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.
Donald did not start this inquiry, the washington post did.
All Trump stated was, the air needs to be clear., and he suggested cruz get some sort of court judgement so that if he becomes the nominee, the dems would be out of luck for filing a suit against cruz.
Don't try and read things into it that are not there.
Bob.
Oh come on! He discusses it at every rally; he's the one that turned it into 'big news'. He pretends like he's trying to do Cruz a favor ("I really hope he gets this straightened out; he's a nice guy'"). At the debate, he was screaming that Cruz 'couldn't do this do the party' because he's got a big 'cloud' over his head.
You'd best believe, this is all for Trump's benefit an no one elses. Of course he's trying to influence the voters.
Prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the "1934 Statute") gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively.
In early 19th century UK, impressment was upheld by the British courts (Rex v. Broadfoot, Rex v. Wade, etc.). So, yes, as impressment was a legally recognized and upheld obligation, the US citizens the UK deemed to be British subjects by their own Nationality Law would have to comply.
What happens when a foreign country similarly impresses a born dual citizen POTUS into service for them, as they most certainly would have the legal right to do under international law?
That's what the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid with the 'natural born citizen' requirement. They wanted POTUS to have no split, dual, or otherwise compromised/competing allegiance from birth to prevent that possibility.
Pretty simple, really. And extremely reasonable to require a POTUS and the Commander in Chief of our military to have 100% allegiance to the U.S. from birth, with no competing/conflicting foreign claims on his/her allegiance or service.
To be clear: the problem is conflicting/competing allegiance at birth via dual (or more) citizenship, and a foreign country's valid legal right according to international law to enforce its laws upon its own citizens/subjects, worldwide.
Renouncing a foreign citizenship with which one is born is iffy. In times of war or conflict, that renunciation may not be recognized. That's what happened in the early 19th century to U.S. citizen men born in the U.S. to parents (fathers, given that historical era) who had been born British subjects before the U.S. gained independence. Even though those U.S.-born men had never stepped foot in England and had been U.S. citizens all their lives, the UK had the legal right under international law to impress them into service in the British Royal Navy because they were the progeny of those who had been born British subjects, and therefore were also British subjects themselves under British law.
Until 2011 any male born in South Korea regardless of parental citizenship or overseas to a parent who at any time in their life had Korean citizenship, no matter their citizenship status at birth were automatically considered Korean citizens, whether they or their parents wanted them to be was immaterial. Not only that, but Korea insisted that those males had the same military obligation as a male who lived their entire life in Korea. At one time the US Army would not send soldiers with Korean mothers to Korea unless they were over draft age because there had been some problems with it. There are other countries that have similar stipulations. Based on what you are saying, does that mean that any child born to a parent, who as a child was adopted by American citizen parents at age one or two from a country that has automatic citizenship and has never left US soil since then, should be ineligible to be president? Because they just might be loyal to that country they have never stepped foot in or understand anything about and their only tie is that their mother was born there?
That was the extreme theory, by the way, that Cruz was referring to when he said there are people who would say Trump wasn't eligible.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Until 2011 any male born in South Korea regardless of parental citizenship or overseas to a parent who at any time in their life had Korean citizenship, no matter their citizenship status at birth were automatically considered Korean citizens, whether they or their parents wanted them to be was immaterial. Not only that, but Korea insisted that those males had the same military obligation as a male who lived their entire life in Korea. At one time the US Army would not send soldiers with Korean mothers to Korea unless they were over draft age because there had been some problems with it. There are other countries that have similar stipulations. Based on what you are saying, does that mean that any child born to a parent, who as a child was adopted by American citizen parents at age one or two from a country that has automatic citizenship and has never left US soil since then, should be ineligible to be president? Because they just might be loyal to that country they have never stepped foot in or understand anything about and their only tie is that their mother was born there?
That was the extreme theory, by the way, that Cruz was referring to when he said there are people who would say Trump wasn't eligible.
https://americansabroad.org/issues/c...p-act-of-2000/ This makes for some interesting reading. Looks like an adopted child does not become a natural born citizen. I think with natural born, you don't become one, you have to be one at birth.
https://americansabroad.org/issues/c...p-act-of-2000/ This makes for some interesting reading. Looks like an adopted child does not become a natural born citizen. I think with natural born, you don't become one, you have to be one at birth.
I was referring to the biological child of the adopted child who became an American citizen, not the adopted child itself. In other words, a child of two American citizens at the time of his birth, born on American soil - just that one parent was born in another country.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
What brings this question up is Cruz being such a strict Constitution literalist kind of fudging when that interferes with him.
No, it isn't. What brings this up is someone who is afraid they won't win so they look for any and all ways to damage the other candidate. It was done with Obama and is now being done with Cruz and Rubio.
I agree the Supreme Court needs to weigh in on this.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
No, it isn't. What brings this up is someone who is afraid they won't win so they look for any and all ways to damage the other candidate. It was done with Obama and us now being done with Cruz and Rubio.
I agree the Supreme Court needs to weigh in on this.
I agree about the Supreme Court needing to weigh in on this. It is time for that. Everyone of the cases have different twists to them so you can't use one to say that it established what a natural born citizen is.
For one thing, we need to make sure we nail this down at this time in history more than any other.
I don't know why the Supreme Court always just waits around on things when it is causing obvious turmoil for the country and this is. You would have thought that after the Obama incident, they would have got the job done.
I agree about the Supreme Court needing to weigh in on this. It is time for that. Everyone of the cases have different twists to them so you can't use one to say that it established what a natural born citizen is.
For one thing, we need to make sure we nail this down at this time in history more than any other.
I don't know why the Supreme Court always just waits around on things when it is causing obvious turmoil for the country and this is. You would have thought that after the Obama incident, they would have got the job done.
The Supreme Court can't just reach down from on high and correct a wrong, they are not supposed to make law, they are supposed to interpret law. The Supreme Court has to have a case before them filed by a party with legitimate interest to rule on. (I.E., another candidate or the other party). Congress, however, can inact laws to correct a wrong.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
The Supreme Court can't just reach down from on high and correct a wrong, they are not supposed to make law, they are supposed to interpret law. The Supreme Court has to have a case before them filed by a party with legitimate interest to rule on. (I.E., another candidate or the other party). Congress, however, can inact laws to correct a wrong.
But they have not interpreted it. They do get cases on things and refuse to hear them.
Well, I don't think there is any "wrong" involved with this. I think it is plain what they meant and why they meant it.
I was referring to the biological child of the adopted child who became an American citizen, not the adopted child itself. In other words, a child of two American citizens at the time of his birth, born on American soil - just that one parent was born in another country.
So, going back to Cruz and thinking about the other posts, if Canada would have had a mandatory military requirement for males, he would have been bound to return to Canada to serve, right? And, isn't that where dual citizenship could get sticky. Yes, Cruz did drop his Canadian citizenship when it started being questioned but this still points to an issue of having the dual-citizenship and the tie to another country.
I actually have a grandson who is a naturalized citizen and plans to enlist in the military when he graduates in 3 years. I wonder, as a naturalized citizen if we had a draft he might be obligated to both the US and his country of birth.
I mean, all of this could get very sticky.
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.
