Trouble For Ted Cruz: Here's Why He Doesn't Meet The Natural Born Citizen Requirement

[Statistikhengst]

This just in:

Ted Cruz STILL a natural born citizen.

Thank you. We now return you to your normal USMB thread browsing activity.

Thank you, [MENTION=42714]IlarMeilyr[/MENTION] - a voice of reason from the Right.

Ted Cruz is just as good to go in terms of eligibility as any of the other prospective GOPers.

It's not his citizenship status that is going to sink his ship.

 

[Pogo]

No sir, those are not credentials. Please post your professional credentials in the legal field and Constitutional law.

-- says the assclown who declines for two weeks now to source the bogus quotes in his own sigline...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This just in:

Ted Cruz STILL a natural born citizen.

Thank you. We now return you to your normal USMB thread browsing activity.

Thank you, @IlayMeilyr - a voice of reason from the Right.

Ted Cruz is just as good to go in terms of eligibility as any of the other prospective GOPers.

It's not his citizenship status that is going to sink his ship.

I don't know who this "Ilay" feller is, but if Ted Cruz runs and then sinks, his failure will not be based on the non-issue of his Constitutional eligibility.

Obumbler should never have been elected (much less re-elected), but his "disputed" Constitutional eligibility didn't get in his way, after all.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This just in:

Ted Cruz STILL a natural born citizen.

Thank you. We now return you to your normal USMB thread browsing activity.

Thank you, @IlayMeilyr - a voice of reason from the Right.

Ted Cruz is just as good to go in terms of eligibility as any of the other prospective GOPers.

It's not his citizenship status that is going to sink his ship.

I don't know who this "Ilay" feller is, but if Ted Cruz runs and then sinks, his failure will not be based on the non-issue of his Constitutional eligibility.

Obumbler should never have been elected (much less re-elected), but his "disputed" Constitutional eligibility didn't get in his way, after all.

Sorry, dude, I corrected the misspelling. Oops.

I respect your opinon.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This just in:

Ted Cruz STILL a natural born citizen.

Thank you. We now return you to your normal USMB thread browsing activity.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's time to bring Resident Racist McGarrett back to his room, the one with the nice rubber walls and the cool toys, none with sharp corners.....

 

[IlarMeilyr]

McGarret is far too stupid to perceive the fact that he's a complete fucking imbecile.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I just saw your two posts. Before I read them over tommorow and the weekend, I want to ask you one thing. For you to call the good Constitutional scholar and lawyer delusional and a crackpot, what are your credentials in the legal field when it comes constitutional law compared to his credentials?

My credentials are right here: Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles. If you're looking for something else, you put stock in the wrong things.

No sir, those are not credentials. Please post your professional credentials in the legal field and Constitutional law.

Direct answer: I'm not a lawyer; I'm a political analyst who can read, knows the history of ideas and events, can do research, and has a brain that works. Additionally, I was briefly a military attaché abroad who at one time contemplated a career in the State Department and began reading citizenship and nationality law—the pertinent constitutional, statutory and case law, as well as the pertinent State Department regulations—decades before you were still imagining the Panama Canal Zone to be a U.S. possession residing within the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment for constitutional purposes.

As for any more questions regarding my credentials, you may direct them here: .

I don't care how many academic degrees or accolades the Good Professor has. Bottom line: the only things that matter are the facts. I know what they are, and he, constitutional lawyer or not, is talking out of that orifice attached to his ass.

In any event, here are the facts, starting here. . . .
_________________________________________

Once again:

Let's review what the Good Professor gets right.

(1) The natural-born citizen is distinguished from the naturalized citizen by the fact of his natural geography and the fact of his natural descendancy. That is to say, a natural-born citizen is by definition a person who is born of both the soil and the blood of the nation . . . that is, until Wong Kim Ark.

(2) The Fourteenth Amendment did not change one damn thing about the understanding and the application of the Natural Born Citizen Clause (NBCC)!

