Posted on 08/14/2013 5:45:12 AM PDT by Perdogg
The Constitution says that only "natural born citizens" are eligible to be president. Is Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas eligible, given that he was born in Canada of a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father?
If Cruz runs, 2016 will be the third consecutive election in which there were questions about the right of a major party candidate to serve. Unfortunately, the Framers left few clues about exactly what a "natural born citizen" is; Congress has not used the phrase in citizenship statutes since 1790.
(Excerpt) Read more at news4jax.com ...
Pot meet kettle!
True. At that time, the fathers citizenship is the one that mattered. Women were still Citizens, though their 'legal' Rights differed from men.
Even today, a wife traditionally takes the husband's name and their children have the same.
The problem is that you're taking the Original Right of men (which were later expanded to include women) and then shrinking it to only include women.
I don't see how that's logical. Government can only expand the acknowledgment of Natural Rights, it can never reduce them.
-----
To implement their power “to raise armies”, they have in times past utilized a draft of civilians.
True, but we're talking the power concerning a rule, not raising armies.
-----
There isn’t a blessed thing in there about beards and muslims, but they considered it “necessary and proper.”
That comment was just...dumb. The Constitution is a secular document concerning the limits of government and the preservation of our Natural Rights, not anything to do with Muslims or their 'laws'
-----
They felt it necessary to define who already is a citizen to define to needed to be naturalized.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY DID! They said This is the criteria it takes to be an American. If you wish to join us, here is what you'll have to do.
Natural law already defined natural born. You inherit citizenship from your parents just like you do your eye or hair color.
If THEY don't have it when you arrive, you are not natural born
This is not a Law government can control. IMHO, the Founders said so little on the subject in order to protect it. Todays government won't shut up on the subject in order to exploit it.
Way too many people let government tell them what is 'necessary and proper'. You seem to think The 1790 Act is more important just because it has the words 'natural born' in it...... while continuing to disregard the fact the Act of 1795 removed the language entirely. This is somehow a basis for government authority because they did it Once Upon a Time definitely does not bode well for the Republic.
-----
In other words, Cruz was born a US citizen, and the broadness of their usage of the term “natural born citizen” means Cruz is a natural born citizen
Yeah. That's the problem with living documenters. They let government 'broaden' things until they fit where they want.
Whatever floats yer boat.
True. Attorney General would be great, too.
Do you have a copy of Cruz's?
I know the 1790 law shows the use of the term for children born overseas. Can you elaborate further about it showing the term applies when there is only one US citizen parent?
Every Citizen has some kind of certificate of citizenship, be it a birth certificate showing place of birth and nationality of parents or a document recognizing that your birth in a foreign nation conferred upon you citizenship by birth.
These are the same documents you must present when applying for a passport. Just because you need a document to prove your citizenship does not mean you were not a natural born citizen.
These trolls seem to think that the term “Natural Born Citizen” only applies to the laws that were in effect at the time the Constitutions was ratified. But Citizenship laws have been evolving since the creation of the nation state.
Each sovereign country passes laws which determine who is entitled to automatic citizenship in accordance with their own sovereign laws. There is no such thing as “Natural Law” when it comes to citizenship, as these trolls suggest. Natural Law applies only to the individual rights obtained by their creator, and all other determinations of rights and privileges are subject to the laws of the sovereign states in which they reside.
Citizenship has always been a privilege conferred by the state upon a person by virtue of the laws in effect at the time they become a citizen. Any person who becomes a citizen by virtue of birth is a Natural Born Citizen. Any person who becomes a citizen later as a result of some other statutory requirement is a Naturalized Citizen. There are no other types of citizens.
There is no “Divine Right” of citizenship or Citizenship conferred by “Natural Law” and all determinations of citizenship are subject to the laws in effect for the country upon which citizenship is conferred.
Ted Cruz was born a Citizen according to the laws of the United States of America in effect at the time of his birth. He is by virtue of that fact a Natural Born Citizen in accordance with the plain meaning of the Constitution.
End of story.
If there if a natural right for the wife of a citizen father to automatically become a citizen then certainly there is a natural right for father of a citizen mother to automatically become a citizen.
Folks did the research on Indonesian law back in 2009 when this was a hot topic.
The law in question is Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, 62/1958 for short. Assuming an adoption took place, it would fall under Article 2 of this law.
“Article 2.
(1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.”
Note the age limit there - less than 5 years of age. Lolo Soetoro married Stanley Ann Dunham in 1967. This would have made Obama six years old - over the age limit according to Indonesian law.The Soetoros didn’t move to Indonesia until 1967, when Obama was six years old.
