Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Simple-Minded Reading of the Constitution on the Subject of Citizenship
vanity | 1/16/2016 | Self

Posted on 01/16/2016 5:15:49 PM PST by John Valentine

I shall show that the Constitution contemplates two types of Citizen: those that acquire their citizenship at birth and those who acquire their Citizenship at a later time. The first are referred to in the Constitution as 'natural born' and the second is a class of citizen not specifically named but implied and are those we consider 'naturalized citizens.'

The word 'citizen' including derivative forms appears only eleven times in the Constitution. We shall look at each instance and derive what is possible from each usage and instance. By the end, I hope to have exhaustively shown that within the 'four corners' of the Constitution, two and only two types or classes of citizen are identified or implied: citizens by birth and citizens by naturalization. There is no third subset of citizen to be differentiated from among the two classes of citizen identified or implied in the Constitution.

 

Instance 1: Article I, Section 2, Clause 2

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility to membership in the Untied States House of Representative. They are:

1.     Age of at least 25 years

2.     A citizen of the United States for at least 7 years

3.     An inhabitant of the state from which elected

Notice, please, that the citizenship requirement requires fewer years than does the age requirement. This fact requires acceptance of the notion that an individual can become a citizen at some time long after being born, and implies things about citizenship: first that individuals can be citizens, and second that there can be a time in the life of the individual before the individual became a citizen.

This is important: there is nothing in this clause that says or implies anything about citizenship by birth.

 

Instance 2: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility to membership in the Untied States Senate. They are:

1.     Age of at least 30 years

2.     A citizen of the United States for at least 9 years

3.     An inhabitant of the state from which elected

Notice, please, that the citizenship requirement again requires fewer years than does the age requirement. This fact requires acceptance of the notion that an individual can become a citizen at some time long after being born, and implies things about citizenship: first that individuals can be citizens, and second that there can be a time in the life of the individual before the individual became a citizen.

This is important: there is nothing in this clause that says or implies anything about citizenship by birth.

 

Instances 3 and 4: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility for service as President of the Untied States. They are:

1.     Age of at least 35 years

2.     A natural born citizen of the United States or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

3.     Resident within the United States for at least 14 years

Notice here that a different citizenship requirement is established: in fact, two alternative requirements. We need not concern ourselves with the second, which concerns the Framer's generation and has no application to anyone alive today.

As to the first we see that the citizenship requirement has no specific requirement for its duration. Instead, it refers to a citizenship deriving from the circumstances of birth.

This is a distinctly different citizenship requirement than those for the House of Representatives or Senate. The citizenship requirements for the House of Representatives and Senate could encompass the same class of citizen contemplated by the requirement for Presidential eligibility. We do know that historically individuals have served both in the Senate and as President so the requirements cannot be mutually exclusive.

Logically, we can conclude that the citizenship requirement for eligibility to the Presidency would also be sufficient to establish eligibility for the House of Representatives and Senate.

Thus far there are two classes of citizen established or implied by the language of the Constitution: (1) a class of citizen (natural born) which is derived by the circumstances of birth and which suffices to establish the citizenship component for eligibility for membership in the House of Representatives and Senate, and for service as President, and (2) another class of citizenship which does not depend on the circumstances of birth and can be acquired many years after the birth of an individual and which suffices to establish the citizenship component for eligibility for membership in the House of Representatives and Senate, but not for service as President.

For clarity, going forward I will refer to these two classes of citizen as follows:

As to the first class, these are 'natural born'

As to the second class, these are 'naturalized'

This is important: Thus far there is no third class of citizenship discussed, implied or established within the four corners of the Constitution.

 

Instances 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9: Article III, Section 2, Clause 5

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States,— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

This clause does not establish a further class of citizen. As for the first four instances mentioned in this clause, these by implication refer to the classes of citizen mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 and in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3; that is, those mentioned above as natural born or naturalized. As for the fifth instance, this refers to a citizens of a foreign State and therefore not relevant to this discussion.

This is important: Nothing in this clause references or establishes a third class of citizenship.

