Posted on 07/18/2021 11:18:02 PM PDT by conservative98
Sen. Ted Cruz hadn’t been an official contender for the presidency of the United States for 12 hours before the questions started coming, even in the warm and welcoming cradle of a primetime interview before what should be the friendliest of conservative audiences.
“You were born in Calgary, in Canada,” FOX News host Sean Hannity asked him, glancing into the camera for an apologetic chuckle. “Is there a birth certificate issue?”
It’s a question that’s lurked around the edges of Cruz’s political profile ever since the junior senator gained enough notoriety to be mentioned as a presidential candidate. Google searches for “Ted Cruz Canadian” spiked in October 2013 as he led Republicans towards a government shutdown; the query jumped again on Monday as he announced his White House run.
And some of it is friendly fire. Donald Trump, famed skeptic of prominent pols’ citizenship paperwork, didn’t resist the urge to tweak his fellow Republican on Monday night when making his own appearance on FOX’s primetime programming.
“I hope he knows what he's doing, but I thought you had to be born in the country,” he suggested to interviewer Megyn Kelly, adding that Cruz has “one extra level of complication” because of how long he maintained dual citizenship with both the United States and our kindly neighbors to the north.
Cruz is far from the first – or even the second – White House wannabe whose birthplace has launched quizzical headlines about his fitness to inhabit the White House. Even before the Obama “birther” movement, John McCain’s eligibility was questioned because he was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.
Similar queries were made of Gov. George Romney (dad of Mitt and presidential contender in 1968), who was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
The concept of a Natural Born Citizen arises out of Natural Law. Our NBC definition for POTUS eligibility purposes was frozen in time like a caveman with no comment or elaboration the moment the 10th of 13 former colonies approved our new Constitution in 1788. WE NEED SCOTUS TO THAW IT OUT AND SHOW EVERYONE HOW SIMPLE AND DISCRIMINATORY IT IS.
No country needs to bother defining the citizenship status of individuals born on its soil to parents who are its citizens. Do any of them require naturalization under the Unoted States Federal Naturalization Statute? NO—UNIQUELY, AND DEFINITIVELY, NO!
You’ve noticed by now, surely, that the U S. NEVER NOT ONCE EVER did such a thing (i.e., define such status of such individuals). And yet about 70 percent of American citizens NATURALLY fall into this category PLENTY COMFORTABLY AND WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
WHY MUST WE EXPAND THE POOL OF THE POTUS AND VPOTUS ELIGIBLE BEYOND THE DAMNABLY PLAIN AND STUBBORNLY UNFLAVORED INDIVIDUALS THAT MEET THIS DEFINITION? ARE THERE NOT HUNDREDS OF OTHER HIGH LEVEL GOVERNMENT JOBS THAT WILL KEEP THE VAGUELY EXOTIC AND RELATIVELY SPICY INDIVIDUALS THAT DON’T MEET THIS DEFINITION (Cruz, Harris, Rubio, etc.) HAPPY BUSY AND FULFILLED?
This is correct. The term "citizen" meant "city-denizen." Someone who dwells in a city.
How came the term to mean member of a nation rather than member of a city? Where did that transition occur, and why did it occur?
I don't mean to be coy, but I have studied this particular point quite a lot. I want to see if you follow the clues to the same place I did.
Oh, and from what I have discovered, the transition from "City Denizen" to "Nation Member" didn't occur in the English language until the 18th century. So far as I can tell (from studying English dictionaries of that era), in English the word didn't come to mean "member of a nation" until around the 1760s. Prior to that time, it still meant "City-dweller."
For example.
Cit. [contracted from Citizen] 1. An inhabitant of a city. 2. A pert low towniman.
Citizen. f.[citoyen Fr.] A Freeman of a City. Raleigh 2. A townman; not a gentleman. Shakefp3. an Inhabitant. Dryden
https://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ&q=citizen#v=snippet&q=citizen&f=false>
The concept of a Natural Born Citizen arises out of Natural Law. Our NBC definition for POTUS eligibility purposes was frozen in time like a caveman with no comment or elaboration the moment the 10th of 13 former colonies approved our new Constitution in 1788.
The Constitution was considered adopted with the ratification of the 9th state. Article 7: "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."
