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

[Skylar]

Not one citation you've offered of the WKA opinion is in reference to US law. Nor is it offered as US law by Gray. Nor is it a finding of the WKA court. Related to citizenship, this is:

What you've cited is a historic review of British common law related to British subjects. What Gray finds in the above citation regards US law, under our constitution.

You've imagined your exceptions under US law. You've imagined your exceptions under our constitution. As Roger affirms. As those born outside the US do not have constitutional citizenship.

What I cited from WKA was British Common Law that was carried over to the US from the colonies up to and after the USC, thus making it Common Law.

Nope. There is no federal common law. What WKA cites is the British common law that INFLUENCED the meaning of constitutional terms. What you've cited was a historical review of those possible influences. Which you've erroneously and laughably cited AS the law of the United States. Which they aren't. Nor does Gray ever present them as such.

When Gray eventually does come to findings regarding US law, he explodes your entire theory:

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.

There's a reason you keep cutting this citation out of your replies to my posts. This isn't a historical review of British common law. This is a finding of USSC regarding US law and the US constitution.

And it contradicts you, acknowledging none of the 'exceptions' you've imagined. Nor does any case after it.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Someone born outside the United States does not have constitutional citizenship. But is a citizen of statute.

You can ignore both WKA and Roger. But you can't make us ignore them. No matter how many times you delete references to either in your reply.

JFC SMFH. Both cites you exclaim are directed at citizens living abroad, neither have anything to do with Military personnel, otherwise known as "other Diplomatic agents". Go ahead, claim it isn't in the WKA opinion as usual, when it was cited directly from their. SMFH

Nothing you've cited is a finding of the court in the WKA decision. But a historical review of British common law that may have influenced constitutional terms. Which you ludicriously cite AS US law and the US constitution.

They are neither.

Gray finds, unquestioningly, that those born outside US jurisdiction must be naturalized to have citizenship.

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.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter. Being born in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US are required to be a citizen under the constitution. As Roger affirms....and you again ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Even the State department is the same page, recognizing that those born outside the US do not have citizenship embodied in the constitution.

Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

So you ignore the State Department too. Hell, even the Congress joined the fray, contradicting you:

(a)Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b)Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

8 U.S. Code § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
​

Congress explicitly extended citizenship to those you insisted already had it. Your narrative makes no sense at all. And is contradicted by Gray, the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Roger Court, and the State Department.

And laughably, you ignore them all and replace it all with fantasies that you've made up. Feel free. You fantasies are legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

This alone makes you and your claims look ignorant:

WKA

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]​

Did you read what you even posted? These are children that would NOT receive citizenship if born in this country.

The exact opposite of your claims. Try again. This time reading for comprehension.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

JFC SMFH. Both cites you exclaim are directed at citizens living abroad, neither have anything to do with Military personnel, otherwise known as "other Diplomatic agents". Go ahead, claim it isn't in the WKA opinion as usual, when it was cited directly from their. SMFH

Nothing you've cited is a finding of the court in the WKA decision. But a historical review of British common law that may have influenced constitutional terms. Which you ludicriously cite AS US law and the US constitution.

They are neither.

Gray finds, unquestioningly, that those born outside US jurisdiction must be naturalized to have citizenship.

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.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter. Being born in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US are required to be a citizen under the constitution. As Roger affirms....and you again ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Even the State department is the same page, recognizing that those born outside the US do not have citizenship embodied in the constitution.

Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

So you ignore the State Department too. Hell, even the Congress joined the fray, contradicting you:

(a)Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b)Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

8 U.S. Code § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
​

Congress explicitly extended citizenship to those you insisted already had it. Your narrative makes no sense at all. And is contradicted by Gray, the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Roger Court, and the State Department.

And laughably, you ignore them all and replace it all with fantasies that you've made up. Feel free. You fantasies are legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

This alone makes you and your claims look ignorant:

WKA

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]​

the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

Showing that children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation of the United States are not American citizens- nor are children born in the United States of diplomatic representatives of a foreign states American citizens.

It doesn't say anything about American citizenship of Americans born outside the United States.

