Oh My: Old Tape Surfaces Of Ted Cruz In Interview Admitting He Is Not A 'Natural Born Citizen'

[Steve_McGarrett]

Your chart is horseshit.

Both US v Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v Elg do not in any way support the claim that both parents must be US citizens. In fact, both cases determined that a child born in the US is a natural born citizen even if both parents are foreign nationals, you dumb fuck.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:


" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..
"


Sorry but Cruz's father was a Cuban national who naturalized in 2005 decades after Teds birth. That and Ted not being born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. negates him to just a statutory U.S. citizen due to positive law but not a natural born citizen resulting from natural law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your chart is horseshit.

Both US v Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v Elg do not in any way support the claim that both parents must be US citizens. In fact, both cases determined that a child born in the US is a natural born citizen even if both parents are foreign nationals, you dumb fuck.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:


" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..
"


Sorry but Cruz's father was a Cuban national who naturalized in 2005 decades after Teds birth. That and Ted not being born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. negates him to just a statutory U.S. citizen due to positive law but not a natural born citizen resulting from natural law.

You understand the opinion of one politician is pretty well irrelevant here, right?
IN the text I cited its pretty clear Cruz is a natural born citizen under the Constitution. If you have an issue go file a lawsuit and see where you get.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Perkins v. ElgPerkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.



Citizen:

On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591, 59 S.Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. --. First.-- On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866:


Ms. Elg was found to be a "citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York)



native-born citizen:

This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years the German Government called upon him to report for military duty and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: 'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.


Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a "native-born citizen" because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis)

Natural Born Citizen:

U. S. Supreme Court's Relevant Facts: Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).]

U. S. Supreme Court's Holding: The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000) declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 350 (1939).]

Rationale of the logic is as follows: The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907. The Expatriation Act of 1907 extended the logic linking a woman's citizenship to her marital status and the status of her spouse.

Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents.

 

[mudwhistle]

to the conspiracy section STAT.

Rubber room.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think being born here has lost its meaning. What was the framers rationale?

The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence. Alexander Hamilton, a Convention delegate from New York, wrote in Federalist No. 68 about the care that must be taken in selecting the president: "Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils."[5] St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in 1803 that the natural born citizen clause is "a happy means of security against foreign influence", and that "The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against."[6] Delegate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina said in a speech before the Senate, "to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible."[7]

There was also a perception that a usurper from the European aristocracy could potentially immigrate and buy his way into power.[8] Constitutional scholar Akhil Amar points out that the laws of England specifically allowed a foreign-born head of state, and that this had been an unhappy experience for many who had immigrated to the United States.[8]

Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

 

[AceRothstein]

Who cares? He isn't going to win anyway.

 

[Syriusly]

The presidential clause Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution clearly states you have to be a natural born Citizen to be president today:

[No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.]

Ted Cruz wont admit he's a natural born Citzen when the interviewer tells him that is what the Constitution specifically calls for in terms to be president. Instead he dances around the issue like Fred Astair not admitting he specifically is a NBC.
]

So once again- the title of one of your threads is a blatant lie.

Ted Cruz is presumably a natural born citizen, assuming his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born.

 

[Syriusly]

Perkins v. ElgPerkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.



Citizen:

On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591, 59 S.Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. --. First.-- On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866:


Ms. Elg was found to be a "citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York)



native-born citizen:

This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years the German Government called upon him to report for military duty and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: 'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.


Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a "native-born citizen" because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis)

Natural Born Citizen:

U. S. Supreme Court's Relevant Facts: Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).]

U. S. Supreme Court's Holding: The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000) declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 350 (1939).]

[Note- not one word saying that she was a natural born citizen because her parents were U.S. citizens when she was born]

Rationale of the logic is as follows: The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907. The Expatriation Act of 1907 extended the logic linking a woman's citizenship to her marital status and the status of her spouse.

Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents.

Nowhere in Perkins v Elg does it say that.

Indeed- the decision quotes Wong Kim Ark

Here is a direct quote from Perkins v Elg

14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted to the

"inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 169 U. S. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. [Footnote 1] And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.

Second. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. [Footnote 2]

Where does the court mention 'natural born citizen'?

The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414)

Hmm no mention of 'two citizen parents' there. So lets go to the court 'below'- that would actually be the District Court mentioned above

The District Court overruled the motion as to the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of Immigration and entered a decree declaring that the plaintiff is a native citizen of the United States but directing that the complaint be dismissed as to the Secretary of State because of his official discretion in the issue of passports. On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591 , 59 S. Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. --.

Note that the District Court said 'native citizen' of the United States- and the Supreme Court said that 'native citizen' meant 'natural born citizen'.

Nowhere in the decision are Miss Elg's parents citizenship said to be necessary for her American citizenship- i.e. her natural born citizenship.

