TED CRUZ CAMPAIGN HIT AGAIN, NEW 'BIRTHER' LAWSUIT FILED IN NEW YORK

Published on:
20 February 2016
ROBERT SOBEL


TED CRUZ CAMPAIGN HIT AGAIN, NEW 'BIRTHER' LAWSUIT FILED IN NEW YORK

Ted Cruz recently criticized Donald Trump's "New York values," but it appears he might have his own problem in the Big Apple.

http://static2.blastingnews.com/medi...ckr_610915.jpg
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, creative commons via Flickr

The never-ending legal challenges against Texas Sen. Ted Cruz don't appear to be going away anytime soon. No presidential candidate in recent history has had to be hit with reoccurring lawsuits against them, but the senator from Texas can't seem to catch a break. As the New York Daily News reported on Friday, a lawsuit has been filed in New York challenging whether or not Cruz is eligible to run for president.

Non-stop legal problems

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada in Dec. 1970.

Due to his Canadian birth and citizenship, questions have continued to haunt the presidential hopeful, asking if he is legally allowed to run for President of the United States. Over the last two months, multiple lawsuits have been filed in different states around the country, all claiming that the Tea Party favorite is "constitutionally ineligible" to become commander in chief.

The latest lawsuit was filed at the Manhattan Supreme Court in New York City on Thursday, attempting to remove the senator from the state election ballot.

The two plaintiffs, 81-year-old Barry Korman, and 85-year-old William Gallo, state that Cruz "publicly admitted that he was born in Canada" and that according to New York State law, he doesn't "meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications" to make a run for the White House. In an ironic turn of events, it was Cruz's attack on GOP front runner Donald Trump's "New York Values" that only added fuel to the feud between the two.

Snowball effect

The lawsuit comes at the same time attorney Lawrence Joyce of Illinois had his case against Cruz heard in Crook County Circuit Court in Chicago. According to the Associated Press, Cruz's legal team filed a suit to dismiss Joyce's challenge, which Judge Maureen Ward Kirby set a hearing for on March 1.

Earlier this year, Cruz found himself in more legal trouble as other filings against him took place in Texas by 85-year-old Newton B. Schwartz, as well as in Alabama by a group of plaintiffs. The consensus is that Cruz will weather the storm, but his campaign has shown signs of wear and tear. Donald Trump has also made the "birther" issue a central theme in his attacks, going as far threatening to sue over the eligibility.

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016...-00798463.html

• Donald Trump shocks GOP debate stage, blames Iraq War mess on George W. Bush

• Ted Cruz faces possible campaign ending legal trouble over 'birther' lawsuit

RUBIO is an ANCHOR BABY = NO CITIZEN PARENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I went to school "way back" when we actually learned something and we were taught that NBC means 2 CITIZEN Parents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a higher standard than just "citizen"

Why isn't anyone picking this same fight with Rubio???????????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grandmasmad

RUBIO is an ANCHOR BABY = NO CITIZEN PARENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I went to school "way back" when we actually learned something and we were taught that NBC means 2 CITIZEN Parents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a higher standard than just "citizen"

Why isn't anyone picking this same fight with Rubio???????????????

---

RUBIO FIGHTS OFF 'BIRTHER' LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA

Senator under fire for 'natural-born citizen' standard

Published: 01/15/2016 at 6:17 AMimage: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/07/cchumley_avatar.jpg
CHERYL CHUMLEY

http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/07/rubio.jpg
Sen. Marco Rubio

Sen. Ted Cruz isn’t the only Republican candidate fighting off accusations about his birth status and whether he qualifies for the presidency – Sen. Marco Rubio is actually facing a lawsuit on the same.

Michael Voeltz, a Fort Lauderdale resident, fileda suit against Rubio, alleging the Florida senator – who’s coming in third in national polls, behind Cruz and first-place Donald Trump – fails to comply with the Supreme Court definition of “natural-born citizen,” Breitbart reported.

Rubio’s campaign responded with a request for the court to dismiss the “birther” claims.