It is common law and knowledge to include international law that children born to Ambassadors and Diplomats in service of their government are natural born of that nation. These are recognized exceptions:

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

Justice Story's opinion- cited in WKA- is the opinion of one justice- and is contradicted by Rogers and Bellei- and WKA

"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

Rogers v Bellei doesn't contradict Justice Story's citation in the WKA Opinion. SMFH Rogers v Bellei simply doesn't fall under one of the known exceptions.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

What I cited from WKA was British Common Law that was carried over to the US from the colonies up to and after the USC, thus making it Common Law.

Nope. There is no federal common law. What WKA cites is the British common law that INFLUENCED the meaning of constitutional terms. What you've cited was a historical review of those possible influences. Which you've erroneously and laughably cited AS the law of the United States. Which they aren't. Nor does Gray ever present them as such.

When Gray eventually does come to findings regarding US law, he explodes your entire theory:

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.

There's a reason you keep cutting this citation out of your replies to my posts. This isn't a historical review of British common law. This is a finding of USSC regarding US law and the US constitution.

And it contradicts you, acknowledging none of the 'exceptions' you've imagined. Nor does any case after it.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Someone born outside the United States does not have constitutional citizenship. But is a citizen of statute.

You can ignore both WKA and Roger. But you can't make us ignore them. No matter how many times you delete references to either in your reply.

JFC SMFH. Both cites you exclaim are directed at citizens living abroad, neither have anything to do with Military personnel, otherwise known as "other Diplomatic agents". Go ahead, claim it isn't in the WKA opinion as usual, when it was cited directly from their. SMFH

Nothing you've cited is a finding of the court in the WKA decision. But a historical review of British common law that may have influenced constitutional terms. Which you ludicriously cite AS US law and the US constitution.

They are neither.

Gray finds, unquestioningly, that those born outside US jurisdiction must be naturalized to have citizenship.

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.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter. Being born in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US are required to be a citizen under the constitution. As Roger affirms....and you again ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Even the State department is the same page, recognizing that those born outside the US do not have citizenship embodied in the constitution.

Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

So you ignore the State Department too. Hell, even the Congress joined the fray, contradicting you:

(a)Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b)Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

8 U.S. Code § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
​

Congress explicitly extended citizenship to those you insisted already had it. Your narrative makes no sense at all. And is contradicted by Gray, the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Roger Court, and the State Department.

And laughably, you ignore them all and replace it all with fantasies that you've made up. Feel free. You fantasies are legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

This alone makes you and your claims look ignorant:

WKA

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]​

Did you read what you even posted? These are children that would NOT receive citizenship if born in this country.

The exact opposite of your claims. Try again. This time reading for comprehension.

Try understanding this is common law and that it effects more then just "inside" the US. US Ambassadors/Diplomats giving birth in foreign nations are not "conditional" or "statute" citizens, they are "natural-born" citizens. US Citizens simply living abroad giving birth in foreign nations, their children are "conditional" or "statute" citizens.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Bull, he was born to Military Personnel (other Diplomatic agent), thus he was born to parents in service of their govt. Again from the WKA opinion:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.​

Soldiers are not ambassadors or diplomats- and WKA was saying that children born in England who are born to Ambassadors or diplomats are not English subjects.

It doesn't say that children born outside England to Ambassadors or invading armies in hostile occupation are English subjects.

Soldiers are diplomats, they are in service to their government and are stationed by their government. Are you going to tell me all those years that my CO told us we were diplomats in a foreign nation and to watch how we act was all a lie?

a) I have no idea what your CO told you- you may well be lying.
b) Your CO might well have been as wrong as you are.

Soldiers are not diplomats.

Never have been considered diplomats- still aren't.

Which is why the children of foreign diplomats born in the United States are not born U.S. citizens- because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Children born to foreign soldiers stationed here not as part of a diplomatic mission- they are born U.S. citizens.

I rather doubt my CO would lie, and I rather doubt he would be wrong. Military personnel are diplomats. Children born within the US of foreign Diplomats are not born US Citizens, neither are children born to foreign soldiers, as there are NO foreign soldiers stationed inside the US. The only way a foreign soldier would be in the US would either be in a diplomatic fashion (child not born a US Citizen) or simply on vacation (child born a US Citizen).

