Forcing the issue of Natural Born Citizenship: How to get standing to have the question resolved.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Its honestly amazing, this comes up in the news, no ones said ANYTHING about it before

And then all the sudden its a huge concern to everyone.

Where have you been for the last seven years?

Have you already forgotten the non-stop birther movement over the allegations that Obama was not born on U.S. soil?

Did they ever give a rat's ass about Obama's mother's citizenship?

If I remember correctly, nothing mattered except for his alleged Kenyan birth.

What changed that suddenly made this such a non-issue?

Yeah, this has been a total non-issue right up until the moment a Canadian named Cruz decided to run for POTUS. Playing the victim card anyone? Give me a break!

The only differences are that Ted Cruz is Republican and he's not black.

Oh yeah I almost forgot, there's one more difference.......Obama was actually born here. Go figure!

Ain't it funny how fast Karma can come back to bite you in the ass?

a reply to: Flatfish
It gets more sticky than that. Obama was born while Hawaii was a territory of the USA. That question about being born in a territory, was answered by Goldwater and McCain. And as it turns out the parents of Obama was not even valid, as his father was already married when he married Ann Dunham.

a reply to: LeoStarchild

Do we see the problem?

Yes.

1) Obama born in Kenya is a lie; Cruz born in Canada is not a lie.

2) Random conservatives swallowed the Obama born in Kenya lie; the condition was not confined to Republicans - there were also Teabaggers, Libertarians, and other assorted fruits and nuts sucked in.

3) Random Democrats are not saying that Cruz is ineligible - it is many of the same people who were going after Obama who are now frantically trying to validate themselves and mask the underlying bigotry of their original insane campaign.

Of course, you realise that neither Obama nor Cruz is the actual target don't you?. They are really going after the American citizens that happen to have undocumented aliens as parents (as pointed out by Xcathdra above). The Obama and Cruz attacks are just an attempt to soften up the electorate for the actual final solution.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

It gets more sticky than that. Obama was born while Hawaii was a territory of the USA.

Hawaii admitted to Statehood: August 21, 1959
President Obama born: August 4, 1961, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States

Google is your friend.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Flatfish
It gets more sticky than that. Obama was born while Hawaii was a territory of the USA. That question about being born in a territory, was answered by Goldwater and McCain. And as it turns out the parents of Obama was not even valid, as his father was already married when he married Ann Dunham.

Actually, Hawaii was a state when Obama was born.

However, to this day, the Kingdom of Hawaii does not recognize the authority of the U.S. government because the kingdom was overthrown in a bloodless coup -- IN VIOLATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY. The queen was coerced into giving up her throne under the threat of death to the Native Hawaiians. The U.S. government has acknowledged this wrongdoing and has apologized.

Does that matter? It's not clear to me that it doesn't matter. In theory, a person could enact revenge for the illegal overthrow by infiltrating the highest office in the U.S.

Honestly, I find all the legal questions to be interesting and if people are going to argue 'bithers' are motivated by race, then I am tempted to say the same about anyone who doesn't give a crap about what the Native Hawaiians think.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Flatfish
It gets more sticky than that. Obama was born while Hawaii was a territory of the USA. That question about being born in a territory, was answered by Goldwater and McCain. And as it turns out the parents of Obama was not even valid, as his father was already married when he married Ann Dunham.

The constitutional scholar I listened to, said that "U.S. Territory" is the actual wording in the statute, but that there were some other questions regarding that avenue of citizenship because of the wording in another SCOTUS ruling where they ruled that not all births in all U.S. territories qualify to be citizens because they are of "alien races."

She went on to say that the use of the term "alien race" is what makes it questionable.

a reply to: rnaa

I know, I was just merely pointing out the lunacy of the argument.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Flatfish

Excellent point....especially that last paragraph. With Cruz being born on Canadian soil and holding citizenship of Canada all his life up until 15 months ago, I would say that is an issue.

