Posted on 01/09/2016 8:42:14 PM PST by randita
OTTUMWA, Iowa — Donald J. Trump sharply escalated his rhetoric about Senator Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president on Saturday, suggesting that because he was born in Canada there were unanswered questions about whether he met the constitutional requirement to be a “natural-born citizen.’’
“You can’t have a person who’s running for office, even though Ted is very glib and he goes out and says ‘Well, I’m a natural-born citizen,’ but the point is you’re not,†Mr. Trump said while campaigning in Clear Lake, Iowa.
Mr. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, to an American mother, which automatically conferred American citizenship. Most legal experts agree that satisfies the requirement to be a “natural-born citizen,’’ a term that was not defined by the founders.
Mr. Trump, who began raising questions about Mr. Cruz’s ability to be president earlier in the week, said on Saturday that Mr. Cruz would have to go to court to get a “declaratory judgment†about his eligibility “or you have a candidate who just cannot run.’’ (Mr. Cruz could need a judgment if someone filed a lawsuit to challenge his candidacy and a court agreed to take up the question.)
With polls showing the race in Iowa tightening, and Mr. Cruz leading Mr. Trump by 4 percentage points in a Fox News poll released on Friday, Mr. Trump has returned to an issue that first gained him notoriety years ago when he challenged President Obama’s citizenship.
On Saturday night, before the final stop on a six-day bus tour of Iowa, Mr. Cruz said: “Under longstanding federal law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.â€
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I guess you didn’t get the memo from the Cruz campaign ....
Cruz’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, has confirmed taking Canadian citizenship. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/
“I worked in Canada for eight years,” Rafael Cruz says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.”
The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005, 48 years after leaving Cuba. Why did he take so long to do it? http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration
The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of certain children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization: "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens".
This act was indeed superceded by subsequent acts in 1795 and 1802 and many others up until today, but I think the framers thought they had defined natural born citizen sufficiently to not have to repeat it in every law.
I read it with the intelligence and accuracy that you use when you read the Naturalization Act of 1790.
If you’re looking for a draft dodger, you need look no further than Donald Trump. After his student deferments ran out, daddy bought him a medical deferment, bone spurs in his foot, that magically disappeared when he was no longer in danger of the draft.
And that, as they say, is that. Nicely done. I will be quoting you.
You are implying that a natural born American woman would at that time in history have lost her US citizenship by marrying a foreign citizen while on American soil. Do you have any case law you can cite to prove that?
The memo you posted is what I was referring to when I said “Then when they came back to the US, only Ted’s dad had become Canadian.
Now Ted’s dad is a US citizen”
I’m voting for Ted.
The key phrase in the article is
“Mr. Trump has returned to an issue that first gained him notoriety years ago when he challenged President Obama’s citizenship.”
And that would be one of the first debate questions to Trump when he faces Hillary, why was Ted OK but you went after Obama relentlessly. Would it be a fair question?
Was Trump to remain silent on Ted when he beat the drum on Obama? There were many people on the FR board interested in this very issue during the 2008 presidential campaign. Do we think that the Democrats would give Trump or any other Republican a pass on the eligibility issue after all the time spend discussing Obama’s? Republican must be “racists”, if we are able to talk about Obama but ignore Cruz. /s
The hallmark of Trump’s campaign is illegal immigration and citizenship. Do we want to deport illegals? Yes. How do you determine who is a citizen at birth and who is not? That is the question. Wait until Trump and Cruz start “enforcing” the law and deporting... You are going to see this issue again. Cruz can only participate “with clean hands”.
“no one has STANDING. To have STANDING a plantiff must be able show the court that they have BEEN damaged, not maybe they are going to be damaged in the future.”
Hillary, if she gets the nomination will have standing if Cruz is the nominee.
The Republican Party could probably not give the nod to Ted based upon this issue. They certainly would have standing.
