Neither Cruz nor Rubio are Natural Born citizens

I tried to find an old thread on this issue but didn't, so I started this one.

There are Three kinds of citizenship: A) Natural Born; B) Natural citizen; C) Naturalized Citizen.

Caution: Many people confuse Natural citizen with Natural Born. The two are slightly different. Anchor babies are Natural citizens. Having one parent as a US citizen makes one a Natural citizen.

To be a Natural Born citizen has some HIGH Standards: You have to have TWO US Citizens as Parents and be born ON THE SOIL of America.

Here are three articles to instruct on that:

John Roland "McCain, Obama, Cruz, Not Natural Born citizens"
http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm


Examiner, "Cruz not citizen at birth".
http://www.examiner.com/article/proo...tizen-at-birth


Dr. Swier "Cruz is NOT EVEN a US Citizen"
http://drrichswier.com/2016/02/07/te...itizen-at-all/


Cruz was born ON Canadian soil, so Canadian law, which disallows dual citizenship, dictates that status of Ted Cruz. Rubio was born on American Soil, making him a Natural Citizen, but not Natural Born for his Parents were still Cuban citizens! Neither one is eligible to be President of the US. And why the Republican Party doesn't put a stop to this--is hypocritical and faulty. Rush Limbaugh also fails here. He talks of the Rule of Law and Original Intent but when it comes to Cruz--Rush throws this all under the bus.

Cruz is NOT even eligible to be a US Senator.

John Roland above makes it clear that John McCain was NOT Natural Born. In an offside note, not even Barry Goldwater who was running for Republican President in the late sixties was a Natural Born citizen! He was born in the Arizona Territory. Not on US Soil!

So this is a big mess! And this shows there is NO Rule of Law in the country. That the Constitution is just dirt and all this talk of Original Intent and being a "conservative" is just all balderdash! Just Idiotic.

We live in Absurdistan run by an Idiocracy!

Yah but the sh*t part at this time is the SCOTUS won't rule the right way or they would invalidate Obama completely which we all know they won't be willing to do. To invalidate Obama would be to undo everything he has done or even touched unless the next President wanted to sign off on all of it. It would create such a disaster at this point (which I'd be willing to put up with honestly) that the SCOTUS won't go doing what they should. Further a ruling on what a Natural Born Citizen is that doesn't favor Obama would right off remove 2 SCOTUS justices and they won't be recusing themselves from the case due to that and they won't be voting against Obama as well.

Congress would have to pass an Act of Congress declaring its understanding of what a NBC is and the GOP and DNC have to much to lose if they do the right thing.

2/5/16

Don't Look Now, but It's Not Just Ted Cruz With an Eligibility Problem

'Natural Born' Issue for Ted Cruz Is Not Settled

by Ilona Bray, J.D
If you were to try to read the U.S. law concerning dual citizenship – that is, simultaneously holding U.S. citizenship and citizenship in another country -- you wouldn’t find much solid information. Nowhere does the law say that a person can be a dual citizen with the United States -- but then, nowhere does it say that one can’t.
Historically, the U.S. government has used this vagueness as an opportunity to make people believe that choosing U.S. citizenship excludes all others. The oath that people take at their swearing-in ceremony (quoted below) would make anyone think that they were agreeing to give up all other citizenships right then and there. It says that the person will “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which [you] have heretofore been a subject or citizen.”
However, the fact of the matter is that the United States will not actually stop someone from keeping citizenship in another country after becoming a U.S. citizen. Nor will it cancel the U.S. citizenship of someone who becomes a citizen of another country. The key is whether the other country’s laws allow it.
Many people today successfully hold dual citizenship—that is, they are simultaneously U.S. citizens and citizens of another country.
What’s So Great About Dual Citizenship?
Dual citizenship can be important for a number of reasons. Some people feel a huge sense of loss in giving up the passport of the country they once called home. More practically, the laws of their home country may require that giving up other important rights along with the citizenship—such as rights to a pension, to receive government-paid health care if the person becomes elderly or disabled, to vote, or to own land there.
Dual Citizenship Laws in Other Countries Around the World
A slim majority of countries around the globe do allow dual citizenship, at least in some form. Some countries allow it automatically upon your obtaining citizenship, others allow it after an application process, and still others offer something less than full citizenship, with or without an application.
Canada and a fair number of European countries, (for example, Albania, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) allow dual citizenship, while most Asian countries (such as China, India, Japan, Singapore, and Vietnam) do not.
Look for further information on the website of the embassy of the country in question, or talk to your consular representative.
Can You Apply to the U.S. Government for Dual Citizenship?
Because the U.S. government does not formally sanction dual citizenship, there are no particular procedures to follow if you become a naturalized U.S.citizen but want to keep your old citizenship. No one will give you a certificate or other evidence that the U.S. government recognizes and approves your dual status. Your home country, however, may require more.
First, find out whether your home country will cancel your citizenship if you are naturalized as a U.S. citizen. If cancellation isn’t automatic, find out whether you have to take special steps to keep your home citizenship.

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/...tion-laws.html



Share on Facebook

There should not be dual citizenship in the US and if need be, as it now appears, it should be banned. No one in our country should be able to vote, draw social security, breed a citizen, or run for public office if they hold citizenship in another country. Period.