So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

Your CO could well be lying to you- or he could have just been ignorant.

There are foreign troops assigned to the United States on a regular basis- attending American military training.
German Military Presence in the United States: The Case of Holloman Air Force Base

They are not considered diplomats. Diplomats are extended specific protection by the State Department- which maintains a list of persons in the United States who have full or limited diplomatic immunity.

Those foreign military members are here for training, which is for a very short period of time, they are not in any way stationed here.

 

[Syriusly]

Soldiers are not ambassadors or diplomats- and WKA was saying that children born in England who are born to Ambassadors or diplomats are not English subjects.

It doesn't say that children born outside England to Ambassadors or invading armies in hostile occupation are English subjects.

Soldiers are diplomats, they are in service to their government and are stationed by their government. Are you going to tell me all those years that my CO told us we were diplomats in a foreign nation and to watch how we act was all a lie?

a) I have no idea what your CO told you- you may well be lying.
b) Your CO might well have been as wrong as you are.

Soldiers are not diplomats.

Never have been considered diplomats- still aren't.

Which is why the children of foreign diplomats born in the United States are not born U.S. citizens- because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Children born to foreign soldiers stationed here not as part of a diplomatic mission- they are born U.S. citizens.

I rather doubt my CO would lie, and I rather doubt he would be wrong. Military personnel are diplomats. Children born within the US of foreign Diplomats are not born US Citizens, neither are children born to foreign soldiers, as there are NO foreign soldiers stationed inside the US. The only way a foreign soldier would be in the US would either be in a diplomatic fashion (child not born a US Citizen) or simply on vacation (child born a US Citizen).

So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

Your CO could well be lying to you- or he could have just been ignorant.

There are foreign troops assigned to the United States on a regular basis- attending American military training.
German Military Presence in the United States: The Case of Holloman Air Force Base

They are not considered diplomats. Diplomats are extended specific protection by the State Department- which maintains a list of persons in the United States who have full or limited diplomatic immunity.

Those foreign military members are here for training, which is for a very short period of time, they are not in any way stationed here.

And if while they are here- they have children?

Those children are born American citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

Nothing you've cited is a finding of the court in the WKA decision. But a historical review of British common law that may have influenced constitutional terms. Which you ludicriously cite AS US law and the US constitution.

They are neither.

Gray finds, unquestioningly, that those born outside US jurisdiction must be naturalized to have citizenship.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter. Being born in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US are required to be a citizen under the constitution. As Roger affirms....and you again ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

Even the State department is the same page, recognizing that those born outside the US do not have citizenship embodied in the constitution.

So you ignore the State Department too. Hell, even the Congress joined the fray, contradicting you:

(a)Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b)Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

8 U.S. Code § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
​

Congress explicitly extended citizenship to those you insisted already had it. Your narrative makes no sense at all. And is contradicted by Gray, the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Roger Court, and the State Department.

And laughably, you ignore them all and replace it all with fantasies that you've made up. Feel free. You fantasies are legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

This alone makes you and your claims look ignorant:

WKA

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]​

the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

Showing that children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation of the United States are not American citizens- nor are children born in the United States of diplomatic representatives of a foreign states American citizens.

It doesn't say anything about American citizenship of Americans born outside the United States.

It is common law and knowledge to include international law that children born to Ambassadors and Diplomats in service of their government are natural born of that nation. These are recognized exceptions:

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

Justice Story's opinion- cited in WKA- is the opinion of one justice- and is contradicted by Rogers and Bellei- and WKA

"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

Rogers v Bellei doesn't contradict Justice Story's citation in the WKA Opinion. SMFH Rogers v Bellei simply doesn't fall under one of the known exceptions.

Justice Story's opinion- cited in WKA- is the opinion of one justice- and is contradicted by Rogers and Bellei- and WKA

"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Soldiers are diplomats, they are in service to their government and are stationed by their government. Are you going to tell me all those years that my CO told us we were diplomats in a foreign nation and to watch how we act was all a lie?

a) I have no idea what your CO told you- you may well be lying.
b) Your CO might well have been as wrong as you are.

