Posted on 01/14/2016 11:29:42 AM PST by GIdget2004
Marco Rubio's lawyers are defending his eligibility to run for president in a quixotic legal challenge that alleges he isn't a natural-born citizen.
A Florida voter filed the suit, which claims that the senator isn't a true "natural-born citizen" under the Constitution because his parents were not both U.S. citizens at his birth in Miami.
The challenge occurs as 2016 rival Ted Cruz has been thrust into the spotlight by repeated "birther" challenges by party front-runner Donald Trump and other critics because the Texas senator was born in Canada.
So far, only Cruz has faced significant questions from those challenging his natural-born status. But the legal brief shows Rubio's lawyers trying to cut down the accusations at an early level.
The 34-page document, first disclosed by the Tampa Bay Times, casts aside the claim, noting that under the voter's logic "at least six other Presidents of the United States were not natural born citizens and were therefore ineligible for that office."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
“Was Ted Cruz father never a US resident prior to his birth in Canada? Is that the condition?”
Yes, the father, Rafael Cruz, was a U.S. Permanent Resident before the birth of Ted Cruz, but he should have legally forfeited that U.S. Permanent Resident Status due to his becoming a Canadian Permanent Resident prior to the birth of Ted Cruz. Either before or after the birth of Ted Cruz, the father, Rafael Cruz also acquired Canadian citizenship by naturalization.
“The father must have US residency since birth to pass citizenship to his child born abroad. Is that what Madison meant?”
I’m not sure what you mean by “US residency since birth.” Which Madison quotation do you have in mind?
Rafael Cruz was a resident of Cuba prior to Jr’s, birth in Canada.
The condition imposed...must never been a resident of US.
The father must never have residency in another country this would include Cuba.
If the father is a transient in Canada...that’s not a foreign residency.
If a father was always a US resident he can meet the conditions to pass citizenship child born abroad.
“Rafael Cruz was a resident of Cuba prior to Jr’s, birth in Canada.
Rafael Cruz was a Cuban citizen when Ted Cruz was born, unless he was naturalized as a Canadian citizen before the birth. At present it appears Rafael Cruz acquired his Canadian citizenship after the birth of Ted Cruz, but it is not proven at this time.
“The condition imposed...must never been a resident of US.”
Which and whose condition?
“The father must never have residency in another country this would include Cuba.”
Rafael was a natural born citizen of Cuba and used a Cuban passport and his U.S. Permanent Resident Green Card until he received his Canadian Permanent Resident Card before the birth of Ted Cruz.
“If the father is a transient in Canada...that’s not a foreign residency.”
Rafael was not a transient in Canada. Rafael Cruz became a Canadian Permanent Resident with a Cuban passport before the birth of Ted Cruz. Before Rafael Cruz became a Canadian Permanent Resident, he had the Cuban Passport and the U.S. Permanent Resident Green Card. He may or may not have surrendered his U.S. Permanent Resident Green Card upon becoming a Canadian Permanent Resident.
An alien must meet conditions and not otherwise. Rafael Cruz does not meet the conditions. He was a permanent resident of Cuba and Canada.
Have never been resident in he United States
Why the hell are you bringing up those old laws? None of them are relevant, or active, today. They’ve been written over (repealed by newer laws) at least a dozen times.
You don’t know me or my type - I can guarantee you that.
And with that Las Vegas Ron finishes a conversation without having personally said a thing about the issue we were supposedly talking about.
“Susan Carlson’s piece is a joke. I know that you don’t know me, or my background and experience, but her piece is a gross misrepresentation of the case.”
But you see that is where there is a controversy. Some people agree with you, but many also don’t. You may dismiss her and others like her, but others don’t. The whole fact that there is a controversy means that it is not settled. I offer you another bipartisan opinion on this to underscore my argument: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
“Do you think natural born citizenship can (constitutionally) be stripped by an act of Congress?”
No I don’t think that. But I don’t even know why you’re going down that road - as I understand it Bellei was stripped of his citizenship because he never came back to the US, something that Cruz did.