If you would just be still for a moment, Steve, and give ear to this staunch defender of original intent, if you would stop calling this staunch defender with a solid, scholarly background in citizenship and nationality law who is talking to you in good faith a liar: you might come to understand why your thesis actually undermines the construct of natural born citizenship, aids and abets the machinations of leftist judges who would undermine Congressional authority over national sovereignty and allegiance as they would transfer that authority to the judiciary practically beyond the peoples' reach.

Let that sink in.
_____________________________

Main Link: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Setting the Record Straight: Let there be no more misunderstandings

It should be clear to you by now just how wrong you were to call me a liar or accuse me of obfuscating in the above when I told you that Congress does not officially recognize dual citizenship.

Obviously, the context of this OP—your OP, for crying out loud!—goes to the formalities of citizenship in terms of national allegiance relative to constitutional and statutory law, not to the existence of or to the mundane conventions of dual citizenship relative to international law proper.

Steve!

Of course Congress recognizes the latter. America is not on Mars, after all, and dual citizenship is as common as the common cold. In fact, Congress has always necessarily tolerated dual citizenship in the case of those born abroad of U.S. citizens upon whom it confers citizenship at birth. Obviously, the United States is not the only country in the world that offers birthright citizenship, and the United States has absolutely no control over the other means by which other nations might bestow citizenship, including conferrals of citizenship on American citizens born on U.S. soil!

What is does not and has never recognized is the allegiance attached to any conferral of citizenship by a foreign country on a U.S. citizen. As far as Congress is concerned, no U.S. citizen owes his allegiance to any country in the world, but the United States. Hence, for example, while Cruz is a citizen of Canada and the United States by birth, Congress puts absolutely no stock in his Canadian citizenship with regard to his civil rights/liberties or to his obligations to the United States. He's not a citizen of Canada under constitutional or statutory law in any sense that matters.

The fact of the matter is that while Congress de jure recognizes and "allows" dual citizenship as a result of case law and in terms of the realities of international law proper in a slightly broader sense than it did prior to the antics of a renegade Court, it does so begrudgingly and mostly as a matter of silence.

But if you still have any doubt about the context in which I made that declaration in the above, which yea of little knowledge misinterpreted, or about my expertise regarding the facts of citizenship/nationality in terms of allegiance from the perspective of constitutional and statutory law: read my piece "Wong Kim Ark Meet Rogers", which traces the judicial line of decidendi, the bastard child of Wong Kim Ark, that led to the compromises of absolute allegiance previously enforced by Congress. The pertinent cases that further undermined the integrity of the Natural Born Citizen Clause (NBCC) and the congressional prerogatives of statutory citizenship and expatriation are Schneider v. Rusk (1964) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).

The congressional prerogative of jus sanguinis, an historically integral component of the construct of natural-born citizenship, does not conflict with or undermine the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment or that of the NBCC in any way, shape or form. On the contrary, it epitomizes the imperative of predicating citizenship and allegiance on the soil and on the blood of the nation. The real problem is the jurisprudence of collectivistic egalitarianism sported by a certain stain of ideologues since Wong Kim Ark, especially.
_____________________________

Main Link: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"A Compendium of the Statutory History of Jus Sanguinis"



Chapter III, Section 1, Statute II of Session II (pg. 103 - 104) of the Naturalization Act of 1790 of the First Congress:

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.

Once Congress established natural-born citizenship via jus sanguinis in statute, the words "natural born citizen" do not appear in statute ever again. From 1790 on, persons born abroad of U.S. citizens are alternately referred to as "citizens of the United States" or simply "citizens thereof" at the moment of birth. It is understood in statute from the context, as opposed to the context applied to naturalized citizenship, that natural-born citizenship is the status conferred at the moment of birth. Hence, Section 3 of the Naturalization Act of 1795 which superseded the Act of 1790 reads:

[A]nd the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.

Note that Congress initially required that both the mother and the father of one born abroad be citizens of the United States and also required one's father to have been a resident of the United States at some time or another before one's birth in order for one to be a citizen at birth, i.e., a natural-born citizen. Throughout the history of natural-born citizenship via the congressional prerogative of jus sanguinis, one had to be born of both the blood and the soil of the nation.