He needed to be under five.
US law doesn’t allow parents to renounce US citizenship for their children.
Yes. It says that the children of US citizens born overseas are natural born citizens. One exception is when the fathers have never been resident in the USA. If the father has NEVER resided in the US, then the child is not a natural born citizen.
So, if your mother and father have you born overseas, and your father NEVER resided in the US, then he is not a citizen to begin with, is he? You do NOT meet the law, so that means you are not a citizen.
But, what if your mother and father have you born overseas, and your MOTHER never resided in the US, then are you a US citizen at birth? Yes, because that law was only concerned with the father. (It was patriarchal, but that's irrelevant.)
So, this law will allow you to be a natural born citizen if your FATHER is a US citizen and your mother is not. That is the conferring of one parent citizenship.
In more equalitarian times, US law changed to make both parents eligible to confer citizenship on their children.
I didn't say there was a natural right for 'the wife of a citizen father to automatically become a citizen', I said Women were Citizens, too, although they had differing Rights.
The word 'automatic' appears nowhere in my post.
That’s a very good summary, and thank you for the information. It appears to me, though, that it might be talking about the automatic granting of citizenship to children, and that could only be done if they were under age 5.
The reason for an automatic grant of citizenship after an adoption would be to aid the intent of the parents to have their newly adopted child incorporated into the life of their nation.
The reason for not granting AUTOMATIC citizenship to one over 5 would be some sense that they might have developed an attachment already to their country of origin and would in later years look unkindly on it being stripped from them.
For this reason, it might have been possible for a child to voluntarily renounce his citizenship in order to gain Indonesian citizenship. Obama stayed in Indonesia until he was 10 years old.
It is unlikely, but possible due to either peer or cultural influence, that he felt compelled to renounce his US citizenship on his own.
That does not appear to be prohibited by the law you cite.
It doesn’t seem likely to me, but it is a possibility that your law doesn’t seem to cover, since that law appears to be talking about automatic conferring of citizenship.
No, there is not even now a right for a spouse to be a declared a US citizen. Obviously, otherwise Cruz’s dad would have been declared a US citizen by virtue of his wife’s being a US citizen. Any non-US citizen must be naturalized.
Yep, I agree. Some of these people are brainwashed. Some are being intentionally obtuse. It has become the beating of a dead horse.
Others seem to be actually reading the laws, thinking, and realizing that the brainwashed/obtuse crowd have had their comprehension skills sidelined by a neural over-ride of some kind.
bttt
If there if a natural right for the wife of a citizen father to automatically become a citizen then certainly there is a natural right for father of a citizen mother to automatically become a citizen.
Are you saying that because a foreign born wife can acquire citizenship through her marriage to her husband that a foreign born husband should have an equal right to acquire citizenship through his marriage to his wife?
Sorry, not trying to be obtuse, but you went from 'wife of a father' to 'father of a mother', so I not sure I really understand.
LOL! Sorry. post #236 was supposed to be to you, but I posted it to myself....and just noticed it!
Have you ever had someone repeat a lie to you a hundred times? Have you ever had someone continue to claim something that has been shown to be untrue and keep doing it?
Have you ever had someone so persistent in repeating slogans and propaganda that you became fed up with it?
If you have, then name calling makes perfect sense to you. There is simply no other reasonable way to deal with it.
How about just keeping your pie hole shut?
You will what? ROFL Did you think just any big word would do? Good grief. You really need to look up the meaning of words before you use them it seems to me.
Actually, I thought for quite a while attempting to find a different word, but no better substitute came to mind. Exacerbate means "to deliberately make things worse." It is exactly the sentiment I wished to convey, but could think of no better word to convey it. If you have a better term for "deliberately making things worse" let's hear it.
That’s quite a statement. Please show the post/posts where he did that please.
You really don't want to wade through them. If you really want a sample, just look through his posting history. He is constantly asserting that "Every authority in History agrees with me!" even when they don't. Actually, I had seriously considered compiling a whole series of examples of him saying this over and over and over again. I thought it would be quite funny to demonstrate (with links) how many times he keeps saying this. I might do it still.
And still, here you are. Evidently from your statement “pointlessly” trying to reason. Do you often do things you think are pointless?
If there is any reasoning being done in regards to posts directed at Jeff, it is intended as mockery of his irrationality.
Wow! Your ability to read minds must astound your friends and acquaintances.
Sometimes. But my ability to predict the future absolutely stuns them from time to time. It's actually easier than it looks. You see someone doing something stupid, it's not a hard prediction that it will turn out badly. That, and a little understanding of human nature certainly contributes to my accuracy.
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.