Two Categories of Citizenships

There are two categories of citizenship:[1]

1. Natural born
2. Naturalized

Natural Born

Natural born citizenship is the acquirement of citizenship at the moment of birth.[2]
There are only two types of natural born citizen:

1. Native-born is being born within the territory of the state or commonwealth under the principle of jus soli,
2. Attaining citizenship through the parents’ citizenship status under the principle of jus sanguinis.

Jus Soli
The principle of birthright citizenship gained through being born within a country is called jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”). It isn’t dependent on the citizenship of the parents.[2]
In the United States the principle of jus soli goes back to before the creation of the Constitution. Territorial birthright citizenship was first formally established under English common law in the 1608 case of Calvin v. Smith (77 Eng. Rep. 377 (K.B. 1608)) whose decision was based upon the feudal relationship between a king or lord with their subjects in the early English feudal system.[3]
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution confirmed this birthright citizenship in the pertinent part of Section 1,

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” [Note 1]

It has been presumed that any person born within the territory of the United States, including the children of illegal aliens, are granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. [2] The only exception is for foreign diplomats’ and officers’ children.[4 and Note 2]
Jus Sanguinis
The other natural born citizenship birthright is called jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood”). Jus sanguinis is based on having an ancestor or parent (often the father), who is a national or citizen of the state.[2]
Jus sanguinis has even a longer history under English common law than jus soli. The concept of jus sanguinis dates back to at least 1351 when the statute de Natis Ultra Mare (25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1351)) was passed. This statute became necessary due to King Edwards III’s overseas military campaigns. The statute goes beyond just granting citizenship to the children of those in the King’s service, to include “all children born beyond the sea whose fathers and mothers were at the faith and ligeance of the king of England, and provided that the mothers had gone outside the realm with the permission of their husbands, could inherit, i.e., that they were subjects.”[5]
The concept of Jus sanguinis did influence the creation of the Constitution in the United States. The Naturalization Act of 1790 ((1 Stat. 103) March 26, 1790) clarifies this type of natural born citizen by declaring that “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.” Thusly the act establishes the United States citizenship of citizens’ children, who are born abroad, without the need for naturalization.[Note 3]
Congress again confirmed jus sanguinis citizenship birthright in the Naturalization Act of 1795 (January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414)) “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.” While this leaves out the term natural-born, it does declare them to be citizens by-birth through their parents and therefore do not need the process of naturalization to become citizens.[Note 4]
Naturalization

The other type of citizenship is through the legal process called Naturalization.[6] “Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is conferred upon a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). All naturalization applicants must demonstrate good moral character, attachment, and favorable disposition. The other naturalization requirements may be modified or waived for certain applicants, such as spouses of U.S. citizens. The general requirements for administrative naturalization include:

• a period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States;
• residence in a particular USCIS District prior to filing;
• an ability to read, write, and speak English;
• a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government;
• good moral character;
• attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution; and,
• favorable disposition toward the United States.”

U.S. Constitution

While the U.S. Constitution requires a person to be a “natural born” Citizen to qualify for the Office of the President of the United States,

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, it doesn’t define what is meant by a “natural born” citizen [6] nor is it discussed much among the Founding Fathers.

It is well settled law that “native-born” citizens qualify for the Office of the President because they are “natural-born” and that naturalized citizens do not qualify.[7] “But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.”

https://truthmonk.wordpress.com/2008...d-definitions/

Native born is not natural born under the US Constitution. Native born is the result of the 14th Amendment that occurred 80 years after the US Constitution was ratified for children of freed slaves whose parents were not citizens at the time of their birth and this Amendment did not amend Article II.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

There should not be dual citizenship in the US and if need be, as it now appears, it should be banned. No one in our country should be able to vote, draw social security, breed a citizen, or run for public office if they hold citizenship in another country. Period.

---

Judy I don't disagree with you. I was furious when doing research on Mexico giving dual citizenship to children of illegals living in the U.S. and having a sister in law that is Canadian I knew about Canada allowing dual citizenship. I have been in many arguments about woman in Canada flying across the border to have their babies. I was just posting this because I saw misinformation posted and I am all about everyone having the facts.

Oh I know you were posting the information and that didn't mean it was your view. The whole citizenship thing is out of control. It's just crazy. Children of green cards and visas become US citizens when their parents are citizens of other countries. Children of illegal aliens become US citizens when their parents aren't even supposed to be in the country let alone breeding in our jurisdiction. A Cuban enters the US on a phony student visa he bribed a Batista official for to attend the University of Texas, then scoots off to Canada during the Vietnam War, takes his American wife with him, he or they become Canadian citizens, have a child in Canada, then somehow re-enter the US and claim US citizenship for their child who already has Canadian citizenship?! Oh no, this has to end.

I know I am sensitive to what is a natural born or native American. One of my ancestors had all of his rights and property taken away from him by the courts because his grandmother was American Indian. At one time in our history you could not vote, be on a jury or own property until you were diluted by 3 generations. In other words being part American Indian he was not considered a natural born US citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

Two Categories of Citizenships

There are two categories of citizenship:[1]

1. Natural born
2. Naturalized

.....
https://truthmonk.wordpress.com/2008...d-definitions/

---

This isn't accurate. Its what has been spouted by liberals looking to extend Citizenship to anyone connected to the US in any slight way.
From the 14th Amendment.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*, are citizens of the United States"

This is the common argument against illegal aliens that as illegal aliens they are evading US jurisdiction as they came illegally. If it was just anyone born in the US or naturalized there would be no *subject to the jurisdiction thereof* part. As the SCOTUS has ruled every word and phrase must have an interpretative meaning and nothing is just extra. Further the Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship to all persons born in the US *not subject to a foreign power* as those who would be citizens by birth to other countries.

