Posted on 01/30/2016 11:10:12 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
...
The first thought that comes to mind is that Trump keeps coming back to this attack against Cruz for a couple of reasons. The first is that he cannot make attacks on Cruz's record of standing up for conservative principles the centerpiece of his strategy because that leaves him open to greater scrutiny of his own liberal record...
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
I’ simply telling you what the CRS report states- I’ll go over the case tomorrow- but briefly skimming it now, it appears the case is indeed about whether the child was a citizen by birth of the mother, and not a foreigner in need of a naturalization process or not-
[[The statutory distinction relevant in this case, then, is that § 1409(a)(4) requires one of three affirmative steps to be taken if the citizen parent is the father, but not if the citizen parent is the mother: legitimation; a declaration of paternity under oath by the father; or a court order of paternity.]]
[[Before considering the important governmental interests advanced by the statute, two observations concerning the operation of the provision are in order. First, a citizen mother expecting a child and living abroad has the right to reenter the United States so the child can be born here and be a 14th Amendment citizen. From one perspective, then, the statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’s birth and the other chooses not to return, or does not have the means to do so. This equivalence is not a factor if the single citizen parent living abroad is the father. For, unlike the unmarried mother, the unmarried father as a general rule cannot control where the child will be born.]]
Scroll down to ‘66’ on that link you posted- It states there is no difference-
I’ll read more tomorrow-
[[For purposes of naturalization.]]
Just a quick note about that- in the FAS link I posted it takes up the issue of ‘naturalization’ and NBC on page 40- and like Cdbolt stated, there is the issue of ‘naturalization without an act’ and one ‘with an act’ and the courts have been indicating that there is a difference between naturalization of ‘at birth/by birth’ and ‘after birth’ ( those who’s parents are neither citizens)
I still haven't figured out if you are deliberately misleading or innocently ignorant, but I'm strongly inclined toward the former.
[[Since you appear to be avoiding a cite to our past discussion]]
Sorry- I just assumed you knew the discussion I was referring to- and didn’t think you needed a cite- since we’re basically discussing the same thing here, and I’ve linked to the CRS article I brought up In the other thread, here-
You advocate a point of view here (and pretend, although not convincingly, that it isn't your view, merely a view expressed by others), and unless I popped in and spouted off, you'd not point out our two weeks old exchange.
[[You aren’t any more skilled at reading case law now, than you were then.]]
Again- must you? Can you just respond without the constant digs? That doesn’t fortify your points any-
You stated that the Nyguen case doesn’t state that there is an equivalence between mother who has child here or abroad and state that the case is just about the issue that some naturalizations doesn’t require a process/act and some do- I posted directly from the link you provided that shows there is an equivalency between the two, and further up the page it makes the case that some women travelling abroad wouldn’t have the means to get back and indicate that their child is not to be considered basically any different than the mother who does have the means to travel back to the land to have the child
You have yet to explain how that case translates into the child (born abroad) needing a naturalization process when it states
[[Before considering the important governmental interests advanced by the statute, two observations concerning the operation of the provision are in order. First, a citizen mother expecting a child and living abroad has the right to reenter the United States so the child can be born here and be a 14th Amendment citizen. From one perspective, then, the statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’s birth and the other chooses not to return, or does not have the means to do so. This equivalence is not a factor if the single citizen parent living abroad is the father. For, unlike the unmarried mother, the unmarried father as a general rule cannot control where the child will be born.]]
