Posted on 02/18/2016 9:58:26 PM PST by TigerClaws
The question of whether or not Ted Cruz can serve as president of the United States is heading to court.
A judge has agreed to hear a lawsuit filed against the presidential hopeful by Illinois voter Lawrence Joyce.
CNN reports that the case will be heard in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago on Friday in response to Joyce's claim that Cruz should not appear on the ballot for next month's Illinois primary because he was born in Canada.
Cruz has stated before that he is an American citizen despite being born in Canada and having a Cuban father because his mother is American.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3454032/Illinois-judge-agrees-hear-lawsuit-filed-against-Ted-Cruz-stating-NOT-eligible-run-president-born-Canada.html#ixzz40ahKXbNs Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
No, the law needs to define who is a citizen at birth (thus not requiring some form of "naturalization") compared to who is not a citizen, and thus require some form of naturalization.
And most respectfully: can you truly entertain the idea that the Founders wanted a president whose citizenship could be in danger from ANY angle? When they asked for NBC?
This could even be an issue for Ted! If the bureaucratic bungle attributed to him in (IIRC) 1974 is true. He didn’t declare as an eligible citizen. I don’t know the statute knock-ons of this. But it would be a problem if it means he thereby fails to meet some other citizenship criteria on the books. He would then, literally, have a Bellei full of problems.
It was never in doubt that if you were physically born here of parents who were citizens by any criterion, you were American and not even Congress could upset that applecart.
Yes. That was excellent. Thank you.
Responding with;
The law says that such persons shall be citizens at birth.
It does not say in that portion of law that such persons shall be naturalized at birth.
Yet that is what you are arguing, importing the assumption that all persons born under conditions of that heading and paragraph (g) are somehow being "naturalized" by the statute, rather than the "shall be nationals and citizens at birth" is addressing deriving citizenship from a U.S. citizen parent when in circumstance of being born abroad.
Sorry, but the laws are as written (in whichever applicable era/time frame -- and those laws have changed, repeatedly) not some other way (applicable to whichever era/time frame).
The law defines an alien as the one in need of naturalization "at birth" and having citizenship conferred upon them, not citizens, as they already have citizenship.
But this is what naturalization IS.
NaturalIZED can be de-naturalIZED... and yes Congress has done it (again the Bellei tolls).
NBC means ZERO danger of that kind. To imagine the Founders wanted to embrace larger risks sounds implausible.
And those "persons" are aliens. Remember, the law in question is "The Immigration and Nationality Act".
Do citizens immigrate here or do aliens?
And how many angels can dance upon the head of that pin?
I think the danger aspect would nicely describe what the Founders were getting at. No way an unpopular president could get ousted short of impeachment, by a citizenship-related underhanded move.
He was in fact in the same peril, although instead of 5 years before age 21, for Bellei, Cruz had to complete 5 continuous years any time between the ages of 14 and 28.
In order to demonstrate citizenship today, Cruz has to have not only evidence of his mother's US residency, he also needs to produce evidence of his own presence in the US.
Failing that, Congress can always pass a "personal bill," it has done that many times.
I disagree with your interpretation of the 1952 Act. The law was written to cover all possible circumstances for the case of children born outside the US. There are four cases for a child born abroad to one citizen parent and and one alien parent.
A) Section 301 (a)(7). Citizen parent meets residence requirement resulting in citizenship at birth.
B) Section 320. Citizen parent does not meet residence requirement but alien parent meets the naturalization requirement resulting in automatic citizenship for the child after birth.
C) Section 321. Citizen parent does not meet the residence requirement and subsequently loses US citizenship. Child becomes a US citizen by naturalization of both parents if before the age of 16 years.
D) Section 322 (a). Citizen parent does not meet residence requirement and alien parent does not meet the naturalization requirement of Section 320. In which case the child can become a US citizen by petition of the citizen parent.
Cruz’s case meets Section 301. His mother met the residence requirement, he is a citizen at birth.
All of these sections are in Title III of the 1952 Act but Section 301 is in Chapter 1 - NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH. While Sections 320, 321 and 322 are in chapter 2 - NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION.
The law draws a distinction between citizenship at birth and citizenship by naturalization.