Revised Statutes Act of 1855, Section 1:

All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.

Note that unlike previous statute, only the father (singular), not "citizens" (plural), had to be a U.S. citizen in order for one born abroad of the blood of the nation to be a citizen at birth.



The Revised Statutes, Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes Act of 1934 amending the 1855 version:

Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. . . .

Note that since 1934 the parent (singular) of one duly born abroad of the blood of the nation can be either the mother or the father in order for one to be a citizen at birth.
_____________________________

Main Link: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I. The unification of common law, birthright citizenship and the constitutional construct of natural-born citizenship

Pertinent Links:
"Wong Kim Ark Meet Rogers".
"The Straight Dope on U.S. Territories".
"A Critique of the Chin Argument".

Prior to Wong Kim Ark (1898), one had to be born of both the soil and the blood of the nation in order to be a natural-born citizen. The government of the United States did not grant birthright citizenship before the Court imposed this construct of common law on the Constitution via a "historical" argument created out of whole cloth. While the Fourteenth Amendment did not change the understanding or the application of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause (NBCC) in any way, shape or form, the Court in this case subverted the intent of the former and thereby perverted the fact of the latter.

In fact, the Court's judicial activism in Wong Kim Ark wreaked havoc on the prevailing uniform code of naturalization with regard to the United State's various territorial possessions abroad. If the United States, as the Court argued, had always granted birthright citizenship under the Constitution, somebody forgot to tell Congress . . . until 111 years after the ratification of the Constitution.

The claim, of course, is absurd.

The Court in the Insular Cases, starting in 1901, had to fix the problem it created; in other words, the Court had to go back and say: "Oops, wait a minute, we didn't mean that birthright citizenship applied to all of those territories." Incidentally, the root of the problem that created the complex and historically unique situation that technically left McCain out in the cold when he was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 is Wong Kim Ark: another piece of evidence evincing the fact of the Court's judicial duplicity.

While the Court resolved the territorial repercussions it failed to anticipate, the fact remains that as a result of Wong Kim Ark, foreigners, including illegal aliens, can drop kids on U.S. soil, and those kids are natural-born citizens by constitutional case law via the adoption of common-law, birthright citizenship.

Did the Court in a lawless fashion subvert the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes.

Did the Court undermine the purpose of the NBCC?

Yes.

Is the common law construct of birthright citizenship incompatible with the original constitutional construct of natural-born citizenship?

Yes.

Nevertheless, did the Court make birthright citizenship and natural-born citizenship synonymous and, thereby, a constitutional fact of law?

Yes.

The Good Professor is right about what natural-born citizenship is or should be, but that's academic at this point. The birthright citizenship of Wong Kim Ark is establish case law and, therefore, established constitutional law. As far as the law is concerned, persons born on U.S. soil of foreigners not officially engaged by foreigner powers are natural-born citizens of the United States. Period. And certainly anyone born on U.S. soil of a U.S. citizen or duly born abroad of a U.S. citizen is a natural-born citizen—under the terms of current statute and under the original terms of the NBCC. Period.

The real insult of the Good Professor's obstinence in the face of these realities is that his nonsense would have persons born on U.S. soil of foreigners, including those born of illegal aliens, conferred a status of citizenship of a greater value than that conferred on persons born abroad of U.S. citizens with a duly established claim on the soil of the nation. Persons born of both the blood and the soil of the nation! In fact, that's precisely what the majority in Wong Kim Ark, albeit, in a obiter dictum, averred in defiance of the congressional precedent of 1790 that emphatically declared persons born abroad of U.S. citizens to be natural-born.

And why didn't the majority assert that in its ratio decidendi?

Because the majority was cognizant of the fact that the centuries-old prerogative of jus sanguinis was an integral component of the construct of natural-born citizenship, and it knew that the common-law construct of birthright citizenship was not compatible with the Framers' historically unique rendering of the prerogative in the Constitution.

While the majority failed to anticipate the territorial repercussions of its opinion, it did appreciate the constitutional crises that would have ensued between the legislative and judicial branches had it the temerity to have bindingly asserted that. It's dictum regarding statutory citizenship at birth was political shoeshine merely intended to lend a semblance of logical consistency to the absurdity of its binding justification.

