[Dr. Sivana]

Thank you for your relevant cites.

I have been reading up on this a bit on and off (especially during the Obama period) but you have sparked me to do a little more research.

I think the main difference we have is that I believe that there are two categories of citizenship, natural-born and naturalized; and you believe there are three, natural born, eligible for naturalization at birth, and naturalization.

In an earlier response to another poster I cited the Naturalization Act of 1790, “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: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.

Now, that act is no longer in force, but it DOES use the term “natural born Citizens”. This tells me the Founding Fathers themselves anticipated statutory law as encompassing a positive legal definition of “Natural Borm Citizen”, subject to revision. I believe that future statutes such as the 1952 law you cited covers the same ground, and that “citizens at birth” is the same as “Natural Born Citizen” because of this.

Your second cite includes “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.” Now, this was is of interest to me, because my wife is Canadian and our children are American born and adopted. Ted Cruz was not adopted, bt the law as written was trying to encompass every category elgible. Just because one is eligible to acquire “naturalization” doesn’t mean it is necessary, or that the person wasn’t already a citizen.

As the Canadian law is written, my adoptive children actually are dual citizens, even though Canada doesn’t know it yet. (They are not natral born, as the law was passed after their birth, and the birth parents were not Canadian). But, if my wife bore a child stateside, he would be a dual citizen at birth. The U.S. has no jurisdiction over what rules other countries make for citizenship.

Your last quotation is from the oft cited Von Ark case, which had to do with the inverse, foreign national giving birth on U.S. soil. The statement “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....” is more in the explanatory portion of the document and is at best a dictum, and not binding.

That said, I believe you have made a case against Cruz’ Natural Born status. I don’t believe that him NOT being a Natural Born Citizen is a “fact”, based on law and the history of this country.

I wouldn’t mind Mr. Trump or anyone else who has standing to get a hearing onthis, and get it cleared up permanently. I am confident it would bo the right way. Grayson would be a fantastic plaintiff.

[WhiskeyX]

“I think the main difference we have is that I believe that there are two categories of citizenship, natural-born and naturalized; and you believe there are three, natural born, eligible for naturalization at birth, and naturalization.”

No, that is an incorrect understanding and misperception. There are only the natural born citizen and the naturalized citizen being treated almost as if the person was a natural born citizen. The natural born citizen status has its origins in the prehistoric era, and it is based upon natural law as it has been practiced in common law since prehistoric times. Conceptually, it is the natural allegiance acquired by birth in a nuclear family, extended family, band, clan, and tribe of various cultures. To acquire natural born citizenship requires the child to acquire an undivided allegiance to the one and only sovereign of the parents. The moment the child acquires any divided allegiance to more than one sovereign at birth, the child is born without the undivided and therefore natural allegiance to only one sovereign required to define a natural born member of the sovereign’s jurisdiction.

Naturalization, whether at birth or after birth, is the usage of positive law to confer upon an alien born person, meaning a person born outside the jurisdiction and allegiance of the sovereign, the right to be “considered as” if they were actual natural born citizens in some but not all respects. Naturalization has been used in various ways ever since prehistoric times to acquire new members who were born in groups not having any allegiance to the domestic group, such as foreign spouses and the capture and adoption of foreign born children. In Anglo-American law, the Naturalization Law of 1541 first set forth a statute by Parliament that authorized a child born abroad with an English father to be considered as a natural born subject, which is what Sir Edward Coke later described in 1608 as a subject-made (datus) or naturalization and not an actual natural born subject or subject-born (natus). Note how one naturalization act, the Naturalization Act of 1541 encompassed naturalization at birth and naturalization after birth as one law of naturalization.

“In an earlier response to another poster I cited the Naturalization Act of 1790, “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: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.

The phrase “shall be considered as” is the legal terminology and legal fiction used to signify the person is not a natural born citizen but shall be accepted as if the person was a natural born citizen for the purposes of vesting some but not all of the same benefits and obligations enjoyed by an actual natural born citizen. When the authors wanted the term to mean any form of U.S. citizen, they said so in plain words just as they did so in the same act in regard to the alien or foreign born children of foreign citizens; e.g. “shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.” Notice how the statute says the aliens “shall be considered as citizens” and not the aliens “shall be citizens”; and it said the child of the U.S. citizen father “shall be considered as natural born Citizens” and not “shall be natural born Citizens.” Madison was responsible for removing the natural born citizen phrase in the naturalization Act of 1795 while noting the inclusion of the “natural born Citizens” was inappropriate usage due to its being misconstrued.

“Now, that act is no longer in force, but it DOES use the term “natural born Citizens”. This tells me the Founding Fathers themselves anticipated statutory law as encompassing a positive legal definition of “Natural Borm Citizen”, subject to revision.”

The phrase “shall be considered as natural born citizen” refers to a naturalized citizen, who is not a natural born citizen, under the authority of positive law and not the authority of natural law.

” I believe that future statutes such as the 1952 law you cited covers the same ground, and that “citizens at birth” is the same as “Natural Born Citizen” because of this.”

That is an impossibility due to the fact every legal dictionary defines positive law as the exact opposite of natural law. The word “natural” in the phrase “natural born citizen” defines the phrase as belonging to the branch of law known as natural law. “NATURAL LAW...We understand all laws to be either human or divine, according as they have man or God for their author; (Bouvier, Law Dictionary, Revised 15th Ed., 1892). The terms are entirely incompatible with the human made positive law for naturalization of aliens whether they are automatically and/or collectively naturalized at birth as the alien born child of a domestic parent or naturalized individually after birth. It all remains an exercise in creating a legal fiction to permit a person born with an alien allegiance, with or without a parent with domestic or alien citizenship or allegiance, to acquire the right in positive law to pretend and enjoy a certain manmade type of membership in the domestic body politic more or less comparable to that enjoyed by persons born without divided allegiance to the domestic sovereign.

