Fenton
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 29,771
- Reaction score
- 12,231
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Good...I would vote for him
Yup, so would I.
Good...I would vote for him
This is going to be interesting indeed considering all the "natural-born citizen" flack President Obama received from the Right. I can see a rehash of all those Obama/natural-born citizen debate threads being quoted now!
To the OP, I find it interesting that the two attorney's glossed over one very crucial component of the 1790 Naturalization Act, which I have to assume is the 1700 law they're referring to since it remains the only federal Act dealing with U.S. citizenship that uses and, thus, defines the term "natural-born", towit: "...the right of citizenship did 'not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States'".
Of course, this little tidbit hardly matters today since our INA laws have changed over the centuries ultimately to cover both children born to the soil and those born abroad to at least one U.S. citizen parent be it the mother or the father. However, since Ted Cruz was born in Canada, the issue of his dual-citizenship likely would have remained an issue...that is until he renounced his Canadian citizenship sometime last year (I believe). Nonetheless, it's going to be interesting to see how those Republicans who beat liberals/defenders of Pres. Obama's natural-born status explain Ted Cruz' natural-born status when it's very clear that he was born abroad (albeit to a U.S. citizen mother). I guarantee you that any defense they use will likely be the same defense used to prove Pres. Obama's natural-born citizenship status and IMO his was much more definitive than Ted Cruz'.
And where was he born again?Not quite the same; both McCain's parents were U.S. citizens. Only one of Cruz' - his mother - is/was (not sure if she's still alive). Of course, as I've said before, current INA law takes into account at least one parent born on U.S. soil to confer U.S. citizenship unto the child.
And where was he born again?
Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president | Fox News
two former Justice Department lawyers have weighed in with a bipartisan verdict: Cruz, they say, is eligible to run for the White House. Neal Katyal, acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, and Paul Clemente, solicitor general in President George W. Bush’s administration, got out in front of the issue in a Harvard Law Review article. “There is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution,” they wrote."
Well....since they are currently citizens....and weren't required to go through the "naturalization process" to become citizens, I'm guessing they are "natural born citizens".No they are not. They are not natural born Citizens.
No they are not. They are not natural born Citizens.
I had a feeling you might try the "who" angle.If you're referring to Ted Cruz, Canada.
If you're referring to Sen. McCain, Panama (Canal Zone which was not a U.S. territory despite the fact that McCain was born on a U.S. military installation).
I forget exactly how McCain's "natural-born" citizenship dilemma was ultimately resolved, but Cruz' may have been resolved by the fact that he:
1) renounced his Canadian citizenship; and,
2) his mother was a U.S. citizen at birth.
The verdict may still be out. In any case, I go back to a few old questions I once asked when this natural-born -vs- citizen issue first came up w/Pres. Obama:
If there is a difference between a U.S. citizen and a natural-born U.S. citizen, what benefits are conferred one over the other?
Is the only difference that being a natural-born citizen can hold the office of PUTUS and a citizen cannot?
And seeing that the term "natural-born" was only once a settled matter in a 1790 law that has long been repealed and replaced by other versions of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization law, does "natural-born" even still apply today?
And if not, should Art. 2 of the U.S. Constitution be amended?
And that is what is wrong with your position.As far as I'm concerned, as someone who was born to a US citizen, he is eligible to run for president.
You guess wrong.Well....since they are currently citizens....and weren't required to go through the "naturalization process" to become citizens, I'm guessing they are "natural born citizens".
The same information that the founders relied on. Born to citizens on US soil and owing no foreign allegiances.What is your definition of a "natural born citizen"?
I had a feeling you might try the "who" angle.
Of course I was referring to Cruz.
I asked to make the point that he wasn't born on US soil.
McCain's dilemma was not resolved as the person suing had no standing. And the lawsuit showed he was born in a civilian hospital. Not a Military hospital.
But like I said that matters not one bit as a law was passed which shows he was not even a citizen until passage. So he is a Citizen by statute. Not naturally born.
Your #1 is irrelevant. He was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen at birth and owed allegiance to Canada at birth. That is not a natural born citizen of the US.
The 1790 language was changed for a reason, and it hasn't been in effect since it was superseded 5 years later. As such the 1790 legislation is irrelevant as it was replaced and they were not born under it.
Your questions?
Who did you ask this question of, and what was the answer?
The answers should be an obvious "of course" as they are different distinctions. The founders intentionally made the distinction for a purpose.
Obviously they knew what that distinction was.
And that is more than evident from Vattel’s Law of Nations which our founders relied on, that those born of Citizens on a Country's soil makes one a natural born citizen.
