Posted on 04/08/2016 5:08:31 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
“In 2 weeks the North American Law Center will release proof that Ted Cruz is a fraud. They have issued his campaign a warning that if Cruz doesn’t tell the truth and step down they will release their proof – the truth that so many refused to believe or listen to.” – Karen Bracken
The North American Law Center issued this stark notice to the Cruz campaign on their latest podcast on April 3 (19:00 mark) –
“We’re talking about American citizens (who) think a guy who’s Canadian-born is eligible to be a U.S. president – without any documentation whatsoever. If Ted continues on – we are going to release the files we have, two weeks from tonight, and we will bury Ted Cruz forever in American politics… If we have to stop this guy from defrauding this nation, then we are going to do that.” – J.B. Williams, N.A.L.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at endingthefed.com ...
We’ll never really know for sure, the damage is done. Let’s never make the same mistake again.
Now eight years later, we have Lyin’ Ted, Ivy-league graduate and Harvard Law Review editor, who became a U.S. Senator of Texas not knowing he’s a Canadian by birth. Despite attending Princeton and Harvard Law school, this guy is shocked to learn that being born in Canada makes one a Canadian citizen.
And the genius attorney hires more attorneys to unburden himself of his Canadian heritage. For whatever reasons, this takes one year. Then Ted proudly declares himself an ‘American only’ candidate with implied American NBC status.
What a load of disinformation.
First McCain was born on US controlled territory and subject to US jurisdiction. Cruz was not. 2nd, section G is on citizenship aka naturalizing, not about changing birth status. All it does is makes him a citizen.
By the Hypocritical former birthers for Cruz arguments Prince Hamzah Bin Al Hussein of the Arab Royal Family can become our President since Cruz and him have the same birth situation.
Think about this for a second. Your arguments allow for the ISIS raised child of a raped American missionary in Syria to be our president.
The reason we have such a law was to prevent Britain from retaking America by using the children of loyalists who had one American parent but no loyalty to America to become President and sabotage us, Like Obama has been doing.
Well, that's my position. He could well have been the nominee to replace Scalia/Roberts if he had just shut up.
became a U.S. Senator of Texas not knowing he’s a Canadian by birth. Despite attending Princeton and Harvard Law school, this guy is shocked to learn that being born in Canada makes one a Canadian citizen.
You knew, I knew, he knew, everybody (including the lyin' "after-birthers") knew.
It's a good thing England was far away, clear across the Atlantic Ocean....OH WAIT!
What about Canada!
Cruz's citizenship comes from the 1952 act, which uses different section numbering (that is, the reference would not be to "1401(g)"). The law that Cruz obtained citizenship under was not repealed, it was amended. The amendments do not affect his citizenship in the first place, nor do they affect his retention of citizenship under 301(b) (the section that Bellei sued on, arguing that 301(b) was unconstitutional), nor would they have any effect on the basic finding that the citizenship solely from an act of congress is a form of naturalization.
If Bellei had met the US residency requirements, he would have kept his citizenship, and there would be no suit. But that hypothetical would not change his citizehip from "naturalized."
You miss the point entirely. Citizen YES. NBC NO.
If you are born outside the U.S. to citizens or citizen, you must acquire a CRBA which is a form of naturalization and therefore not NBC.
According to the State Department:
7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CON-538; 10-24-2014)
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a persons birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a persons citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called citizenship by descent or derivative citizenship, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
This clears it up even better:
If you were born in the United States, you do not need to apply to USCIS for any evidence of citizenship. Your birth certificate issued where you were born is proof of your citizenship.
If you were born outside the United States, but one or both of your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born, you may still be a U.S. citizen. This is called citizenship through derivation. There are usually additional specific requirements, and sometimes citizenship can be through a combination of a parent and grandparent. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/A4en.pdf
Citizenship by statute cannot be considered NBC.
I don’t know what law you are speaking of that has been repealed but Bellei states: “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, Constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.”
How can that statement be repealed?
Oh, it just keeps getting better.