“If the source is a statute, he is not a natural born citizen, he is a naturalized citizen.”
And that is where you and I (and a lot of other people) disagree. Believe it or not, I actually am not a full-fledged Cruz supporter (I’m currently undecided in the GOP primary), but I disagree with this treatment and do you know why? You mentioned earlier that I don’t know you or your experience, but the same can be said of me. One of the reasons I think it’s terribly unfair for Ted Cruz - who has lived as an American and a public servant - to be treated this way is because in the past I lived overseas for many years and realize just how many Americans would be mistreated by this interpretation of the Constitution. (It’s not something for me personally as I am American-born to American parents - heck, I can trace some of my ancestors back to the 1600s in Colonial America) But children of diplomats, military families, missionaries, etc, etc are all mistreated by this strict letter-rather-than-spirit-of-the-law interpretation.
An example I offer is Bruce Willis, the all-American tough guy who is in the exact same situation as Ted Cruz: born in a foreign country to a foreign mother and an American father. It sounds kind of silly to say that Willis is not a natural born citizen and thus ineligible to be president. I know he’s not running but still it’s something to think about and to realize how many people are in this category.
Put simply, I don’t think that you personally realize how many people there are that are marginalized by your side’s interpretation of the Constitution. Indeed, you seem quite unbothered by that. I find that rather disconcerting.
“I don’t care if you are satisfied with the authorities cited. I don’t care if you are wrong. I have no interest in arguing with you. I have nothing further to say to you.”
Now sit back and try to view that statement from my perspective and see how arrogant that sounds.
I am open to seeing it from other people’s points of view, but I have also found a lot of opposition to your position. I have also found people interpreting what you say in a totally different way. I think that qualifies as a controversy and shows that this issue needs to be resolved in the courts. I just can’t see how it’s settled, as you say.
Cruz claims his father was a US resident., citing 1790. Cruz brought up the “old laws”.
Ask Cruz why he brought up old laws.
The problem with all this analyzing and re-analyzing is that it forgets that post-Obama none of these rules seem to apply anymore. He’s been so lawless that an illegal immigrant could probably win the presidency and not be challenged. That’s one of the reasons this whole thread is actually quite silly and pointless. Sadly, Obama has fundamentally changed America.
A child of an American citizen as a general rule. A family might be caught up in the imprecision of state department regs. I know of a case where the unaccompanied wife of a GI had a child in Landstuhl hospital and it took a private bill to cut through the regs and get a passport for the child.
Rafael acquired citizenship, I think, after his wife went back to the states. There was a separation.
He was a legal resident of the US before going to Canada.
“This form of naturalization at birth of a child born abroad with an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother was under the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Persons acquiring U.S. citizenship by statutory act are by definition naturalized U.S. citizens, and they are not and cannot possibly be natural born citizens that do not acquire citizenship by statutory acts.”
I have not seen one shred of evidence that a person can be automatically “naturalized” at birth. If citizenship is conferred at birth, then the child is a natural born citizen.
The Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land. Do you propose that the Constitution grants natural born citizenship? Do you propose that citizenship itself exists in nature and is not a legal construct?
I have heard your argument before, but it fails to explain how the same men who ratified the Constitution in 1788, enacted the first law of naturalization in 1790 (18 months later) and in it specified exactly who would be a “natural born citizen”. Your position would essentially mean this part of the act is unconstitutional. That’s a hard pill to swallow. Here is what it said:
United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790
Titled: “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”
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.
The plainest, simplest, most consistent definition of natural born citizen is a person who receives citizenship at birth. This may be either through being born in the land or being born to a parent who is a citizen, according to the applicable law of naturalization enacted by Congress which is within its Constitutional purview. Being a natural born citizen means he or she does not have to go through a process called “naturalization” in order to become a citizen. Every other definition and explanation I have seen requires logical backflips to reach some predetermined conclusion.
“An alien must meet conditions and not otherwise. Rafael Cruz does not meet the conditions. He was a permanent resident of Cuba and Canada.”
