Posted on 04/06/2016 6:09:03 AM PDT by Liberty Tree Surgeon
Sen. Ted Cruz was projected to win the Wisconsin primary Tuesday, delivering a stunning blow to GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump and resetting the race as it heads east later this month.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Sorry but all these posts reveal you are NOT a lawyer.
Current law prevails.
For example, 13th Amendment was passed last day of January, 1965. Did it only free those slaves born after that date?
The whole AT thing is ridiculous. Of course the child is not a NBC unless parent meets all requirements. No law applies unless all requirements are met.... and there is no claim Mrs. Cruz (mother) did not meet all requirements of law.
The other law you quote is long superseded by 1401.
The problem with your posts is some foolish person, also unschooled in the law, might believe them.
No further replies to your posts on this without a $4500 retainer to further educate you on the law. Make the check payable to JimRob!
So the citizenship of a child born today in 2016 is determined by a law written 40 years later, in 2056? Your assertion is ridiculous.
The law in effect at the time of birth determines whether someone born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent or parents is a U.S. citizen at birth. https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/Print/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH.html#S-B
Current U.S. Code:
8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012)The law applicable in 1970: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 five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years
Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. No. 82-414 § 301(a)(7), 66 Stat. 163, 236 (1952); 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(7) (1970)The period of U.S. physical presence required of the citizen parent was not reduced until 1986. (Pub. L. No. 99-653 § 12, 100 Stat. 3657)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
This has been reduced to an incredulous “How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin” argument.
Here is the bottom line, and it makes Trump look bad.
Ted Cruz is a NBC. All NBC’s become so at the moment of their birth. The moment of birth is the only time a NBC can become such. All other citizens who are not NBCs become a citizen through a self-instituted legal process called Naturalization, “to be made as if natural” (but not eligible to be POTUS.)
In order to have a foreign-born person be a NBC, his/her parents and the NBC may have to do or may have to have done certain things, such as maintaining certain residencies, for that child to be a NBC. In fact, regarding the post-birth requirements, NBC can be revoked for the person’s failure to accomplish them.
That said, there are no accusations that Cruz and his mother did not meet all the requirements of law for him to get and keep NBC status.
That defeats Mr. Trump’s accusation that Mr. Cruz might not be eligible to be POTUS.
So the questions remains, Did Trump make the accusation knowing it was false, did he do it after getting deficient legal counsel, or does/did he not know the legal difference between Natural Born and Native Born.
Each of those three possibilities are frightening.
Have a good weekend
I’m pretty sure Cruz supporters will continue to talk about their big Wisconsin win well into 2018...
> Here is the bottom line, and it makes Trump look bad.
Trump has no bearing on Cruz’s status.
Read Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) in tandem with Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).
We are both smart guys. Let’s see if we can cut to the bottom line here.
Dozens of legal arguments could be made as to which law is in effect now, which law has been in effect in the past, what current laws or possible future laws or modifications to existing laws will be in effect in the future, etc, and of course all those arguments could have become drivers on the Ted Cruz citizenship question if there was any indication that Sen. Cruz or his mother had failed to meet the requirements of any of those laws.
There are some uncontested facts here. There are two types of American citizenship. A Natural Born Citizen is a citizen at the moment of birth. If the child is not a Natural Born Citizen, he can later, by application, become a Naturalized Citizen. In this case the word “naturalized” generally means “as if natural” with the particular constitutional exception in the United States that a naturalized citizen is not qualified to run for or serve in the office of President of the United States. That’s why it was always interesting that Senator Mel Martinez could never be the one cabinet member “sitting out” the State of the Union speech in a safe bunker somewhere on Mount Weather because as a Cuban born, naturalized citizen, he was not eligible to serve as president.
Another important point about that concept of being a natural born citizen at the moment of birth is that although that foreign-born natural born citizen is a natural born citizen at the moment of birth, there are acts of omission and acts of commission that that citizen can take which will nullify his citizenship.
For all intents and purposes, the two applicable laws are the one that was in effect on the date of his birth, and the one that is in effect now. In either case, under either law, Mrs. Cruz (the senator’s mother) and Sen. Cruz have both done all the things they had to do before and after the senator’s birth to meet the statutory requirements for natural born citizenship status at his birth. Likewise, Sen. Cruz has not done, nor failed to do anything that would remove his citizenship since his birth.
That said, the question then becomes “why would Mr. Trump raise such an issue?” We all know that there were numerous people who consistently confuse “natural born citizen” as defined in the various laws we have enjoyed throughout the history of our country, and on the other side “native born citizen” which, although not generally defined by law, is generally assumed to mean a person who was born within the contiguous 50 states.