Which is further enforced by the letter to Washington from John Jay suggesting that the distinction be made for the Commander in Chief, as the natural state of being a natural born citizen does not come with allegiances to a foreign country.
So what is he then?
If Rafael Cruz runs what should even be more fun is his father was a revolutionary who fought along side Fidel Castro during the Cuban revolution. Watching the TP people spin that will be comedy gold.
Huffy? :doh That would be a product of your own thoughts.Sounds as if you got alittle huffy with me. No need; I see this situation in much the same way as yourself. However, I would content that until the "natural-born citizen" equation truly becomes settled law, the need for people to jump through legal hoops will continue. You've pointed out one obvious constant - that the citizenship equation has continued to change over time. However, one thing I believe Congress has tried to hold true to is the distinct prerequisite the the POTUS must be a "natural-born citizen," someone born to the soil of the United States of America to become President. Hence, the reason I asked my questions (to the forum) years ago (you may have to search the forum archives for it), specifically, is there a difference between a "natural-born citizen" and a "citizen" of these United States.
The answer clearly is a resounding yes, but determining who such individuals are can be somewhat convoluted as the questions surrounding Obama/McCain/Cruz natural-born/citizen birth rights have clearly illustrated.
(BTW, I don't recall every getting a straight answer to my question(s).)
The same information that the founders relied on.
Born to citizens on US soil and owing no foreign allegiances.
Do you by chance have any back up for that assertion? I'd be pleased to read it.
Cruz's father, who was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba,[19][20] as Robert T. Garrett of the Dallas Morning News has described, "suffered beatings and imprisonment for protesting the oppressive regime"[19][24] of dictator Fulgencio Batista. He fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution[25][26] when he was 14 years old, but "didn't know Castro was a Communist.
Meh. Not a big deal.
I don't think it's a big deal either. I just want to sit back and enjoy comedy as the TP and conservatives blast Cruz because of his father. For 6 tears because of the 'sins of Obama's father' of being Muslim they called Obama all sorts of vicious names and accusations. Sins of the father must then apply to Cruz's communist father too. We all know the TP and conservatives aren't hypocritical so they'll treat Cruz the same.
What info are you talking about?
...
Article 2 Section 1 does reference "natural born citizen" as a presidential requirement.
The precise definition of "natural born citizen" is not mentioned though.
I guess the founders wanted future generations to decide that issue.
Huffy? :doh That would be a product of your own thoughts.
But I do see you are continuing to misstate the positions. And no, it hasn't continued to change over time. It has always meant the same thing. It was wrongly changed one time and later corrected.
Congress really hasn't done anything either. And the requirement does not just have to do with the soil. So there is no holding true to the requirement if it is not being followed.
The distinction is pretty clear as to who is and isn't.
The only problem is those who want to support their candidate, party, and their ill-informed opinion arguing the opposite.
Your postings?
I do not need to search the forum for your posts if you can not be bothered to provide them.
The only thing we seem to agree with is what I originally stated.
The Supreme Court has not settled this issue.
Obviously you are not paying attention to the other information provided in this thread. :dohWhat info are you talking about?
No.Article 2 Section 1 does reference "natural born citizen" as a presidential requirement.
The precise definition of "natural born citizen" is not mentioned though.
I guess the founders wanted future generations to decide that issue.
The answers should be an obvious "of course" as they are different distinctions. The founders intentionally made the distinction for a purpose.
Obviously they knew what that distinction was.
And that is more than evident from Vattel’s Law of Nations which our founders relied on, that those born of Citizens on a Country's soil makes one a natural born citizen.
Which is further enforced by the letter to Washington from John Jay suggesting that the distinction be made for the Commander in Chief, as the natural state of being a natural born citizen does not come with allegiances to a foreign country.
The 1790 act is not in effect.but not even the Naturalization Act of 1790 required
I am not being difficult. So maybe you should follow your own advice and lighten up. :shrug:Are you always so difficult even when folks agree with you even a little bit? Lighten up!
That isn't what happened.I would also content that if U.S. District/Appeals Courts hadn't upheld natural-born citizen status as someone born to the soil by at least one U.S. citizen parent, we'd still be heavily debating Pres. Obama's NBC status to date.
Well I would like to see this question you supposedly asked. Verify it is as you stated and see if there was a reply to it.As for searching for my prior posting to this forum on the subject matter at hand, I wasn't asking you to. It was merely a point of reference should your curiosity (or anyone else's for that matter) pursued you to so investigate. Frankly, I'd much rather leave this issue be as there's no reason to :beatdeadhorse all over again. Besides, I do hate re-opening old wounds...gives me such a headache.