Soldiers are not diplomats.

Never have been considered diplomats- still aren't.

Which is why the children of foreign diplomats born in the United States are not born U.S. citizens- because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Children born to foreign soldiers stationed here not as part of a diplomatic mission- they are born U.S. citizens.

I rather doubt my CO would lie, and I rather doubt he would be wrong. Military personnel are diplomats. Children born within the US of foreign Diplomats are not born US Citizens, neither are children born to foreign soldiers, as there are NO foreign soldiers stationed inside the US. The only way a foreign soldier would be in the US would either be in a diplomatic fashion (child not born a US Citizen) or simply on vacation (child born a US Citizen).

So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

Your CO could well be lying to you- or he could have just been ignorant.

There are foreign troops assigned to the United States on a regular basis- attending American military training.
German Military Presence in the United States: The Case of Holloman Air Force Base

They are not considered diplomats. Diplomats are extended specific protection by the State Department- which maintains a list of persons in the United States who have full or limited diplomatic immunity.

Those foreign military members are here for training, which is for a very short period of time, they are not in any way stationed here.

And if while they are here- they have children?

Those children are born American citizens.

1) A foreign nation will not be sending a pregnant woman soldier here for training. Since training is a short period, a woman more than 3 months along wouldn't be coming here. In most situations, once a female soldier is determined to be pregnant she is placed on light duty, which means no training and no traveling. There are NO foreign soldiers stationed in the US. Training is not being assigned nor stationed here.
2) If, and that would be a very big if - like one in a billion chance, a child is born here to a female foreign soldier during training here, it would be considered a US Citizen, it would also be a Citizen of said nation of the mother/parent(s). The likeliness of the child ever returning back to the US would be very, very low.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

This alone makes you and your claims look ignorant:

WKA

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]​

the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

Showing that children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation of the United States are not American citizens- nor are children born in the United States of diplomatic representatives of a foreign states American citizens.

It doesn't say anything about American citizenship of Americans born outside the United States.

It is common law and knowledge to include international law that children born to Ambassadors and Diplomats in service of their government are natural born of that nation. These are recognized exceptions:

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

Justice Story's opinion- cited in WKA- is the opinion of one justice- and is contradicted by Rogers and Bellei- and WKA

"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

Rogers v Bellei doesn't contradict Justice Story's citation in the WKA Opinion. SMFH Rogers v Bellei simply doesn't fall under one of the known exceptions.

Justice Story's opinion- cited in WKA- is the opinion of one justice- and is contradicted by Rogers and Bellei- and WKA

"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

And again, Bellei refers to nothing more then civilians who move abroad (it also explains why "Ted" Cruz is not eligible to hold the office of the President), it has no bearing on military personnel. Why you keep repeating this only shows utter ignorance. Bellei does not contradict Justice Story in any way what-so-ever.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

To be "naturalized" doesn't infer you must go through a process to gain citizenship.

So are Puerto Ricans naturalized citizens?

They are statutory Citizens, but not Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizens. That's why they can't run for president.

Racist scumbag dumb fuck Steve McGarrettt is too stupid top breathe.

And by the way, Ted was a citizen AT birth because his mom was a U.S. citizen at the time.

He "may acquire" citizenship provided he and his parent(s) meet certain requirements. Citizenship at birth doesn't denote "natural-born citizenship".

He did not have to go through naturalization. He was born of an American parent. EVEN if his citizenship was somehow conditional at that time, provided that he resided here in the U.S. before five years of being born, he continued his American citizenship. Ted moved here at the age of 4.

He was born a U.S. citizen. He is a natural born U.S. citizen. To the extent it might have been conditional (which is itself debatable) he met the condition so he was never subject to the slightest risk of losing the citizenship he acquired AT birth.

Spin it all you want. It's ok with me. But I doubt any court will ever determine that this claimed "dispute" is even justiciable.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

To be "naturalized" doesn't infer you must go through a process to gain citizenship.

So are Puerto Ricans naturalized citizens?

They are statutory Citizens, but not Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizens. That's why they can't run for president.