“Under current law, all male U.S. citizens are required to register with Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. In addition, non-U.S.-citizen males between the ages of 18 and 25 (inclusive) living in the United States must register. This includes permanent residents (holders of Green Cards), refugees, asylees, and illegal aliens”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System
I served during the Cold War/Vietnam Era. I was inducted during the peak month for the draft. In my basic training company, there were two Filipino guys, that got drafted while living in Guam. They were “legal resident aliens” of a US territory.
Thanks for the info. This is how it should be.
As to Rafeal Cruz, maybe they did not include Cuban citizens on a student visa. Once he was graduated as a Petroleum Engineer, he may have also been older than they were then drafting. Regardless of who, the Draft usually did not draft bonafide full-time college students.
By doing this I think Trump is consolidating support behind himself and Cruz in preparation for Trump/Cruz 2016.
No. He's not that smart.
Works for me though. Everyone will be tuning into the next debate looking for a bare-knuckles brawl between Trump and Cruz, who will be standing side-by-side.
Cruz will look presidential and Trump will be... Trump.
“the children of citizens of the United States
Citizens is plural .....
“Thanks for the info. This is how it should be.
As to Rafeal Cruz, maybe they did not include Cuban citizens on a student visa. Once he was graduated as a Petroleum Engineer, he may have also been older than they were then drafting. Regardless of who, the Draft usually did not draft bonafide full-time college students.”
Rafael Cruz graduated college in 1961 with a degree in mathematics, several years before the Vietnam draft ramped up.
So he would NOT have held a student deferment during the Vietnam era draft, but he would have been too old, having been born in 1939. Normally the draft ended at age 26 (or 1965 for Cruz).
This stuff isn’t brain surgery. It does not impress me that mother and father applied for Canadian citizenship. Why?
Thank you. Unfortunately,I will be absent today until very late. I wish these Cruz people would even consider the Constitution, but they are hell bent on destroying the Constitution because so-and-so (all of whom have a bone to pick) said so. The evidence (overwhelming to those students of history) is that Ted Cruz is not eligible. The loyalty issue was very strong in our Founding Fathers. They had reason to be wary of divided loyalties and to guard against it.
Good luck!
ALL of these rags are anti Trump!
“You’re the knot-head, refusing the definition of “natural born citizen” CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !”
When you use the terminology “knot-head”, you are using Red Herring fallacies such as:
Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient’s judgment.
and
Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh[1]), is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent’s argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration.
You then engage is more false argument by saying: “”You’re the knot-head, refusing the definition of “natural born citizen” CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !””
On the contrary, John Jay, George Washington, and the others made it quite clear they altered the original draft of the Constitution’s from citizen to natural born citizen clause to exclude persons born who acquired an allegiance to a foreign sovereign, such as the British sovereign, at birth and thereby become subject to the then prevailing common-law doctrine of perpetual allegiance from birth. They made use of the phrase, natural born citizen, from the reference they used daily during these sessions. The nature of at birth citizenship is also confirmed as another form of naturalization by Blackstone and Coke. There definitions of naturalization at birth is utilized by past and current U.S. Statutes. See:
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1150 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION; 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever.†For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:...(5) “Automatic†acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.