 

 

Instances 10 and 11: Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

This clause, too, does not establish a further class of citizen, and the two instances mentioned in this clause, by implication refer to the classes of citizen mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 and in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3; that is those mentioned above as natural born or naturalized.

 

Thus we have exhausted every mention of the word citizen and all its derivative forms, plural, etc. that are found in the Constitution of the United States.

It is demonstrated that there are only two classes of citizen established within the Articles, Sections and Clauses of the Constitution.

These classes are:

1.     natural born

2.     naturalized

All citizens must belong to one of these classes. If a citizen is not naturalized only one other possibility has been identified: natural born. All citizens are either naturalized or natural born; there is not other possibility.

Obviously, this analysis will categorize any citizen acquiring citizenship by birth as natural born. Some argue that only SOME citizens acquiring citizenship by birth are to be classed as natural born. They claim that other citizens acquiring citizenship by the circumstances of their birth are a subset of naturalized citizen.

But, all such arguments must be based on suppositions, presumptions and hypotheses that are extraneous to the Constitution itself, for as I have exhaustively shown, the Constitution itself creates no such category of citizen.

I also submit that unless the Constitution is inherently impossible of interpretation or understanding based on its own terms, such extraneous references must not be permitted, or may sometimes be permitted with little weight as set against the Constitution’s own clear provisions.

I submit that all the fevered and tortured bending and twisting, and all the references to this and that while perhaps entertaining are essentially nothing more than a diversion.

The Constitution itself is clear. It establishes two classes of citizen; those that have become citizens through the process of naturalization, and those who are citizens by birth, that is the natural born citizens.

There is no third class of citizen.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: citizen; constitution; cruz2lose; natural; naturalborncitizen; naturalized
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-302 next last
To: Cboldt

[[I still think the court will do some mumbo-jumbo and dodge it....The ways they dodge are “it’s up to congress to evaluation the qualifications”, ]]

Well that could be too- IF it gets ignored by the SC then the issue will always be a millstone around Ted’s Neck- whether it will be too damaging or not, remains ot be seen, but given the bulldog determination of the left to crucify their opponents, I’m predicting non stop assault on him over this (They will simply ignore SC ruling and keep after him IF the SC takes it up, claiming the SC ‘isn’t following the constitution’- but they will be especially vicious if the SC doesn’t take it up)


281 posted on 01/19/2016 10:42:55 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

[[consider that the Framers might have intentionally designed this language with some flexibility in meeting their true intent.]]

I think that one statement alone pretty much sums up the divide on this issue- it is what separates the “original intent of the framer’s’ argument and those who argue that the founders had british law of ‘natural born subjects’ in mind when crafting the constitution and allowing for later definitions/clarifications of the term ‘citizen’ (or more specifically NBC or native born citizen)

That I think is the impasse in this issue- the ‘original intent’ proponents don’t consider the possibility that the framers had british law in mind regarding NBC


282 posted on 01/19/2016 10:44:16 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

Cruz knows he can’t afford a court ruling on the merits.


283 posted on 01/19/2016 10:47:52 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

[[Cruz knows he can’t afford a court ruling on the merits.]]

Are you suggesting he knows his case has no legal grounds to support his right to run? Or simply that a court case would damage him even if the courts ruled in his favor? If the latter, then I agree- if the former, then what do you base that on? Anything He’s said in public? He seems to think, according to his statements, that he is on solid ground legally (Yes, of course people will say such things even when they don’t honestly believe it- but I have little reason at this point to think he believes his case is doomed and is just putting up a good front)

It’s an ugly situation all around- and oen that perhaps should be clarified, if possible, by SC, IF it’s even the duty of the SC to do so- some say it’s up to congress to declare such things, not the SC- I don’t know where I stand on that issue though as I don’t know enough about which group is responsible for changing the definition, and which could rule or find the other one hasn’t the right to interfere-

Blah- a tangled web-


284 posted on 01/19/2016 11:12:14 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Bob434
-- Are you suggesting he knows his case has no legal grounds to support his right to run? --

Yes, exactly that. He is a smart guy, and this is an easy case. The public is obviously and naturally confused (all those articles posing as accurate).

