Posted on 01/18/2016 8:21:28 PM PST by SeekAndFind
If you read the Brennan/Douglas dissent carefully (And I find it is a correct statement of the difference between majority and dissent), the difference between them turns on the word "IN", in the phrase "naturalized IN the US."
The majority say that has to be applied literally, and Bellie, being made a citizen at birth, and being born in Italy, was naturalized (at birth) in Italy. Not in the US. The 14th amendment says "naturalized in the US." and this, Bellei wasn't, says the majority, because he was naturalized in Italy.
The dissent said this leads to absurd results, as you say, a "third class" of citizens. And that the 14th amendment, where it says "naturalized IN the US" should be read as saying "naturalized anywhere in the world."
No matter, take the dissents side. Cruz in in the 14th amendment alright. Which part? Born in the US, or naturalized?
Ah yes...I am aware of that issue....I am not a writer that deals with legal issues...I often insert "they" as if it's a assumed understanding, yet it often is not for a technical listener or reader. I have been made aware of this before but can't seem to change old habits. In a conversation with me, you would hear mostly expletives and they's.....lol
In my view, Born ...........and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
My key word is jurisdiction.
-- I do not agree that jurisdiction for a citizen ends at the waters edge --
Jurisdiction is something the government has, and people are subject to. Persons do not have jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is a territorial concept. A NYC police officer has no jurisdiction over your actions while you are in Nashville, or Honolulu, or Moscow, or anywhere except NYC. Same goes for the feds. You leave the country, and "you're free" (except most other countries will facilitate extradition). Like the old westerns, make the Mexican border, and you got away with it.
That you leave the jurisdiction doesn't take your citizenship away.
-- Natural born citizenship is often a matter of investigation to determine if there is a security issue. --
That's in there. Also affection for the homeland. The facts are going to vary widely among all the humans, native-born included.
-- I see over done plans, designs, and over built stuff that did not need to be the way it ended up ... The interpretations of judges read the same way to me in some cases --
This case is pretty clean and easy. Wong Kim Ark is pretty dense, a difficult case, I would say.
Courts have created a house of cards with precedent, but not so much, if at all, with the distinction between a constitutional citizen and a naturalized citizen.
In other words, it would be the same if he were born on the land. but is his case Jus Sanguin was the method of gaining that status. There is no apparent security issue. So it should be valid.
There are two groups in the 14th amendment. This is settled law, by the way.
A person who isn't in ANY of those groups (and this is what the majority in Bellei said), can be made a full fledged citizen by naturalization. The dissent says Bellei in in the 14th amendment, but not born in the US.
Bellei actually argued that he was born in the US! No kidding! He produced an Italian BC, and said, see, I was born in the US. Funny stuff.
is=in
Yes, I understand what you are saying...
To me, while you and may others may see this as more cut a dried, as they say, I see it as intentionally left somewhat open and obtuse for interpretation, because that is really where the firewall is.
Native born citizen children of a foreign national and a citizen would be just as much a potential threat or more than a foreign born. They must have considered this...considering the place was crawling still with British sympathizers and French agents.
Yes, I see that and have thought much about it. The constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to naturalize. But this also causes argument over naturalized by statute and natural. Since the article says natural born for president and VP, I thought it might be better for congress to establish what jurisdiction might be in certain circumstances and use that as opposed to naturalization.
It seemed to me like they did that in 1790.
I agree completely.
Your reference to “Birfer Morons” is distasteful, rude and inaccurate.
It's intentionally rude but accurate. The birfers were wrong on the facts and the law regarding Obama (that was when it was very unpopular to take this position, however correct). As they are now wrong with respect to Cruz (and Rubio).
You must not have participated in discussions here regarding Obama, forged documents, lies, distortions and constitutional law that took place here after Clinton campaign operatives first tried to make it an issue.
Obama was born Honolulu. I am familiar enough with the behavior of PDF documents to know that the PDF layer argument is bogus. The birfers lost the argument on the facts. Around December 2008, they tried to build a new argument around the law (the putative meaning of NBC), but they got nowhere. Congress certified the Electoral College, and Zero became President!
The birfers cut their teeth on Obama. Now they oppose Cruz. Consistency is the hobgoblin of the microcephalic!
Being born in Canada to a mother who was listed on Canadian voter rolls and a father who was not a US citizen is going to be a problem for many people in the general election.
Got a link for that?
Did she ever vote? Got a link for that?
If she did, would it matter? Got a link for that?
As for the father, becoming a Canadian citizen was a step up from Cuban citizenship. Wouldn't you agree? Canadian citizenship, for a Cuban, is a stepping stone. It's junior varsity American citizenship! (OK — it's 0445, who all have I offended? LOL!).
Cruz did not bother to renounce his Canadian citizenship until he made the decision to run for president.
He probably just forgot. It wasn't relevant until the morons surfaced.
I understand that he is also keeping his relevant records sealed.
LOL! You understand wrong. He gave his BC to the Dallas Morning News in 2013.
I am noticing a very nasty streak from Cruz supporters this last week and I find it unsettling.
I've been hearing the likability argument lately — e.g., on his Saturday morning radio show, Larry Kudlow took great umbrage at Cruz's critical notion of New York values with respect to Trump (and then proceeded to give a fine object lesson on the negativity of Connecticut values, GE having just absconded from Connecticut to Marxachusetts!).
Something about Cruz sent Larry over the edge. Whatever it is, it eludes me. I live in Massachusetts, but I'm not offended when others refer to "Massholes". They are just citing a fact on the ground — Marxachusetts is overrun with moonbats!
