Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.
Snip~
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”
Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Your blithe dismissal of my analogy allows me to simply say, "that's REALLY stupid."
Wasn't the 14th Amendment the very thing used to convey citizen status to Ark?
I don't know what you mean by "used to convey citizen status to Ark."
And don't you support that decision?
As I said before, "support" doesn't enter into it.
Doesn't that dicta, in your opinion, state it?
I find it interesting that you're citing the losing side, and the losing side's citation of the Dred Scott decision, to make your point. But even so, no, it doesn't. Not asserting X is not the same thing as asserting not-X, despite the frequency of that approach in birther arguments.
Nana, you have no clue what you are talking about.
You would be laughed out of any Court or any Legislative body, with your absurd nonsense. For your furter education:
“US State Department Services Dual Nationality
Print
Email
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
Intent can be shown by the person’s statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.
Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country’s embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Still waiting on this one...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3001114/posts?page=550#550
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html
Circumstantial evidence that Sr. did NOT enter into a Muslim marriage in Kenya that would be recognized in Kenya:
1. There is a marriage index for the couple in HI (undated) but it could be easily corrupted.
2. The INS FOIA documents in April 1961 have U of H officials reporting to INS that Sr. was married on Feb 2, 1961 to a co-ed that he had gotten pregnant and the INS suspects bigamy due to Sr.’s known Kenyan wife.
3. Sr. was never claimed to be a Muslim and went to a Christian Anglican school that excluded Muslims. He worked as an office secretary for a Christian missionary lady who helped fund his US education. Sr.’s third “wife” was Jewish and raised Sr.’s sons by her as Jewish.
4. Sr.’s first UK colonial Kenyan marriage was tribal, not Muslim. From my cursory non-expert reading of the 1903 Kenyan Marriage Act Muslim and tribal polygamy would only be recognized within those traditions for all multiple marriages of a man.
5. Sr.’s Kenyan tribal wife, a legally recognized marriage in colonial Kenya, appears to have considered Sr. to be a bigamist (Daily Mail reporter tells Kezia’s side of the story and frames it that way with Kezia as the only source).
6. Sr. completed a semester at U of H in the winter and spring of 1961 not appearing to go to Kenya and in on record appearing in INS offices making statements.
7. SADO’s whereabouts are unrecorded from Feb 2 to late August 1961. In late August 1961 Sr. tells INS that his baby BO II was born Aug 4 in Honolulu. However, Sr. is a pathological liar whose statements must all be corroborated.
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT \ INA: ACT 101 - DEFINITIONS
Too funny! You're talking about ALIENS and ALIENS can never be natural born citizens!
All that confers is Citizenship, not natural born Citizenship. When it pertains to Obama, he fails the test. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act) states that in order for Obama’s right of blood citizenship to be passed to him, that since he only had one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14. Obama’s mother was 3 months shy of meeting the age qualification to pass U.S. citizenship to him.
“Cruz is, and always has been, under the JURISDICTION of US Law.”
I think the Canadians would be offended by this claim!
Just because Cruz was entitled to be a US citizen national at birth, his parents had to follow US INS law and file the necessary paperwork to get his US citizenship recognized.
I would think that baby Cruz would not have been fully under US jurisdiction until he entered the US.
I just posted US Department of State documentation on Citizenship acquired by birth abroad to one or two US Citizen parents.
You are completely unhinged.
Learn how to lose gracefully, would you?
It is most likely that Ted Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate rather than a U.S. birth certificate.
‘If Cruz’s parents split up, what country would hear any child custody claims?”
IIRC, under US uniform family codes adopted by most states, child custody jurisdiction is based on the residence of the child and/or custodial parent at the time of the custody filing. See the recent celebrity custody battle between Tom Cruz (coincidence) and his wife where she took the child from CA to NY to establish residence and file for custody there, IIRC.
“You are a v sad person to watch. You have bought hook, line & sinker into the modern liberal mindset, & you cannot imagine the Framers not thinking the exact same way.
