Cole: Coulter makes ridiculous claims on Cruz

The Casper Star-Tribune ^ | January 24, 2016 | Charles Cole

[2ndDivisionVet]

I usually enjoy reading Ann Coulter's columns thanks to her acerbic wit and gutsy grit. But, being human, she has flaws, among which is a penchant to suspend rationality when advocating for her flavor of the year in Republican presidential candidates. In past years, it was Chris Christie and Mitt Romney. Now, thanks mainly to his tough stance on immigration, it's Donald Trump.

This infatuation has caused her to write some ridiculous things about the eligibility of Ted Cruz for the presidency. Her use of the term "naturalization" is, frankly, unworthy of her status as a law school graduate. A recently published article from the Harvard Law Review holds that: "All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase 'natural born citizen' has a specific meaning - namely, someone who is a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time." Cruz meets this requirement.

There are only two paths to citizenship: automatically at birth, or after one's birth through some legal process such as immigration and naturalization. The plain meaning of "natural born citizen" is understood to be a person who was a citizen "naturally" by reason of birth, as differentiated from obtaining citizenship later in life. In 1790, the First Congress passed a law providing, "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

Newton Schwartz, an 85-year-old lawyer, has filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Texas challenging Cruz' eligibility. Schwartz told Bloomberg News that, while he's not linked to any particular presidential campaign, he will probably support Democrat/Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Nice company you're in, Annie!

Legally, this man has no "standing" to file this action. Only another presidential candidate could do so. If Trump actually thinks Cruz is ineligible, let him file suit and request expedited consideration which, along with any subsequent appeals, would surely be decided on an emergency basis. Otherwise, let's move on to real issues!

[driftdiver]

Check out the us state dept website. It provides the references.

Picking one case out of a thousand is amateur hour. If you ask a lawyer they’ll say the same thing. Current law as it stands doesn’t require your interpretation.

[driftdiver]

Which is why law and case precedent is used.

Scouts hasn’t ruled on it.

[driftdiver]

Cruz is no longer a dual citizen. The prince is.

[Just mythoughts]

I am sorry to have to inform you but you are wrong. Trump forced the Obama crew to produce a Hawaii birth certificate. All who had the power to declare Obama ineligible subverted their Constitutional oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. ( note I said produce, I cannot claim it is authentic.)

Nobody is going to produce same kind of birth certificate for Cruz. He was born in Canada.

Natural born is circumstance of birth... Land of the United States, not a foreign country.

Anchor babies, which means parents are not citizens, but born in US are not natural born. Naturalized citizens.... Not the same thing. Do you understand ‘first born’? That does not come about from an Act of Congress or a court decision, but circumstance of birth.

[Cboldt]

-- Check out the us state dept website. It provides the references. --

That's not a cite, and it has inferior power of law (as in "none") compared with SCOTUS decisions.

Loss of Citizenship and Nationality

A U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization INA 301 (8 U.S.C. 1401), INA 310 (8 U.S.C. 1421) or a U.S. noncitizen national INA 308 (8 U.S.C. 1408), INA 101(29) (8 U.S.C. 1101(29)) will lose U.S. nationality ("expatriate") her or himself by committing a statutory act of expatriation as defined in INA 349 (8 U.S.C. 1481), or predecessor statute, but only if the act is performed (1) voluntarily and (2) with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.

travel.state.gov

Confusing things a bit, 8 USC 1401(a) recites, "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," so 8 USC 1401 includes people born in the US, not naturalized, and people born abroad.

The be supporting of your contention, that US State Department reference would say, "A U.S. citizen by birth INA 301 (8 U.S.C. 1401) or naturalization, INA 310 (8 U.S.C. 1421)"

You still haven't responded to my question about how you distinguish dual-citizen Prince Achmed from dual-citizen Cruz, in light of your assertion that a dual-citizen is not eligible for the presidency.

[Cboldt]

-- Cruz is no longer a dual citizen. The prince is. --

The constitutional test applies at birth, yes or no?

[Smokin' Joe]

You specifically accused me of something, not based on what I had written, but on what other people wrote, and immediately lumped me in with others based on their comments. That is neither fair, nor is it "conservative".

I was commenting on Coulter's drift to the left, which in these parts is generally represented in the policies and legislation enacted in states in the Northeastern region of this country.

My comment was not about Trump, and I have been careful on this forum to stick to verified facts when commenting about Mr. Trump, and have attempted to remain as unemotional as possible in presenting any analysis of what appears to be Mr. Trump's character based on his actions.

That you are lumping people together as "Cruzers" tells me you have picked your football team, with all the emotion required for such.

I implore you to step back, emotionally detach from your candidate of choice, and engage in a more intelligent and rational discussion, not only for the sake of this country, but for the sake of this forum, which is taking on the intellectual quality of a fight on an English football pitch.

[dynoman]

I am not lying, Ted did in his tweet.

Trump Spokesperson Says Ted Cruz Eminent Domain Attack Ad “Outright Lies”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3387976/posts?page=1

[odawg]

“TEG act defines Cruz as a citizen not a naturalized citizen.”

TEG act does not change Constitution.

Only an amendment can change the Constitution. What is written into the Constitution about natural born citizenship can only be changed by a Constitutional amendment.

You can amass all the Acts in world history, they still cannot change the Constitutional requirement about natural born citizenship.

Why do you think the Senate, as it were, issued a paper on McCain’s eligibility. That was an admission on their part that Naturalization Acts do not change the Constitution. If that were the case, they would have just referenced the act.

[Cboldt]

-- Picking one case out of a thousand is amateur hour. --

OK, then pick a contrary case. Every single case on citizenship at birth abroad says the same thing - naturalized. Find just ONE that says differently. I picked Rogers v. Bellei because the fact pattern is the same as Cruz, bu there are thousands of born abroad citizenship cases, and they all say the same thing.

-- Current law as it stands doesn't require your interpretation. --

That's a throwaway line. Current law as it stands doesn't require your interpretation either.

[odawg]

“Scouts hasn’t ruled on it.”

I suppose you mean SCOTUS. They have, more than once. It is claimed that the SCOTUS has not ruled, but that is just to cause confusion.

[dynoman]

"Ad exposing how Trump has used eminent domain to bulldoze an elderly woman's home to create a limo parking lot" ; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) January 22, 2016

"Glossing over that fact makes you a liar." Ted's tweet is an outright lie. What does glossing over that fact make you and everyone here who isn't willing to admit it??

[Cboldt]

Not responsive to your remarks, but you may find this interesting or useful, or just a kick out of being "technically correct" so you can impress your friends and family ;-)

The original State Department document that would pertain to Cruz is not an FS-240, CRBA, Consular Record of Birth Abroad. It would be an FS-545, an obsolete document now. The US stopped issuing FS-545 in 1990.

If Cruz produces a CRBA, FS-240, that means the record was produced after 1990, some 20 years after he was born. Such a (FS-240) document is, I think, impossible to exist, unless it is a replacement for a FS-545.

The reason it is impossible is that FS-545 and FS-240 must be applied for before the child is 18. There is a third document used for those who apply for recognition of statutory citizenship after they reach the age of majority.

Looks like McCain was naturalized too. We had a choice between two usurpers in the 2008 election. One born abroad, one a dual citizen.

[jospehm20]

Whatever. It is your opinion. Enjoy it. I disagree and think Cruz is not what the founders had in mind. Cruz was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen until mid 2014. I generally vote for Americans.

[Cboldt]

-- Naturalized means he went before a court and was made a citizen. That did not happen. --

In the US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7, at 7 FAM 1441.3 "Role of the Consular Officer," (page 4 of the pdf) it says that, "The consular officer is responsible for adjudication of a U.S. citizenship claim for applicants for a Form FS-240 ..." That is the Consular Record of Birth Abroad. The predecessor to FS-240 was FS-545. Cruz would have an FS-545 if his mom and/or dad applied for one before they left Canada.

My point though, is that the claim was adjudicated.

7 FAM 1100 is also informative, although not an authority. In other words, it restates the legal authority, but is not itself the legal authority.

7 FAM 1113 probes the legal definition of "not included in the meaning of 'in the United States'" I point it out just because it is interesting, not becuase it has bearing on the Cruz case.

[RC one]

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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Minor v. Happersett

In the years since Wong Kim Ark, the concept of jus soli citizenship has "never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and [has] been accepted as dogma by lower courts". Citizenship cases since Wong Kim Ark have dealt mainly with situations falling outside the bounds of the Citizenship Clause[3]—such as citizenship via jus sanguinis for foreign-born children of U.S. citizens,[157] or circumstances under which U.S. citizenship may be lost.[158]

The Wong Kim Ark court's affirmation of jus soli as the primary rule determining United States citizenship has been cited in several Supreme Court decisions affirming the citizenship of U.S.-born individuals of Chinese or Japanese ancestry.[158][159][160][161] The court's holding that the language of the Constitution should be understood in light of the common law has been cited in numerous Supreme Court decisions dealing with the interpretation of the Constitution or acts of Congress.[162][163][164] The Wong Kim Ark court's understanding of Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction was also cited in a 1982 case involving the rights of illegal immigrants.[165]

[Cboldt]

More "stuff." Reference recent opinion letter cites to some case law, that I haven't looked up yet.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services Decision of April 10, 2014, on the effect of being adopted by a US citizen mother, in light of 8 USC 1401(g), birth abroad to one-citizen parent.

The ruling was essentially that the adoptive mother couldn't transmit citizenship by her blood. Citizenship under 1401(g) is strictly associated with and limited to the natural parents.

No particular reason to post this to you - you just have the misfortune of being a recent correspondent of mine.

[driftdiver]

Crba is a certification of the birth. Naturalization does not deliver a crba.

[driftdiver]

Why are you defending Trumps attempts to steal this woman’s property?

[Cboldt]

Believe what you want.