Racist scumbag dumb fuck Steve McGarrettt is too stupid top breathe.

And by the way, Ted was a citizen AT birth because his mom was a U.S. citizen at the time.

He "may acquire" citizenship provided he and his parent(s) meet certain requirements. Citizenship at birth doesn't denote "natural-born citizenship".

He did not have to go through naturalization. He was born of an American parent. EVEN if his citizenship was somehow conditional at that time, provided that he resided here in the U.S. before five years of being born, he continued his American citizenship. Ted moved here at the age of 4.

He was born a U.S. citizen. He is a natural born U.S. citizen. To the extent it might have been conditional (which is itself debatable) he met the condition so he was never subject to the slightest risk of losing the citizenship he acquired AT birth.

Spin it all you want. It's ok with me. But I doubt any court will ever determine that this claimed "dispute" is even justiciable.

Rogers v Bellei spells it out, no spin needed, had Cruz failed to enter the US prior to age 24 and remain here for 5 years (per the 1952 INA Section 301(a)(7)(b)), he would have lost his conditional citizenship. No natural-born citizen can ever have there citizenship revoked.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So are Puerto Ricans naturalized citizens?

They are statutory Citizens, but not Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizens. That's why they can't run for president.

Racist scumbag dumb fuck Steve McGarrettt is too stupid top breathe.

And by the way, Ted was a citizen AT birth because his mom was a U.S. citizen at the time.

He "may acquire" citizenship provided he and his parent(s) meet certain requirements. Citizenship at birth doesn't denote "natural-born citizenship".

He did not have to go through naturalization. He was born of an American parent. EVEN if his citizenship was somehow conditional at that time, provided that he resided here in the U.S. before five years of being born, he continued his American citizenship. Ted moved here at the age of 4.

He was born a U.S. citizen. He is a natural born U.S. citizen. To the extent it might have been conditional (which is itself debatable) he met the condition so he was never subject to the slightest risk of losing the citizenship he acquired AT birth.

Spin it all you want. It's ok with me. But I doubt any court will ever determine that this claimed "dispute" is even justiciable.

Rogers v Bellei spells it out, no spin needed, had Cruz failed to enter the US prior to age 24 and remain here for 5 years (per the 1952 INA Section 301(a)(7)(b)), he would have lost his conditional citizenship. No natural-born citizen can ever have there citizenship revoked.

Your miscomprehension of that case law notwithstanding, even IF Cruz might have lost his citizenship by not living here by the age of 5, that never happened. He DID live here from the age of 4. Ergo, he was born a citizen and it was never subject to even the slightest chance of revocation.

And it is also true that no case challenging his citizenship will be entertained by any court long enough to cast into doubt that he is and was a natural born citizen.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years .... "

Perhaps some of you will recognize that provision of law. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1401(g)

 

[Liquid Reigns]

They are statutory Citizens, but not Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizens. That's why they can't run for president.

Racist scumbag dumb fuck Steve McGarrettt is too stupid top breathe.

And by the way, Ted was a citizen AT birth because his mom was a U.S. citizen at the time.

He "may acquire" citizenship provided he and his parent(s) meet certain requirements. Citizenship at birth doesn't denote "natural-born citizenship".

He did not have to go through naturalization. He was born of an American parent. EVEN if his citizenship was somehow conditional at that time, provided that he resided here in the U.S. before five years of being born, he continued his American citizenship. Ted moved here at the age of 4.

He was born a U.S. citizen. He is a natural born U.S. citizen. To the extent it might have been conditional (which is itself debatable) he met the condition so he was never subject to the slightest risk of losing the citizenship he acquired AT birth.

Spin it all you want. It's ok with me. But I doubt any court will ever determine that this claimed "dispute" is even justiciable.

Rogers v Bellei spells it out, no spin needed, had Cruz failed to enter the US prior to age 24 and remain here for 5 years (per the 1952 INA Section 301(a)(7)(b)), he would have lost his conditional citizenship. No natural-born citizen can ever have there citizenship revoked.