“Rubio filed a motion to dismiss … [The complaint] show that Rubio’s legal team spent considerable time researching the issue. ‘Senator Rubio is a natural born citizen of the United States and he is eligible to be president of the United States,’ it concludes. … [The complaint] confirmed his parents were given citizenship in 1975. Rubio at the time said he did not know why his parents waited,” reported the Tampa Bay Times.

The filing also indicated Rubio’s parents came to the United States in 1956. Rubio was born on May 28, 1971, a few years before his parents were given citizenship.

Cruz has been fighting off charges he’s not a natural-born citizen of the United States because he was born in Alberta, Canada, to a mother who was an American citizen. Cruz actually held dual citizenship as a Canadian and American until June 2014, when he renounced his Canadian ties.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/rubio-fig...zmVhK0m2cXq.99

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grandmasmad

RUBIO is an ANCHOR BABY = NO CITIZEN PARENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I went to school "way back" when we actually learned something and we were taught that NBC means 2 CITIZEN Parents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a higher standard than just "citizen"

Why isn't anyone picking this same fight with Rubio???????????????

---

Vermont Voter Files Lawsuit to Keep Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Off Vermont Presidential Primary Ballots


Posted on January 4, 2016 by Richard Winger

Early in December 2015, Vermont voter H. Brooke Paige filed a lawsuit in state court against the Vermont Secretary of State, arguing that the Secretary of State has a duty to investigate the qualifications of presidential candidates before placing them on the March presidential primary ballots. Paige does not believe that Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio are eligible because of their parents’ citizenship status. See this story. The case is Paige v Condos, in Superior Court, Washington County, 780-12-15.

http://ballot-access.org/2016/01/04/...imary-ballots/

Natural born citizen = Born in the USA to 2 US Citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grandmasmad

RUBIO is an ANCHOR BABY = NO CITIZEN PARENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I went to school "way back" when we actually learned something and we were taught that NBC means 2 CITIZEN Parents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a higher standard than just "citizen"

Why isn't anyone picking this same fight with Rubio???????????????

---

Right here at ALIPAC

1/14/16

Now Marco Rubio has his own 'birther' problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Natural born citizen = Born in the USA to 2 US Citizens.

---

Not true. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 1952, a person born to one U.S. citizen can be a natural born citizen, assuming that individual meets all the requirements as set forth in the law.

The Constitution trumps Immigration and Nationality Act passed by US Congress in 1952. It's almost comical how this continued repetition of INS law is used to argue for Cruz when it proves the argument against him. If citizenship is granted by a "law", then you are not a natural born citizen under Article II of the US Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

The Constitution trumps Immigration and Nationality Act passed by US Congress in 1952. US law doesn't amend the Constitution, US law doesn't change the meaning or superiority of the Constitution. Every American knows that. Furthermore, there is no language at all of any kind anywhere in the US Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that defines a natural born citizen. It defines a citizen by birth, something very different than a natural born citizen who is a mix of nature, blood and soil.

Natural born citizen = Born in the USA to 2 US Citizens. That's why Obama, Cruz and Rubio are not natural born citizens and why none of them are eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. As to McCain, I do not believe he is, because he was born in Panama. Does his birth on or near a US military base change the Constitutional requirement? I don't think so, but some do. Trump seems to think that's an allowable distinction. But it really isn't because the birth is still overseas in a foreign country, whether it's on or near US government property doesn't change the sovereignty of the soil which is Panama, not the United States.

I think Americans are going to see the parallel between non-natural born citizens and natural born citizens. All 4 of these candidates support open borders and free trade. Yes, under political pressure, they refine their pitch to make it sound like they support something else, they call it "poison pill" in the case of Cruz which is really his own poison who considers deporting illegal aliens Nazism (jack boots). Even Bush because of his marriage to a Mexican woman and being educated in Mexico for a spell is all enamored with speaking Spanish in the home, his children are half Mexican, and he thinks illegal aliens are coming here as "acts of love".