How do I know it? I don't for sure, but he's not stupid and this is a show stopper, he had to look it up, and the case law slam-dunk cuts against him. Of course he smile when he tells the big lie. It's key to the bluff.

I think he has a character flaw - and I would NEVER say that without a good basis. It's possible he's telling a white lie, with an end result that Obama's time in office is found improvidently taken - making Obama officially a usurper for all of history. If that's the case, I will gladly and without reservation retract my "character flaw" thought, and will turn a 180 and praise Cruz for risking disgrace on himself, to expose a larger one.

285 posted on 01/19/2016 11:23:55 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

[[It’s possible he’s telling a white lie, with an end result that Obama’s time in office is found improvidently taken - making Obama officially a usurper for all of history. If that’s the case, I will gladly and without reservation retract my “character flaw” thought, and will turn a 180 and praise Cruz for risking disgrace on himself, to expose a larger one.]]

Wow- talk about a chess move- That would be a stunning intended result and kudos to him if he did this for that reason

I’m not sure I’m convinced he thinks He’ll lose though- but who knows- perhaps he does- Perhaps He’s even developed an argument to undo the SC creation of a third criteria for citizenship via naturalization which undid the common understanding of NBC previously-


286 posted on 01/19/2016 12:05:59 PM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Bob434
Forget that third form, what you might call "probationary citizenship." It no longer exists under any Act of Congress.

-- I'm not sure I'm convinced he thinks He'll lose though --

There is some merit to that. It's entirely possible for the courts, press and Congress to let the mistake fly under the radar. If nobody makes a stink about it, Cruz becomes the first US president who was OPENLY a naturalized citizen to those who know. The public would be (as it is today) hoodwinked.

But if a court takes it up on the merits, it is highly unlikely the courts would not find him naturalized. About as likely as finding polygamous marriage in the constitution, hiding right next to homo marriage.

287 posted on 01/19/2016 12:32:28 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Please explain further. My initial reaction is that a statute isn’t really the constitutional standard its would just be another way to naturalization. So maybe there is a way to be de facto naturalized without taking any affirmative steps, but how does this bear on Cruz? Is he naturalized? I doubt he would be out there if his paper trail let to a document that said he was naturalized.


288 posted on 01/19/2016 12:55:49 PM PST by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
A person can become a citizen of the US by the terms of the constitution. Art IV, Sec, 2, or the 14th amendment.

The "naturalized" bucket is the place where Congress exercises its enumerated power to naturalize -to make citizens of person who are not citizens under (roughly) "born in the US"

Congress has passed a slew of naturalization laws. Some of these include a naturalization ceremony, some naturalize automatically. Congress can pass any manner of naturalization law, there are many of them, and some are pretty complicated. It can naturalize people who are now living, with or without a naturalization ceremony/ It can naturalize people at birth, which is always without a naturalization ceremony.

Cruz was not born in the US, nor was he born the citizen of any state. So, his citizenship is in that third bucket, naturalized. And there is an Act of Congress that attaches citizenship to a person born abroad of one citizen parent. He did not participate in a naturalization ceremony, he was an infant!

Whether there is a paper trail or not is irrelevant. The facts establish the conclusion.

FWIW, Cuba has a citizenship law with a similar function as the US law. At the moment of his birth, Cuba had the same claim on Ted that the US did. Born abroad of one citizen parent. For Cuba, the parent is Ted's father.

289 posted on 01/19/2016 1:16:46 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Ted Cruz isn’t a 14th Amendment citizen.


290 posted on 01/19/2016 7:05:33 PM PST by bushpilot2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt; John Valentine; FR_addict; deport; Yaelle; nascarnation; ConservativeMind; kiltie65; ...
John Valentine said;

Cboldt replied;

The only portion of J. Valentine's above statement which could reasonably enough be seen as "false", is the word "never", (although a particular "part h" found at the second below link could possibly rescue that due to being retro-actively applied from time of it's adoption, but I digress on that 'rescue' possibility, it being neither here nor there necessary in order to make the case for my own assertions, and for J. Valentine's assertion to be correct, other than that one word "never").