But, as a primary voter, you should adhere to the Buckley rule: vote for the most conservative candidate who can win! Forget principal! In 2016, winning is absolutely essential! Wait until primary day to vote.
“Once again you post something not relevant to you argument, what you posted just establishes that Cruz is a US Citizen at birth. It does not address Natural Born. You then post your opinion without citing any settled case law.”
All you have to do is show us a consistent pattern of persons being born abroad in foreign jurisdictions and foreign allegiance without the protection of diplomatic immunity who acquired U.S. citizenship without being naturalized at birth and/or after by the authority of a U.S. statute.
“You post “At no time in Anglo-American history has a child born abroad been lawfully recognized as a natural born citizen†Please post the case where the child was denied this right, that is what your trying to imply with this passage”
During the periods of 1776 to 1790 and from 1802 to 1855 the child of a U.S. citizen father born abroad did not acquire U.S. citizenship unless the State in which the father was a U.S. citizen explicitly provided for such citizenship, and that citizenship was a naturalized at birth citizenship,, not natural born citizenship. The Naturalization Act of 1855 changed the statutory law to allow the children born abroad with fathers who became U.S. citizens after 1802 to transmit U.S. citizenship to those children under certain conditions. This legislative act was used to remedy the complaints that such children had been denied naturalization at birth and any U.S. citizenship and had to naturalize after birth like the alien immigrants without a U.S. father.
The case of Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles, 236 F. 2d 622 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1956 resulted in a decision where the court observed that children of U.S. citizens born abroad were naturalized U.S. citizens and not native U.S. citizens.
Larry, as you might know is being cajoled, encouraged or whatever to run for office.
He may be a lot of things, but he is not very conservative except for financial matters.
I am just guessing, but beating on Cruz is likely in vogue in his potential district.
But that's sort of the "anchor baby" thing, and as I say, to try to resolve that, in your mind, as you try to resolve the first principle of citizenship under con-law, will be so confusing that you will never, and I do mean never, understand it.
I think the reason people get hung up on "born on the soil," and reject it as harsh, is out of affection for service people who have kids abroad, and travelers in the same boat.
That hang up can be resolved, but we don't need to go there with Cruz.
There is really good argument that constitutional citizenship attaches to some born abroad. It's never an issue in the law because naturalized citizenship attaches easily, and the common vernacular works in the real on "natural born or not natural born" which is a misleading framework.
Constitutional citizenship, Art IV, Sec. 2, is citizens of the states are citizens of the US. Notice it doesn't say citizens who are, at the moment, on the soil of the state they are a citizen of. So, a child born, who has a claim to citizenship in a state (usually by citizenship and domicile of the parent) is arguably born a citizen of the state his parents are domiciled in.
Also, servicepeople are out of the country on government orders. There is good argument that this infirmity (from a citizenship standpoint) is at the behest of the government.
Cruz doesn't get the benefit of any of that. Seriously, at birth, before we know how his future is going to unfold, Cuba has exactly the same claim on him, that the US does. One citizen parent (Cuban dad), born abroad. Canada has a claim that he's Canadian, his parents are legal permanent residents, and dad intended to become a Canadian citizen. If you look at his citizenship at the moment of birth, you would not be able to know how his life would unfold, but he has some sort of citizenship status in 3 countries. Canada has the best claim, because he's there, and Canada can arrest, conscript, and otherwise subject him to their jurisdiction. They US and Cuba, they have second rate claims. I'm flummoxed that people look at this, and figure out that Cruz was 100% US at birth. But hey, that's the outcome they want, that's the outcome they get.
Oughta be judges. Hallucinating emanations of penumbras, and oh, look, there's homo marriage hiding in the equal protection clause!
Spit.
Ok, Thank you, I will look at the case you cited. But give me a few hours to reply, have to get some sleep
“Ted Cruz was deemed a citizen by virtue of the conditions of his birth. And he did not require any naturalization. That is in essence the definition of natural born whether you like it or not...”
That is a false statement and your continued repetition of that false statement in the face of the statutes and case law in evidence to the contrary may justify your denials as a lie/s. Ted Cruz said he relied on his mother’s U.S. citizenship to acquire U.S. citizenship, and the only authority for doing so is the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 as previously quoted in detail.
Your assertion that “”Ted Cruz was deemed a citizen by virtue of the conditions of his birth. And he did not require any naturalization.” is another false statement. Ted Cruz acquired his U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth by the authority of the naturalization act, and your argument claiming “he di not require naturalization” only refers to the immigration and naturalization procedures after birth for aliens with no citizen parents. This is evidenced by case law including Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles, 236 F. 2d 622 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1956, which observed that such children are naturalized U.S. citizens and not native U.S. citizens. So, the statutory and case law decisively falsify your arguments.
A real example, in today's law, is that "A 22 yead old shall be considered as a child"
Yep, that is a US regulation. So, is a 22 year old really a child?, or are we going to pretend so.
The 1790 Act is a definition all right. Properly read (as a definition), it says "A child born abroad to a citizen parent is NOT an NBC, but we'll pretend."
Ha!...LOL OK.....I never got into it that deeply....can I have 1795 for 100 dollars? :-0
OK...I am flexible.....lets rephrase to say that a child born under title 8 is a citizen at birth and that equates to natural born status.
That's essentially what naturalization is.
Agreed. Obama wasn’t even born on this planet and he’s a natural born citizen. Just as Congress.
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.