I know you believe any statutory act is a ‘naturalization’ that renders semen ineligible to run for presidency, but this case seems to indicate otherwise- and all I’m getting from you really is “You don’t understand it” as though that settles the issue- At best you say both in this thread and the other one, the case is simply about naturalization- some need a process, others don’t
The case ‘can be made’ that those that don’t are births called ‘at birth and by birth’ and that both of these situations are equivalent to Native born status/ common law status-
IF the issue is as settled as you seem to indicate that it is, then it wouldn’t be an ongoing discussion and ongoing court declarations both for and against certain positions down through the ages- yet the fact is that it is an ongoing process - You can declare that everyone else is wrong because they don’t agree, because they believe there is a difference between citizenship by descent, and citizenship by a process, an you can declare that those who bring yup counter points to your position are ‘innocently ignorant’ if you like- but again statements like that don’t help your case any
Now I think that’s a pretty accurate assessment so far- so please dispense with the little digs each time- thanks
[[and pretend, although not convincingly, that it isn’t your view, merely a view expressed by others]]
Sigh- I am looking at this as objectively as I can- As I stated, you had presented an argument, based on the Bellei case, and based on the phrase “Shall be considered” that had me nearly assured that Ted was not eligible- I explained to you in that thread why the term “Shall be considered” Had me leaning heavily towards his not being eligible, But as I researched the issue further I ran across that CRS report that indicated that ‘shall be considered’ does not necessarily equate with ‘a process of naturalization ‘after birth’ for the reason I have brought up here and In the other thread
I was actually researching the term ‘shall be considered’ (as I felt it was key to the whole citizenship/naturalization act/statute issue), when I ran across that CRS report , and now I’m not so sure any longer-
you keep trying to assign motive to me— something you got angry at me for doing to you unintentionally in the other thread-
[[and pretend, although not convincingly, that it isn’t your view,]]
I’m not pretending I don’t lean that way now- as explained above, I ran across that article, and it caused doubt about the argument you used to convince me to lean towards Cruz being ineligible- That’s it- IF there is convincing evidence that the SC and other courts haven’t indicated the positions I’ve outlined from the report above, then my position will change again on this issue
I do NOT take a firm stand one way or the other because this issue has been a hot button issue and many legal scholars on both sides have weighed in and nothing has been settled as of yet-
Simply put- ‘It appears to me’, at this point, that the courts are also leaning towards the idea that their is a distinct difference between at birth/by birth, and ‘after birth’ where the child’s parents are not citizens, and I’m sorry, but you statement that the Nyguen case simply refers to a naturalization issue where some need a process and others don’t seems to ignoring statements In that case- judging by what little I’ve read of it so far-
sorry i’ll try to keep posts shorter- I did want to clear some things up though because you and that other fella In the other thread seem to be convinced I’ve got some nefarious reasons for looking into this issue- As I told you In the other thread- this issue is like the one about post tribulation and mid- I will NOT live or die based on either position- I lean heavily towards pre trib, but am open to any position that shows that mid trib is more biblical- I have leaned heavily in both directions based on info I had at the time based on arguments from both camps
The fact is the tribulation is too undefined to take a solid position on either position - but I do believe the evidence weighs a bit more towards pre trib- at this point
Same with this issue- it’s an obscure issue with no clear defining points, but there sure is plenty of opinion on both sides- I can only, at best, lean one way or the other based on arguments from one camp or the other-
I’ve made no secret about which ways I was leaning In that other thread or in this one- for a time In the other thread, I was leaning towards Ted being ineligible, now I’m not sure again-
so do please stop trying to assign motive to my quest for answers- thanks- this issue is an important issue, one that is so important infact, that the SC may just have to decide it one way or the other-
You aren't a wallflower, and blunt conversation is efficient. Plus, I really don't like you, and that shows in how I respond to your drivel.
-- You stated that the Nyguen case doesn't state that there is an equivalence between mother who has child here or abroad and state that the case is just about the issue that some naturalizations doesn't require a process/act and some do --
That's false. The case is an equal rights case. As for the paragraph that is a truism (some naturalization involves a ceremony, some naturalization doesn't involve a ceremony), a truism isn't an issue - it's a truism. The case recites a truism, which you interpret as a rule of law that "it isn't naturalization unless there is a ceremony"
-- You have yet to explain how that case translates into the child (born abroad) needing a naturalization process when it states [cite excised] --
You prove my point that you aren't skilled at reading case law. If you were skilled, you would not need an explanation. As I pointed out weeks ago, I don't have time to correct all the people who have a mission of misleading the public. It's a fools errand.