The point is establishing the definition of what *should* be the qualifiers for Citizenship. Now the Constitution refers to 3 terms, Citizen as we just defined above, Naturalized Citizen.... these are now understood. Now the 3rd is *Natural Born Citizen* which by adding the term *Natural Born* means that the requirements MUST be different then the requirement for simple citizenship, and more stringent.

So someone can be a Citizen by birth or a Naturalized Citizen which isn't that hard to figure out. But yet a *Natural Born* Citizen is completely different and as more stringent requirement to be able to be President must not be the same as a Simple Citizen. Now out of what is left to decide the difference between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen is being able to have any connection to a foreign entity. This leave the solid conclusion a Natural Born Citizen must be a citizen by birth without foreign ties (two US parents) and possibly on US soil.

Problem is the US Constitution didn't specify what a Natural Born Citizen is but the founders in other papers had a clear intent of that yet its not been allowed to be argued as those papers aren't signed into the US Constitution. Yet we still must give seperate meaning to what a Natural Born Citizen is.

I have no problem with the President having to be born in the U.S. to two U.S. parents. I just want them to once and for all rule on it. I am afraid if they don't we are going to end up with a President with both parents being illegal aliens.

I want Americans to rule on the issue with their votes. Born on US soil to 2 US citizens. Very simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

I know I am sensitive to what is a natural born or native American. One of my ancestors had all of his rights and property taken away from him by the courts because his grandmother was American Indian. At one time in our history you could not vote, be on a jury or own property until you were diluted by 3 generations. In other words being part American Indian he was not considered a natural born US citizen.

---

I agree that there was a bias against Native Americans at one time. My Great Grandmother was Cherokee and there are a lot of family stories....

This is an interesting article that I came across.

Ted Cruz is NOT a Legal U.S. Citizen at all


THE DEBATE OVER CRUZ'S ELIGIBILITY FOR THE U.S. PRESIDENCY IS ABOUT TO END

February 7, 2016
JB Williams
Constitutional Issues,
Incrementalism,
http://www.capitolhilloutsider.com/w...da-678x381.jpg
Oh Canada?http://cdn.printfriendly.com/button-print-blu20.png

By JB Williams:
The debate over whether or not Senator Ted Cruz is eligible for the U.S. Presidency is about to end. It has now been confirmed that Senator Ted Cruz is neither a “U.S. natural born Citizen” or a “legal U.S. citizen.”

According to all relative legal citizenship documentation available at present, Senator Ted Cruz was born Rafael Edward Cruz, a legal citizen of Canada on December 22, 1970 and maintained his legal Canadian citizenship from birth until May 14, 2014, 43 years later.

The Cruz Campaign for the U.S. Presidency has claimed that Senator Ted Cruz was a “citizen at birth” via his U.S. mother and a “dual citizen” of both Canada and the United States in 1970 and that by renouncing his Canadian citizenship in 2014, he would become eligible for the Oval Office.

There are several problems with this claim… which make the claim false

1. “citizen at birth” is a 14^th Amendment naturalization term based upon “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Senator Cruz was born in Canada, subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. Further, any U.S. citizen by virtue of the 14^th Amendment only, is a “citizen” and not a “natural born Citizen,” as you will see below.(Source is Cornell Law on the 14th)

1. “dual citizenship” was prohibited in Canada in December 1970. (Source is Canadian Law)

From May 22, 1868 until December 31, 1946, all residents of Canada were British subjects. There was no such thing as a Canadian citizen or Canadian citizenship until January 1, 1947.

From January 1, 1947 until February 15, 1977, Canadian law prohibited “dual citizenship.” Foreign parents giving birth to a child in Canada in 1970 were forced to choose between Canadian citizenship only, or citizenship in another country, and to declare that with Canadian officials at the time of birth. The parents of Ted Cruz chose and declared “Canadian citizenship” for Rafael declared “Canadian citizenship” for Rafael Edward Cruz.

1. United States laws make it possible to be a legal U.S. citizen by only the following means…

a) NATURAL BORN CITIZEN – “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” (The Natural Law as understood by the Founders in Article II of the US Constitution

b) NATIVE BORN CITIZEN – All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. (The 14^th Amendment definition for “citizen”)

c) NATURALIZED CITIZEN – the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual (aka anchor baby), or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities, (such as a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) form filed with the US State Department at the time of birth). (This includes “anchor baby” or “citizen at birth” born here or abroad, under the 14^th) Source is U.S. State Department

1. “dual citizens” are prohibited from being “natural born Citizens” as it pertains to Article II requirements for the Oval Office.