Your miscomprehension of that case law notwithstanding, even IF Cruz might have lost his citizenship by not living here by the age of 5, that never happened. He DID live here from the age of 4. Ergo, he was born a citizen and it was never subject to even the slightest chance of revocation.

And it is also true that no case challenging his citizenship will be entertained by any court long enough to cast into doubt that he is and was a natural born citizen.

The only "miscomprehension" here is your utter stupidity in thinking you know anything in regards to actual case law. watafuknmoron

From his mother he "may acquire" citizenship (INA301) provided that both she and he meet certain requirements. Those requirements from the 1952 INA are from Section 301(a)(7) for the mother and 301(a)(7)(b) for "Ted". To later be changed and to now become 1401(g) of 8USC

We don't have to worry about it, he's not going to be the nominee, SCOTUS won't have to decide, nor will any challengers who could claim he isn't eligible, all because he will LOSE as he already is.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

"A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years .... "

Perhaps some of you will recognize that provision of law. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1401(g)

That would be great if 1401(g) as seen today was the reality of 1970 when "Ted" was born. Do you not know how to read the "notes" section to realize the 1401(g) has been changed numerous times over the years and what was law in 1970 when Ted was born was the 1952 INA.

1972—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 92–584, § 1, substituted provisions that nationals and citizens of the United States under subsec. (a)(7), lose such status unless they are present continuously in the United States for two years between the ages of fourteen and twenty eight years, or the alien parent is naturalized while the child is under the age of eighteen years and the child begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years, and that absence from the United States of less than sixty days will not break the continuity of presence, for provisions that such status would be lost unless the nationals and citizens come to the United States prior to attaining twenty three years and be present continuously in the United States for five years, and that such presence should be between the age of fourteen and twenty eight years.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 92–584, § 3, added subsec. (d).

1966—Subsec. (a)(7). Pub. L. 89–770 authorized periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization by the citizen parent, or any periods during which the citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization, to be included in order to satisfy the physical presence requirement, and permitted the proviso to be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952.​

Or how about in 1978 or again in 1986, or again in 2000 when it changed again? You see, NO natural-born citizen could ever have their citizenship and nationality revoked for failing to meet a requirement. Cruz is nothing more than a naturalized citizen from the US Constitution Article 1 Section 8:

Now as for 8USC1401 it is refered to as follows: Annotation 36 - Article I - FindLaw

Categories of Citizens: Birth and Naturalization

The first sentence of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization. 1143 This contemplation is given statutory expression in Sec. 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 1144 which itemizes those categories of persons who are citizens of the United States at birth; all other persons in order to become citizens must pass through the naturalization process. The first category merely tracks the language of the first sentence of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment in declaring that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens by birth. 1145 But there are six other categories of citizens by birth. They are: (2) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe, (3) a person born outside the United States of citizen parents one of whom has been resident in the United States, (4) a person born outside the United States of one citizen parent who has been continuously resident in the United States for one year prior to the birth and of a parent who is a national but not a citizen, (5) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of one citizen parent who has been continuously resident in the United States or an outlying possession for one year prior to the birth, (6) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five unless prior to his twenty-first birthday he is shown not to have been born in the United States, and (7) a person born outside the United States of an alien parent and a citizen parent who has been resident in the United States for a period of ten years, provided the person is to lose his citizenship unless he resides continuously in the United States for a period of five years between his fourteenth and twenty-eighth birthdays.



Subsection (7) citizens must satisfy the condition subsequent of five years continuous residence within the United States between the ages of fourteen and twenty-eight, a requirement held to be constitutional, 1146 which means in effect that for constitutional purposes, according to the prevailing interpretation, there is a difference between persons born or naturalized in, that is, within, the United States and persons born outside the confines of the United States who are statutorily made citizens. 1147 The principal difference is that the former persons may not be involuntarily expatriated whereas the latter may be, subject only to due process protections. 1148 ​

Cruz is a Section 7 citizen and had to satisfy the conditions imposed upon him by the 1952 INA, Cruz was statutorily made a citizen, his citizenship was "conditional" on meeting specific requirements, and that he could by way of due process, have his US citizenship status revoked and be expatriated right back to Canuckastan.