The conferral of citizenship in a democratic republic predicated on the natural law of classical liberalism, whether conferred at birth or subsequent to birth, does not entail the principle of perpetual allegiance. Unlike that of emperorial/royal decree, the government of the people, with regard to the imperatives of national sovereignty, reserves the right of free-association to peacefully expatriate persons who spurn the conditions of national allegiance or elect to renounce their citizenship. In other words, respectively, the people are not obliged to suffer those who formally entangle themselves with the political affairs of foreign powers, and the state does not own any human being.

The construct of natural-born citizenship with its inherent prerogative of jus sanguinis did not originate with the Framers of the Constitution. It derives from Roman law, was asserted by the British Crown, was litigated in the common law of the Royal Bench and was amended by the Anglo-American traditional of natural law. Finally, in the form of the latter, it was adopted by the Framers of the Constitution, sans any entanglements with the invariably usurpative degradations of birthright citizenship and perpetual allegiance.

Though a few bills have been proposed in Congress over the years to right this wrong, i.e., the conferral of birthright citizenship on anchor babies by default due to the Court's and Congress' silence on the matter: none of these have gotten anywhere.

One way to get rid of this unification of birthright citizenship and natural-born citizenship would be a constitutional amendment, as the Court is not going to reverse itself. The other way is simpler, though politically difficult: Congress could vacate Wong Kim Ark for all future persons by formally reasserting natural-born citizenship on the basis of both the soil and the blood of the nation, as it simultaneously curtailed the Court's jurisdiction over the determination of citizenship at birth.

By the way, though ultimately tied to the soil of the conferring nation de jure, throughout most of Western history and to this very day throughout most of the world, jus sanguinis (of the blood or the law of the bloodline) is the principal means by which nationality has been determined, not jus soli (of the soil or the law of the soil).
_____________________________

Main Link: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

II. The Good Professor's argument with regard to the blood of the nation amounts to quibbling over the amount of blood required.

Pertinent Links:
"Citizenship and Nationality: Historical Foundation and Framework".
"The Natural-Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution".
"A Compendium of the Statutory History of Jus Sanguinis".

Again, the essence of the historical construct of natural-born citizenship goes to both the soil and the blood of the nation, and there are only two kinds of U.S. citizenship: (1) natural-born citizenship and (2) naturalized citizenship, that which is conferred at the moment of birth and that which is conferred subsequent to birth, respectively.

There is no other kind of citizenship conferred by the government of the United States of America!

Of course, since Wong Kim Ark, natural-born citizenship may be predicated on just the soil of the nation by the jus soli rule, while the claim on the soil is imputed de jure by jus sanguinis to persons duly born abroad of U.S. citizens. (But, then, that has always been the case for the latter. In that regard, neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark changed anything.) In other words at birth—akin to a native-born citizen of the nation's blood, as opposed to an anchor baby—such persons are of both the blood and the soil of the nation based on their biological connection and on their parent(s)'s prior, duly established claim on the soil.

Either way, natural-born citizenship is ultimately bottomed on the soil of the nation, either directly or indirectly.

Now laying the birthright citizenship of Wong Kim Ark aside for the moment, the Good Professor's argument is silly.

The Natural Born Citizen Clause (NBCC) of the Constitution does not stipulate that both parents have to be of the blood of the nation. In fact, the construct of natural-born citizenship is not defined in the Constitution because it's essence was already well-established and defined in history, and its essence has nothing whatsoever to do with the number 2. That number is strictly a matter of political discretion and nothing more. The essence of the construct is that the person upon whom the honor is bestowed be directly tied to the blood of the nation that he may be directly or indirectly tied to the soil of the nation at the moment of birth.

Could the Framers have stipulated in the NBCC that both parents had to be U.S. citizens? Sure. But they didn't. They wisely left that to Congress' discretion. The other thing they left to Congress' discretion is the invocation of the prerogative of jus sanguinis, the historically inherent property of the construct.