The section that you claim makes a birth abroad the same as a birth in the US is expounding on the difference between a man and a woman, in light of 1409. A woman is able to come to the US and have a 14th amendment citizen baby. A man, being not pregnant, doesn't have that power of choice.
-- and ongoing court declarations both for and against certain positions down through the ages --
There are ZERO contrary US cases on the legal rule of "birth-abroad = alien or naturalized."
-- you keep trying to assign motive to me-- something you got angry at me for doing to you unintentionally in the other thread --
I got pissed at you for misrepresenting what I said, and it seems you have a habit of misrepresenting what you read, be it case law or debate with other people.
And I am not buying your "I'm innocent" act.
[[and pretend, although not convincingly, that it isn’t your view, merely a view expressed by others]]
Look- I told you In that other thread that I wasn’t convinced that the CRS report was correct- I think they have an argument, but I also stated that I think the counter argument may be more powerful based on the phrase ‘shall be considered’ which ‘seems to indicate’ that the phrase ‘shall be’ is an act/statute enacted by congress which WOULD indicate that it is a process of naturalization because it was an ‘edict’ if you will, (maybe just ‘requirement’ is a better word) by congress and not something that was in the constitution, making it a process, and not something that is naturally acquired like ‘at birth’ - I also felt that the argument that ‘by birth’ being the same status as ‘at birth’ was shaky, but also indicated that the cases which indicated this might be drawing on common law and ‘citizenship by descent’ as observed by English and French ‘natural law’ which our founders seemed to have included in some rights-
As you can see- there are opinions on both sides which make good arguments- I can only tell you how I lean at this point- I am not trying to hide anything or pretend I believe something I don’t- I try to look at both positions, and tend to argue points that favor the way I lean at a particular point- as evidenced by my arguments taking the turn they did when you brought up the phrase ‘shall be considered’
There is no nefarious tactic involved here- and I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to assign one to me- it is not contributing to your argument, and seems to have the goal of further belittling me and my inquiry into this matter and it seems to prejudice lurkers against me- as evidenced by the other fella in the other thread jumping in with his 2 cents accusing me of some ulterior motive
For purposes of advancing an argument, you shouldn't care what I think of your motive, or what I think of you personally. The personality conflict is a distraction. It exists, but it is a distraction.
I'm sure my attitude and delivery results in some posters developing prejudice against me, too. It's a burden we prickly people are stuck with.
[[The section that you claim makes a birth abroad the same as a birth in the US is expounding on the difference between a man and a woman, in light of 1409]]
That is a sub issue
[[Plus, I really don’t like you, and that shows in how I respond to your drivel.]]
And I’ve given you reason to not like me how? I’ve not once called you ignorant, called your posts drivel or said any of the crap you’ve said to me- Not sure exactly what is pissing you off- but really it’s me who should be pissed at you- for acting childish
[[A woman is able to come to the US and have a 14th amendment citizen baby.]]
You left off that a woman can have the baby on foreign soil and the child is a citizen-
From the Nyguen case:
[[Before considering the important governmental interests advanced by the statute, two observations concerning the operation of the provision are in order. First, a citizen mother expecting a child and living abroad has the right to reenter the United States so the child can be born here and be a 14th Amendment citizen. From one perspective, then, the statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’s birth and the other chooses not to return, or does not have the means to do so. This equivalence is not a factor if the single citizen parent living abroad is the father. For, unlike the unmarried mother, the unmarried father as a general rule cannot control where the child will be born.]]
[[And I am not buying your “I’m innocent” act.]]
At this point- after your childish insults, I don’t give a crap what you believe- You condescending attitude and playground insults seem to be all you have left now- I’ve tried to be civil with you but your attitude really sucks- I explained my reason for inquiring about this issue- and I stand by what I said- take it or leave it I don’t care at this point
And, and I left off that you say the case says this born abroad 1409 baby is a NBC. I left off alot of material, because the case is there.
