Posted on 01/18/2016 8:21:28 PM PST by SeekAndFind
“Because his mother was a US citizen he was eligible to apply for citizenship from the United States”
He did not have to apply for citizenship, he was already a citizen
“whether his parents filed this required paperwork is a mystery because records other than his birth certificate remain sealed.”
His parents did present the required paperwork, he was issued a US Passport. The part about is records being sealed is BS, someone tried to get his records and were denied because they and no right to see them, that is not the same as being sealed.
“He was a US citizen by birth. Period.”
The United States Supreme court says he is a naturalized U.S. citizen, and naturalized U.S. citizens are ineligible to be POTUS, as we halve already seen with Arnold Schwarzenegger, another naturalized U.S. citizen. Your denial of these laws means you choose to be an outlaw, which is contrary to the conservative value undertaken when taking the oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
“United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
“Cruz has refused to supply any documentation.” Umm he provided his BC and his Mother’s BC that makes your statement untrue. He was issued a US Passport.
As far as the NBC status I suggest you read some of the posters on this thread citing relevant cases, I think it will quiet your misgivings
Asked to prove he was a US citizen when he was born, the candidate produced a birth certificate from Canada.
See, I was born in the US, he says.
Funny as all get out. Bellei tried the same thing. His Italian BC gave him up as a fibber.
The court has said no such thing.
I support Cruz but refuse to blindly follow, hoping everything will be ok. There are no relevant cases. NBC does not appear to cover being born out of the country. And repeating it enough times does not make it true. In fact, there have been American freepers who have had children born outside the US and agree NBC does not cover them. I don’t know the answer - none of us do. I find it more troubling that current law could be interpreted as an anchor baby being able to run for POTUS. I think this is a very serious issue and I don’t want it to be settled after the election. As I said before...
“You can be damn sure a president elect Cruz would be legally challenged by the dems (and probably some republicans). What if one of them actually “has standingâ€? Then what? If he is found to be legitimate by the courts, there will always be that “??†surrounding his presidency, Remember W? If found ineligible then who is president? Vice president elect? Dem candidate? Or does the king retain his crown?”
“The court has said no such thing.”
It is found on pages 702-703 of the below decision, which means you are a deliberatee liar when you say, “”The court has said no such thing.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
I have lived all my life near the Canadian border. I have known many people who have dual citizenship usually because one parent was Canadian and one parent was from the United States. I also come from a military family. When a child is born abroad outside of a US military installation the parents have to file paperwork to let the US government know about it. Regardless of the child's actual citizenship status, if the parents don't do this it can and will cause a lot of headaches later.
Most of my friends and acquaintances have preferred to maintain their dual citizenship as Ted Cruz did up until he decided to run for President. This has perceived and actual benefits. I am not a lawyer; I do not know how this would play out in a real court.
When I was in high school we were taught that the founders specified one office in the land that required one to be a “natural born citizen” and that was the presidency. I was taught that this was because the founders did not want a president with “divided loyalties”.
So regardless of what the definition of natural born citizen is eventually decided to be... by definition someone who has dual citizenship has “divided loyalties”. Since Ted has now renounced his Canadian citizenship maybe this isn't an issue anymore.
Senator Cruz should not expect to get the hands off treatment that Obama got on the questions about his citizenship from the media. This issue needs to put to rest soon and Senator Cruz is the one who needs to be pushing hard to get this behind him... and I don't mean by subterfuge and attacking other candidates
My children were born on a Military Installation - US Army Hospital Berlin and I still had to get a FS-240 so I could get a Passport for them, don’t remember what I needed for my Army benefits. As far as the dual citizenship I never gave it much thought, I know my children never thought about it, which Cruz also did, until he realized it might become an issue.
I agree. it's amazing. It was a 'gas lighting' operation. The point of which was to make the birthers appear crazy and thereby end anyone paying any attention to them.
We never did get the simple question of "Does Obama's Kenyan father mean he is not a Natural Born Citizen question, because Obama kept pointing to the other, far less credible issues, including those claiming he himself was born in Kenya.
Fair or not, the issue of divided loyalties is viewed prospectively, based only on the circumstance of birth. We don’t know how any individual will turn out, 18, 30, 50 years later. The test is at birth, until we open the office to naturalized citizens, then it becomes whatever/whenever.
Then by my experience your kids are unusual or maybe it is a generational thing. My acquaintances all seemed very aware and quite happy about having dual citizenship with Canada. Many said if they were drafted they would go to Canada with no fear of not being accepted there or being able to get a job. But there are other advantages as well. If you buy a home in Canada as a US citizen my understanding is the Canadian government will withhold 50% of the sales price if you decide to sell it to cover the exorbitant taxes that they charge to foreign investors.
