If Rubio jumps in the lead, will he be put under the same scrutiny as Cruz?
Neither of his Parents were Citizens at the time of his Birth. He was a Legal Anchor Baby, not an NBC. Jindal was in the same situation.
Ummm, do you know how to read? That 1790 Act specifically states that it is the father (he) who must be the US citizen.
Naturalization Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, Speaker of the House of Representatives. JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States, And President of the Senate. APPROVED, March 26th, 1790: GEORGE WASHINGTON, President of the United States
Library of Congress, Immigration & Naturalization
From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen. (Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.) From 1790 to 1940, children under the age of 21 automatically became naturalized citizens upon the naturalization of their father.
And this was the law of Virginia in 1779, 10 yrs prior to the ratification of the Constitution...and completely in keeping to ALL the naturalization laws passed by the founding generations, fathers and their sons who served after them...
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
The ONLY time the mother’s citizenship applied was if the father was deceased, or if the child was born out of wedlock.
Thought in back of my mind- is this is end game of illegal immigration - get it where anchor babies can run for office
Trump has NEVER said Cruz is not “entitled”. Nor has he said Cruz is ineligible.
“Who Is Permitted To Be The President Of The USA? The Full Story Is Embarrassing”
It is embarrassing for the author of the article, due to the author’s obvious failure to read with comprehension.
“Some folks, including Don Trump, think Senator Cruz is not entitled to run for president because he is not a “natural born†citizen.”
Yes, and for the obvious reason Ted Cruz born with Canadian citizenship and had to acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth. Arnold Schwazenegger acquired his U.S. citizenship by naturalization, and he is not eligible to be POUTS. Ted Cruz acquired U.S. citizenship by naturalization, and he too is not eligible to be POTUS for the same reason.
“This matter was debated when John McCain ran for the office, yet it seems that the correct answers are still not generally appreciated. So…”
On the contrary, the conclusion reached by a backroom political deal between the political elites of the RNC and DNC put through a non-binding Congressional resolution to put a fig leaf over the embarrassing truth that john McCain acquired U.S. citizenship by naturalization, and he was not eligible to be POTUS due to his being a naturalized U.S. citizen and not a natural born citizen of the U.S.
“…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”.”
This is where the author become a total embarrassment in ignorance and lack of reading comprehension. First, the critical phrase was the place where the Naturalization Act of 1790 says “shall be considered as natural born Citizens;”. Anyone with reading comprehension of legal statutes knows or should know full well the modifier “shall be considered as” signifies the person is not a natural born citizen but for the purpose of establishing a legal fiction the person “shall be considered as natural born Citizen” despite not being an actual natural born citizen. In other words the Naturalization act the author is citing as proof Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen in actuality says Ted Cruz is definitely not a natural born citizen, and it instead says Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen. Second, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed five years later in 1795, and the only precedent set by that Federal statute was to demonstrate all person acquiring U.S. citizenship by the authority of that statute were in fact naturalized U.S. citizens. naturalized citizens and Ted Cruz are not eligible to be POTUS, because they are not natural born citizens and are naturalized citizens.
John McCain’s case is extraordinary. He is not a “natural-born†citizen because he was naturalized by act of Congress
“Congress was afraid that if the Zone were ever formally, tacitly or inadvertently acknowledged by Washington as US territory, the USA would be pestered by Panamanians claiming to be US citizens.”
If there were any such concerns, they were false because John McCain was not born in the U.S. Panama Canal Zone. He was born in a hospital located just outside the Panama Canal Zone in the jurisdiction of Panama. John McCain acquired U.S. citizenship by naturalization, so he is ineligible to be POTUS.
“So McCain, who should and could have been legally declared “natural-bornâ€, was naturalized instead.”