True enough. That is a positive affirmation of particular conditions. Yet there is little to nothing in way of negative declarations encompassing setting aside a U.S. citizen parent from passing on their own U.S. citizenship to their own offspring, even when those offspring are born abroad.
There have been however, through the legislature, residency conditions placed upon both parent and offspring which are required to be met --- or else the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad --- if raised abroad and grows into adulthood abroad ---will lose U.S. citizenship status.
It appears to me that the residency requirements u>when met provide basis for acknowledgement of the reality of the human condition --- the jur soli condition of natural citizenship --- when it comes to how that effects the mind of a child in one sense, perhaps even the greater sense not reliant upon precisely what location one was born at, nearly as much as where an individual is raised.
When the U.S. citizen parent of a child born abroad brings that child back to be raised within the U.S., given enough years of being raised within the U.S. while still young and impressionable, Congress, in recognition of the influence those two things together would have (citizen parent, plus resident within U.S. for significant number of years while still young, going to school and the like) wrote into law that those persons would be citizens at birth, there being no further argument about it (provided the stipulated number of years of residency were met).
Why should that not be "natural born"? They were returned to "the soil" of their citizen parent, and do have (would have, most naturally) that citizen parent too raising them within the land (the nation/country) of the parent. What more is called for?
What if a woman 8 1/2 months pregnant went to Ensenada ---- was there over a three-day weekend, not expecting to come into labor *quite* yet but did anyway ---- then a few days later was able to return to the United States, the child be raised and lived within the U.S. all their life from then on?
Were they not citizens from birth, and the location of the hospital make no real lasting difference?
I cannot recall the first couple of years of my own life, but do recall some things from sometime I was two or three years old, and by then was in Texas.
When I was still an infant my parents moved from one U.S. State to another, 1600-1700 miles away from where they were living when I was born, themselves going to live in the State of my mother's own birth --- where my father had lived for significant portions of his own youth and had met my mother.
I can tell you plainly that I grew with the idea in my head that I was a Texan, although had been born in California. On my mother's side, her people go back to being Texans well into the late middling-1800's at least.
On my father's side, only near the turn of the 20th century for my paternal grandfather, but the paternal grandmother's side was of that German stock that came to Texas wa-ay back in the earlier portions of the 1800's, like before Texas was it's own country, and less than a decade later, then first a State.
If I had stayed in that State all my life I damn sure could call myself a true Texan. Still can, even though I spent the majority of my life (pretty much all my adult life until fairly recently) a little bit in Texas, Louisiana, & Florida, many years in California, almost two in Washington State, Oregon a little, and a couple of summertime salmon seasons in Southeast Alaska, plus a stint in the Bering Sea...had another Texan there on the same boat (he was the engineer) and we'd both in times past in our lives by the time we ended up king crabbing, had been in the employ of the same guy down in Aransas Pass (but at different times).
You can the boy out of Texas, but you can't take the Texas out of the boy.
"Of the soil" can be very much acquired through both parentage and upbringing. Once it's there, it's often stuck, specially in the case of a State like Texas. Pretty near it's own country, in ways...
I've never stated my preference. Maybe I'm feelin' the Bern.
Seriously, I don't know why I would put a target on my back for abusive Trump supporters, by selecting any other candidate other than Trump, and right now, Trump hasn't sold me. I'd take any other candidate other than Trump, right now, except for Kasich. I was fairly opened minded about Trump, but the unprincipled baggering by TrumpRepublic supporters have put me off. We'll see. Trump could still earn my vote.
I am getting tired, real tired of the mocking responses from VIRTUALLY EVERY TRUMP supporter who feels "entitled" by his or her anger to slam every other FReeper. It's not winning Trump voters, and it's not constructive to winning in November. People don't forget personal attacks. Do you think Cruz is going to toss in the towel, and tell his supporters "Folks, Trump is the guy who can win in Novermber?", after Trump's called him every name in the sixth grade lexicon?
Yep, TrumpRepublic has gotten old fast, and I've only been back a few days.
I’m not sure of her name, but IMHO, she really did her homework and presents it wel..
Good grief, not this again.
There was a time period within U.S. history where that would be true enough (1802 to 1855 if I read the majority decision from Rogers v. Bellei right and I think I do) yet after 1855 that condition change back, step by step (accumulated changes) towards how it was before legislation introduced that consideration. You know, like back towards the concepts expressed within the 1790 law?