It is also here Cboldt's entire argument could be said to rise or fall upon the same point (in opposition to the point).

Yet although when hearkening back to cases such as Wong Kim Ark one may possibly find inclusion of persons being described as considered to be "naturalized at birth", what is more authoritatively bearing upon the point when applied to Senator's Cruz's own circumstance, is just what the operative law of the land at the time of Senator Cruz's own birth was...

The below definition, operative since 1952, of what it means to be naturalized is; From 8 U.S. Code § 1101 - Definitions

Further controlling legal authority, which is narrowly, most precisely applicable to the circumstances & details of Senator Cruz's birth (as best those now be commonly known) from;

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(g) 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

Thus it may be deduced that the law does establish that persons born abroad of citizen parents (at least since 1952, that is) do not derive their citizenship by way of being quote-unquote "naturalized", but instead are citizens from birth acquiring that citizenship most directly from a parent or parents -- thus absolutely not considered "naturalized" at birth, or yet needful of further naturalization at some time after birth, notwithstanding the ability to lose citizenship status thus acquired from a parent, by birth (acquired for reason of being born to a United States citizen -- not due to some act of naturalization) if one is born abroad, and during the time-frame stipulated under U.S. code does not fulfill the prescribed residency requirements.

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

291 posted on 02/13/2016 6:22:22 PM PST by BlueDragon (TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

I’m busy and don’t have time to reply at length with quotes. However, you should stop using the wrong statute in support of your arguments as a starting point. I’ve already quoted the correct statute numerous times for all of you from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Although you folks keep denying it, the naturalization law naturalizes citizens and cannot possibly make a person eligible for natural born citizenship by changing the law to make the mother the source of the U.S. citizenship. That is something that can only be accomplished when making a person eligible for naturalized citizenship.

When I get some more time later, I’ll also show you how Ted Cruz may not even be a lawful U.S. citizen of any kind. It appears he may have acquired his U.S. passport by fraudulent representations. More on that topic later.


292 posted on 02/13/2016 8:13:39 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

There can only be A< single "right one" if sound legal basis can established for setting aside portions of the code which do speak simply, directly and explicitly.

Although there may be some way that what I've been arguing not be sufficient to reach the now absent from within the codifications of laws pertaining to citizenship and naturalization, the phrase "natural born citizen" a mother can indeed be the source for a person being born a citizen.

Born a citizen, not some fantasy of being "naturalized at birth".

The "born a citizen only according to statute" line of argument fails.

I used to be persuaded by that and other extreme views, but long before Cruz came into national view I had examined arguments to that effect (including the claim there was significant difference between being born a citizen and being "natural born citizen") and had finally come to the place of rejecting that extreme "birthism" argument.

One is either born a citizen, or else to become a citizen must undergo naturalization some time after one is born, much as the legal definition of just what it means to be "naturalized" explicitly states.

You say the code (codes, I cited a pair of passages from U.S.C. 8) which I cited are "the wrong" ones.

Whatever else you may have, may well somehow apply, yet to rightfully apply (as you think it must?) and to set aside what I just cited AT THE SAME TIME is going to be a neat trick.

Every attempt I've seen so far has fell short of doing that, though not for lack of people trying their damnedest to force everybody to sorta-kinda- read in-between the lines, or to read from dissenting inapplicable dicta in only the ways they want people to.

293 posted on 02/13/2016 8:55:28 PM PST by BlueDragon (TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Evidently you are simply too dense to understand the plain English language. You quoted a statute and a paragraph that did not exist when Ted Cruz was born on 22 December 1970. I quoted the statute that did exist and was applicable to Ted Cruz when he was born. The wording of those two statutes are not the same, and the later statute changed the wording to refere to the mother of the child. The prior statute only referred to the citizen parent, not the mother. The least you could do is learn how to read and understand the statute you quote and refrain from the false remarks and using the wrong statute.