Wrong, because the Constitution has no power to grant Congress the power to confer natural born citizenship on anyone. natural born citizenship is acquired only by the inherent nature of a birth. Any form of citizenship conferred upon a person at birth or after birth by the authority of manmade statutory law, such as naturalization laws, is be definition positive law and not the natural law governing any form of natural born citizenship. No government has the Earthly power to grant natural born citizenship on any person, they can only recognize what Nature has bestowed upon a person.
“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.”
As described above Congress has no power whatsoever to create a “federal law precisely defining “natural-born”, which the Naturalization Act did not do either.
“It would be wise to meditate on why Congress erred in 1937, and then note how today’s Congress regulates citizenship. Legislative mistakes in that area live long and complex lives.”
Such comments betray the author’s abysmal ignorance of the subject by proposing actions that are an oxymoron to the very definitions of the actions being proposed.
Someone should contact the author and suggest they retract the article before they damage their credibility any more than it has already been damaged.
The author fails to mention that the 1790 law was repealed 5 years later. It is no longer law, and the argument that it tells us what the founders had in mind is contradicted by other sources at the time.
Hint: if you rest your argument about natural born citizenship on a “Naturalization” statute, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Statutory citizenship and natural citizenship are by definition mutually exclusive.
Nope, not wasting my time wading through that disingenuous mess.
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.
This would seem to be an act which naturalize someone who meets these specific requirements into the status of NBC. But is it?
Notice the words "shall be considered as" have been emphasized. Anybody who tells you that the 1790 Act is a definition is misleading you. When Congress passed S.Res.511 telling you that this Act contains a definition, it did so deliberately (misled you). In the ordinary use of the English language, the phrase "shall be considered as" is as assignment of pretend, of "legal fiction," not an assignment of definition.
Social security regulation 20 CFR 416.1856 says, essentially, a person up to the age of 22 shall be considered as a child. That doesn't mean a person is in fact a child until they reach the age of 22, it means that the law will play make believe. "Legal fiction," is so common in statutory law, as to be unremarkable.
Viewing the phrase "shall be considered as" as creating legal fiction, what the founders said about the subject in the 1790 act was this:
the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States are not natural born citizens, but for purposes of law, we will pretend they are
The Act, on its face, disproves the contention that Cruz is an NBC. It doesn't help his case, it demolishes it!
Some people take advantage of ambiguity in the words of the 1790 Act, resulting in argument over whether on citizen parent is sufficient, or the contrary, that two citizen parents is mandatory. There is a legal answer to this question (men only), but it doesn't matter.
When you grok what the 1790 Act says, actually in plain English, when you grok that is expressly excludes what is described (children born abroad) from the conclusion (NBC), then it doesn't matter if the child had one parent, two parents, three parents (donor sperm), four parents (donor sperm and donor egg), or even zero parents (test tube baby).
The justices in the 1971 Bellei case cited this Act of Congress, and knew exactly what it said. Did they treat is a a message from the past, defining NBC? They did not.
The legal fiction created by this act was repealed in 1795. The justices didn't have to argue it away, and plus, Bellei is, say all 9 of the justices, unremarkaby, naturalized.
At this point, many people deploy "magic thinking" and relapse into believing that a person can be "natural" (which is better thought of as "under the constitution") and naturalized (which is better thought of as "NOT under the constitution, but only under an Act of Congress") at the same time. They want to believe, so badly, that a person born abroad of a citizen parent is an NBC, that they become, on this point, literally kooks.
It's not an issue in real life. These magic thinking people want to preserve the dream that their child can grow up to be president. The kids are citizens, but they are not 100% American at birth. A person born in Canada of a Cuban father and US Mother is not 100% American at birth. It's not their fault. They may turn into the best advocate for America, but they were born mixed. We the people can abandon the constitution via stupidity. Hell, I think we have.
Not to my recollection, it wasn't.
What I recall was a preemptive move on the part of the dhimmicrats to "bless" McStain's candidacy. That served to rob argument of 0bongo's candidacy - at least with the GOPe.
Conservatives were dismissed as "birthers" and the illegitimate king assumed the throne.