The phrase natural born citizen used by the Framers was a legal term of art lifted directly from the English common law and adapted for our purposes. There was no need to include a definition of the term as it had been defined for centuries.
While you seek to invoke every law but United States law to satisfy your claims about American citizenship, the U.S. courts have had none of that argument for over two centuries.
For all persons born in the United States, the 14th Amendment is the applicable source of law to determine citizenship at birth. For all persons born outside the territory of the United States, United States Federal law controls the determination of citizenship at birth. If there were an authority superior to the United States, telling us who is or is not a United States citizen, or who may, or may not, be President, we would not be a sovereign nation. That superior authority would be the sovereign.
- - - - - - - - - -
No country needs to bother defining the citizenship status of individuals born on its soil to parents who are its citizens. Do any of them require naturalization under the Unoted States Federal Naturalization Statute?
At the Founding and the Framing there was no Federal naturalization statute. It was a matter of State jurisdiction. An alien became a citizen of the United States by becoming a citizen of a State.
At the Framing, no uniform rule of naturalization existed. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 provided that "Congress shall have the power . . . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...." Prior to the enactment of a Federal statute, each state made its own rules and requirements for naturalization.
Prior to the first Federal statute, which followed the establishment of the new government under the Constitution, there had been natural born citizens of the United States. Prior to the Declaration of Independence there had been natural born citizens of the English colonies who were natural born subjects of the king.
An Act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.
Perforce, United States law defines who are its citizens. Citizens are all those who are not aliens. A law which defines who is born an alien, equally defines all others as citizens. With only two classes, defining either one also defines the other.
Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108-109 (1925)
The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of. the thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
at 694
To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.
at 702-703
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
at 704
The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
INDIVIDUALS THAT DON’T MEET THIS DEFINITION (Cruz, Harris, Rubio, etc.)
Kamala Harris was born in California. She is a natural born United States citizen pursuant to the 14th Amendment. She was born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.
Marco Rubio was born in Florida. He is a natural born United States citizen pursuant to the 14th Amendment. He was born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a United States citizen and was officially recognized as a United States citizen at birth pursuant to the applicable Federal law at the time of his birth.
Tulsi Gabbard was born in was born in American Samoa which confers status as a national, but not a citizen, of the United States. She was born to a United States citizen and was officially recognized as a United States citizen at birth pursuant to the applicable Federal law at the time of her birth.
Joseph B. Nones, Esq. to Secretary of State William L. Marcy, March 11, 1854
New York, Saturday, March 11, 1854.Sir:
I take the liberty to address you, to solicit your opinion on the construction of represented to me, in the nature of the United States citizenship, and the issue by the State Department of passports consequent thereon. The solution of these two questions has always been subject of interest, and at this time peculiarly so; and I can find no law of Congress to elucidate these two cases, viz.:
Imprimis—A man born in the City of New York, of alien parents, who had not, at the time of his birth, declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States, claims to be a native born citizen of the United States, and entitled to protection from your Department. Is he correct in his views, and is he a citizen of the United States and will the Department of State grant him a passport?
Next, a similar claim is made by a man born in Connecticut of alien parents; who at the time of his birth, had declared their intentions (or at least the father had) to become citizens of the United States. Is he a United States citizen, and will the Department of State grant him a passport? It is more than probable, Sir, that owing to the unsettled state of Europe, and our own Continent, that these isolated cases will not be the only ones presented to me for consideration, and that of the Department or State of the United States—and hence my desire, Sir, for your construction of these facts—so that, if any action of Congress is needed in the premises, it may be promptly had.
I have the honor, Sir, to subscribe,
With great respect, your obedient servant,
J. B. NONES, Notary Public.
Secretary of State William B. Marcy to Joseph B. Nones, Esq., March 16, 1854
Honorable William L. Marcy,
Secretary of State of the United States,
Washington City, D. C.
Department of State,
Washington, March 16, 1854.Joseph B. Nones, Esq., New York City:
Sir: Your letter of the 11th instant has been received. The cases which it mentions are not embraced by any law of the United States, upon the subject of Naturalization; and, it is believed, have not been decided by any Court in this country. Although, in general, it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to express opinions upon points of law, and doubts may be entertained of the expediency of making an answer to your inquiries an exception to this rule, yet I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien at the time of his birth. This is in conformity with the English Common Law, which law is generally acknowledged in this country; and a person born of alien parents would, it is presumed, be considered such natural born citizen, in the language of the Constitution, as to make him eligible to the Presidency.