 

[Syriusly]

Cruz is eligible to be President.

No he is not. You people are clueless to the founders original intent to be a natural born citizen and their focus on a president having sole allegiance without foreign influence.

Thomas Jefferson had dual U.S. and French citizenship when he was elected President.

You would think he would have disqualified himself if he thought that was an issue.

 

[Syriusly]

He was a US citizen at birth. That is a natural born citizen, as opposed to a naturalized citizen. Why you persist with this crap is beyond me.

See there are a few issues we can agree with.

And yes- this is a crap issue.

 

[nodoginnafight]

In fact - we can assume that this "father of the 14th's" views were well-know and well-debated at the time. If they left out some of what he says, they did it for a reason.

I always laugh when folks try to use speeches or personal letters of the framers to argue "this is what they INTENDED the law to do."

It's pure rubbish - in fact, if it was left out - that's a clear indication that they heard the opinion of this particular framer and left out that position on purpose.

But it's all moot - Cruz will never be president NOT because he's not eligible - but because he doesn't have anywhere near the support to be elected. And he's losing what little he had.

 

[Toro]

He's a Canadian, so he should still be eligible.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Now tell us about the brochure obozo's literary agency published for 16 years that said their client was born in kenya.

 

[Skylar]

The presidential clause Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution clearly states you have to be a natural born Citizen to be president today:

[No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.]

Ted Cruz wont admit he's a natural born Citzen when the interviewer tells him that is what the Constitution specifically calls for in terms to be president. Instead he dances around the issue like Fred Astair not admitting he specifically is a NBC.

The constitution doesn't define natural born citizen. US law only recognizes 2 classes of citizens: citizens at birth and citizens after birth (naturalized). Since natural born clearly isn't naturalized, that leaves only citizens at birth that it could encompass.

And Cruz was a citizen at birth. Meaning he's natural born.

 

[Skylar]

Now tell us about the brochure obozo's literary agency published for 16 years that said their client was born in kenya.

Shooter....."Miriam Goderich".

You know the drill.

 

[Skylar]

Cruz is eligible to be President.

No he is not. You people are clueless to the founders original intent to be a natural born citizen and their focus on a president having sole allegiance without foreign influence.

The founders followed the legal traditions of British Common Law that recognized natural born status as following place of birth.

You ignorantly claimed that they based their understanding on natural born status on Vattel's 'Law of Nations'. But the "Law of Nations' never mentions natural born citizens until years AFTER the constitution was already written. And even then, mistranslates the words from the original french.

Rendering it a physical impossibility for your interpretation to be valid. Leaving only British Common law as the possible sources for the Founders understanding. Which makes sense....as they were a former British Colony.

All of which you know. But really hope we don't. As usual, Steven.....your argument is dependent on the ignorance of your audience. And falls apart when exposed to the light of reason or evidence.

 

[Skylar]

Your chart is horseshit.

Both US v Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v Elg do not in any way support the claim that both parents must be US citizens. In fact, both cases determined that a child born in the US is a natural born citizen even if both parents are foreign nationals, you dumb fuck.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:


" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..
"


Sorry but Cruz's father was a Cuban national who naturalized in 2005 decades after Teds birth. That and Ted not being born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. negates him to just a statutory U.S. citizen due to positive law but not a natural born citizen resulting from natural law.

Looks like you just abandoned your claims regarding Wong and Elg.

As for Bingham, its irrelevant. As the definition of 'natural born citizen' as understood by the founders wasn't written by Bingham. As Bingham has born long after the founders were dead.

See, cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by 80 years

 

[Skylar]

Perkins v. ElgPerkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives 'examples of' what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

'Examples of', being the operative phrase. Obviously anyone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen. Your claim is that ONLY someone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen. And that's something that Elg neither states nor even insinuates.

As stated earlier, the founders used British common law as their understanding of the term 'natural born'. And natural born status per this tradition was recognized as following place of birth. Not parentage.

A standard that Elg Perkins clearly meets.

 

[mudwhistle]

Cruz is eligible to be President.

No he is not. You people are clueless to the founders original intent to be a natural born citizen and their focus on a president having sole allegiance without foreign influence.

Thomas Jefferson had dual U.S. and French citizenship when he was elected President.

You would think he would have disqualified himself if he thought that was an issue.

It wasn't.

Besides ... many of the framers were immigrants themselves when they wrote the constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

He was a US citizen at birth. That is a natural born citizen, as opposed to a naturalized citizen. Why you persist with this crap is beyond me.

Note: They're all whiny about whether Cruz is a natural born citizen, but they don't give a flying fuck whether Obama violates the Constitution by unilaterally granting amnesty to 5 million illegals.

What does that tell you about the scruples of these drones?