Posted on 09/05/2015 1:47:06 PM PDT by iowamark
sorry. re-reading your original, i would say that you are correct. if the law is required to define your citizenship, then you are not a natural born citizen
this is the easiest way to remember the definition:
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... as there are no alternatives
Obama was born on US soil (Hawaii) to a US citizen mother. Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, there is no precedent.
Who says?..
The Governor Of Hawaii for one :
“You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. It’s been established. He was born here.” —[former] Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI)
Tell it to the Courts.
There’s been 117 years for a ruling that differentiates a Citizen of the United States At Birth from a natural born citizen and that ruling has not yet been handed down.
In 1898 the federal government’s attorneys asked the Supreme Court to rule on: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”
“To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet be was not born subject to the ‘political jurisdiction’ thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”
Wong Kim Ark won his appeal.
And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. It’s been established.
The real issue is....
Is Obama A Natural born Traitor.... OR
...............A Foreign born Traitor................
I see it as a mute point.. the only answer is WHO CARES.?.
Fry the Son of a Bitch.. as quickly as it can be made legal to fry traitors again..
If he escapes to a foreign country go get his ass..
as for telling it to the courts, i don't have to. i can read the meaning from senate hearings from the one who proposed the amendment back in 1868:
btw, if you actually read the highlighted text, you'll understand how anchor babies are not citizens either... since their parents do not reside within a state and aren't under the jurisdiction of the US, as they're here illegally.
“i am in the same situation as your son. my allegiances were split at birth between the love of my birth country and that of my mother’s.”
You must have been super smart at birth to have allegiance (love) for two countries at that moment. Your mental state of love does not affect US citizenship law. You can keep both citizenships or you can relinguish one to have allegiance to only one country.
Cruz was brought here as a baby, grew up here and had no allegiance at all to Canada but he did give up that citizenship to Canada to remove all doubt as to his allegiance.
Cruz
When a baby is born it has no legal citizenship until the birth is legally recorded. Cruz's father did not contact Cuba to record his birth so he was never a legal citizen there. Every birth must be recorded to be legal. A hospital in the US will bring papers to the parents to fill out so the birth can be recorded.
My grandson's birth papers were filled out at the hospital in London that day AND at the American Embassy that day.
I had two birth certificates in Texas. My parents filled out a birth form for me on the day I was born in Texas. Those papers were sent to the Texas Records division and it was wrong as the Texas recorder misspelled my first name given to me. When my parents got the birth certificate, they had to contact the records dept. to get a new form and refile it with the correct spelling.
I may be the only person on FR who had two birth certificates from the same state.
as smart as the Founders expected... as anyone that grew up in a family would have some allegiances to the ancestral home country, especially for first generations.
but you knew that and were just being snarky. thanks for adding such valued input to FR.
I may be the only person on FR who had two birth certificates from the same state.
you have one birth certificate with a correction.
“you have one birth certificate with a correction.”
Cetainly I know that. Howeer, it was interesting it had to be done over.
The Supreme Court has ruled that every word in the Constitution has meaning.
Natural born citizen is three words. Adding ‘natural’ requires one must be something more than a born citizen.
Of course you can change the meaning just by putting a hyphen between natural and born. Then “natural-born” can be interpreted as nothing more than born a citizen.
Unfortunately for those making that argument, there’s no hyphen between those two words in the Constitution.
But I am watching with interest how many are sticking that hyphen in there to justify their position.
To me and the framers it is all about loyalty to a country other than the U.S. Cruz has a fixable problem. His situation was not explicitly contemplated at the time. His father was given political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out, he then got a green card. I believe that after Ted was born, the father became a citizen of Canada. And later (2005) became a citizen of the U.S. Though it was a torchered path for his father. I believe Ted Cruz’s loyalty to the U.S. is rock solid and that he has no loyalty to Cuba or Canada that would be placed above the U.S. Ted’s father was a legal resident of the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction. His mother was a full citizen and the location of birth is irrelevant.
You can reason and debate all you want, but there are some people who simply do not like Ted Cruz, for whatever facts you present they will have an answer. They are entitled.
Personally, I respect him and love his integrity, his tireless efforts (filibuster),his view for our country, his truthfulness (McConnell never said “I didn’t do that),his personal character, the whole package.
But those others are entitled to their opinions.
Ted Cruz was definitely a U.S. citizen at birth.
It is possible for U.S. citizen parents to transmit citizenship to their children depending on when the child was born and when the parents lived in the United States.
If the applicant was born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent:
The child was born between Dec 24, 1952 and Nov 14, 1986, then the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. ten years prior to the applicant’s birth, with five of those years occurring after the parent turned 14.
There were “birther” voices who were making all kinds of wild claims and used embarassing language to do it.
If Cruz or any candidate but Trump associates with those embarassing voices, that candidate will lose votes.
It’s like associating with some of the embarassing voices on illegal immigration. Guilt by association loses a lot more votes than it gains in most cases.
“Redefining” is your term, not mine. As the Supreme Court said in Minor v Happersett (1874): “The Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that. “
I am talking about subsequent RULINGS on the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” following the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
You can’t “redefine” what was never “defined.” If you can find a Supreme Court ruling, a lower court ruling or an action of Congress that differentiates between an Article II, Section 1 “Natural Born Citizen” and a 14th Amendment “Citizen of the United States at Birth,” please post those references and/or citations.
Six Justices of the Supreme Court disagreed with your point of view in 1898 and for the last 117 years, their opinion has held sway:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’.
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
“…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
It sounds to me like there was disagreement back then too. They start by stating the most stringent view. Everybody agrees that those people are natural born citizens, but then what about other categories (one citizen parent, born outside the USA, born here with no citizen parent)? But as they said, they didn’t have to answer that because the plaintiff belonged to the former group, so they didn’t.
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.