There are some exceptions to this however. Not every person born within the contiguous 50 states is a citizen, native born, nor natural born. One often forgotten example is the requirement that at least one parent be subject to US laws. For example, if a woman gave birth within the contiguous United States, at the foot of the Washington Monument if you will, but if both she and her husband enjoyed diplomatic immunity as representatives of a foreign country and were therefore not subject to US laws, that child is not a citizen.
But again, of course, that is not the situation here.
I can only think of three reasons why Mr. Trump would have tried to raise the issue of Sen. Cruz’s citizenship-related eligibility to serve as president.
1; he was either badly misinformed on the status of the law regarding the issue of being a natural born citizen when a child is born overseas to at least one US citizen.
2; he possibly, as mentioned above was confusing “natural born citizen” with “native born citizen” I really don’t blame him if he made that mistake because it is a common one. But you would think that someone running as a serious candidate for president of the United States, who undoubtably has access to an entire cadre/coven of constitutionally-qualified and experienced lawyers would have sought out and received proper clarification on the issue so we didn’t incorrectly raise it.
3; finally, and although neither of the above options are particularly attractive, this is certainly the worst of the lot. Did Mr. Trump raise the issue of Sen. Cruz’s constitutional qualifications to serve as president with a knowledgeable purpose of trying to scare voters away, knowing there was no constitutional basis for his claim. Yes, I know, we’ve all heard the phrase that “everything is fair in love, war, and politics” but if this was the operative option, it lowers my opinion of both Mr. Trump and the entire Republican debate-primaries circus we have all been exposed to.
Perhaps I long for simpler times. When Sen. Goldwater ran against Pres. Johnson, voters made decisions not on their looks, alleged marital infidelities, or anything else other than what we thought about their intended plans for the country as delineated in their clearly stated policies. When Nixon ran against Humphrey, we didn’t vote for the “good-looking guy”, the guy with sexy wife, or the guy with the greatest vocabulary of insults; we knew and cared about their differences in the policies they intend to follow. We knew Nixon would follow one set of policies, and Humphrey something quite different.
Can you imagine how it would’ve been in 1968 if the Humphrey henchmen has started a whispering campaign among evangelical Christians that they shouldn’t vote for Nixon, because as a Quaker, “he wasn’t a real Christian.”
Back to the original point; there is no doubt that Sen. Cruz is constitutionally qualified to run for and serve as the president of United States. No one has made the accusation, at least no one with an IQ larger than his shoe size, has made the accusation that both Sen. Cruz and his mother did not do all that was necessary in order for him to be a statutorily and constitutionally qualified natural born citizen. Unfortunately, Mr. Trump’s raising the issue reminds me of Mark Anthony’s speech with the repeated line; “but Brutus…. is an honorable man.”
I just wish the debates had been more about policies, practices, and the directions in which the candidates wanted to take this country rather than sounding like a third grade playground fight, during recess, behind the bike rack.
Have a good weekend.
You can ignore Supreme Court precedent and the letter of the law, but they exist and are conclusive: citizenship by statute is naturalization.
Please tell me you are not one of the Natural Born - Flat Earth crowd
I’ve shown you law and Supreme Court precedent, you respond with rhetoric.
Admit it, you’re trying to make the Native Born idiocy argument.
Help me understand, what law, (please QUOTE the law, with reference) (PS, the 1898 SCOTUS long moot by new law) says non-Native Born citizen must be naturalized....
And of course, by your reasoning that means neither Ted Cruz, George Romney nor John McCain are citizens, since they were born overseas and none instituted the naturalization process.....
A partial list
Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103)
Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414)
Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat. 153)
Act of June 27, 1952 (66 Stat. 236)
Now do your own homework, I’m not spoon feeding you any more.
> And of course, by your reasoning that means neither Ted Cruz, George Romney nor John McCain are citizens, since they were born overseas and none instituted the naturalization process.....
The source of your confusion is your mistaken belief that a process is required. There is no such requirement.
Smelly farts ahead.
Oh my God.. I never realized it,
Wow, you sure had me fooled. I’m embarrassed that I never picked it up.
Wow, you hid it well.
You’re one of the Moon landings were faked, the income tax is an illegal program by the Vienna Jewish bankers to steal all our money, fluoride in the water is really a Russian mind control poison, ZIP codes are really a way to catalog all of us for the underground prison the Red Chinese have built in Nevada and Natural Born status requires a person to be Native Born crowd!
Wow, you sure had me fooled.
Good by!
I thought Strac was a troll/hired political operative a few days ago and now I am proved correct.
ESAD, Strac. Spitting on the natural born clause in the Constitution is a sure sign of a paid operative, fool, knave, or all three.
And you are wrong there, only one of you is a smart guy, and it is not the one pretending that natural born citizen means just plain "citizen".
That’s all ya got?
Excuse me, but Natural Born and Native Born are two very different things. If you don’t understand that, back to 5th Grade Civics for you, and no cheeseburger for you either!
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.