Hence, from 1790 to 1802, Congress stipulated that in order for persons born abroad to be U.S. citizens at birth, both their parents had to be U.S. citizens. From 1802 to 1855, Congress withheld the grant of citizenship at birth by jus sanguinis for those born abroad. During those years, one had to be born on U.S. soil of at least one U.S. citizen parent in order to be a citizen at birth. From 1855 to 1934, only the father of a child born abroad had to be a U.S. citizen in order for his child to be a U.S. citizen at birth. Since 1934, a person born abroad is a U.S. citizen at birth as long as at least one of his parents is a U.S. citizen, mother or father. Discretion.

What is the one constant?

Answer: the blood of the person conferred citizenship at birth is of the blood of the nation and is tied, directly or indirectly, to the soil of the nation at the moment of birth.

Hence, the Good Professor's contention that only a person born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States of U.S. citizen parents (plural) can be a natural-born citizen is absurd.

There has never been a time in U.S. history when a person duly born abroad of U.S. citizen(s)—i.e., while under the aegis of a prevailing decree of jus sanguinis—was not a natural-born citizen.

George Romney (born in Mexico), Lowell Weicker (born in France) and John McCain (born in Panama): all of these presidential candidates were natural-born citizens, though, technically, McCain was not due to a legal oversight.* Should Cruz (born in Canada) run for the presidency, he too will have Congress' and the State Department's blessings.

The Good Professor's contention that a person born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States of only one U.S. citizen (the other parent a foreigner, for example, President Chester Arthur and President Barack Obama) is doubly absurd.

There has never been a time when a person born of at lease one U.S. citizen, mother or father, within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States for constitutional purposes was not a natural-born citizen.

Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio:
Prior to Wong Kim Ark, neither Jindal nor Rubio would have been a natural-born citizen of the United States . . . because neither one of their respective sets of parents were U.S. citizens at the time of their births on U.S. soil. Instead, they would have been citizens of India and Cuba, respectively, just like their parents. But since they were born after that decision of 1898 in which the Court declared that the United States had, at least since the moment of the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification, conferred birthright citizenship: both Jindal and Rubio were citizens at birth, i.e., natural-born citizens.

The Internet is rife with opinions proffered by know-nothings who cite this or that historically prominent authority on the NBCC, including Madison who died decades before Wong Kim Ark, and conclude that persons granted citizenship at the moment of birth, albeit, born of only one U.S. citizen or born abroad of U.S. citizen(s), cannot be natural-born . . . as if there were any other kind of formal category of citizenship besides that which is conferred subsequent to birth (naturalized citizenship) in constitutional, case or statutory law.

These are the same know-nothings who go on about how the Constitution doesn't define what a natural-born citizen is . . . as if it had to.

These are the same know-nothings who foolishly clamor for the Court to define natural-born citizenship . . . as if the matter were beyond the ken or mere mortals.

There is no mystery about it and never has been. What? The Framers intentionally instituted an esoteric riddle as a prank? There has only been the confusion of ignorance in the minds of those who don't know the law, though it be as simple as this: one is either a citizen at birth by the soil and/or by the blood of the nation (natural-born) or is a citizen subsequent to birth (naturalized).

In this country, there never was any significant confusion over what a natural-born citizen was . . . until Wong Kim Ark muddied the waters. It is only because so many do not know the history of citizenship and nationality, or grasp the various constructs thereof that there is any confusion over what a natural-born citizen is today. The only thing historically new to or different from the original intent of the NBCC is birthright citizenship.

The rest is the political agenda of demagogues.

One doesn't need a law degree to understand the matter. One just needs a brain that works.
_____________________________

*Pertinent Links:
"The Straight Dope on U.S. Territories".
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs - "7 FAM 1130, Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parent": See "7 FAM 1131.6-3, Not Citizens by 'Naturalization' " and "7 FAM 1131.9, Birth in Panama; Special Provisions".