To look and see what the Founders and their generation actually said, and agree that that’s what they said, is the liberal mindset?”
‘To refuse to misrepresent the Constitution, and to speak up when other people do, is the liberal mindset?
To insist on the truth rather than a convenient fantasy is the liberal mindset?’
I wouldn’t expect you to be able to see it. That’s the insidious thing about the modern liberal mindset. Most people who have it have no idea. They imagine they are thinking clearly & objectively. In your case, a calsified belief in your own omniscience [at least so far as NBC is concerned] precludes any possibility of getting at the underlying mindset.
Btw, you’re an engineer, are you not?
It would be very difficult to challenge that.
Sheriff Arpaio’s posse has stated that they have evidence that HI DOH is colluding in a criminal conspiracy to conceal the forgery of Barry’s LFBC. Looking at the available evidence and “tells,” I concur. (I am a retired Certified Fraud Examiner).
Arpaio's posse claimed they had evidence from a very specific US government manual that proved the birth certificate was a fraud. When a real copy of the exact manual they claimed to have actually turned up, it didn't say what they claimed it said at all.
You can't mistake something like that. Either the manual said what they claimed, or it didn't. And it turned out that it didn't.
So something is very, very fishy there.
And nothing else.
This is settled law. NOBODY of any importance disagrees with me.
On my side?
Every member of Congress.
Every Governor.
Every State Election Officer.
Every State Judge in the Country.
Every Federal Judge in the Country.
Every Immigration Attorney in the Country.
The Landmark Legal Foundation.
The American Center for Law and Justice
Rush Limbaugh
Mark Levin
Shaun Hannity
Every Conservative leader in the country.
On your side?
Well lets start with the fact that a Democrat supporter of Hillary Clinton started this birther nonsense
Other than that?
Hardly anyone, huh?
Do some homework.
Birth Certificates do NOT, by themselves confer or deny Citizenship, by any stretch of the law.
Cruz was a US Citizen at the moment of his birth in Canada, which makes him a Natural Born Citizen since the terms are identical.
Pretty funny, coming from someone who waved away one of my points with a simple "stupid analogy." My response consisted of "REALLY stupid analogy; I don't understand what you're asking; I don't care; and 'no.'" That's pretty straightforward.
Still waiting on this one..
Again, I don't understand the question: "Do you honestly believe that if the question before the court had been one based upon Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 instead of the 14th Amendment that it would have even been heard?" He wasn't running for president--how could it have been based on Article 2? The question doesn't make any sense.
This game is getting boring. Don't be surprised if I don't immediately address your next 5 incoherent questions.
“...that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14.”
But only if the parents were legally married.
Under both HI and Kenyan law the claimed HI marriage was likely bigamous and void, i.e. a non-existent nullity never having existed (as explicitly suspected by the INS in 1961).
Barry’s attorney’s will enthusiastically claim he was born a bastard under 1961 law (no such thing now) if that will preserve his US nationality at birth. Then they will point to Marguet-Pillado dicta to claim he is NBC even if born in Kenya to his underage single mom.
You miss the point.
For instance, no United States Court, except in cases of child abuse perhaps, where the STATE would be a Party to remove the child -—
Well I very much doubt that if two Mexican illegal aliens divorced, any State Court would hear a custody case involving their 3 or 4 year old child.
They would have to go back to Mexico.
It is an adherence to traditional conservative values, to the truth, to sound scholarship, and to the Constitution.
If you say to me, "Look. It doesn't really matter what the Founding Fathers and Framers said. It doesn't really matter what rule they actually set up. What matters is what they probably would have done today."
"Or, what matters is that we oppose Obama, who has disastrous liberal policies, by every means possible, even if it means lying about the definition of "natural born citizen" that they Founding Fathers set up," well, that's a position.
But I don't find that it's a conservative position. I just don't. At all.
In fact, in my mind, it is YOUR position that is the more "liberal" one.
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.