"how children may obtain citizenship through their parents"
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 ...
Rafael Cruz...said he received a Green Card...I suppose that made him a resident.
Barack Obama Sr., wasn’t a permanent resident, it’s on his immigration record.
If true, and I believe it's likely, then Rubio's lawyers argument that 6 prior presidents weren't eligible is frivolous.
VISA records not immigration. He wasn’t an immigrant.
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes only the common law exceptions of children born to foreign diplomats, children born during hostile occupation and (the now irrelevant) children born to sovereign indigenous tribes. "Anchor babies" are still subject to U.S. laws and can be prosecuted and incarcerated for such. Unlike with "diplomatic immunity" (diplomats and their children truly are considered outside U.S. jurisdiction) the sanction is not limited simply to deportation.
Within the judiciary, that "anchor babies" are NBC isn't even really debated at this point. Consider:
Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. . . . .
* * * The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States. He also has relatives in Mexico." Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983).
IOW, the 14th amendment says more than "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
It does. But for purposes of my reply to the other poster simply demonstrating that "native born citizen" equals "natural born citizen," I didn't need to bother with the noted exceptions since such children are considered neither "native born citizens" nor "natural born citizens."
"how children may obtain citizenship through their parents"
Forget natural born, he isn’t even a citizen.
Chester Arthur was elected Vice President in 1880 and became Vice President and President in 1881. Wong Kim Ark and its decision occurred later on March 28, 1898, so it could not have made Chester Arthur a U.S. citizen when he was born of when he was inaugurated as President.
“Forget natural born, he isn’t even a citizen.”
Exactly. Deport his arse!
I don't think so, but so what? It doesn't affect the nature of the grant, and either way, the convoluted and wide-ranging operation of the grant is contrary to any sort of durable/immutable "naturalness."
Ahh...you are catching on, there is no “unless” involved.
Broadly speaking, there are two main ethoi that infuse American political and social efforts today. The first, is either de jure or de facto to provide American citizenship benefits to the inhabitants of the globe. Redistributing American wealth to the rest of the world is the goal of our politicians, oligarchs, elites and recent immigrants and many other citizens.
The second effort is to ensure the dominance of Islam as the controlling religious and political power.
Almost every action or explanation in public discourse can be tied to one of these two overarching, all encompassing activities.
This will continue, led by all parties. In your lifetime (or your children’s) you will see America bled dry and Islam victorious. Simply chart the velocity of change in all maters politic and social during the last few years and project it. The demographics are against us, the will to oppose is to weak and held by too few.
While D. Trump is the only elite that will speak to this, even if temporarily victorious, a pendulum once swung to the right will pass back through the center to the far left.
Respectfully, . . .
Even Levin now acknowledges birthright citizenship is a hoax.
“Was Rafael Cruz SR., “whose fathers have never been a resident”? “
Rafael Cruz was a U.S. Permanent Resident before he went to Canada. His subsequent acquisition of Canadian Permanent Resident status was supposed to cause the loss of his U.S. Permanent Resident status, but we have no information regarding whether or not Rafael Cruz or someone else notified U.S. immigration and naturalization authorities and any action was taken to revoke his U.S. Permanent Resident Green Card. Rafael Cruz also completed his required period as a Canadian Permanent Resident and acquired Canadian citizenship by naturalization.
A unique question arises in the event Eleanor Cruz went through the same steps at the same etime as her husband and also acquired Canadian citizenship at the same time. Many people keep their U.S. Passport and Canadian Passport without notifying the U.S. Government of their acquisition of dual citizenship claims. Although it is unlikely Eleanor would have acquired Canadian citizenship by the time of the birth of Tedd Cruz, if it did happen, it would present some novel problems with determining whether or not Ted Cruz should have been qualified to acquire U.S. citizenship with a mother who had acquired foreign citizenship in addition to U.S. citizenship.
Through a positive law passed by Congress?
Congress can only make naturalization laws.
Anyone relying on a law passed by Congress to establish their citizenship is screaming in your face they're a naturalized citizen.
“Rafael Cruz...said he received a Green Card...I suppose that made him a resident.”
Under U.S. law Rafael Cruz forfeited his status as a U.S. Permanent Resident when he became a Canadian Permanent Resident, and then again when he naturalized as a Canadian citizen. When and if the U.S. Government noted the change in his status and revoked his U.S. Permanent Resident status is not known. So far as we know Rafael Cruz simply may have not notified the U.S. Government about his Canadian Permanent Resident status and Canadian citizenship before using his original U.S. Permanent Resident status to apply for and acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization in 2005.
Agreed, you are correct...I mixed up the names.
Your claim that ‘they can be combined’.
It does not work that way.
Was Ted Cruz father never a US resident prior to his birth in Canada? Is that the condition?
The father must have US residency since birth to pass citizenship to his
child born abroad. Is that what Madison meant?
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.