As the stated purpose of the Article II “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office is to prevent anyone with foreign allegiance at birth from ever occupying the Oval Office, and all “dual citizens” at birth are born with “dual national allegiance” at birth. The mere condition of “dual citizen at birth” would be a direct violation of the known purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen requirement in Article II. Source is a letter from Founder John Jay in proposing the NBC requirement for the Oval Office.
Now, Senator Ted Cruz has repeatedly stated that he has never “naturalized” to the United States, which eliminated the possibility that Ted Cruz is a “naturalized” U.S. Citizen.

Senator Ted Cruz has also documented the fact that he was not a “native born citizen” of the United States, but rather a “native born citizen” of Canada on December 22, 1970, who maintained his legal Canadian citizenship until May 14, 2014.

The Harvard opinion letter written by two of Senator Cruz’s Harvard friends, Neal Katyal & Paul Clement, a mere “commentary” on the subject, relies upon the 14^th Amendment naturalized citizen at birth concept, despite the fact that Ted Cruz was not “born in or under the jurisdiction of the United States,” was never “naturalized” to the United States, and completely ignoring the fact that Canada prohibited “dual citizenship” in 1970, as well as the fact that “dual citizenship” alone would prevent him from “natural born U.S.” status.

All of this explains why Senator Ted Cruz has no legal U.S. citizenship documentation of any kind. He is not a “natural born” – “native born” or “naturalized” citizen of the United States. Because someone must be one of the three in order to be a legal citizen of the United States, Senator Ted Cruz cannot possibly be a “legal U.S. citizen” of any form.

Only days ago, a 17-year-old first time voter at a New Hampshire town hall meeting for Senator Ted Cruz asked a very reasonable question… “How and why, until recently, were you unaware that you were a Canadian citizen?”

As the young man explained, this is not an eligibility question, but a credibility question… which Senator Cruz refused to answer, preferring instead to regurgitate the talking points carefully crafted by his Harvard friends and eventually, shouting the young man down, after a Cruz fan in the audience shouted “better a Canadian than a Kenyan!” (VIDEO) Meanwhile, a growing number of Constitutional Law Professors agree, “Cruz is NOT eligible.”

Of course, Senator Marco Rubio is also “ineligible,” as a “native born citizen at birth” by virtue of 14^thAmendment “anchor baby” policies only.

In the end, the only possible way to consider Senator Ted Cruz eligible for the Oval Office is if every “undocumented resident alien” is eligible for the Oval Office, which I personally believe is the real agenda of both political parties, as they work to meld the USA into the global commune where there is no legal difference between “natural born Americans” and “undocumented aliens.”

The fact that so many Americans do not know or care to know the truth about the Constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office, demonstrates just how far down the road of “hope and change” for the destruction of the Constitutional Republic, the enemy within has already achieved.

Soon, “natural born Americans” will be in the American minority… and they will be ruled by foreigners who have no legal U.S. citizenship at all.

http://www.capitolhilloutsider.com/t...itizen-at-all/

Exactly.

Nice post NewMexican

One issue though is that no country that bans dual citizenship enforces it against their citizens. Instead they generally claim that they don't have citizenship to the other country but belong to this country sort of argument. The few countries that *sort* of do this have a easy process to take back your citizenship to that country with you tossing away your old citizenship which of course is never recognized by the other country.

We do really need the SCOTUS to rule on this or Congress to pass something official. We can't expect people to rule on it through their votes as it never actually says they aren't qualified due to NBC status along with to many uninformed who want to stay uninformed along with those wanting to sell our country out for their own pocketbooks.

We know Cruz won't take up the issue and neither would Rubio at least not in the interest of Americans. This is why we need Trump. I wouldn't be to surprised if while Trump may have shut up on the birther thing for now if he was President he just might right away go after Obama's full information behind closed doors then make it public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Nice post NewMexican

One issue though is that no country that bans dual citizenship enforces it against their citizens. Instead they generally claim that they don't have citizenship to the other country but belong to this country sort of argument. The few countries that *sort* of do this have a easy process to take back your citizenship to that country with you tossing away your old citizenship which of course is never recognized by the other country.

We do really need the SCOTUS to rule on this or Congress to pass something official. We can't expect people to rule on it through their votes as it never actually says they aren't qualified due to NBC status along with to many uninformed who want to stay uninformed along with those wanting to sell our country out for their own pocketbooks.

We know Cruz won't take up the issue and neither would Rubio at least not in the interest of Americans. This is why we need Trump. I wouldn't be to surprised if while Trump may have shut up on the birther thing for now if he was President he just might right away go after Obama's full information behind closed doors then make it public.

---

I agree that we need SCOTUS to rule on this issue.

If someone here is a legal expert on the U.S. Constitution, please let your qualifications be known. If that's not the case, then until this is ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is highly unlikely, Ted Cruz should be considered a natural born citizen. I say that because there is a strong consensus among the legal experts that say Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. We can debate this until we're blue in the face but in the end who is actually the most credible on this issue? I would say it is the legal experts who have worked and trained in this field of study for years.

Quote:

---

More scholars weigh in on whether Ted Cruz is a ‘natural born’ citizen

aved to Reading List

By Jonathan H. Adler January 15

More constitutional law scholars are weighing in on the question of Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be elected president, and most seem to concur with the conclusion that, under the best reading of the phrase “natural born citizen,”Ted Cruz is eligible to be elected President of the United States.