The poison is in their bones. They're toxic for the United States. It's amazing really that our Founders were so astute to know this would be the case and why they clearly decided to disqualify them from the highest 2 offices in the US government. And rightly so.

---

It has been well established that the U.S. Constitution is not clear on the subject. Knowing that as a fact makes it acceptable to write law concerning the said subject. The law is the law and arguing for something ambiguous from 1986 just isn't going to change that.

Please don't make me laugh any more. US law does NOT clarify the Constitution. The Constitution clarifies the law. There is no dispute. The law does what it does concerning legally granted citizenship and has absolutely nothing to do with Article II of the US Constitution. The "law" doesn't clarify it, it doesn't define it, it doesn't rule it. The "law" is as irrelevant to who can run for President under the US Constitution as the last bunch of radishes you bought for your dinner salad.

And every informed American knows that.

Natural born citizen = Born on US soil to 2 US citizen parents.

Birthright citizenship overseas is not natural born citizenship.

14th Amendment citizenship is not natural born citizenship.

Naturalized citizenship is not natural born citizenship.

Anchor babies are not natural born citizens.

Canadian citizens are not natural born citizens of the United States.

Children of 1 or 2 Cuban citizens are not natural born citizens of the United States.

Children of foreign men are not natural born citizens of the United States.

Lesson: If you want to breed a President or Vice President of the US, be a US citizen, mate with a US citizen and give birth in the United States. Pretty simple stuff. Otherwise, Congress is as high as they'll go, and frankly, I believe we need to revisit that one and make members of Congress be natural born citizens too. That would require a Constitutional Amendment or Americans just voting for natural born citizens. In fact that would be a great bumper sticker:

SAVE AMERICA, VOTE NBC!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

The Constitution trumps Immigration and Nationality Act passed by US Congress in 1952. It's almost comical how this continued repetition of INS law is used to argue for Cruz when it proves the argument against him. If citizenship is granted by a "law", then you are not a natural born citizen under Article II of the US Constitution.

---

The U.S. Constitution was original law passed in 1986. Amendments that were written after that date are law too. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is law based on the U.S. Congresses interpretation and understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

There is Constitutional law which involves the US Constitution and federal court rulings.

There is statutory law which involves Congress and related regulations.

No statutory law or regulation changes, amends, alters or in any other manner modifies the Constitution.

I'm going to recommend the RNC request our candidates running on our Republican ballot for President and Vice President pledge they are natural born citizens defined as born in the USA to 2 US citizens. And if they don't conform with that, then we'll stop sending them any money.

SAVE AMERICA, VOTE NBC!

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...2d&oe=5765D308

Exactly! Great post Newmexican.

Quote:

---

The consensus is that Cruz will weather the storm, but his campaign has shown signs of wear and tear.

---

How long will these campaigns last if they come under fire like this in every state? This must consume enormous financial resources as well to pay off their legal teams. These campaigns can lose focus very easily if the stakes are raised contesting their eligibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newmexican

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...2d&oe=5765D308

---

Not sure if you're making a good point or not. Would it be possible to get the rest of the story? Are his circumstances identical to Ted Cruz's?

There are some principle absurdities in allowing less than two US citizen parents for birth right citizenship. If a US citizen mother gets pregnant outside the US states and the father never sets foot on US soil, then by that bogus argument, the offspring is a US citizen. We might never know if the father is even illegible to enter the US legally, never mind if he is illegible to be a US citizen. Should a parent who is unqualified to be a US citizen be able to have offspring that actually are US citizens?

But forget the obvious problem and focus the worse part of the problem. Everyone is talking about Cruz and one parent being a US citizen. What about Rubio whose both parents are illegals. Is that right? Were they both illegals?

What is the point of wanting to be a US citizen at all, if parents won't even take the trouble themselves to become US citizens? How can a family raise good US citizens if they don't even care about US citizenship themselves?

Again I ask, how many people are sitting in government in the US who claim birthright citizenship based on fewer than both parents US citizens? Respond in this thread.

