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.
Yes, because they are NOT born to legally established permanent residents, which the WKA ruling established was necessary for citizenship status under the 14th Amendment LONG after the 14th Amendment was ratified.Anything regarding citizenship referring to the 14th Amendment must look at 14th Amendment SCOTUS cases. In the US v. WKA, Scotus ruled that WKA was a citizen because he was born in the US to legally established permanently domiciled alien parents.
Which is in direct conflict with the State Department, which Informed Consent has already declared to be the authority on the subject.
The Supreme Court's opinion in Minor DID NOT interpret the absence of "natural born" in the 1795 Act to mean that children born to US citizens overseas were no longer deemed natural born citizens.
In fact, it did:
"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Where's the language in Minor that deemed those born abroad to be NBCs?
...Since Cruz was born in Canada and his parents were apparently registered voters there we are left wondering. It would be nice to get this put to bed one way or another.
"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Where's the language in Minor that deemed those born abroad to be NBCs?
Right here: 88 US 168
Quote:
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early
as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted
as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so
naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of
age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of
the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that
might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should
be considered as natural-born citizens.
You are free to cite Federal Law defining NBC. Please do.
Oh, no, all I really have to do is quote you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
[T]hey are NOT born to legally established permanent residents, which the WKA ruling established was necessary for citizenship status under the 14th Amendment LONG after the 14th Amendment was ratified. Anything regarding citizenship referring to the 14th Amendment must look at 14th Amendment SCOTUS cases. In the US v. WKA, SCOTUS ruled that WKA was a citizen because he was born in the US to legally established permanently domiciled alien parents.
Illegal aliens ae NOT legally established residents.
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S.
citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. Citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization.
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
So if a child is born in an immigration detention center physically located within the United States, where the parents have not been legally admitted into the United States and where they have no possible ability to establish a domicile, that child is still considered to be a citizen, per the State Department, which directly contradicts InformedConsent claim.
Now, who are we to believe, InformedConsent or the State Department? Who has the authority to determine citizenship?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Once again , the State Dept DOES in fact have the authority to determine citizenship.
Last edited by djmilf; 01-13-2016 at 02:03 PM..
Reason: fixed an errant line feed
Don't be bothered. It is not true. Their names were on a list gathered by going house to house and asking for the names of the individuals residing at the location. Much like a census. No ID was sought and no proof of eligibility to vote was required. The head of the CA Elections Commission has confirmed the worthless nature of the list and no proof has been presented that either of the Cruz' voted while residing in Canada.
It's just more garbage from the democrats and Trump.
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.
, the State Dept DOES in fact have the authority to determine citizenship.