I am, Sir, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
W. L. MARCY.
The Age of Confusion regarding the citizenship of children born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States did not arise until the advent of birthers and birtherism.
How came the term to mean member of a nation rather than member of a city? Where did that transition occur, and why did it occur?I don't mean to be coy, but I have studied this particular point quite a lot. I want to see if you follow the clues to the same place I did.
The cities and towns had not consolidated into the modern nations back when. The people identified with their local area, be what it may. As nations formed, the people increasingly identified with their nation. Over considerable time, the meaning of citizen applied to the new political communities of nations.
The original roots of the word would be found in Old French and Middle English, and Latin. In those days of yore, all legal documents of England, such as Magna Charta, were written in Latin.
Anglo-Norman citesain, Middle English citeseyn, citezein, Old French citeain, citaien, citeien, Old English burhsittend, ceasterware.
English, a Germanic language, has adopted terms from other languages and includes a very significant mix of Old English, German, and French. Much French influence entered via the Norman conquest.
The term came to apply to national political communities as language evolved and the word took on a new meaning.
“Perforce”
__________
Yeah. Okay...
The son of a Cuban born in Canada is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA. Our founders would never allow Cruz to serve as POTUS. In fact sans a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, with Cruz has never produced, Ted Cruz is not even a US citizen. And oh by the way both Cruz’s father and mother allied for an received Canadian citizenship. Ted Cruz is a Canadian.
When why did both apply for and receive Canadian citizenship?
If an act of Congress makes you a citizen you are not a natural born citizen. You are by definition a naturalized citizen. Prior to the 1930s wifes/mothers could not confer citizenship to their children. Citizenship came from the father/husband.
Congress passed a law making the PCZ a US territory. Persons born in a US territory are considered to be born on US soil. Now there are different kinds of US territories but the PCZ was the type of territory that was considered US soil.
[woodpusher #123] Perforce, United States law defines who are its citizens.[one guy in new jersey #125] “Perforce” Yeah. Okay...
Yes, United States law, to the exclusion of all other law, defines who are, and who are not, citizens of the United States.
United States citizenship is not determined by some international court, nor is it determined by some guy who wrote a book in French and died before the Declaration of Independence was issued.
[jpsb] The son of a Cuban born in Canada is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.
The son of a U.S. citizen, mother or father, born outside the United States, is a natural born U.S. citizen provided all other requirements specified by Federal law at the time of birth are met.
INA 1952, 66 Stat. at 235-236:
TITLE III—NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATIONCHAPTER 1—NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
[...]
(7) 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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
[...]
[conservative 98 #15] The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which citizens became nationals and citizens at birth.
The INA of 1940 was repealed in 1952, 18 years before Ted Cruz was born December 22, 1970. It does not apply to Ted Cruz.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat 1137, PL 853, Oct. 14, 1940.
See Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, H.R. 5678, Public Law 414, 66 Statutes at Large 163, at 66 Stat. 279-280:
Sec. 403. (a) The following acts and all amendments thereto and parts of Act and all amendments thereto are repealed:[...]
(42) Act of October 14, 1940 54 Stat. 1137);
- - - - - - - - - -
[jpsb #128] If an act of Congress makes you a citizen you are not a natural born citizen. You are by definition a naturalized citizen.
The Constitution only addresses the citizenship of those born within the territory of the United States. For all those born outside the territory of the United States, their citizenship at birth is determined pursuant to Federal law. The current, applicable Federal law is Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, H.R. 5678, Public Law 414, 66 Statutes at Large 163, as amended.
One who is a citzen at birth is, by definition, a natural born citizen. There are only two classes of citizen, natural born citizens, and naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens were alien born, and only aliens are eligible for naturalization. There is no such thing as naturalization at birth.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
naturalize (16c) To grant the rights, privileges, and duties of citizenship to (one previously a non-citizen); to make (a non-citizen) a citizen under statutory authority.—
Naturalization only takes place after birth, and only involves alien born persons.
Persons who acquire citizenship at birth pursuant to Federal law are natural born citizens, not naturalized aliens. Federal law which defines the requirements to be a citizen at birth does not involve naturalization.
Regardless, he would have failed the Born on U.S. Soil requirement of the NBC test whether he were born on a U.S. military base, born in the PCZ, or otherwise.
False, as a matter of law.
Congress passed a law making the PCZ a US territory.
False, as a matter of fact.
Persons born in a US territory are considered to be born on US soil.
If born in unincorporated territory, such birth does not confer citizenship. For example, birth in American Samoa makes one a national but not a citizen.
Now there are different kinds of US territories but the PCZ was the type of territory that was considered US soil.
False as a matter of fact. The type of territory which confers citizenship is an incorporated territory. The Canal Zone was not a U.S. territory at all, but was sovereign territory of Panama.
Convention Between the United States and the Republic of Panama (1904)
Article IIIThe Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement, and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise, if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority.
Panama granted the United States power to exercise jurisdiction within the Zone AS IF it were the sovereign. Panama was the sovereign, the United States was not.
The Canal Zone was not sovereign territory of the United States pursuant to the treaty.
Congresional Report 1303 of July 26, 1937 addresses the problems regarding births in the Canal Zone due to a poorly worded law then in effect (and at the time of the birth of John McCain). Had John McCain been born in the hospital about 100 yards outside the Naval Air Station, Coco Solo, he would have been born outside the territory and outside the jurisdiction of the United States and had a claim to U.S. citizenship via two U.S. citizen parents pursuant to Federal law. That was the only hospital then in existence for miles around. The Hospital on base was not commissioned until 1942.
https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/hr_751303.pdf
75th Congress, 1st SessionReport No. 1303
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CITIZENSHIP OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF PERSONS BORN IN THE CANAL ZONE OR REPUBLIC OF PANAMA
July 26, 1937.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. Schulte, from the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2416]
The Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2416) relating to the citizenship of certain classes of persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama, having considered the same, report it back to the House without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of the bill is to declare and establish the citizenship of the children of American citizens, and their children, who are employees of the United States, or the Panama Railroad Co., a Government-owned instrumentality, born either in the Canal Zone proper, or in the Republic of Panama and to confer upon this class of Americans the benefits of American citizenship, the same as though they had been born in the United States.
GENERAL INFORMATION
The necessity for this legislation is apparent because the citizenship of persons born in the Canal Zone of American parents, has never been defined either by Constitution, treaty, or congressional enactment. This bill would definitely establish the certain classes entitled to citizenship.
The homes of many of the employees of the Government are located adjacent to the Canal Zone, but on the territory of the Republic of Panama. The hospitals managed by Americans under officers of the United States Army, and where the children of employees are born are located on territory of the Republic of Panama. Even children born within the limits of the Zone which is under the jurisdiction of the United States are not citizens.
2 CITIZENSHIP OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF PERSONS
These children referred to born in Panama do not come within the statutes on citizenship as they only provide for children born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.
The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution provides that children born of parents residing within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens.
Children of American parents in Canal Zone are not outside the jurisdiction of the United States, neither are they within the limits of the United States.
The effective date in the bill of February 26, 1904, is because that is the date when the agreement between the Republic of Panama and the United States with reference to construction and jurisdiction of the Canal Zone became effective.
The beneficiaries under the bill are the children of American employees, under Civil Service or serving in the United States Army, who owe allegiance to the United States and are citizens in every sense except as a matter of law.
The proposed legislation is entirely different from legislation that would confer citizenship on residents of territories of the United States of different blood. The bill if enacted would not confer citizenship on any alien employee or the children of such alien employee, even though such alien children were born within the limits of the Canal Zone.
[...]
If a law passed by Congress makes you a citizen you are by definition a naturalized citizen, NOT a natural born citizen. No law make a natural born citizen a citizen, they just are.
Ted Cruz is a Canadian, both his mother and father applied for and received Canadian citizenship. Cruz's mother voted in Canadian elections prior to Cruz being born. Cruz's mother never filled out a Consular Report of Birth Abroad so she had no intention of giving little Teddy US citizenship.
Ted Cruz is a citizen of Canada
You are glossing over this part. Let's go back to the etymology and see if there is a clue.
citizen (n.)c. 1300, citisein (fem. citeseine) "inhabitant of a city or town," from Anglo-French citesein, citezein "city-dweller, town-dweller, citizen" (Old French citeien, 12c., Modern French citoyen), from cite (see city) + -ain (see -ian). According to Middle English Compendium, the -s-/-z- in Anglo-French presumably replaced an earlier *-th-.Old English words were burhsittend and ceasterware.
Sense of "freeman or inhabitant of a country, member of the state or nation, not an alien" is late 14c. Meaning "private person" (as opposed to a civil officer or soldier) is from c. 1600. As a title, 1795, from French: During the French Revolution, citoyen was used as a republican alternative to Monsieur.
What could have happened in late 14th century to trigger a change in meaning from member of a city, to member of a nation?
Well what if you had a bunch of cities that all banded together? Say 8 of them or so? (Acht Orte) And they banded together to form a confederated republic, but had always referred to their members as "citizens", but because they were now a republic created from cities, they simply kept using the term "citizen"?
Maybe they would write something like this.
Nous sommes également convenus à l'unanimité d'assurer la sécurité de toutes les routes passent sur le territoire de notre Confédération, depuis le pont écumant [entre Göschenen et Andermatt] jusqu'à Zurich. N'importe qui, étranger ou indigène, hôte ou citoyen d'une ville ou d'un pays, quel que soit son titre, doit pouvoir voyager dans tous nos districts et territoires, et aussi dans ceux des gens qui dépendent de nous, sans danger aucun pour sa personne et ses biens, et nul ne doit l'inquiéter, l'arrêter ou lui causer un dommage.
Earliest reference I have found (1370) to the word "citizen" being used to describe the members of a nation. It wouldn't have it's modern meaning in English for several hundred more years. In the founders era, it still meant "city denizen" in English, and it still meant "city denizen" in most of the French speaking places of that era too.
Only one place in the world did it mean "member of a nation", and I think by now you can guess where that place was, and if you know their history, I think you can guess why that word was used the way it was.
One more timeIf a law passed by Congress makes you a citizen you are by definition a naturalized citizen, NOT a natural born citizen. No law make a natural born citizen a citizen, they just are.
One more time. Ted Cruz became a natural born United States citizen at the time of his birth. That he may have also become a Canadian citizen pursuant to Canadian law is irrelevant to the United States.
No law made Ted Cruz a citizen of the United States. A Federal law set out the conditions upon which his birth would confer United States citizenship upon him by virtue of his birth.
As previously noted at my #131, the law you claimed was controlling had been repealed 18 years before Ted Cruz was born, indicating something about your legal knowledge, research and attention to detail.
For persons born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, they become citizens at birth pursuant to the organic law of the nation, the Constitution, at Amendment 14.
For others, they may become citizens by virtue of their birth if they meet the requirements set forth in Federal statute law at the time of their birth.
Ted Cruz met those requirements. As with all other natural born citizens, he became a United States citizen at birth.
Ted Cruz, Tulsi Gabbard, and Marco Rubio et al ran for President and were citizens at birth. Chester Arthur served as President, having been born of an American mother and an Irish father. Chester Arthur was born in 1829. William Arthur was naturalized August 31, 1843. Chester Arthur was a natural born citizen.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated, in relevant part, "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."
Persons born outside the territory and jurisdiction of the United States have been born as natural born citizens since the first Federal statute regulating the matter, and well before any 14th Amendment.
Nobody that matters has ever paid any attention to the inane birther argument which failed in court 224 consecutive times.
Endlessly reiterating an argument known to be legally without merit, and contrary to the clear history of the matter, adds not a scintilla of merit to your meritless argument. Should Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and/or Tulsi Gabbard choose to run for President again, everyone that matters will again ignore the legal nonsense you espouse.
Ted Cruz is a citizen of Canada
Ted Cruz is NOT a citizen of Canada.
Ted Cruz never took any step to claim Canadian citizenship. He formally renounced any claim he may have had to Canadian citizenship. His renunciation was formally accepted and recognized by the Canadian government. Ted Cruz is NOT recognized as a Canadian citizen by the Canadian government.