The "equivalence" remark in that paragraph, you are making into "birth abroad is equivalent to birth in the US." Of purposes of citizenship, this equivalence DEPENDS ON 1409. It is the statute that gives citizenship to both cases. Take the statute away, and the unwed citizen mother's child is an alien, period. The child is not a citizen under the constitution.
-- I don't give a crap what you believe --
That is progress, because what I believe isn't important. What is important is what the court cases and the law say.
The "equivalence" remark in that paragraph, you are making into "birth abroad is equivalent to birth in the US." For purposes of citizenship, this equivalence DEPENDS ON 1409. It is the statute that gives citizenship to the birth abroad case. Take the statute away, and the unwed citizen mother's child, born abroad, is an alien, period. The born abroad child is not a citizen under the constitution.
Citizen of the US and alien to (not citizen of) the US.
Looking at the US constitution, in particular the 14th amendment, the group that is citizens of the US can be subdivided into two groups.
Citizen under the constitution (born in the US) or citizen only due to operation of a statute (not born in the US). Those who are citizens solely by operation of a statute are called "naturalized citizens."
Case law is 100% uniform on this, with the only exceptions being diplomats and invaders.
Money Quote? More like Chump Change. That argument is easily refuted with facts:
Mary Anne Trump's naturalization card shows that she became a US citizen in 1942, four years before her son Donald was born in 1946.
Donald Trump was born in the country of two Citizen parents. He is a natural born Citizen of the United States of America.
Some posters on this site have done the research, and despite what the current meme is, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the native born concept, and Cruz is not eligible.
[[Of purposes of citizenship, this equivalence DEPENDS ON 1409.]]
This 1409 has only to do with the father- not the mother- and has nothing to do with a mother who is a US citizen who has a child overseas regardless of whether the father is present or a citizen or has established a bond with the child- 1409 simply establishes the father’s right to claim citizenship for child - this 1409 only has to do with an out of wedlock birth, and the case itself made it clear that the mother if a US citizen passes her citizenship on to the child- and is no different than a mother who has a child in the states-
[[Take the statute away, and the unwed citizen mother’s child is an alien, period. The child is not a citizen under the constitution]]
Only if the child’s father is not a US citizen and hasn’t met the required regulations for citizenship and establishing a bond with the child- (which seems to be the secondary requirement for either parent in regards to the Nyguen case)
1409 seems to only come into play IF the following condition from 18 us code 1401 isn’t met
[[(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person; ]]
and makes it clear that IF it is the father that is wanting the child to be considered a citizen then the father must have met certain requirements laid out in code 1409
Two of us brought this up in the other thread and you didn’t respond back to that-
The following statement I nthe case has nothing to do with code 1409
[[Before considering the important governmental interests advanced by the statute, two observations concerning the operation of the provision are in order. First, a citizen mother expecting a child and living abroad has the right to reenter the United States so the child can be born here and be a 14th Amendment citizen. From one perspective, then, the statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’s birth and the other chooses not to return, or does not have the means to do so. This equivalence is not a factor if the single citizen parent living abroad is the father. For, unlike the unmarried mother, the unmarried father as a general rule cannot control where the child will be born.]]
Other than the fact that the citizenship of the child born abroad, out of wedlock, depends on the statute.
If they are "no different," how do you justify them both considered "born in the US" instead of both considered "born abroad?" With the statute in place, they are both citizens.
FWIW, 1409 is for out of wedlock birth. 1401 is for in wedlock birth. A person asserting a claim of 1401 citizenship has to produce evidence of birth in wedlock.
Grasping the difference between father-citizen and mother-citizen under 1409 is irrelevant for finding the born-abroad child to be either an alien (doesn't meet the statute) or naturalized (does meet the statute).
-- The following statement I the case has nothing to do with code 1409 --
That statement you blockquoted recites "the important governmental interests advanced by the statute," and "the statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child's birth and the other chooses not to return," and you say the statement has nothing to do with the statute. Explain.
I pinged Springfield Reformer to this thread as I’ve found a thread In which he discusses this very issue in a manner clearer than I can- It appears he is saying roughly the same thing I’ve been trying to convey- here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3390852/posts?page=40#40
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.