Replies

The only caveat to that, and how they weasel out of the conclusion, is that the Act of Congress that operates toward Obama conditions his citizenship on his mother having resided in the US for five years after she reaches the age of 14. She birthed the usurper-to-be when she was 18, so failed to meet the residency requirement.

BUT, if you take away the citizen-parent's residency angle, and hold that citizenship passes by blood, Cruz and Obama are situated exactly the same.

The country of birth has a claim based on its constitution, and the general principle that people born in a country, of legal residents, are citizens of that country
The country of the mother has a claim based on Act of Congress (or act of whatever nation) that confers citizenship to the child born abroad of one citizen parent
The country of the father has a claim based on Act of Congress (or act of whatever nation) that confers citizenship to the child born abroad of one citizen parent

The second two claims, those associated with birth abroad, exist by dint of positive statutory law. Both of those claims have equal validity at the time of birth. Neither stands superior over the other.

Cuba's claim on Cruz was as valid as the US claim. They are exactly the same at the time of his birth.

The law can't predict the life path that any person will take, and it is error to look at a person, now, and assign their allegiance now as their allegiance at birth.

Citizenship is a formulaic body of law. It is ancient law. Vattel and Blackstone were merely learned observers of the law. They do not make the law, they just express their understanding of how it works.

It just happens that citizenship law under the US Constitution flows the same ancient formula that Vattel and Blackstone observed and restated. US citizenship law does not depend on Vattel for force, US citizenship law is it's own, primary source of authority. Vattel, if he were to observe the US, would conclude that the US applies the same ancient formula for citizenship that all other nations do.

Under the ancient, and universally applied rules of citizenship, a natural born citizen is a person born in the nation, of parents who owe no allegiance to any other nation.

Under the US constitution, a natural born citizen is a person born a citizen of any of the states (which is slightly different from being born in the state, and may look to the parents' domicile), of parents who owe no allegiance to any other nation.

Dual citizens are precluded from the office of the presidency, and Obama has usurped that position by act of Congress, which was derelict in not even discussing the ramifications of dual citizenship, and inaction by the courts.

Your statement here is devoid of any supporting authority. And it's incorrect. As I noted a bit above on this thread:

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913)

Naturalized citizens are excluded from the presidency. Native born citizens are citizens by birth who need no naturalization, and thus are "natural born citizens" under the common law and the 14th Amendment. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S 649, 702 (1898) ("Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.")

As has been widely recognized and accepted by both our courts and legal commentators throughout our history , "natural born citizen" derives from the English common law "natural born subject," which accepted children as "natural born" who were born within the realm of alien parents. The parents were deemed to owe a temporary allegiance to the sovereign of the realm sufficient to make the offspring a natural born subject. This was true notwithstanding the parent, being still a subject/citizen of his the country of his nationality, may have retained an allegiance to that nation as well.

Our common law was jus soli, and this rule of natural born citizenship was recognized even by John Bingham:

"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)

What Cong. Bingham says here later became the express finding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Under our Constitution, one is a natural born citizen who is born within the United States to parents who are not foreign diplomats (and who is born at a time and in a place not then under foreign occupation, e.g., New York City from 1776 to 1783).

The scholarly legal commentary affirming this point is too numerous to list. But a few samples:

J.M. Medina, "The Presidential Qualification Clause in This Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement," Okla. City U.L Rev. (1987) ("Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendmentâ€¦[i]t was presumed that the English law of jus soli was incorporated into the law of the several former colonies and then into the Constitution")
Jill A.Pryor, "The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty," 97 Yale L.J. 881, at 881 and n. 2 (1988) ("Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth");
Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth edition (1999) ("Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency."); James C. Ho, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution 190 (2005) ("[u]nder the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President");
Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, "'Natural Born' in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution's Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It," 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005) ("United States citizens born to parents subject to United States jurisdiction in one of the fifty states are unquestionably natural born citizensâ€¦ unless a child's parents are protected by the full immunity extended to foreign diplomats and their families, or they are enemy combatants.") ;
Lawrence Freedman, "An Idea Whose Time Has Come--The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, and Need for Amendment of the 'Natural Born Citizen Requirement for the Presidency," 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 137, 143 (2007)("It is now generally assumed that the term 'natural born' is synonymous with 'native born'") ;
Gabriel J. Chin, "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship," 107 Mich. L. Rev. (2008) ("Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens" and finding that John McCain was not a natural born citizen).

So insofar as your "of parents who owe no allegiance to any other nation" phrase encompasses more than foreign diplomats or hostile invaders, it is demonstrably incorrect.