On CNN.com, Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, arguably the nation’s most prominent liberal originalist scholar, argues that Cruz is a “natural born citizen,” while also stressing that this is a question for the political process, and not the courts. He writes:

From the founding to the present, Congress has enacted laws specifying that certain categories of foreign-born persons are citizens at birth. The earliest statute, passed in 1790, explicitly called certain foreign-born children of U.S. citizens “natural born citizens.” It did not say they should be treated “as if” they were “natural born citizens.” It said they were in law deemed and declared to be “natural born citizens.” Congressional laws have changed over the years, but this 1790 law makes clear that from the beginning, Congress by law has the power to define the outer boundaries of birth-citizenship by conferring citizenship at birth to various persons born outside the United States.And here is the key point: The statute on the books on the day Cruz was born made him a citizen on that day. . . .Note that the right question to ask is not: What were the natural-born statutory rules in 1788 or 1790? The right question is: What are the natural-born statutory rules on the day a given presidential candidate was born? These statutory rules have changed over the years, and Article II builds these future changes into its elegant language.

Amar’s colleague Jack Balkin believes the question could properly end up in court should state officials refuse to place Cruz on the ballot, but tentatively concludes Cruz is a “natural born citizen.” At Balkinization, he writes:

My own view– admittedly preliminary– is that “natural born citizen” is a legal term of art. It comes from English common law, but it is subject to common law evolution, and therefore it was not fixed for all time in 1788. The best reading of the Eligibility Clause is that “natural born citizen” refers to persons who automatically become citizens at the moment of their birth. But Congress has the power to change (prospectively) who becomes a citizen at birth. If so, then Congress can partially but not completely alter who is a natural born citizen for purposes of Article II.

Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, not much of an originalist himself, finds it to be a close question, but also reaches the same bottom line.

Under a narrow interpretation, natural born means that you were born within the territorial boundaries of the United States. Under an alternative and broader interpretation, it means that you were a citizen at birth, and did not have to undergo a naturalization process.The text of the Constitution doesn’t exclude either interpretation. The word “natural” might be taken to require birth in the U.S.; in the 18th century, natural was often opposed to “provided by statute” — suggesting that to serve as president, you must have been born in the country, rather than being recognized as a citizen through an act of Congress. But a natural-born citizen might be someone who just is a citizen at the moment of birth, as Cruz plainly was (through the citizenship of his mother). . . .On the merits, I agree with Cruz: The Naturalization Act of 1790 counts in his favor, and because he was a U.S. citizen at birth under U.S. law, the better view is that he is natural born. But University of San Diego constitutional specialist Michael Ramsey, a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, put it well: “It’s a mystery to me why anyone thinks it’s an easy question.”

The Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro also agrees Cruz is eligible, and made the case in 2013.
Another originalist, Andrew Hyman, also makes the case for a more expansive understanding of the phrase “natural born.”

Virtually no one disputes that Cruz is a “born citizen,” and the only issue here is what “natural” means. The English lexicographer Samuel Johnson wrote in 1756 that the word “natural” means “native,” and the word “native” in turn means either an “inhabitant” or an “offspring.” So a natural born citizen is someone who was born a citizen by virtue of being an inhabitant of the United States, or (like Cruz) by virtue of being an offspring, just as Coke and Blackstone said. I don’t know if Ted Cruz is the best candidate, but certainly he is a natural born citizen, in my opinion.

Hyman and Michael Ramsey have additional thoughts on the matter, with a focus on Laurence Tribe’s analysis.


https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...pg&w=180&h=180



Jonathan H. Adler teaches courses in constitutional, administrative, and environmental law at the Case Western University School of Law, where he is the inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation

---

.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/15/more-scholars-weigh-in-on-whether-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/

MW you are right. I know in trying to fact check it seems even legal experts all have different opinions. That is one reason this needs to be decided and clarified once and for all. I do think it is ironic that in American history the man decided nationality (citizenship) while the woman decided race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

MW you are right. I know in trying to fact check it seems even legal experts all have different opinions. That is one reason this needs to be decided and clarified once and for all. I do think it is ironic that in American history the man decided nationality (citizenship) while the woman decided race.

---

Yes, but after extensive online searching, it does appear a strong majority of the legal experts do say Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

. . . legal experts all have different opinions. . .

---

YES. You can find legal "EXPERTS" who support any position you want to take on this issue and they are just their OPINIONS, and prove nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

YES. You can find legal "EXPERTS" who support any position you want to take on this issue and they are just their OPINIONS, and prove nothing.

---

Actually it does prove something because they are the experts. However, like I said early, only the U.S. Supreme Court can resolve this issue. Will that happen? Probably not.

Great post at the start MW but I'm guessing you failed to read a few things on it. According to the First Congress which is linked as *earliest statute* we find a few things.

First off on Cruz

"That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof...."



"And the children of such persons so naturalized, swelling withing the United States, being under age of twenty-one years at the time of naturalization, shall be considered as citizens of the United States."



"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the Unites States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

Now considering things we can ignore the *free white person* part. Lets focus on the 3rd part first to deal with Cruz. It says who can be Natural Born Citizens yet born outside the US. The qualifier is in the word *parents* and no apostrophe. This means parents is plural which means BOTH parents must be citizens at time of birth. Cruz's father was NOT a US citizen at the time of his birth who only naturalized in 2005. Further it suggests the father's status is also the most important one in passing citizenship at all in the words of
"That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the United States".