According to your arguments, they're identical. Born in a foreign country to a foreign father and American mother. Are the reasons behind the natural born citizen clause of Article II of the US Constitution becoming more clear to you?

Natural Born Citizen = Born in the USA to 2 US Citizens

SAVE AMERICA, VOTE NBC!

pkskyali wrote (excerpt):

Quote:

---

There are some principle absurdities in allowing less than two US citizen parents for birth right citizenship. If a US citizen mother gets pregnant outside the US states and the father never sets foot on US soil, then by that bogus argument, the offspring is a US citizen. We might never know if the father is even illegible to enter the US legally, never mind if he is illegible to be a US citizen. Should a parent who is unqualified to be a US citizen be able to have offspring that actually are US citizens?

---

Your argument is not relevant to the current situation because Ted Cruz's father did actually step foot on American soil and was obviously eligible to do so because he was a legal resident for many years before Ted was born. Ted's father came to the U.S. on a student visa in 1957, attended the University of Texas, and received political asylum. He received a green card once his visa expired. Of course since then he has went on to become a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

According to your arguments, they're identical. Born in a foreign country to a foreign father and American mother. Are the reasons behind the natural born citizen clause of Article II of the US Constitution becoming more clear to you?

Natural Born Citizen = Born in the USA to 2 US Citizens

SAVE AMERICA, VOTE NBC!

---

Absolutely not correct. It takes more than just being born to an American mother in a foreign country to become a natural born citizen. There are more requirements involved. Please familiarize yourself with current law. To over simplify the issue does not change the facts.

Laws passed by Congress do not change, amend, alter, modify, define or otherwise have any impact on the Constitution. Someone born to an American mother in a foreign country is not a natural born citizen, they are by law eligible to be a citizen by birth which does not make them a natural born citizen, simply a person eligible for birthright citizenship, the same as children of illegal aliens, such citizenship is not natural born citizenship. It's citizenship by law, not nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Laws passed by Congress do not change, amend, alter, modify, define or otherwise have any impact on the Constitution. Someone born to an American mother in a foreign country is not a natural born citizen, they are by law eligible to be a citizen by birth which does not make them a natural born citizen, simply a person eligible for birthright citizenship, the same as children of illegal aliens, such citizenship is not natural born citizenship. It's citizenship by law, not nature.

---

So, according to you, we should just ignore all constitutional amendments and laws passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the U.S. President? The original U.S. Constitution was a basis for our laws but even the founding fathers knew there would be need for changes and upgrades as time passed. America has grown and changed during the last 200+ years, and so has the U.S. Constitution. For example, in 1787 the voting age was 21 and presidents could serve as long as they were reelected. Does anyone feel those laws should still be current today? I certainly don't and I seriously doubt many people do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

So, according to you, we should just ignore all constitutional amendments and laws passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the U.S. President? The original U.S. Constitution was a basis for our laws but even the founding fathers knew there would be need for changes and upgrades as time passed. America has grown and changed during the last 200+ years, and so has the U.S. Constitution. For example, in 1787 the voting age was 21 and presidents could serve as long as they were reelected. Does anyone feel those laws should still be current today? I certainly don't and I seriously doubt many people do.

---

Those were changed by Constitutional Amendment. You forgot that women couldn't even vote in all states and we had to amend the US Constitution for that. Are you calling for a Constitutional Amendment to allow candidates like Ted Cruz, foreign born to a Cuban-Canadian father, and Marco Rubio, an anchor baby born here to non-citizen parents, to hold the office of President and Vice President of the United States?

Until there is a Constitutional Amendment to allow for that, neither are eligible to hold the office. Otherwise it's up to the American Voters. They made an exception in 2008 with Barack Obama, born here to 1 US citizen and a Kenyan citizen. I personally don't believe Americans will make that mistake again, let alone amend the US Constitution to allow it.

