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The ONLY US Law that even addressed this issue was REPEALED just 5 years after it was enacted.
The Naturalization Act of 1790...
"...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."
But that Act was repealed only 5 years later in 1795, and no longer were children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits of the United States considered to be natural born citizens. They were only citizens.
"...and 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..."
An additional point is that Ted Cruz himself can not talk himself into an affirmative position on an issue like this. Really, it isn't his call. No matter how much he would like others to believe his point-of-view, it isn't his prerogative.
He is blowing smoke, trying as best he can to convince others, thats all.
One thing is for sure, the Senate isn't going to help help him out as they did with McCain. But with McCain, it was valid as his father was in the US military (Navy) and stationed in Panama where he was born. Not by any stretch of the imagination does Ted's parents fit in that type of category.
One thing is for sure, the Senate isn't going to help help him out as they did with McCain. But with McCain, it was valid as his father was in the US military (Navy) and stationed in Panama where he was born.
there was an interesting detail to mccain's situation. in 1936 ( the year of mccain's birth ) congress specifically considered panama canal-zone births "US nationals" and not "US citizens". in 1938 the law was changed making canal-zone births "US citizens" and retro-actively covered previous births.
congress passed the mccain resolution (non-binding ) unanimously and without discussion so it's hard to tell exactly what they were basing their decision on. the only evidence submitted was the "tribe/olsen report".
You knew it had to come up, and it has. Trump was asked and in his usual style he said "they" are looking at it and there is a good chance if he gets nominated there will be endless lawsuits. Alan Grayson of Florida is apparently waiting to do just that.
Here's my response:
Many people are born outside of the U.S. to military personnel;
If the person's mother is American they are too, no matter where the baby is born;
In the 1760's George Washington fought valiantly for the British and was certainly a British citizen. That status hadn't changed when he took the oath of office in New York City on April 30, 1789.
All adult Americans were "dual citizens" at the time of the framing of the Constitution, and certainly were at the time of Independence.
Many people are born outside of the U.S. to military personnel;
If the person's mother is American they are too, no matter where the baby is born;
In the 1760's George Washington fought valiantly for the British and was certainly a British citizen. That status hadn't changed when he took the oath of office in New York City on April 30, 1789.
All adult Americans were "dual citizens" at the time of the framing of the Constitution, and certainly were at the time of Independence.
As to your last two points, that's why there is an exception for such US citizens in the Constitution's POTUS eligibility requirement.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"
As to your first two points, I've already explained that the only law that ever said children born abroad to a citizen parent were to be regarded the same as natural born citizens was repealed in 1795.
The Naturalization Act of 1790...
"...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."
But that Act was repealed only 5 years later in 1795, and no longer were children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits of the United States considered to be natural born citizens. They were only citizens.
"...and 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..."
As to your last two points, that's why there is an exception for such US citizens in the Constitution's POTUS eligibility requirement.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"
As to your first two points, I've already explained that the only law that ever said children born abroad to a citizen parent were to be regarded the same as natural born citizens was repealed in 1795.
The Naturalization Act of 1790...
"...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."
But that Act was repealed only 5 years later in 1795, and no longer were children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits of the United States considered to be natural born citizens. They were only citizens.
"...and 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..."
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
*********Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
*********Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Perhaps you can point out where it states natural born citizen as did the Act of 1790 which was repealed?
Furthermore, from the State Dept, regarding children born abroad to US citizens:
Quote:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... 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.”
d.This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
The statute that declared children born abroad to US citizen parents to be natural born citizens is no longer operative, and hasn't been operative since 1795.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 01-13-2016 at 05:05 AM..
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.