Some of these Constitutional experts attempt to denounce 7 FAM 1150 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION by reference to U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1130
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT; 7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalizationâ€. Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term “naturalization” means “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.” Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization. So, which of these apparently opposing State Department statements are correct? The actual U.S. Statute has this to say:
U.S. Code; Title 8; Chapter 12; Subchapter I; § 1101(a) As used in this chapter— (23) The term “naturalization†means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
At this point the debate devolves back to the question of whether or not “citizenship at birth” conferred after birth by the execution of a past or current U.S. Statutory law complies with the U.S. Code; Title 8; Chapter 12; Subchapter I; § 1101(a) definition? 7 FAM 1151 and the fact that the immigration of such persons is governed by the immigration and naturalization services functionally confirms the State Department rule: “Automatic†acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents. This is also reinforced by the fact such persons born abroad do not enjoy the same rights as a person born in the United States with two U.S. citizen parents, which latter persons the Supreme Court of the United States described as being without doubt natural born citizens, whereas those born abroad left remaining doubts.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 is often cited as some kind of conclusive evidence that a person born abroad with one U.S. citizen parent is a natural born citizen. Such conclusions are falsified by the very language of that Act. First, the Act required two U.S. citizen parents by stating “And the children of citizens of the United States....” Second, the phrase used to describe the type of citizenship was, “shall be considered as natural born citizens;” which is a clear statement that the person is not a natural born citizen, but will be made and accepted by a statute and not by natural law a naturalized at birth citizen with some but not all of the rights of an actual natural born citizen. This is the same type of difference embodied in the English Naturalization Act of 1541, Statute 33 henry VIII c.25: “Children of an English father who were born abroad shall be from henceforth reputed and taken king’s natural subject as lawful persons born within the Realm of England.” The jurist, Sir Edward Coke, later in 1608 described this form of acquiring citizenship as being “datus” or “made” after birth a statutory citizen at birth by manmade statutory law; whereas a true natural born subject was “natus” or “born” a citizen at birth by natural law without the need for a retroactive conferring of the at birth citizenship by a manmade statutory law. Unfortunately, attorneys and jurists have been arguing these definitions ever since the 19th Century, and too often so without reference to these defining legal precedents extending back to the Naturalization Act of 1541 and earlier.
““Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,†said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.”
Of course not, because the State Department manual describes how the conferring of the U.S. citizenship is conducted without going through the usual naturalization procedures due to the special naturalization status of a person born abroad with the right to claim U.S. citizenship or not. A natural born citizen enjoys rights a person who shall be considered as natural born citizen does not enjoy. The two citizens acquire citizenship by nature versus by statute, and the natural citizenship is acquired and recognized, whereas the statutory citizenship is acquired retroactively at birth by affirmative acts after birth.
“Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz.”
There is no evidence to support the bare assertion, “”Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz.” Even if there were such a majority of such legal scholars, such an argument constitutes the Red Herring fallacy known as the “Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.” (Wikipedia) The principal appeal to authority which does carry some authority are the written laws and statutes, case law precedents, judicial dicta, and legal treatises and references relied uon by the judiciary to prepare binding precedents in their decisions. As can be seen in the naturalization Act of 1790, usage of the legal and general dictionaries for defining the word phrase “considered as” as well as observing contemporaneous usage of the same and similar phrases in other statutes before and after 1790 finds the meaning to comprehend the “acceptance or to accept” something which is not of an actual quality in a manner comparable in some but not all respects to something else that is and has the actual quality. In other words, a person who is not an actual natural born citizen is to be “considered (accepted) as” a natural born citizen despite not being a natural born citizen. This is the same language and usage employed in another part of the naturalization Act of 1790 where it states a naturalized alien will be ‘considered (accepted) as” a citizen despite not actually being a citizen before the naturalization.
Time and again objections are raised to there being a reasoned discussion and argument about the subject of natural born citizenship, which is in total denial of the historical existence of such arguments occurring for more than a century in U.S. presidential politics and perhaps upwards for two centuries and longer in general. Respected legal scholars argued these issues with respect to Chester Arthur and again with respect to the Republican presidential candidacy of Charles Evans Hughes when Breckinridge Long argued in the Chicago Legal News in 1916 that Hughes was not a natural born citizen. These arguments are not going to be settled without recourse to the statutes and case law precedents being cited in these arguments or without an amendment to the Constitution after using these same citations to argue their formulations. Ted Cruz inherited a problem, and no amount of suppression of the contentious debate is going to resolve it anymore than Obama’s will be forgiven after he is out of office. The question must be confronted and confronted with diligent and reasoning argument that cannot be avoided no matter how convenient and desirable for other reasons it may be to attempt to do so.
Was Radar at the rally?
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.