Prior to the Cable Act of 1922 a child born abroad with a U.S. citizen mother and a foreign father did not acquire naturalized U.S. citizenship and did not acquire U.S. natural born citizenship. The child did not acquire U.S. citizenship of any kind. The U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), made it clear a statute such as the Cable Act 1922 cannot amend the Constitution to make a person who was not a natural born citizen before 1922 into a natural born citizen in 1970. Nor can the statute change the fact the U.S. Supreme court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark correctly observed a child born abroad cannot acquire U.S. citizenship by any means other than naturalization, except when under the protection of diplomatic immunity. Your claims make no sense whatsoever because it creates contradictions throughout the entire historical record.


294 posted on 02/13/2016 9:39:37 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Yes! Naturalization is pretty much the heart of the matter.

Natural born is undeniably birth by married mother and father citizen parents while in the US or its territories. At which point does removing, relocating, or altering any of those variables does the child lose its natural born status and become naturalized?

I should think it will be easier to find legal precedence for naturalization than natural born for all of the possible variables. By JV’s process of elimination method it should be possible to then show where no precedence of naturalization exists for a give combination of variables which can only be interpreted as being natural born.


295 posted on 02/13/2016 11:17:54 PM PST by xander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: xander

give=given


296 posted on 02/13/2016 11:20:42 PM PST by xander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Actually, according to the notes that can be accessed here as I understood those to be, and even as others have been arguing here while asserting that Cruz is not citizen by birth, etc., what I quoted from

(g) was inclusive of what was enacted in 1952, although according to "notes", having had some following amendment;

which I do not believe would disqualify Senator Cruz from being recognized as citizen at birth.

You may have elsewhere, but not to myself in this conversation, so far, so your previous, opening claim here;

is based upon nothing in evidence so far, other than what you may have posted on some other thread...

Statements such as this, which are rather representative of key portion of what you appear to be contending;

I've looked at that recently, yet don't recall the specific language and context which would lead to the Supreme Court having said "cannot acquire U.S. citizenship by any means other than naturalization" etc., and have that apply decades later without exception, after Congress had introduced changes, and yet later amendment to those same changes of the laws which DID stipulate exceptions to the likes of that claim arising as it did from the 14th Amendment (yet without negating the 14th Amendment, thus be unconstitutional).

Bellie was not a 14th Amendment citizen (born in 1939), the Court noted in Rogers v Bellei (1971), as they explained while distancing the decision the majority handed down there from needing narrowly follow precedent arising from myriad previous Supreme Court decisions, Wong Kim Ark included. So as the saying goes, and I'll say to objections arising from Wong Kim Ark; that dog don't hunt.

Here is why;
The Wong Kim Ark case was prior to the changes which were enacted inclusive of from the year 1934.

Constitutional authority for Congress to make laws regulating citizenship and immigration was challenged in Rogers v Bellei by Bellei, and found by the majority to be Constitutional, thus those provisions binding upon Bellei who was also found by the majority (they made particular mention) was not a 14th Amendment citizen, although having been a citizen from birth nonetheless (through maternal parentage of U.S. citizen) yet was still subject to the provisions enacted by Congress into law stipulating residency requirements applicable to a mother who was herself a citizen, and further residency requirements for offspring born (by a citizen mother) abroad to a non-citizen father.

From Rogers v Bellei under IV 3) the majority of the Court concurring with this;

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 169 U. S. 688. Then follows a most significant sentence:

That is part of what makes Wong Kim Ark not specific to Cruz's situation, as it was not for Bellei, thus the lanquage arising based upon the 14th be inapplicable, that having needed Congress to act in remedy of the situation faced by persons born under conditions not addressed by the 14th Amendment.

This is not about Marbury v. Madison, or the Cable Act of 1922 amending the Constitution, either, as far as I can tell, unless there be some vehicle within those which can and does supersede later arising changes in the law, rendering those be unconstitutional, if not otherwise else repealed by Congress.

Not really.

There were changes made within laws regulating citizenship and immigration. Those are where the apparent contradictions come from -- not from merely my own recognition of those changes.