Incorrect, because the statute you copied was repealed in an earlier century. The acquisition of citizenship by Ted Cruz was governed by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952.
“I have not seen one shred of evidence that a person can be automatically “naturalized†at birth. If citizenship is conferred at birth, then the child is a natural born citizen.”
Then you have failed to read most of the threads on FR concerning this subject, because I have literally posted direct quotations from the State Department and the U.S. Code from which I took that wording more times than I can count. For you, I’ll post some of it here yet again. Note where it says: “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....” See:
66 Stat. Public Law 414 - June 27, 1952
TITLE III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
Chapter 1 - Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization
NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; . . .
(7) 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 ten years, at lest five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
The equivalent present day statute is:
U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY. Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY. Subchapter III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION. Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization. § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ... (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 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.
“The Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land.”
That is not quite correct, because Natural Law is the supreme law for all of Humanity as it was acknowledged in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment recognizes Free Speech as an inalienable Human right and the Second Amendment recognizes the right of self defense and to keep and bear arms to do so are inalienable human rights that are protected by the Constitution, but they are not and can never be granted by the Constitution. Natural Law holds these inherent Human rights are beyond the jurisdiction of the Constitution to grant or deny. The Constitution can only protect and defend those inherent Human rights.
“Do you propose that the Constitution grants natural born citizenship?”
Of course the Constitution does not grant natural born citizenship. The Constitution has no power to grant a natural right that already manifests in a person by Nature and is described by Natural Law.
“Do you propose that citizenship itself exists in nature and is not a legal construct?”
Natural born citizenship exists in Nature and by natural law, whereas statutory citizenship exists in statutory law such as naturalization, which is positive law and a legal fiction.
“I have heard your argument before, but it fails to explain how the same men who ratified the Constitution in 1788, enacted the first law of naturalization in 1790 (18 months later) and in it specified exactly who would be a “natural born citizenâ€.”
the Naturalization Act of 1790 did not say “it specified exactly who would be a “natural born citizenâ€. On the contrary, it stated, “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:....” As set forth in the Naturalization Act of 1541, Calvin’s Case 1608 by Sir Edward Coke, and the Naturalization Act of 1730; the children were alien born and were to be naturalized at birth and henceforth to be “considered as” if they were born with some but not all of the same rights and duties as an actual natural born subject. No matter how anyone tries to twist the wording, going back to the origins of the terms and their usage reveals the purpose, intent, and practice was to naturalize the alien born, meaning born under an allegiance to a foreign sovereign, and making (datus) them by the positive law of statutes a person able to exercise some of the same rights and duties as an actual natural born subject or subject-born (natus) (citizen) person. What you are trying to claim is a description of a natural born citizen is in fact the exact opposite, a person who is being naturalized at birth to be considered as if they were an actual natural born citizen. If you want to refuse to believe this, then go back to the cited cases and naturalization laws to see how they described this very means of describing the making of a child born abroad into a citizen. Also note how royalty and diplomats were exempt from this requirement for naturalization at birth, because they were never out of the allegiance of their own sovereign while sojourning in the domain of a foreign sovereign.
“Here is what it said:”
That is about like hauling coals to Newcastle or trying to tell your own grandmother how to chew tobacco and spit into the heating stove. After more than a half century working on these laws and the eligibility issue since I was tasked with writing a paper on the subject during the Goldwater campaign in the 1964 election, You could fairly say I have more than a nodding acquaintance with them and this subject matter.
“The plainest, simplest, most consistent definition of natural born citizen is a person who receives citizenship at birth.”
No, because it is exactly contrary to natural law and to positive law. Your statement reveals that you are not acquainted with the basics of this subject that many of us have been describing and explaining in voluminous detail of FR in recent days, weeks, months, and years. To save my time and effort, which are not limitless, I’ll suggest you search out our previous discussions on FR and get up to speed with the arguments and primary sources and legal citations we have been using. When you’ve become well acquainted enough to understand what we are talking about, I will be happy to answer some questions from that point.
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.