Who Is Permitted To Be The President Of The USA? The Full Story Is Embarrassing

The New Terrapin Gazette ^ | 19 January 2016 | LBB

[Jeff Chandler]

Some folks, including Don Trump, think Senator Cruz is not entitled to run for president because he is not a "natural born" citizen. This matter was debated when John McCain ran for the office, yet it seems that the correct answers are still not generally appreciated. So...

...is Senator Ted Cruz qualified to be president? Yes, because the 1790 Immigration Act declares flatly that people in his circumstances are "natural-born" citizens. That law followed the adoption of the constitution by about two years, and some of the founding fathers of the nation were in the Congress at the time. One knows, therefore, exactly what the constitution means by "natural-born".

John McCain's case is extraordinary. He is not a "natural-born" citizen because he was naturalized by act of Congress [snip]

So McCain, who should and could have been legally declared "natural-born", was naturalized instead. Congress never subsequently addressed the clumsy situation, though it could have laid the issues to eternal rest with a federal law precisely defining "natural-born"--as the 1790 act did.

[RitaOK]

That’s cool, and I appreciate the info. But, seems it is going to court, to be aired out if nothing else.

People are tired of going through this every time there is a questionable status of a candidate, and we want to understand it, with something to point to that’s not word of mouth, but can be found and held in your hand, in black and white. Like the pocket version of the Constitution. You know?

Ted has been an originalist, according to Alan Dershowitz. This CRBA is something no one has ever seen. Is it originalist? Or, is it precedent set by those from the camp that likes to evolve the Constitution.

That is my only interest, actually, to just get it resolved. We went through this with Obama, yes, but at least he came up with an Hawaiian birth certificate in b&w.

Friendly inquiry, here. Thx, Rita

[RitaOK]

Thanks, Cboldt.

Sorry for the trouble. Yesterday, was the first time I ever posted on this birth stuff with a shred of interest, but now that it is going to court somewhere, some time, I went directly to the naturalization study guide. Silly me. :)

[Covenantor]

The real question remains Ted's Canadian citizenship and how specifically he acquired it.

Search “Canada landed immigrant”.

Canada required, and still does, immigrants to apply for landed immigrant status as well as for temporary employment. After receiving approval the clock starts on the approval for citizenship. The term was either 5 or 7 years IIRC before applying for Canadian citizenship. Under aged minors had to be included in the primary application or added later. Alien birth on Canadian soil did not confer Canadian citizenship.

So the question remains, how did Ted acquire the Canadian citizenship he renounced in 2014.

Conservative reporters should be asking these question of the Canadian Embassy with the ambiguous dates floating around for the Cruz family stay in Canada.

It remains unclear what Cruz Sr. status was in the US prior to his move to Canada, while in Canada, and his subsequent return to the USA. He may have applied for Cuban refugee status in Canada which had different requirements.

[WhiskeyX]

“I was responding to what he wrote which was (in part) “No Foreign Parents” Yes Trump’s mother was Naturalized but she was still a foreigner as she was born in another country.”

You say, “Trump’s mother was Naturalized but she was still a foreigner as she was born in another country.” Anyone making a statement that stupid is too ignorant and stupid to have the right to vote or deserve the blessings of U.S. citizenship. Trump’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time her son was born. Ted Cruz lied when he tried to claim a person’s parents had to be natural born U.S. citizens and not just naturalized U.S. citizen in order to be a natural born citizen. Such a fact is self evident, because when you take such a proposition to its logical conclusion, it would be impossible for there to be any natural born U.S. citizens after you find it impossible for the first generation to have been natural born U.S. citizens. So, what Ted Cruz and you are saying is a quite obviously crazy and lunatic’s lie.

“I believe that Trump, Cruz and Rubio are all NBC.”

What you choose to believe is a lie. Trump is a natural born U.S. citizen, because he was born within the jurisdiction of the United States with two parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

Ted Cruz is an alien born and a former or current Canadian citizen who acquired U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth with the authority of the U.S. Naturalization Act of 1952, which makes him not a natural born citizen and ineligible to the Office of the President.

“As I disagree with your interpretation of NBC.”

Again, you are basing your capricious belief upon a stupid and ignorant lie, and you lie to yourself when you call this law my interpretation, which it certainly is not it is the law as it is written, practiced, and stated by the Supreme court of the United States (SCOTUS). sEE:

Ted Cruz says he acquired his U.S. citizenship by inheriting his mother’s U.S. citizenship, which is the statute at his time of birth known as the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, and it says Ted Cruz “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 . . . .”

The Foreign Affairs Manual of the U.S. State Department administering that naturalization statutory law says: “U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic”  acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.”

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....”

“We’ll just have to agree to disagree.”

NO, WE DON’T! The time is long over due when those people who have taken the oath to protect and defend the Constitution should hold people like Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, yourself, and other co-conspirators and accessories accountable to the law for their acts of subversion of the Constitution and the election laws. I’ll leave the question of appropriate punishments to the forum for discussion. If you make a futile attempt to disagree, then explain why you fail to understand: 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....”

[Godebert]

Was this act ever repealed or replaced? Since it was passed two years after the Constitution was ratified, it is persuasive as to original understanding of the term "natural born citizen' as far as it goes, but it is unclear about the status of the father other than U.S. residency.

Yes, it goes to the original understanding of the term "natural born Citizen", but not for the reason you believe. Anyone who reads the following article in it's entirety will realize the massive fraud that has been perpetrated by the media and major political parties against the American people.

The linguistic and logical aspects of the term "Natural Born Citizen"

[Godebert]

"Was this act ever repealed or replaced? Since it was passed two years after the Constitution was ratified, it is persuasive as to original understanding of the term "natural born citizen' as far as it goes, but it is unclear about the status of the father other than U.S. residency."