As the majority in Rogers v Bellei published in 1971, under;

beginning there with the 1870 law, they went through the changes step-by-step, revealing all along the way the various changes that could be seen to introduce the contradictions you just mentioned, yet those same contradictions that had been introduced through changes of legislation there was no challenge towards, but instead (and this is the crux of the matter) were validated as being Constitutional, ending as it all did inclusive of considerations for application of the change within the law introduced in 1934 which made maternity equal to paternity in regards to conveyance of citizenship upon children born abroad of parents only one of whom was a U.S. citizen.

Quoting (below) from immediately following V from within the majority verdict;

V

It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born, and, at the same time, to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship. Of course, Congress obviously felt that way, too, about the two expatriation provisions invalidated by the decisions in Schneider and Afroyim.

That was in regards to when Congress got around to having made those changes, not inclusive of those times such as between 1802 and 1855 wherein a child born to citizen parents abroad was considered to be "alien" at birth, thus requiring some form a naturalization process in order to become a U.S. citizen.

That time period it should be noted was different from between the years 1790 and 1795 when, as the Court did "review" in Rogers v Bellei

IV

The statutes culminating in § 301 merit review:

1. The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution's Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,

Can you see now that the changes were being portrayed by the Court (in that case, anyway) as having been Constitutional all along, and thus effectively the law of the land in regards to persons (generally speaking here using 20th century language to discuss the classes of persons who had been affected by the laws all along); Nationals and citizens of United States at birth, and that whatever the laws were at any juncture, or within time period between adopting of changes of the laws were Constitutional, even though uneven, and thus contradictory when looked upon "throughout the entire historical record"?

My assertions are not invalid just because there have been significant changes of laws pertaining to citizenship and immigration throughout the history of this nation.

297 posted on 02/14/2016 1:17:42 AM PST by BlueDragon (TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Sadly, you haven’t got a clue about the subject and can’t see the tree for all of the forest of misinformation standing in your way. I don’t have time to waste leading you back to reality and joining in another endless exchange of corrections and denials, especially since you cannot seem to grasp the elementary fact that you have quoted the current statute from the U.S. Code, which has changed in some details since it was under different paragraph designators when enacted in 1952. It is not a wonder you are so badly misled and misinformed when you can’t even understand how that is a problem with your assumptions. Until I get back to your message again, ponder this extract from the applicable statute:

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.

Note, the above is from a statutory law that naturalizes a child born abroad with a U.S. citizen parent, and does so without mentioning the mother as it does in the current U.S. Code.

Good night, I’m getting some sleep.


298 posted on 02/14/2016 3:30:53 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
You are now turning to relying on myself having not making mention of the change from using letters to numbers to delineate paragraph sections equates with;

That's the most pathetic criticism thus far -- and that's saying something.

Are you trying to make me laugh, or something ?

You had threatened to show me how there had been some change within the code in question here since it's adoption in 1952.

You talked about how the paragraphs underwent change, from numbered to being identified by letter, but the wording did not significantly change. For what change in wording there was, I previously provided from "notes" what those changes were. Must I go over that again? Scroll upthread for it perhaps. Then test to see if Cruz would still not fall into category of citizen at birth in ending result, provided what we've been told thus far about the details, born in Canada, coming back from there with his U.S. citizen mother when he was 4 years old, having resided in the U.S. continuously since then, is true.

Sadly, unless you are trying to perform a skit, a piece of running, textual performance art showing just how FUBAR anti-Cruz birthism is, (in that way helping 'sketch' outline of just how vacuous that argument truly is) it appears to me that it is you who does not "have a clue" or cannot read and understand English, etc., such as you've nonsensically flapped your gums repeatedly in insult and accusation that I have been.

299 posted on 02/14/2016 12:58:34 PM PST by BlueDragon (TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

What changes to paragraph designation there was doesn't change anything other than those designation.

If you think it does, and would significantly alter how the law should be interpreted and applied, you are badly misinformed, or else living in a fantasy world.

But here again you had prefaced comment made to me with "I don't have time to...",. yet what time you did take to write anything, was to write nothing but BULLSHIT.

Maybe that's why you don't have time. Too many cowpies. You really oughta' give those up.

300 posted on 02/14/2016 1:06:13 PM PST by BlueDragon (TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-302 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson