Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 2pets
Subsection 7 uses the requirement "prior to." Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada prior to Cruz's birth. Words matter.

Yes, they do. And if I'm following your argument here, you're trying to assert that "prior to" means Cruz's mother had to have been in the U.S. in the period immediately preceding his birth. If that's the argument (and I can't fathom what else you might be saying), then you're misreading the statute.

"(g) 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 who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years[.]"

There are two problems with your argument.

1. The statute requires the citizen parent to have been "physically present" in the U.S. "for a period or periods" totally the requisite time. "Or periods" means these can consist of multiple, non-continuous periods of time. So it matters not that in the final period of time Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada, so long as at some time prior to the birth there was a period or periods of physical presence in the U.S. totaling 10 years, etc. This then has to mean "at any time prior to" or else allowance for multiple periods wouldn't make sense.

2. Your construction would be absurd on it's face. This is a statute applying to a birth abroad. . The statute can't be then purporting to make the mother be physically present in the U.S. for a period ending the date of the birth. Is the mother supposed to have magically crossed the border when she goes into labor? Your reading makes the statute a nullity -- in the case where the citizen parent is the mother it would never apply.

The effort to compare "prior to" with "at any time prior to" was good. But it seems you got preoccupied there and missed the back end where the statute allows multiple periods of time.

Did Cruz's mother meet the 10-year requirement? I don't know if that's been established. But the fact the she was a resident in Canada in the period leading up to the birth doesn't disqualify her.

83 posted on 01/28/2016 8:32:24 PM PST by CpnHook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]


To: CpnHook
"1. The statute requires the citizen parent to have been "physically present" in the U.S. "for a period or periods" totally the requisite time. "Or periods" means these can consist of multiple, non-continuous periods of time. So it matters not that in the final period of time Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada, so long as at some time prior to the birth there was a period or periods of physical presence in the U.S. totaling 10 years, etc. This then has to mean "at any time prior to" or else allowance for multiple periods wouldn't make sense."

That only works if Subsections 7, like Subsection 5, required "at any time prior to." It doesn't.

"2. Your construction would be absurd on it's face. This is a statute applying to a birth abroad. . The statute can't be then purporting to make the mother be physically present in the U.S. for a period ending the date of the birth. Is the mother supposed to have magically crossed the border when she goes into labor? Your reading makes the statute a nullity -- in the case where the citizen parent is the mother it would never apply."

There are any number of reasons US citizen women are temporarily out of the US and may give birth during that time. What matters, and SCOTUS makes this very clear in the the Wong Kim Ark ruling, is one's legal permanent domicile. Since Subsection 7 does not permit ten years, etc., physical presence "at any time" prior to the birth, Cruz's mother would have had to have been a US resident prior to Cruz's birth. She was not. She was a resident of Canada for 3 years prior to Cruz's birth.

Read the closing paragraph of the Wong Kim Ark ruling for reference.

84 posted on 01/29/2016 4:58:30 AM PST by 2pets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

To: CpnHook
Furthermore, of a US citizen father and alien mother couple who reside in the US, it would be entirely feasible that the alien mother would choose to temporarily return to her native country to be with her family to give birth and then afterwards return to the US with her baby.

I find it odd that so many of you want to cherry pick which terms contained within a single Section do or do not apply to suit your agenda.

Quite simply, "at any time prior to" and "prior to" are not the same.

This is similar to what many people are correctly asserting: "born citizen" and "natural born citizen" are not the same.

85 posted on 01/29/2016 4:58:30 AM PST by 2pets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

To: CpnHook
You can't educate an IDIOT who will not listen to FACTS.
But thanks for trying. Yes, she did.
87 posted on 01/29/2016 9:37:44 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson