Free Republic

Cite where the 1798 law says “natural born citizen.”

Words matter. 'Born citizen' does not equal 'natural born citizen.' Just like 'air balloon' does not equal 'hot air balloon,' 'tire' does not equal 'flat tire,' 'truck' does not equal 'tow truck.' I could go on all day...

You DO realize that James Madison, as a member of the House committee responsible for doing so, had the 1790 law REPEALED and REMOVED "natural born" in the new 1795 law, no? Never to be seen again...

Congress had the chance in 2004 to reinstate natural born citizen status to such persons, but did not.

S.2128 - Natural Born Citizen Act

You're posting someone's "opinion." What needs to be looked at is the actual law in effect at the time of Cruz's birth. The 1952 law Sec 301 Subsection that applies to Cruz's birth doesn't permit "at any time" prior to the birth qualification, as it does in another Subsection that doesn't apply to Cruz. Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada for three years prior to Cruz's birth, so Cruz doesn't qualify for US citizenship at birth.

Words matter.

Just like 'born citizen' does not equal 'natural born citizen.'

SCOTUS did NOT rule WKA a natural born citizen. He was ruled a citizen only. Read the ruling, specifically the last paragraph which by Gray's own statement explicitly limits the effect of the ruling.

Too many of you are reading much more into the WKA ruling than is really there. Words matter.

If that's true, why didn't SCOTUS rule Ark a natural born citizen?

Again, words matter.

Oh, please... Wong Kim Ark was ruled a US citizen (note: NOT a natural born citizen) because in part his parents, though aliens, were legally permanently domiciled in the US:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Order affirmed.

Actually, not wrong. Words matter. Ask all of those who correctly assert “born citizen” is not the same as “natural born citizen,” which would include the Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention rejected Alexander Hamilton’s draft of “born a citizen” and adopted John Jay’s “natural born citizen” for Constitutional eligibility for POTUS.

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.

"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.

"I can be just as STUPID as you can. So, by YOUR logic, since it says " ...And the children of ... ", I guess that means that if there are not TWINS born at the same time, they cannot be citizens ?"

-------------------------------------

I don't see where the term "and the children of" is used in the 1952 Law, Sec 301. Perhaps you can cite it.

I said Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada for 3 years prior to Cruz's birth, not a citizen of Canada.

Reading comprehension matters.

You, too, are yet another who fails to realize that "prior to" and "at any time prior to" (a requirement used in another Subsection of the same Section of the law) are two very different things.

Specifically, read Subsections 4, 5, and 7 of Section 301 to understand the difference.

Words matter.

Pages 73-74: 1952 Act

Might want to look in the mirror when you say that. You called me incompetent, when in fact it was YOU who failed to comprehend my post.

Oh, please. You know darned well words matter in legal statutes.

You seem to be just playing dumb on purpose.

"prior to" and "at any time prior to" are in fact two very different time designations.

"Answer the question I posed, what interval is allowed to elapse between entering Canada (terminating residence in the US) and giving birth?"

---------------------------------------------

That can be established by one's domicile. (Incidentally, Wong Kim Ark's parents' permanent US domicile was one of the main determinants in the ruling.) Where was the US citizen parent most recently legally living and working? In the US? In a foreign country? In Cruz's mother's case, it was Canada, for 3 years.

Did Cruz's mother maintain a residence in the US and list that as her legal residence on any legal transactions during that time?

This type of thing happens all the time on a smaller scale between states. Some people have residences in more than one state, but only one state is their domicile for legal purposes.

"If you read the case law, the parental residence requirement, unless stated otherwise (e.g., "after fourteen years of age") is "at any time prior to" the birth."

---------------------------------------------------------

If they're doing so while specifically interpreting the 1952 Law's Sec 301(a)7 to apply it to a case, then they're misquoting the law, aren't they?

Quite simply, the 1952 Law's Sec 301(a)7 does not state "at any time prior to."

"At any time" does not apply to that subsection, while applying to another.

"The fact that (5) uses the modifier "at any time" [prior to] doesn't make any difference."

------------------------------------------------

Based on what? Since when do time requirements not matter in federal law?

There are two different forms of the "prior to" requirement used in the subsections of Sec 301(a): "prior to" and "at any time prior to." The two are not the same, hence the different terminology used within different subsections of the same Section. Sec 301(a)7 requires "prior to," NOT "at any time prior to."

Cruz's mother would meet the "at any time prior to" requirement, but does not meet the "prior to" requirement as she was a resident of Canada prior to Cruz's birth.

-- whoever would have adjudicated Cruz's citizenship status would have had to do so according to Public Law 414, Sec 301 -- Hah. You were the incompetent one before! 01/20/2016 4:56:14 AM PST . 66 of 66 1952 Nationality and Naturalization Act, Sec 301(a)(7) [you'll find the text crossing from page 235 to 236]

------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly the section of Public Law 414 I'm talking about. The circumstances of Cruz's birth don't meet the requirements. Read my post, carefully. You seem to have scanned it and misinterpreted what I said:

My post in this thread: Why the circumstances of Cruz's birth don't meet 1952 Nationality and Naturalization Act, Sec 301(a)(7)