In my opinion Senator Cruz has the best conservative credentials of all the candidates. But this problem is only going to get worse in my opinion the longer he lets it linger. It is going to drag on his campaign not so much because of the actual legal points but because of the perception that it could disqualify him down the road. Many people are not going to want to risk their vote on someone who could have it all stolen from him sometime before the general election or even after the general election.
Yes, I do believe that is accurate, and as one can plainly see, Congress has made what it thought to be necessary changes at times to increase the level of security that the law provides to the country. They have also decreased it as the risks mitigated over time.
In effect I believe that the law can be tweaked when required by adding or subtracting requirements that define natural born..But to change the substance of the law would require a constitutional amendment. In my layman opinion.
Ted Cruz’s birth certificate proves without any doubt that he was a Canadian citizen at birth with the right, because of his mother’s US citizenship to become a US citizen if the appropriate paperwork was filed.
I was taught in high school that the reason that the founders specified that the president be a “natural born citizen” was to avoid having someone with divided loyalties ascending to the presidency. How this plays out legally in Ted Cruz’s case has not to my knowledge been decided by the courts. I am not a lawyer and not sure that other cases cited actually apply to this specific set of circumstances. I believe that Cruz himself should ask for clarification. With his sincere cooperation I would think that a binding decision could be made quickly. I don’t think that the tactics employed by Obama and his surrogates will work in this situation.
Maybe it’s because it’s Germany as opposed to next door for your kids.
Well, since Cruz can’t sue himself, how do you suggest he get this resolved? The only people who might have standing are other candidates. I guess if some SOS rejected him from being on the ballot that might help, but that is unlikely.
So I consider this approach the same as ‘When did you stop beating your wife Sen Cruz?’ by his opponents
His BC in combination with his mothers does not establish his right to be naturalized under Act of Congress. The Act requires his mother to be a citizen the day Ted was born, and it requires that she have resided in the US for five years before the birth. I have no reason to doubt those conditions are met, but the BC’s don’t establish those facts.
Well, in a make believe world, that might be a great idea, but to my knowledge he cannot do that.
Some TV lawyer suggested he could petition the court for a declaratory judgment. I am not a lawyer of any kind, but in my understanding a declaratory judgment has to stem from a case and Cruz has no standing to sue himself on a constitutional or any other matter.IMO.
Secondly, what kind of damage is political damage and how is it mitigated?
By fixing the election? [sarc]
This would belong in congress, IMO
They would punt on this, but they do have impeachment, and the ability to write law.
Ted Cruz is eligible because he is a citizen by birth.
On July 12, 1999, the son of Nikita "We will bury you" Khrushchev was naturalized. He became a citizen not by birth but through a legal process generously provided by his adopted country. He is not eligible.
“I concur that it’s confusing, but I think it was meant to be, which is a side argument I have been waging in recent days.”
I have to sharply disagree based upon the centuries of precedent law in which naturalized subjects in Britain/England, France, and many other nations were restricted by law from serving in official offices of the government, a prime example being the ineligibility to serve on the Privy Council and a broad variety of other offices named in Calvin’s Case 1608 and other such historical statuses and cases. The Founding Fathers understood this very well. It was one of the reasons why George Washington was being rejected as a candidate for becoming an officer in the British Army. although he was born as a British subject, the fact that he was a colonial set him apart as a naturalized British subject until Parliament attempted to usurp the charters of the colonies and incorporate their political entities into that of the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britian. This was at the time when the Crown was transitioning the government from the more feudal personal sovereignty over the individual Kingdom/s, duchies, and colonies to that of an Empire with a union of the kingdoms and so forth. These changes engendered a difference in how England’s and Britain’s Parliamentarians and legal scholars treated the nationality of the Crown’s subjects. There was an old English law, the name escapes me at the moment, but the law treated individuals differently for purposes of determining nationality and the inheritance of real property based upon jus sanguine versus jus soli within the dominions of the sovereign. In one case oa person born in Anglo-Norman France the King’s subject could inherit only in the Anglo-Norma or Anglo-French domain of the Crown and not in England, whereas in another case the child could inherit in both domains, Anglo-Norman or Anglo-French real property and real property in England. It may have been cited in Calvin’s Case 1608, I don’t recall at the moment? In any case, a perusal of the history of these naturalization laws and laws regarding denizens reveals a traditional bias against allowing those persons born abroad to be accorded the privileges and powers of government office. The Founding Fathers considered such restrictions upon U.S. officers such as U.s. Senators and more, but in the end they limited the restrictions to only the president and the Vice President. As John Jay noted, this was specifically to keep foreigners, meaning those with a foreign birth, from becoming the commander in chief of the American Army, which is in perfect conformance with centuries of historical practices, except for its being so strikingly more liberal than past British, French, and Spanish practices (excepting such examples as the Wild Geese).