“Your second cite includes “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.” Now, this was is of interest to me, because my wife is Canadian and our children are American born and adopted. Ted Cruz was not adopted, but the law as written was trying to encompass every category eligible. Just because one is eligible to acquire “naturalization” doesn’t mean it is necessary, or that the person wasn’t already a citizen.”

This situation highlights another key difference between a person acquiring natural born citizenship versus a person acquiring naturalized citizenship at birth or after birth. A natural born citizen acquires natural born citizenship involuntarily as a consequence of not having any allegiance to a foreign sovereign or foreign jurisdiction by birth. This is why a child born abroad with two citizen parents while enjoying diplomatic immunity shielding the child against any requirement for a temporary or a permanent allegiance to the foreign sovereign is a natural born citizen. The diplomatic immunity keeps the child from becoming subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign sovereign and the duty of allegiance to the foreign sovereign that can result in divided allegiances and divided loyalties. By contrast, the naturalized citizen acquires U.S. citizenship by the voluntary actions of the parents and/or child. The child born abroad with one or two parents having U.S. citizenship may choose to voluntarily adopt or not adopt the right to perfect the naturalized at birth U.S. citizenship proffered by the United States sovereignty, which is not possible for the natural born citizen. The fact that Ted Cruz’s mother, Eleanor, could have not separated from Rafael Cruz, kept the family together in Canada, and raised Ted Cruz as a Canadian citizenship without voluntarily choosing to perfect the right to adopt naturalized at birth U.S. citizenship upon reaching the age of majority demonstrates it is not possible for Ted Cruz to have acquired natural born citizenship in the U.S. or in Canada. On the contrary, the facts of Ted Cruz’s birth allow only Canadian, Cuban, and U.S. naturalized citizenship at birth.

Also note the Constitution did not and could not have the power to grant the Congress the power to make a person a natural born citizen. The Constitution did grant Congress the enumerated power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, which we have already observed does not and cannot by definition encompass natural born citizenship or other forms of natural law affecting certain in born or inherent natural rights, such as the right to life, free speech, and self defense.

“As the Canadian law is written, my adoptive children actually are dual citizens, even though Canada doesn’t know it yet. (They are not natural born, as the law was passed after their birth, and the birth parents were not Canadian). But, if my wife bore a child stateside, he would be a dual citizen at birth. The U.S. has no jurisdiction over what rules other countries make for citizenship.”

By definition, any citizenship that requires a manmade statutory law to authorize the existence of the citizenship is a form of naturalized citizenship, whether the legal fiction of citizenship is conferred retroactively at birth or at sometime after birth. By definition, any form of citizenship that results in divided allegiance to two or more sovereigns at birth is a form of naturalized citizenship, whether the legal fiction of citizenship is conferred retroactively at birth or at sometime after birth. The de facto practice of claiming dual citizenship and multiple citizenship has done much to confuse the understanding of how to apply constantly changing statutory laws for citizenship laws, but the one unchanging aspect is unchanging natural law and its requirement for a person to be born with only one and one undivided allegiance to a single sovereign by birth.

“Your last quotation is from the oft cited Von Ark case, which had to do with the inverse, foreign national giving birth on U.S. soil. The statement “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....” is more in the explanatory portion of the document and is at best a dictum, and not binding.”

Dicta or not, the Supreme Court of the United States acknowledged in the otherwise highly erroneous United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) decision that a child born abroad with a U.S. citizen could become a U.S. citizen by being naturalized. This is reinforced by a number of other such Supreme Court decisions. Another example is Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875):

[Qutoe]
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided ‘that any alien, being a free white person,’ might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. 8 These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.
[Unquote]

Note how the court decision consistently regards the authority to vest such a child born abroad as the statutory and positive law “retained in all the naturalization laws....” The decision recognizes this is the power granted by the Constitution to the Congress granted to Congress “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

“That said, I believe you have made a case against Cruz’ Natural Born status. I don’t believe that him NOT being a Natural Born Citizen is a “fact”, based on law and the history of this country.”

Yet, these and other Supreme Court of the United States cases deny the possibility of Ted Cruz’s birth abroad as a citizen of Canada has any possibility whatsoever of being anything other than U.S. citizenship by naturalization. Another example:

[Quote]
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.
[Unquote]

Ted Cruz was beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever NOT among “the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority ... born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Thusly, Ted Cruz fails to meet the Supreme Court definition used in this decision.

“I wouldn’t mind Mr. Trump or anyone else who has standing to get a hearing onthis, and get it cleared up permanently. I am confident it would bo the right way. Grayson would be a fantastic plaintiff.”

Given the history of Chief Justice Gray corruptly misusing the Binney citation/s to justify the false decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark as a means of protecting against the discovery of President Chester Arthur’s lack of U.S. citizenship, the protection of John McCain and Barack Hussein Obama, the protection of the many ineligible Republican candidates, the corrupt handling of the ACA (Obamacare) case, and so much more; why should any sane person have any further confidence in the ability or willingness of this court to honestly adjudicate this highly consequential corruption?