[WhiskeyX]

“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 “Naturalization”. 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.

[Yosemitest]

"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."

BULL !
And a sidenote:

You really should "PREVIEW" your post to clean up all those html errors from a simple "copy and paste".
A little formatting, adding indentations and a few breaks starting new lines might help us to understand your comments.

NOW THE LAW IS CLEAR,
and continuing with more legal action on the "natural born citizen" definition would only screw up the CLEAR DEFINITION that our FOUNDING FATHERS GAVE US.



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

As Hans von Spakovsky wrote in his Commentary "An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":

... The Constitution, federal law, and the historical understanding of the Framers, as well as prior British legal traditions and law, all support this view.
In a recent article in the Harvard Law Review, two former U.S. Solicitor Generals, Paul Clement (who served under President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (who served under President Barack Obama) stated:

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning:
namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth
with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that,
subject to certain residency requirements on the parents,
someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Thus, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be eligible to run for president
because the Austrian native had to go through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen.

Certainly the Framers of the Constitution held this view of “natural born” citizen.
They had a deep understanding of British common law and applied its precepts, particularly as explained in Blackstone’s Commentaries, throughout the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama (1888) recognized that
“the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that
its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law,
and are to be read in the light of its history.”

Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States
if the American people make that choice.

One of those precepts of British law was
that children born to British citizens anywhere in the world,
even outside the dominions of the British Empire,
were “natural born” citizens of the Empire
who owed their allegiance to the Crown.
This historical understanding is explained in great detail by the Supreme Court in a well-known 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

The First Congress, which included many of the Framers of the Constitution, codified this view of a natural born citizen.
A mere three years after the Constitution was drafted, they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790,
which specified that the children of U.S. citizens born
“out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
The modern version of this Act is found at 8 U.S.C. §1401.
It contains a list of all individuals who are considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
Paragraph (g) includes:

A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien,
and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions
for a period or periods totaling not less than five years,
at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. 

Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970;
his mother, who was a U.S. citizen by birth from Delaware, was in her 30s at the time.
She met Cruz’s father, who was born in Cuba, as a student at Rice University.
These facts show that
Cruz’s family background clearly meets the standard set out in the federal statute for being a natural born citizen who did not have to go through any naturalization process to become a citizen.;
That was also the case for Senator Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state,
and Governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico.

The bottom line is that Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States if the American people make that choice.
The same is true of my wife, who was born in Manila.
Her father, whose family had been in America since shortly after the Pilgrims got to Massachusetts,
was temporarily working abroad for an American company—just like Ted Cruz’s father.

My wife is not likely to run for president,
but there is no question that she—like Ted Cruz, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain—is eligible to be president
and to swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”


Hans A. von Spakovsky is a a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department lawyer. 
He is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk”(Encounter 2012)
and  “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside 2014).


The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it , too ( even though it DOES NOT APPLY) !
United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

And 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: 
Provided, that
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.