By the time Cruz was born there was not (that I know of) a scrap left within the laws themselves which stated that persons born within the circumstance which he was were "aliens" at birth.
Take note that not all persons mentioned within that act were to be considered "aliens" --- or else show me something FROM WITHIN the TEXT OF THE LAW. The effort to assert that wording of the Act's heading implied "born an alien" for the same exact class of persons otherwise clearly said to fall into category of citizens at birth is an asinine argument.
The law, even under that heading does stipulate who is a citizen, even from at birth.
It is highly contradictory ---one has to tie the law into pretzel knots--- to get to place of simultaneously claiming "alien" and "citizen" in regards to the same person at the same precise moment.
Dragging in a whole bunch of "because of this" that, and the other thing, from carefully selected past Supreme Court decisions, coupled with bouncing back to futile efforts to attempt re-application of statutory language which NO LONGER EXISTS as active and binding law is Birthism insanity.
Do you really think that such a jackass contradiction like "the person was both an alien, and born a citizen -- AT THE SAME TIME" would pass muster in a court?
The laws have changed over the last couple of hundred years. Those changes is where the contradictions arise from, except (and now its your turn "to Remember") --- that once laws are changed, then if and when the old statutory language is done away with --- it no longer applies. It doesn't hang around like a ghost that can still ~weirdly~ in bizarre fashion contribute flesh as it were, for once stricken from the statutes, reworded however it shall be from then on --- when whatever it is that was being done away with is gone ---it is as good as dead and buried.
I do feel here as if I've been confronting zombies. Two to the forehead is supposed to do it. (I saw that on t.v. once).
Children born abroad of U.S. parents are neither aliens or immigrants.
Instead when brought back to live within the U.S. the parents are returning to their own homeland and naturally enough bringing their (minor) children with them. DUH.
Spare me any further birther nonsense derived reasoning, rationale, and questions.
I could hope that these sort would be the worst that (DNC-backed?) plaintiffs could throw at Senator Cruz.
If so, I'm pretty confidant an adequetly decent lawyer could murder 'da bums --- which would leave only crazy-stupid-as-a-craphouse 'Rat judges to worry about...
Taxed and misconstrued by knuckleheads -- Yes. Tolled again, my ass.
It was not in the slightest mentioned that Bellei was somehow "naturalized", so therefor could be subject to loss of citizenship.
In fact, the majority Court found exactly opposite to that.
Your argument here if there is one, is of seriously "non-starter" status.
No one is saying they did "want to embrace larger risks", perhaps other than a majority of themselves when the same guys wrote up the 1790 code of law regarding citizenship which included the term natural born citizen be applicable to persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents, prior to five years later, with some of the same original crew around they did away with wording that included 'natural born citizen' within statutory language. But it was there for a little while, which helps show what the phrase "natural born Citizen" could very well include beyond only born within the United States to U.S. citizens.
Yet more than a 150 years later Congress did enact measures that were designed (or so I freely assume) to preclude offspring of U.S. citizens born abroad to need the citizenship which they acquired at birth from a U.S. citizen parent require anything other than residency requirements which ----would go a long ways towards minimizing that very risk you just now (as above italicized) alluded to.
The Constitution itself, among other things, empowered Congress to do so.
The majority opinion in Rogers v Bellei in overturning a lower court's decision found positively for that very thing.
Bellei (not being a statute, is beyond be "tolled") is not stopped in it's tracks at some toll booth, lacking proper coinage of change, but is still rollin' free as a bird, straddling right down the middle stripe of road, as we speak.
Tolled, my ass. Poetry can be fun, but it can be seriously misleading if you start to believe in your own, too much.
There has to be enough underlying truth, or else its just so much gibberish.
“Could well include”
However, does not now include. So a conservative view would indeed, still exclude Cruz.
Tolled, as in sounds out.
You are engaging in word salad; I in logic.
Do you think Cruz should stick in the mud out of sixth grade spite?
Yeah, I know what you mean. I expect personal attacks on other sites but not this one. I thought it was a rule to disagree respectfully. Anyway, I do like that Trump has no problem speaking his mind and doesn’t talk like a politician. For that plus the fact that he is a successful business man and I truly believe he can make this country great, and he takes no money from PACs, he has my vote. Take care Old Salt.
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.