This would mean that Cruz surely was NOT a natural born citizen but may have not even been a US Citizen in the first place as his mother never did the necassary paperwork for him to be a naturalized citizen.

Now lets talk on the first bits a bit more.

"who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years"

This states the rules for naturalization which can be applied to the *jurisdiction* part of the 14th Amendment. It states residing within the limits (meaning on US soil) AND under the jurisdiction of the United States. This means being under the jurisdiction of the United States does NOT just mean on US soil but more then that as the SCOTUS has said repeatedly every word, letter, and symbol must have meaning. The only remaining meaning of jurisdiction would be law abiding or better understood there legally. The 14th Amendment didn't even mention soil but simply referred to legal status / law abiding status. This means any person outside the scope of their legal status does NOT qualify to get citizenship for their children born in the US.

It also clearly shows there is a normal Citizen, a Naturalized Citizen, and a Natural Born Citizen and as per the SCOTUS many times once again every word must have a meaning.

So is Cruz a natural born citizen? Nope. Is Rubio a NBC? Nope. Is Obama a Citizen even? Nope.

There should be NO more confusion on the issue. Cruz is NOT qualified. The problem is the liberal push trying to oust fathers having any meaning and as long as 1 parent is a citizen that child must be a natural born citizen. A liberal agenda but NOT the Constitutional truth.

Now you mentioned most legal scholars agree on this? Not so at all. They are heavily divided. Most straight forward non politically affiliated scholars say their is serious merit to the challenges, the Conservative scholars say clearly we have been tricked and they don't qualify. Its only the liberal ones which is all you really hear about saying its not an issue.

ReformUSA2012 wrote:

Quote:

---

Now you mentioned most legal scholars agree on this? Not so at all. They are heavily divided. Most straight forward non politically affiliated scholars say their is serious merit to the challenges, the Conservative scholars say clearly we have been tricked and they don't qualify. Its only the liberal ones which is all you really hear about saying its not an issue.

---

Yes, actually they do and no they're aren't heavily divided on the subject.

I'm not going to go into all your comments because we've been through all of this repeatedly on this forum. However, I do think the following will respond to some of the things you're having an issue with.

Ted Cruz’s Presidential Eligibility

• By D'Angelo Gore
• Posted on March 24, 2015

Q: Is Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, eligible to be the U.S. president?
A: Most likely. The legal consensus is that Cruz qualifies because he was born to a U.S. citizen living abroad, making him a U.S. citizen at birth.


FULL QUESTION

Is Ted Cruz eligible to run for president based on the fact he was born in Canada but his mother was American? Exactly what does the Constitution and our other laws say about this?

FULL ANSWER

Sen. Ted Cruz announced on March 23 that he will seek the Republican nomination to be president of the United States in 2016. But, as some readers were quick to point out, Cruz wasn’t born in the U.S. His birth certificate shows he was born in Calgary, Alberta, on Dec. 22, 1970.
The U.S. Constitution requires a president to be a “natural born Citizen.”

Article II, Section 1: 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

That should disqualify him from being president, right? Not so fast.
Cruz, who came to the U.S. at age 4, is a citizen by birth because his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born. For that reason, legal scholars argue that he can likely be president.
In 2013, Sarah Helene Duggin, a Catholic University law professor, wrote: “There is a strong argument that anyone who acquires United States citizenship at birth, whether by virtue of the 14th Amendment or by operation of federal statute, qualifies as natural born.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reached a similar conclusion in 2011.

CRS, Nov. 14, 2011: 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.

And this month, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, two former U.S. solicitors general, writing for the Harvard Law Review, said that Cruz qualifies as a “natural born citizen.”

Katyal and Clement, March 11: All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Case closed? Cruz thinks so, as he told Fox News host Sean Hannity on March 23:

Cruz, March 23: The facts are clear. I was born in Calgary. My parents — as a legal matter, my mother is an American citizen by birth. And it’s been federal law for over two centuries that the child of an American citizen born abroad is a citizen by birth, a natural born citizen.

Indeed, the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed three years after the U.S. Constitution was written, said that “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 as the CRS pointed out in its report, the 1790 law was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which changed the language from “natural born citizens” to just “citizens.”

So there is still some lingering uncertainty about Cruz’s eligibility. That’s because the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the meaning of “natural born citizen,” which the Constitution doesn’t define.
This is not the first time that a Republican presidential candidate faced such questions. As we have written before, John McCain, who was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born to U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone, and Barry Goldwater, who was the party’s nominee in 1964, was born to U.S. citizens in Arizona before it was a state. George Romney, who was born to U.S. citizens in Mexico, ran for president in 1968, but did not win the nomination.

Even Duggin, who wrote in her 2013 article that “a scholarly consensus is emerging … that anyone who acquires citizenship at birth is natural born for purposes of Article II,” acknowledges that the issue may not be settled.

“In the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling — or a constitutional amendment — the parameters of the clause remain uncertain,” she wrote.


— D’Angelo Gore

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/ted...l-eligibility/

To example: A few European countries have been offering "dual citizenship" to those that are 2nd generation Americans. In Ireland, the 1st generation born in America (to Irish born parents) are considered "Irish Citizens" automatically if they wish to enact that.

The 2nd generation American is eligible to file for "dual citizenship" - the fee is $1300, the highest price compared to other countries. Documentation of lineage must be provided & there are things requiring participation, paperwork (recall something @ taxes, voting). The offer stops after the 2nd generation unless you registered for your children before a certain time period. A dual Irish citizenship allows one to live in any EU country - not very enticing now though.

Every country has its own process for obtaining citizenship. Ireland, Italy and Greece are among the most lenient in terms of letting an individual claim citizenship not just from a parent but from a grandparent or possibly a great-grandparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

. . . Now you mentioned most legal scholars agree on this? Not so at all. They are heavily divided . . .

---

'Natural Born' Issue for Ted Cruz Is Not Settled and Not Going Away

Without poking a stick in a hornet's nest, that is not my intent, and I admit that I am not a fan of Obama by any means... ..... What was the dust up over Obama since his mother is without a doubt an American citizen? Regardless of what nationality his father is or where he was born? She could have had him in a rowboat in the middle of Antarctica and he would still be a natural born US citizen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newmexican

Without poking a stick in a hornet's nest, that is not my intent, and I admit that I am not a fan of Obama by any means... ..... What was the dust up over Obama since his mother is without a doubt an American citizen? Regardless of what nationality his father is or where he was born? She could have had him in a rowboat in the middle of Antarctica and he would still be a natural born US citizen?

---

Largest collection of birther articles in the world right here at ALIPAC.

Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Started by MinutemanCDC_SC, 11-05-2008 09:33 AM 123...144http://www.alipac.us/images/alipac_s...e/misc/tag.png http://www.alipac.us/images/alipac_s...subscribed.png

• Replies: 5,722
• Views: 600,083

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Largest collection of birther articles in the world right here at ALIPAC.

Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Started by MinutemanCDC_SC, 11-05-2008 09:33 AM 123...144http://www.alipac.us/images/alipac_s...e/misc/tag.png http://www.alipac.us/images/alipac_s...subscribed.png

• Replies: 5,722
• Views: 600,083

---

Thank you for reminding me of the excellent research material that we have here at ALIPAC JD2. The sheer volume of the material suggests that it is going to need a legal decision..JMO

Quote:

---

What was the dust up over Obama since his mother is without a doubt an American citizen?

---

Years ago people were taught in civics class, a pres or vp has to be born on American soil, exception if both parents are American citizens but their child born elsewhere due to living there temporarily. I don't recall lessons @ illegal parents because we really didn't have an issue then like there is today thanks to the open border admins.

If O admin thought otherwise, they would not have hid details of his birth - LIKE PROOF he was born in USA. Before O came out with a so called bc, at the .gov pres site, you could order a copy of O's bc for $100. Tacky

Is the id card shown in stories for Columbia Univ stamped "foreign student" real? Why are records sealed/hidden? If real, what proof did he show for that classification - an indonesian passport marking him a citizen of there? Did he use that for a free education?

It is all very fishy!

Can't wait till he leaves, what a disaster! Never liked him or Michelle (beyonce's cop hating black lives matter, black panther buddy). No matter how expensive the dress, hairstyle, or event, she always looked miserable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artist

Years ago people were taught in civics class, a pres or vp has to be born on American soil, exception if both parents are American citizens but born elsewhere. If O admin thought otherwise, they would not have hid details of his birth - LIKE PROOF. Before O came out with a so called bc, at the .gov pres site, you could order a copy of O's bc for $100.

Is the id card shown in stories for Columbia Univ stamped "foreign student" real? Why are records sealed/hidden? If real, what proof did he show for that classification - an indonesian passport marking him a citizen of there? Did he use that for a free education?

It is all very fishy!

Can't wait till he leaves, what a disaster! Never liked him or Michelle (beyonce's cop hating black lives matter, black panther buddy). No matter how expensive the dress, hairstyle, or event, she always looked miserable.

---

Very fishy indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artist

Years ago people were taught in civics class, a pres or vp has to be born on American soil, exception if both parents are American citizens but their child born elsewhere due to livng there temporarily.

If O admin thought otherwise, they would not have hid details of his birth - LIKE PROOF. Before O came out with a so called bc, at the .gov pres site, you could order a copy of O's bc for $100. Tacky

...

---

The key to figuring out where the Obamination was born is to find out where his mother was when he was born. She had to be there and if she was not on US soil, this would be easy to determine.

Her passport records are probably altered or sealed, otherwise he would have produced them as proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newmexican

Without poking a stick in a hornet's nest, that is not my intent, and I admit that I am not a fan of Obama by any means... ..... What was the dust up over Obama since his mother is without a doubt an American citizen? Regardless of what nationality his father is or where he was born? She could have had him in a rowboat in the middle of Antarctica and he would still be a natural born US citizen?

---

Excerpt:

Quote:

---

Since Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in 1961, this newly discovered law involves Dunham’s age because she was only 18 at time of delivery! The law says:
”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet requisite status according to blog discovery. One commenter said, “She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. as a Natural Born Citizen as she did not meet the residency requirements! Backing this statement up, another commenter reiterates:” The law specifically outlines the requirements for a CITIZEN mother to confer citizenship to her baby. Ann Dunham was NOT old enough-case closed!”