United States recognition of United States citizenship is not affected by recognition of another citizenship by a foreign government.
What could have happened in late 14th century to trigger a change in meaning from member of a city, to member of a nation?Well what if you had a bunch of cities that all banded together? Say 8 of them or so? (Acht Orte) And they banded together to form a confederated republic, but had always referred to their members as "citizens", but because they were now a republic created from cities, they simply kept using the term "citizen"?
The Acte Alte Orte (Eight Old Places), refers to the ancient Swiss cantons (French - Huit anciens Cantons). A confederation was formed, but not a nation state.
I believe you are in the wrong century, with the rise of the European nation state happening in the 15th century (late 14 hundreds).
German unification occurred in the 19th century under Bismarck.
Only one place in the world did it mean "member of a nation", and I think by now you can guess where that place was, and if you know their history, I think you can guess why that word was used the way it was.
The French nation state waited for 18th century.
In 1485, Henry VII won the War of the Roses and began development of the English nation state. That be 15th century.
https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-110/
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
Sir William Blackstone
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 10
Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives
[excerpt - footnotes omitted]
THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.A DENIZEN is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis [by royal gift] letters patent to make him an English subject: a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may. A denizen is not excused from paying the alien’s duty, and some other mercantile burdens. And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown.
NATURALIZATION cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king’s ligeance; except only that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, etc. No bill for naturalization can be received in either house of parliament, without such disabling clause in it. Neither can any person be naturalized or restored in blood, unless he has received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper within one month before the bringing in of the bill; and unless the also takes the oaths of allegiance and supremacy in the presence of the parliament.
THESE are the principal distinctions between aliens, denizens, and natives: distinctions, which endeavors have been frequently unfed since the commencement of this century to lay almost totally aside, by one general naturalization-act for all foreign protestants.
Denizen is a term distinct from Citizen. Out nearest equivalent to a denizen is an alien with a green card, a permanent resident alien. A Citizen connotes a member of the political community, not an alien resident among that community. The history of the word in French, as used in the ancient Swiss cantons, or later in the French Republic, has little relevance to the word as used in the United States. Our law was derived from the English law. English citizenship law did not conform to French citizenship law. American citizenship law incorporated both jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of the soil).
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
jus sanguinis, n. [Latin “right of blood”] (16c) The rule that a child’s citizenship is determined by the parents’ citizenship. • Most countries follow this rule. Cf. jus SOLI.“Whereas jus soli elevates the fact of birthplace into a guiding constitutional principle, the jus sanguinis principle confers political membership on the basis of parentage and descent. The children of present members of the polity, irrespective of place of birth, are automatically defined as citizens of their parents’ political community. Whereas jus soli is traditionally followed in common law countries, jus sanguinis is the main principle associated with civil law jurisdictions in Europe and well beyond the continent.” Ayelet Shachar, “Citizenship,” in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law 1002, 1008 (Michel Rosenfeld & Andras Sajo eds., 2012).jus soli, n. [Latin “right of the soil”] (1884) The rule that a child’s citizenship is determined by place of birth. • This is the U.S. rule, as affirmed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Cf. jus sanguinis.
“The jus soli principle, which is part of the common law tradition, implies a territorial understanding of citizenship. It recognizes the right of each person born within the physical jurisdiction of a given state to acquire full and equal membership of that polity. ... In its modern guise, jus soli no longer refers to the connection between a monarch and his or her subjects. Instead, it refers to the political relationship between elected governments and their citizens, offering full membership in the political community to each new generation born on the territory — irrespective of the legal status of the parents.” Ayelet Shachar, “Citizenship,” in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law 1002, 1005-06 (Michel Rosenfeld & Andras Sajo eds., 2012). (citation omitted)
Do tell, who writes federal law? First you say "not law" and then you site a Federal Law! Are you a troll? "When you argue with a fool you look like a fool". Bye.
Ted Cruz’s mother was a citizen of Canada, Ted Cruz’s father was a citizen of Canada, Ted Cruz was born in Canada to citizens of Canada. Ted Cruz is a Canadian and not a natural born citizen of the USA.
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.