I'm curious why you would propose such a thing or believe that Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States should be foreign born to a foreign father or anchor babies born here to non-citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Those were changed by Constitutional Amendment. You forgot that women couldn't even vote in all states and we had to amend the US Constitution for that. Are you calling for a Constitutional Amendment to allow candidates like Ted Cruz, foreign born to a Cuban-Canadian father, and Marco Rubio, an anchor baby born here to non-citizen parents, to hold the office of President and Vice President of the United States?

Until there is a Constitutional Amendment to allow for that, neither are eligible to hold the office. Otherwise it's up to the American Voters. They made an exception in 2008 with Barack Obama, born here to 1 US citizen and a Kenyan citizen. I personally don't believe Americans will make that mistake again, let alone amend the US Constitution to allow it.

I'm curious why you would propose such a thing or believe that Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States should be foreign born to a foreign father or anchor babies born here to non-citizens.

---

So now you're accusing me of making proposals? I proposed no such thing and you know it. The law is the law and no proposal from me is going to change that fact. No I didn't forget that woman couldn't vote, I just failed to use it as one of my examples.

As I said, my comment was not about Rubio, it was just to correct an inaccurate statement about what constitutes a natural born citizen. According to the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which was written with full consideration of the U.S. Constitution, Ted Cruz qualifies as a natural born citizen. The constitution is ambiguous on the specifics, so unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules (interprets differently) otherwise, Cruz is a natural born citizen. I don't think anyone should hold their breath waiting for that to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

....

According to the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which was written with full consideration of the U.S. Constitution, Ted Cruz qualifies as a natural born citizen. The constitution is ambiguous on the specifics, ....

---

Why don't you quote this act directly or provide a link to the text of the act which explains it.

Because it doesn't explain it. Our laws can't violate the US Constitution and the 1952 Act has nothing to do with natural born citizenship, only citizenship through naturalization, because Congress only has authority over naturalization.

Can you imagine how stupid our founders would have been to entrust Congress with deciding or defining who can run for President and Vice President? LOL!! Fortunately, our founders were far brighter than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Because it doesn't explain it. Our laws can't violate the US Constitution and the 1952 Act has nothing to do with natural born citizenship, only citizenship through naturalization, because Congress only has authority over naturalization.

Can you imagine how stupid our founders would have been to entrust Congress with deciding or defining who can run for President and Vice President? LOL!! Fortunately, our founders were far brighter than that.

---

I don't mean to get in the way of your argument about who is eligible for the presidency, but for me the issue is more fundamental. I don't just question the eligibility of Cruz, Rubio, Obama and others for the presidency, I question their claims to citizenship. MW keeps citing laws. I want to see them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pkskyali

I don't mean to get in the way of your argument about who is eligible for the presidency, but for me the issue is more fundamental. I don't just question the eligibility of Cruz, Rubio, Obama and others for the presidency, I question their claims to citizenship. MW keeps citing laws. I want to see them.

---

Oh yes, there is a difference and for Cruz, his citizenship would be subject to naturalization law. It will be interesting to see if he's even a citizen. He might not be. There are conditions that have to be met and procedures one has to go through even to be a citizen when born in a foreign country. So you're right, he may not even be a citizen! He admits he had Canadian citizenship until very recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pkskyali

Why don't you quote this act directly or provide a link to the text of the act which explains it.

---

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act

H.R. 13342; Pub.L. 414; 182 Stat. 66.

82nd Congress; June 27, 1952.

You can find the full text of this law here or download the PDF.

Oh that's good, JohnDoe2! Now those who think that law says that Cruz is a natural born citizen under Article II of the US Constitution and eligible to run for President or Vice President can find the section and post it and we'll know what section to tell Congress to DELETE!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act

H.R. 13342; Pub.L. 414; 182 Stat. 66.

82nd Congress; June 27, 1952.

You can find the full text of this law here or download the PDF.

---

It's a little strange, the relevant title version in HTML is missing. But in the PDF version from 1952, I see confirmation of that law:

Title III, Chapter 1, Sec 301, (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the US at birth: (4), for example, "a person born outside of the US ... of parents one of whom is a citizen of the US, who has been physically present in the US ... for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth ... and the other of whom is a ... not a citizen of the US."

