Not to say that "Act of Congress" is the touchstone for NBC. Rather, "citizenship that depends on Act of Congress" is the touchstone for naturalization. At least "so says SCOTUS and all the other courts."
Thanks for your reply.
I think your categorizations are going even further astray into the weeds. They seem to be:
1) Born Citizen - “Natural” Born
2) Born CItizen - By Law
3) CItizen - By Naturalization Process after Birth
Would any of us be?
Yes, of course. See the constitution, Art IV, Sec. 2, 14th amendment.
Yeah.
A lot of those same people love to watch The Bachelor and Survivor on their HDTVs. That doesn’t make them bright at all.
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.