“I have tried to use original intent to make a basis for a separate argument about the definition of the term “jurisdiction†at the time of the original writing. “
Jurisdiction does have some latitude with respect to the powers exercised by the civil versus the military courts, however Congress used its enumerated powers with respect to naturalization and the ability to constitute courts inferior tto the Supreme court of the United States to circumscribe the extent of those jurisdictions. In particular, case law from United States v. Wong Kim Ark and others have clearly defined birth abroad, other than diplomatic immunity, as being outside the jurisdiction of the United States. There simply is no wiggle room or doubt to be exploited in the question of whether or not the children born abroad are naturalized or native u.S. citizens. The courts have very firmly stated all such children are naturalized U.S. citizens. They even went further and found these children are naturalized and not eligible to be President or Vice President of the United States.
“To me there is just as much or more danger in a native born situation with potential divided loyalties as there might be with a foreign born child.”
Whether there is or not is a moot point until and unless the Constitution is lawfully changed with an Amendment that removes the natural born citizen clause. Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican Utah, attempted to do precisely that and failed with a bill he introduced sometime around 2001. This should have been an indication that the natural born citizen clause was to be acknowledged and respected as the law of the land for the purpose of denying the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President to naturalized U.S. citizens.
“I also see no security issue with cruz’s birth, but if there was, a case could be made and it might have standing.”
If the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause had been respected when the Republican’s put Chester Arthur in the Office of the President, we may not have had the Supreme Cort justice who writing a majority opinion that saddled the U.S. with an immigration policy that arguably resulted in the anchor babies spurring millions of illegal immigrants. We also would definitely had the Obama Administration and its illegal conduct and corruption of the Supreme Court. Violating the rule of law of the Constitution and its natural born citizen clause does have bad consequences, and compounding the violations for the sake of political expediency can be expected to make those bad consequences far worse in the future if they are not reversed to restore the rule of law and restore credibility to self rule in this Republic.
“With no issue at large, the courts in a political argument are likely to pass and kick the ball to congress. and again with no issue, no argument will be made and cruz, if elected could take office.”
It has long been quite obvious the Congress, the Office of the President, and the Supreme Court have all been compromised quite extensively with respect to the rule of law and respect for the limitations upon government exercised by the Constitution. In such circumstances, the States and the Citizens are responsible for making the Federal Government accountable for their unlawful conduct. So far, the majority of the States and the majority of the Citizens refuse and/or fail to do so. Unfortunately, the acrimony on FreeRepublic demonstrates there are too many people who claim to want the blessings of the Republic, yet they choose to defy the rule of law, the Constitution, using the excuses of political expediency to avoid restraining their own abuses of the laws designed to protect them.
“So as it is now, vattel and Blackburn don’t mean anything..”
You mean Vattel and Blackstone. On the contrary, they are still being cited as legal authorities in the present day Supreme Court decisions, so they remain highly relevant as the case law so ably demonstrates in cases decided in the 1950s and in 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, that defended the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
“It would be my preference that Cruz be constitutionally eligible by way of natural born, and you could get there by using jurisdiction in the old English parlance regarding subjects.”
On the contrary, whether Blackstone’s Commentaries are used Vattel’s Law of Nations, the various English naturalization acts, the French naturalization acts, or the American and U.S. naturalization acts, none of those authorities recognized a person born abroad in the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign as anything other than a denizen or a naturalized national who was then denied the opportunity to serve in the Privy Council other official government offices. The historical precedents simply do not allow a person born abroad to be recognized as a natural born citizen, except when they enjoy some form of diplomatic immunity that shields them from the jurisdiction and allegiance of the foreign sovereign. Anyone who doubts the truth of this history only needs to demonstrate a consistent record where persons born abroad were knowingly and consistently acknowledged as natural born citizens by England, Britain, America, and/or the United States. Note, such persons who are described as persons to henceforth be “considered as natural born citizens, are by the meaning of those wrods not natural born citizens. Again, this is demonstrated by the construction of the language and by the Supreme Court decisions in which they said such persons are naturalize and not native or not natural born.
“In my opinion the wording indicates that his citizen birth status as a result of his mothers qualifications give him the presidential privileges of a natural born. But not constitutionally as I would much prefer.”
The part where you say, “his citizen birth status as a result of his mothers qualifications”, is demonstrated in the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 to grant Ted Cruz the opportunity to adopt naturalized U.S. citizenship at birth as demonstrated by the naturalization act, the Foreign Affairs Manual, and the previously cited case law, not the least of which is Wong Kim Ark (1898) explicitly saying such persons born abroad are no more than a naturalized U.S. citizen and not native born or natural born. Anyone who wished to argue differently will have to come up with a legal authority that countermands these cited legal authorities and the vast history of such persons born abroad acquiring citizenship or nationality only by naturalization or being made a denizen.
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.