Now this is an old law and many have been changed in the act. I reject it and this same law makes citizens out of resident of Puerto Rico and other "territories" of the US, which I also reject.

If this act has legitimacy then we can change it and we must. We must reject the US citizenship of anyone not born of two US citizens. And as a political matter I do that now already and their descendants as well. This has got to stop.

1. On March 2, 1917, Wilson signed the Jones-Shafroth Act, under which Puerto Rico became a U.S. territory and Puerto Ricans were granted statutory citizenship.
   
   Puerto Ricans become US citizens, are recruited for war effort
   
   www.history.com/.../puerto-ricans-become-u-s-citizens-are-recruited...
   

Citizenship at birth on the U.S. territories and former U.S. territories[edit]

The 14th amendment applies to incorporated territories, so people born in incorporated territories of the U.S. (currently, only the Palmyra Atoll) are automatically U.S. citizens at birth.^[42]

Separate sections of law handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Alaska 8 U.S.C. § 1404 and Hawaii 8 U.S.C. § 1405, both incorporated, and unincorporated Puerto Rico 8 U.S.C. § 1402, the U.S. Virgin Islands 8 U.S.C. § 1406, and Guam 8 U.S.C. § 1407.

Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer native-born status on persons born in incorporated territories after that date.^[43]

For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, were automatically conferred U.S. citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President Harry S. Truman on June 27, 1952.

Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are citizens at birth of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the citizenship status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 U.S.C. § 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen at birth.

All persons born in the U.S. Virgin Islands on or after February 25, 1927, are native-born citizens of the United States.

The 8 U.S.C. § 1406 also indicate that all the persons and their children born in the U.S. Virgin Islands subsequent to January 17, 1917, and prior to February 25, 1927, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of February 25, 1927 if complied with the U.S. law dispositions.

All persons born in Alaska on or after June 2, 1924, are native-born citizens of the United States. Alaska was declared a U.S. State on January 3, 1959.

All persons born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, are native-born citizens of the United States. Hawaii was declared a U.S. State on August 21, 1959.

All persons born in the island of Guam on or after April 11, 1899 (whether before or after August 1, 1950) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Currently under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952(INA) effective from December 24, 1952 to present the definition of the "United States" for nationality purposes, was expanded to add Guam; and, effective November 3, 1986, the Northern Mariana Islands (in addition to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands of the United States).^[44]

Persons born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States; and "Outlying possessions of the United States" was restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island.^[45]

Congressional Research Service Report number RL30527 of April 17, 2000, titled "Presidential Elections in the United States: A Primer" asserts that citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as natural born citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.<sup>[46]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...S._territories</sup>

8 U.S. Code § 1402 - Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

Current through Pub. L. 114-38.
(See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code
• Authorities (CFR)

All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941.

All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 302, 66 Stat. 236.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1402

H.R.727 - Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Process Act

114th Congress (2015-2016)

BILL

Sponsor:	Rep. Pierluisi, Pedro R. [D-P.R.-At Large] (Introduced 02/04/2015)
Committees:	House - Natural Resources
Latest Action:	There is no latest action for this bill

Tracker:

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

• Introduced
• Passed House
• Passed Senate
• To President
• Became Law

More on This Bill

• Constitutional Authority Statement

Subject — Policy Area:

• Government Operations and Politics
• View subjects

• Summary (1)
• Text (1)
• Actions (4)
• Titles (2)
• Amendments (0)
• Cosponsors (110)
• Committees (1)
• Related Bills (0)

Summary: H.R.727 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) All Bill Information (Except Text)


There is one summary for H.R.727. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (02/04/2015)

Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Process Act

Authorizes the State Elections Commission of Puerto Rico to provide for a vote on Puerto Rico's admission into the Union as a state within one year of this Act's enactment.

Requires the governor of Puerto Rico to transmit the results of such vote to the President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate within 10 days after the certification of the vote by the Commission.