Because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone under the terms of the Naturalization Act of 1795 (albeit, under the aegis of the Revised Statutes Act of 1934, Section 1993) after the Court in the pertinent Insular Cases (1901 - 1905) made territories like the Zone unorganized-unincorporated and before the passage of the Panama Canal Zone Citizenship Act of 1937 (currently codified, 8 U.S.C., Section 1403.a) that fixed the discrepancy ultimately due to the idiocy of Wong Kim Ark: McCain was at best, due to a technically ne plus ultra (in the extreme), a Panamanian citizen and at worst an undeclared citizen of the world . . . as far as Congress was concerned. It was the Court, not Congress, that de jure rendered the Zone a statutory no-man's land and de facto imputed U.S. nationality . . . in regard to a leased, not formally owned, piece of real estate! In other words, as a result of the Court's redefinition of the Zone's jurisdictional status in case law, persons born in the Zone according to prevailing statute were neither citizens nor nationals of the United States.

So who was right? The Court or Congress?

Constitutionally, statutorily, factually and logically—Congress was right! For the Zone, being a leased territory, initially resided only within the United States' martial-judicial jurisdiction, just like Guantomino Bay, Cuba; therefore, it was not and rationally could not be a national or federal outlying possession of allegiance, let alone be a part of the United States proper under the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment. Incidentally, Congress later responded by formally placing the Zone and Guantomino Bay outside the national and federal jurisdiction of allegiance, effectively, again in 1937 in defiance of case law . . . and rightly so!

In any event, even if one grants the validity of the Court unilaterally and by default conferring nationality on persons born in the Zone, like McCain, between the years of 1904 and 1937, a U.S. national is not a U.S. citizen, let alone a natural-born citizen of the United States.

As I said before, the territorial repercussions of Wong Kim Ark and the Court's not so perfect fixes in the Insular Cases wreaked havoc on the United States' uniform code of naturalization.
_____________________________

Main Link: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.

 

[Againsheila]

Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.

Prior to May 24, 1934 the uniform Rule of Naturalization did not allow a person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they were born outside the U.S. to a citizen mother and a non citizen father; during that time, persons born outside of the U.S. could only acquire citizenship at birth if their father was a citizen of the U.S. but not to a father who had never resided in the United States.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada after the 1934 date to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father, he acquired citizenship at birth under the uniform Rule of Naturalization that was in effect at the time of his birth.

Ted Cruz cannot be a “natural born Citizen” if a person born prior to May 24, 1934 with the same birth circumstances was not even a “citizen of the United States”.

The Constitution gives Congress the Power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, it does not give Congress the Power over who is a "natural born Citizen. A "natural born Citizen" today is the same as who a "natural born Citizen" was when the term was inserted into the Constitution, it can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment.

Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen"; if he were, then persons born prior to the 1934 date would also of been. Because, Congress does not have Power over who is a "natural born Citizen" they only have the Power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization and the Rule they established prior to the 1934 date only allowed persons born abroad to a U.S. citizen father to acquire citizenship at birth as long as their father had been a resident of the U.S.

Therefore Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen".

Neither is Obama, neither is McCain....

 

[HenryBHough]

What is it about Cruz the Marxists find so frightening that they spend hours looking for ways to keep from running?

 

[Dot Com]

Canadians running for President? Now I've heard it all. He was born there.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Canadians running for President? Now I've heard it all. He was born there.

So what? When he was born in Canuckistan, his mother was an American citizen.

Ergo, so is Senator Cruz.

Thank me.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.

Prior to May 24, 1934 the uniform Rule of Naturalization did not allow a person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they were born outside the U.S. to a citizen mother and a non citizen father; during that time, persons born outside of the U.S. could only acquire citizenship at birth if their father was a citizen of the U.S. but not to a father who had never resided in the United States.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada after the 1934 date to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father, he acquired citizenship at birth under the uniform Rule of Naturalization that was in effect at the time of his birth.

Ted Cruz cannot be a “natural born Citizen” if a person born prior to May 24, 1934 with the same birth circumstances was not even a “citizen of the United States”.

The Constitution gives Congress the Power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, it does not give Congress the Power over who is a "natural born Citizen. A "natural born Citizen" today is the same as who a "natural born Citizen" was when the term was inserted into the Constitution, it can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment.

Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen"; if he were, then persons born prior to the 1934 date would also of been. Because, Congress does not have Power over who is a "natural born Citizen" they only have the Power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization and the Rule they established prior to the 1934 date only allowed persons born abroad to a U.S. citizen father to acquire citizenship at birth as long as their father had been a resident of the U.S.

Therefore Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen".

Neither is Obama, neither is McCain....

Well, you're right about McCain, technically, but why isn't Cruz or Obama natural born? Was President Arthur natural born?
_____________________________

Main Link: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

"A Compendium of the Statutory History of Jus Sanguinis"



Chapter III, Section 1, Statute II of Session II (pg. 103 - 104) of the Naturalization Act of 1790 of the First Congress:

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.

Once Congress established natural-born citizenship via jus sanguinis in statute, the words "natural born citizen" do not appear in statute ever again. From 1790 on, persons born abroad of U.S. citizens are alternately referred to as "citizens of the United States" or simply "citizens thereof" at the moment of birth. It is understood in statute from the context, as opposed to the context applied to naturalized citizenship, that natural-born citizenship is the status conferred at the moment of birth. Hence, Section 3 of the Naturalization Act of 1795 which superseded the Act of 1790 reads:

[A]nd the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.

Note that Congress initially required that both the mother and the father of one born abroad be citizens of the United States and also required one's father to have been a resident of the United States at some time or another before one's birth in order for one to be a citizen at birth, i.e., a natural-born citizen. Throughout the history of natural-born citizenship via the congressional prerogative of jus sanguinis, one had to be born of both the blood and the soil of the nation.



Revised Statutes Act of 1855, Section 1:

All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.

Note that unlike previous statute, only the father (singular), not "citizens" (plural), had to be a U.S. citizen in order for one born abroad of the blood of the nation to be a citizen at birth.



The Revised Statutes, Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes Act of 1934 amending the 1855 version:

Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. . . .

Note that since 1934 the parent (singular) of one duly born abroad of the blood of the nation can be either the mother or the father in order for one to be a citizen at birth.
_____________________________

Main Link: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.

Again, citizen and natural born citizen are not the same thing. A person can be a "citizen" under the following circumstances:
1) Person was born of one citizen parent (Obama), or
2) Person was born in the US mainland ("anchor babies"), or
3) Person was naturalized (like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who most know is not eligible for President).

To be a "natural born citizen" the person MUST be born in the US mainland of two US citizen parents. (plural)

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.

Prior to May 24, 1934 the uniform Rule of Naturalization did not allow a person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they were born outside the U.S. to a citizen mother and a non citizen father; during that time, persons born outside of the U.S. could only acquire citizenship at birth if their father was a citizen of the U.S. but not to a father who had never resided in the United States.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada after the 1934 date to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father, he acquired citizenship at birth under the uniform Rule of Naturalization that was in effect at the time of his birth.

Ted Cruz cannot be a “natural born Citizen” if a person born prior to May 24, 1934 with the same birth circumstances was not even a “citizen of the United States”.

The Constitution gives Congress the Power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, it does not give Congress the Power over who is a "natural born Citizen. A "natural born Citizen" today is the same as who a "natural born Citizen" was when the term was inserted into the Constitution, it can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment.

Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen"; if he were, then persons born prior to the 1934 date would also of been. Because, Congress does not have Power over who is a "natural born Citizen" they only have the Power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization and the Rule they established prior to the 1934 date only allowed persons born abroad to a U.S. citizen father to acquire citizenship at birth as long as their father had been a resident of the U.S.

Therefore Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen".

Neither is Obama, neither is McCain....

Was President Arthur natural born?
_____________________________

Main Link: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.

No.

 

[HenryBHough]

All this flap over an election that will never take place.

Is it not clear already that there are two possible scenarios?

1. The New Messiah decides some crisis is at hand that will suspend all frivolous activity of that sort.

2. Obama issues an Executive Order proclaiming Hillary the next president and then flies off to a palatial estate in Kenya.







Rage on libs, rage on!