It now appears Ted’s wife, is also...HIS COUSIN!
And there you go again IGNORING what the founders actually did institute as law. It is the clearest example that we have of the founders intent.
But lets follow the path of where your logic leads
Naturalization act of 1790 was passed by the founders and that clearly shows that they were exercising there authority under Article I Section 8 clause 4
Then the 1795 act was repealed and replaced
And the next
And the next
And so on and so forth until we get to:
USC Title 8 Section 1401 subsection G which clearly states that Sen Cruz was a US Citizen at birth.
Further, USc Title 8 Section 1101 section A part (23) says that naturalization ONLY occurs after birth. Sen Cruz has never been and has never needed to be naturalized because he was a US Citizen at birth.
Original intent was show in the Naturalization Act of 1790 where the FOUNDERS exercised the authority of Congress under Article 1 Section 8 clause four, to clearly establish the precedence that NBC did not need to be born on US soil and NBC status flows from the parents regardless of location.
No there is no requirement for the father to be a citizen. Only that the child be decent from a citizen.
Lets follow that logic to it’s natural end which is USC Title 8 Section 1401 subsection G which says that Sen Cruz is a citizen at birth and has not been nor never needed naturalization.
You mean like ‘kissin’cousins?’
They sure don’t look alike.
You are incorrect.
USC Title 8 Section 1101 - Definitions clearly states that naturalization only occurs AFTER birth. The conditions of one’s birth are immutable and as such are fixed by those conditions. The conditions of Sen Cruz’s birth per the authority of Article 1 Section 8 clause for gives Congress the EXCLUSIVE authority over ALL rules of naturalization. That includes who is a citizen and who is not. Who is born and citizen and who needs to be naturalized as well as those who are born citizens.
USC Title 8 Section 1401 subsection A is the section that makes those who are born on US soil citizens at birth.
USC Title 8 Section 1401 subsection G is the section that makes those born beyond the US borders to citizen parents, citizens at birth.
Prompt? It took 5 years and an entirely different Congress.
All most immediately as in ... after another election, different congress (not so much the founders anymore) and FIVE years later. Sound more like the ebb and flow of politics.
BTW, by your logic, this act has to be ignored as well ‘cause it was repealed and replaced with the naturalization act of 1798 (after only 3 years), which was repealed by the naturalization act of 1802 (after only 4 years).
And so on and so forth
I am telling you the law, not what I would prefer. And that is the fundamental difference between my position and those that argue for some kind of special definition of NBC that exists outside of the Constitution.
I am explaining what is.
They are explaining what they want.
Huge difference.
Personally I would want a Meritocracy where service brings citizenship and being convicted of a crime causes the loss of citizenship. But I understand the difference between what I want and what the Constitution and the laws of this nation say.
I noticed in your response you failed to answer or address my question.
Please site the law that leads you to believe that BOTH parents must be citizens in order to run for President (i.e. to qualify as NBC and thus be eligible).
There is no dispute as to the need for NBC status to qualify. What is in dispute is your assertion that one must be a child of TWO US Citizens. That is why I am giving you the opportunity to support your assertion with facts by citing the law.
No quite so fast. First of all it’s not my logic. If a law is repealed specifically then it cannot be considered, especially in the case of this law where the objections are well defined and trenchant to the exact point that you are trying to make.
The only change made by The Naturalization Act, passed by the United States Congress on June 18, 1798 (1 Stat. 566), was to increase the period necessary for immigrants to become naturalized citizens in the United States from 5 to 14 years. There was no statement that this act repealed the 1795 act as there was about the 1790 Act in the 1795 Act.
Similarly the Naturalization Law of 1802 which the United States Congress passed the Naturalization Law of 1802 on April 14, 1802 (2 Stat. 153) directed the clerk of the court to record the entry of all aliens into the United States. Again this new act built on the prior act and did not repeal it.
So you are trying to compare apples and pears. There are always going to be small modifications. They do not have the weight and the effect of a repeal. The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790.
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.