Directs the President, if a majority of the votes cast are for Puerto Rico's admission as a state:

(1) within 30 calendar days of receipt of the certified results, to issue a proclamation to begin the transition process that will culminate in Puerto Rico's admission as a state effective January 1, 2021; and (2) within 90 calendar days of such receipt, to appoint a Commission on the Equal Application of Federal Law to Puerto Rico, which shall survey U.S. laws and submit recommendations to Congress by July 1, 2018, as to how laws that do not apply, or that apply differently, to the territory should be amended or repealed to treat Puerto Rico equally.

Requires Puerto Rico to carry out necessary actions by January 1, 2020, to enable it to hold elections for federal office in November 2020, including the election to the 117th Congress of two U.S. Senators and the number of Representatives to which it would have been entitled for the 116th Congress if it had been a state during such Congress. Provides for a temporary increase in the membership of the House of Representatives initially and a permanent increase effective with the taking effect of the first reapportionment occurring after the regular decennial census conducted for 2020.

Requires the President, following a transition process, to issue a proclamation declaring that Puerto Rico is admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the other states, effective January 1, 2021.

Sets forth provisions regarding the continuity of government and the continuity of laws of Puerto Rico.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...house-bill/727

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pkskyali

It's a little strange, the relevant title version in HTML is missing. But in the PDF version from 1952, I see confirmation of that law:

Title III, Chapter 1, Sec 301, (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the US at birth: (4), for example, "a person born outside of the US ... of parents one of whom is a citizen of the US, who has been physically present in the US ... for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth ... and the other of whom is a ... not a citizen of the US."

Now this is an old law and many have been changed in the act. I reject it and this same law makes citizens out of resident of Puerto Rico and other "territories" of the US, which I also reject.

If this act has legitimacy then we can change it and we must. We must reject the US citizenship of anyone not born of two US citizens. And as a political matter I do that now already and their descendants as well. This has got to stop.

---

That is a good issue to consider but a separate issue than the important election issue before US concerning a natural born citizen in Article II of the US Constitution which of course requires born in the USA to 2 US citizens.

That law which you found simply makes them a citizen, eligible for Congress, but not a natural born citizen eligible to run for President or Vice President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

That is a good issue to consider but a separate issue than the important election issue before US concerning a natural born citizen in Article II of the US Constitution which of course requires born in the USA to 2 US citizens.

That law which you found simply makes them a citizen, eligible for Congress, but not a natural born citizen eligible to run for President or Vice President.

---

Quote:

---

RE: http://www.alipac.us/images/alipac_s...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by pkskyalihttp://www.alipac.us/images/alipac_s...post-right.png . . .

Now this is an old law and many have been changed in the act. I reject it and this same law makes citizens out of resident of Puerto Rico and other "territories" of the US, which I also reject.

---

Congressional Research Service Report number RL30527 of April 17, 2000, titled "Presidential Elections in the United States: A Primer" asserts that citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as natural born citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.<sup>[46]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...S._territories</sup>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Congressional Research Service Report number RL30527 of April 17, 2000, titled "Presidential Elections in the United States: A Primer" asserts that citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as natural born citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.<sup>[46]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...S._territories</sup>

---

They would not be natural born citizens because they're a territory of the US, not part of the US. No, Luis Guiterrez is not eligible to be President of the United States. So, forget it Luis!! He's probably in charge of the Committee in 2000 that overseas the Congressional Research Service.

You can't trust any of these organizations any more. They're too infiltrated with wannabes.

Natural Born Citizen - Born in the USA (50 states) to 2 US Citizens.

Congressional Research Service Careers

http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/images/capitol.jpg

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.

As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for more than a century.

CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan. Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation’s best thinking.

This website provides information about our organization, career opportunities and our services to Congress.

http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/

Something has gone terribly wrong with the "nation's best-thinking", because our Congress is the stupidest bunch of people in the world. And they need to update their website because no research group is "authoritative". They are simply to inform and it appears they can't even get that right.