Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
Obama's eligibility was answered by the State of Hawaii, which repeatedly affirmed that the President was born in that state.
I wonder what still made the birther movement want to prove that he wasn't a citizen?
Fox news was on this topic even though it was proven that he was born in Hawaii. They sided a lot with the birther movement even after. Sean Hannity as primary suspect to prolonged this issue.
Now with Cruz, there is a general silence. He should put this to rest. Lets see if the idiots of the birther movement take this any further. I remember them shouting how Obama was a Kenyan, thank you YouTube
You cannot argue that the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent foreign-born children from ever becoming Presidents when the Founding Fathers were involved with the 1790 Act, which expressly made foreign-born children of American fathers eligible to become President one day.
And while you can scream until you're blue in the face that the 1795 Act repealed the 1790 Act, you cannot argue that that the Founding Fathers changed their minds simply because they changed the language.
That IS in fact EXACTLY what they did.
Read Rogers v. Bellei, 1971. It firmly establishes in recent history that Congress can in fact determine the citizenship status of those born abroad to US citizen parents:
Quote:
"...we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born: "[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States . . . ."
Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing [401 U.S. 815, 830] rights, and affirmative of existing law," so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688 . Then follows a most significant sentence:
"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."
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."
Bellei was found to NOT be a US citizen, by the way.
Cruz just simply did not meet any of the requirements under Public Act 414, Sec 320, in effect at the time of his birth to acquire US citizenship at birth. He would have had to have naturalized as a minor via immigration of a US citizen's close relative (his mother), or at age 18+ on his own. Naturalized citizens are not natural born.
Furthermore, after the 1790 Act was repealed in 1795, Congress never legislated that those born abroad to US citizen parents were "natural born citizens" for Constitutional eligibility purposes. The last attempt to do so in 2004, failed. 2004 Senate bill 2128.
Exactly. According to Public Act 414, Sec 301 which was in effect at the time of Cruz's birth in Canada, he didn't qualify for citizenship at birth. Cruz is not a natural born citizen, and isn't even a US citizen at all unless he naturalized as a minor via immigration as a close relative to a US citizen (his mother) or naturalized himself at age 18+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
You've just stated that Ted Cruz isn't even a U.S. citizen, unless he was naturalized as a minor.
Ted Cruz is the current U.S. Senator from Texas. The Constitution explicitly requires that a Senator be a citizen of the United States for at least nine years at the time of his election. So the great State of Texas confirmed Cruz as a U.S. citizen.
Can you produce any documentation that Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz was ever naturalized as a U.S. citizen?
Or are you just making up crap again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
If he naturalized at least 9 years prior to his election to the Senate, then yes, he's eligible to serve as a US Senator. "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States"
Actually, it's in Cruz's best interest if HE does. Because according to Public Act 414, Sec 301 which was in effect at the time of Cruz's birth in Canada, he wasn't born a US citizen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
You dodged the question asked.
You claimed that Cruz wasn't a citizen at birth, and that he must have been naturalized as a minor.
Can you produce any documentation that Ted Cruz was a naturalized citizen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Not my place to provide such documentation. Cruz is the one running for POTUS.
I've just posted what is legally correct. Cruz's birth in Canada in 1970 did not meet any of the Public Act 414, Sec 301 requirements to acquire US citizenship at birth.
See this? Throwing out allegations, then claiming no responsibility for those allegations.
Like I said, InformedConsent simply makes up crap to support her opinions.
If Obama's eligibility was answered in Ankeny v daniels, why did Fox news press on it over and over again even after?
there were multiple aspects to obama birtherism. the legal question to the facts of his birth to a non-citizen parent were addressed in ankeny v daniels. this obviously had no affect on the "born in kenya" and/or "renounced US citizenship/indonesian citizen" conspiracy myths.
Quote:
Why doesn't anyone challenge Trump about it since Trump always claims that he has the best lawyers etc?
they have, but trump has made it clear that he will simply deflect and avoid answering any questions pertaining to his past birther antics.
Quote:
... and he had people sent to Hawaii to look into it and investigate.
it's my belief that the "investigators" that trump was referring to were jerome corsi and mike zullo. obviously they found nothing.
Yup. the clause requires his citizen parent to have resided in the US for the year immediately preceding his birth. She had been living in Canada for the previous three years.
It doesn't say "immediately". That's a birther invention.
There's a problem with the "prior to" requirement.
Two different terms: "prior to" and "at any time prior to" were used in Sec 301. They are not the same. Requirement (7) would apply to Cruz if the requirement stated the same as requirement (5), but it does not.
Looking at two different Sec 301 paragraphs in which the "prior to" requirement is stated:
Quote:
(4) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United
States who has been physically present in the United States or
one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period ofone
year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom
is a national, but not a citizen of the United States
(5) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States
of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has
been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying
possessions for a continuous period of one yearat any time prior
tothe birth of such person
That's a post that discusses a court case that has nothing to do with the claimed existence of Ted Cruz's naturalization papers. And its a court case that you misrepresented.
The only thing missing from the cognitive dissonance of InformedConsents's postings is the visual image of her rolling some ball bearings around in her hand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