Yes, it goes to the original understanding of the term "natural born Citizen", but not for the reason you believe. Anyone who reads the following article in it's entirety will realize the massive fraud that has been perpetrated by the media and major political parties against the American people.

The linguistic and logical aspects of the term "Natural Born Citizen"

[Mollypitcher1]

Not my point. American citizenship once renounced can not be regained. Don’t care about other countries.

[Cboldt]

I don’t think our respective remarks contain any disagreement.

[Mollypitcher1]

You’re right, we are not in disagreement. I like, however, to cite Vattel because I find people, when they know the origin of something, tend to understand things better. Knowing where the wording and meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” came from opens up the ability to research and widen one’s understanding. Most have never heard of Vattel. Those who wish to believe that the Constitution is a living document and can continually be changed are not interested in Origin. They need to know there are those who ARE.

[Jim W N]

The Naturalization Act of 1790 goes to the original understanding of the term "natural born Citizen"

Well it certainly leaves some holes because it only expressly states that one who is born on foreign soil must have a father who was a resident of the U.S. for the one born to be a natural born citizen. Nothing about the father being a U.S. citizen except by inference. It is not expressly stated for whatever reason.

requirements for Article II, Constitutional "natural-born" citizenship status: 1) Born in the country 2) Born to a mother who is a citizen of the country 3) Born to a father who is a citizen of the country

Not convinced that has been proven to be the original intent and understanding of the ratifiers.

[WENDLE]

You again are confused. The issue is not citizenship alone. It is citizenship plus being born here = Natural born citizen. Not just “citizen”— “ Natural born citizen”. Almost 34% of Americans now think Cruz was not “natural Born”. It is a major issue. it is eligibility to be president under the strict rule that no foreign born individual will ever be president.

[unlearner]

“’Living’ document? Words have meanings.”

Time to put your straw man to bed. He is tired and worn out.

Women can vote, hold office, and own property. Slavery was abolished. Blacks are citizens, even natural born citizens. This is not because the Constitution is a “living” document. It is because society changed its collective views on these matters, and our representative government made changes to the laws.

So when Vattel penned the term “natural born citizen” he meant citizen at birth by virtue of the place of birth and the citizenship of the child’s parents, but at the time it was really the father’s citizenship that mattered. In modern times, the citizenship of the mother is equally important.

If natural born citizen means citizen at birth due to the parent’s citizenship, then Cruz is a natural born citizen even if he would not have been if he was born in Canada in 1791. This is because he was a US citizen at birth because his mother was a US citizen, but not his father, and in 1791 he could have been a natural born citizen by being born in Canada only if his father was a US citizen (which he was not). Under the naturalization act of 1952, Cruz was a citizen at birth because his mother met the citizenship and residency requirements.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Under the naturalization act of 1952, Cruz was a citizen at birth because his mother met the citizenship and residency requirements.

***************************************8

That makes him naturalized citizen, not natural born citizen.
Born here of citizen parents is natural born citizen.

[unlearner]

“That makes him naturalized citizen, not natural born citizen.
Born here of citizen parents is natural born citizen.”

Just your opinion. And many founders clearly disagreed with your opinion as evidenced by the first naturalization act in 1790, just 18 months after they ratified the Constitution. It specifically specified children born abroad to citizen parents as “natural born”.

The majority believes that citizen at birth is natural born.

That is what the courts will rule if they ever have to.

Their opinion is what is going to matter. Not yours or mine.

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

[Baumer]

I certainly don’t understand your anger toward me. You have never met me nor spoken to me nor do you know anything about me except that I tried to respond to a post here on Free Republic.

I have not disparaged you in any way nor have I put you down. I’ve simply expressed my opinion on a greatly debated topic.

You have now responded to me by calling me ignorant and stupid. I am not going to drop to this level as I am overly tired of all the bashing and insults going on. If you want to be like Trump and feel better attacking, please have at it but I won’t be slinging mud back.

[Baumer]

I don’t see the Constitution as a partisan document. I’m just of the belief, along with many others, who agree that Cruz IS NBC because he was a US citizen at birth because his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth.

There is nothing in the constitution that defines this as being true or not.

I do wish it could be brought to a definitive answer ASAP because until then, good conservatives are cutting each other apart arguing about the topic.

[cynwoody]

You left out "Provide that the father previously resided in the United States." Cruz' father did previously reside in the United States, but he was a Cuban citizen at the time.

Patrilineal descent is obsolete. It is something our 7th-century Mooselimb adversaries believe in. Not anything a red-blooded American of this century would give a rat's ass about.

Do not expect to see it capture the imagination of the Supreme Court, should Cruz's case ever come before them. They will go for "descent". Period. And they will find for Cruz!

[cynwoody]

I’m just of the belief, along with many others, who agree that Cruz IS NBC because he was a US citizen at birth because his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth.

Exactly right!

The KISS principle applies: Keep it Simple, Stupid!

The ones who seek to muddy the waters are the villains. Either because they are ignorant morons, or because they hate Cruz and look to the cockamamie birfer thesis as a magic bullet to take him out.

At this point, I'm not sure who to be for. I like both Cruz and Trump for different reasons.

All I know is, it is supremely important that, come next 20 January, all three branches are securely in GOP hands!

[Political Junkie Too]

It's not about "Patrilineal descent" being obsolete, it's about not citing the entire passage in your argument. The fact is that the entire Act of 1790 is obsolete as it was repealed a few years later, so you can't complain about one part being obsolete when the entire thing is obsolete. Still, if your argument is to show the contemporary thinking of the Framers, then show all of the thinking, not just the parts that you like.

-PJ