---

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-not-a-citizen-thanks-to-his-own-mother/

If this is to be believed, Obama did not meet the requirements in accordance with the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). Ted Cruz's mother met the requirements.

MW, maybe you should take a read. Quoted from your own linked source from the First Congress:

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the Unites States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

Notice the keyword is *citizens*. Its plural. SCOTUS ruling many times has said every letter and symbol must have a meaning which also means lack of one also has a clear meaning. This means clearly that one must be born to TWO US Citizen parents... a mother and a father. One parent being a citizen does NOT qualify to award natural born citizenship. There is absolutely no debate to this unless trying to challenge the SCOTUS's own rulings in the past and multiple rulings. Same rulings that have upheld things like the second amendment as we currently use it.

On Obama, he falls into the same category as well. Worse still the First Congress used the phrase "who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States " which implies that just because someone is born on US soil that does NOT mean they are also within the US Jurisdiction. This means being born on US soil means nothing without the jurisdiction. Now we go back to the above where to be a NBC one must have 2 US citizen parents as again the only understanding of what a NBC is.

There is no debate on this, no argument, no legitimate claim. Its all bogus lies about those trying to warp our Constitution and laws for their own benefit.

Try and argue how I could be possibly misinterpreting this. I doubt you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

MW, maybe you should take a read. Quoted from your own linked source from the First Congress:

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the Unites States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

Notice the keyword is *citizens*. Its plural. SCOTUS ruling many times has said every letter and symbol must have a meaning which also means lack of one also has a clear meaning. This means clearly that one must be born to TWO US Citizen parents... a mother and a father. One parent being a citizen does NOT qualify to award natural born citizenship. There is absolutely no debate to this unless trying to challenge the SCOTUS's own rulings in the past and multiple rulings. Same rulings that have upheld things like the second amendment as we currently use it.

On Obama, he falls into the same category as well. Worse still the First Congress used the phrase "who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States " which implies that just because someone is born on US soil that does NOT mean they are also within the US Jurisdiction. This means being born on US soil means nothing without the jurisdiction. Now we go back to the above where to be a NBC one must have 2 US citizen parents as again the only understanding of what a NBC is.

There is no debate on this, no argument, no legitimate claim. Its all bogus lies about those trying to warp our Constitution and laws for their own benefit.

Try and argue how I could be possibly misinterpreting this. I doubt you can.

---

Some could consider your argument as irrelevant ..... in fact some actually have. Your argument completely ignores current law. I find it difficult to debate an issue that may actually be irrelevant.

Excerpt:

Quote:

---

All three agree on the crucial point. Under the Constitution, it does not matter whether the framing generation would have found Cruz eligible. What matters is the law today—and that law is §301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, in effect when Cruz was born in 1970. It provides that “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States. . . 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 . . . for . . . not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years” is a citizen of the United States.

---

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...gument/424104/

Americans have known for 228 years who is a natural born citizen. They made an exception in 2008 because there was no natural born citizen on the General Election ballot. I believe most Americans see the consequences of that error and will use their votes, the true power of the United States, to ensure that mistake is never repeated on any level for any reason.

A natural born citizen under Article II of the US Constitution is quite simply the mix of blood and soil, born in the United States (soil) to 2 US citizens (blood).

If you are a US citizen as a result of any item of the 14th Amendment or any section of the US Immigration and Nationality Act, then you are a citizen as a matter of law and statute, not the required mix of soil and blood.

It's very simple. In 2016, vote simple so we can take our country back and make America great again.

WHAT law states what a Natural Born Citizen is? What SCOTUS ruling states what a Natural Born Citizen is? Anything? Anything at all? There is absolutely NOTHING else out there that states otherwise. There is no other law that defines it differently or changes its meaning. There is no SCOTUS ruling on what a Natural Born Citizen is either. Not one single Immigration law that has passed has ever touched on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

Now I'll call it as I see it as I'm sick of hearing your nonsense MW. I don't see how possibly you are really on our side at ALIPAC but an obvious plant trying to stir trouble and cause someone to say something completely hateful or actually racist to try and pin us as a hate group. So much of your commentary has been half truths and from a heavy uneducated liberal standpoint and this is coming from a former Dem Voter (now independent) who had enough with our country being sold out. Your clearly not one of us and clearly a plant.

ReformUSA2012 excerpt:

Quote:

---

Now I'll call it as I see it as I'm sick of hearing your nonsense MW. I don't see how possibly you are really on our side at ALIPAC but an obvious plant trying to stir trouble and cause someone to say something completely hateful or actually racist to try and pin us as a hate group. So much of your commentary has been half truths and from a heavy uneducated liberal standpoint and this is coming from a former Dem Voter (now independent) who had enough with our country being sold out. Your clearly not one of us and clearly a plant.

---

A look back at all my previous posts (going back 10 years) will clearly disprove your accusation. Just because I feel Ted Cruz would be an acceptable choice for our next president does not make me a liberal plant, uneducated, or whatever else you want to accuse me of. For the record, with the exception of some environmental issues, I am the polar opposite of what you've described and I assure you I'm no plant. I speak for myself and no one else. Why is it so hard to believe that I can support Trump and Cruz, instead of just Trump? They both, with few exceptions, agree on immigration and border security.