The more I think about it, I'm convinced that our founding fathers meant "born on U.S. soil."

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: LeoStarchild

Do we see the problem?

Yes.

1) Obama born in Kenya is a lie; Cruz born in Canada is not a lie.

2) Random conservatives swallowed the Obama born in Kenya lie; the condition was not confined to Republicans - there were also Teabaggers, Libertarians, and other assorted fruits and nuts sucked in.

3) Random Democrats are not saying that Cruz is ineligible - it is many of the same people who were going after Obama who are now frantically trying to validate themselves and mask the underlying bigotry of their original insane campaign.

Of course, you realise that neither Obama nor Cruz is the actual target don't you?. They are really going after the American citizens that happen to have undocumented aliens as parents (as pointed out by Xcathdra above). The Obama and Cruz attacks are just an attempt to soften up the electorate for the actual final solution.

I think you may be right on one point: Part of this is about "anchor babies". Many people think that it is a gross misinterpretation of the intent of the claus, and it is being misused and abused daily. It's time this practice be legally challenged again.

a reply to: Flatfish
The territory issue is irrelevant and the reason why is due to Goldwater and McCain. Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was still a US territory and was still allowed to run as president. McCain was born in the Panama canal, and was determined that he too was eligible to run as President, and congress enacted laws on such, reflecting and stating such.

“Ted Cruz was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen until 15 months ago.

So you tell me how this works?

a reply to: MotherMayEye
The Hawaiian case is an interesting one, yet the question if they were to follow this through, would be the next steps and who would be considered a natural born Hawaiian and who would not be welcome on such. It is not the issue at this time frame as the movement for them to gain independence has been stalled for several years, and still it currently undergoing debate. It is more for a discussion on secession from the union than that of citizenship. On a side note, the ironic thing is that there has never been a question of citizenship when it comes to those who are of Hawaiian blood, and in some ways they have fared better than other indigenous people, or other minorities in the USA.

a reply to: rnaa
The point being, that his mother was a US citizen, in an illegal marriage on what is considered US soil, would make him automatically a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

The same could be said of say a child of a parent who is in the military who is born on a US base in say Germany or Italy, While the base may be in a foreign country, it is considered to be US soil.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
“Ted Cruz was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen until 15 months ago.

So you tell me how this works?

When a person is born in one country where the nationality of the parents are of another country, the standard is the minor has dual citizenship until the age of 18, where he/she must decide what nationality they wish to keep.

In Cruz's case based on everything I have seen he's not eligible.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: rnaa
The point being, that his mother was a US citizen, in an illegal marriage on what is considered US soil, would make him automatically a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

The same could be said of say a child of a parent who is in the military who is born on a US base in say Germany or Italy, While the base may be in a foreign country, it is considered to be US soil.

All of this discussion just solidifies my personal position that the term 'natural born Citizen' is a direct reference to 'natural law' (as opposed to manmade laws), and the term is unique to each and every person's unique birth circumstances. One sweeping definition removes it from natural law and would make it manmade/positive law.

Natural law is broad. Manmade laws are narrow. I believe the drafters intended the term to be broad.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
“Ted Cruz was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen until 15 months ago.

So you tell me how this works?

When a person is born in one country where the nationality of the parents are of another country, the standard is the minor has dual citizenship until the age of 18, where he/she must decide what nationality they wish to keep.

In Cruz's case based on everything I have seen he's not eligible.

Thank you

I bet Trump has a lot of dirt on a lot of politicians and insiders,

I think Trump and Hillary even know the truth about Obama.

Maybe the birth certificate issue Hillary threw out there is the reason Obama seems to be hexing her campaign

a reply to: Xcathdra

When a person is born in one country where the nationality of the parents are of another country, the standard is the minor has dual citizenship until the age of 18, where he/she must decide what nationality they wish to keep.

False.
A child born in the US, to citizens of another country. Does not have to decide anything. Though they may renounce their US (or other) citizenship if they wish to do so, they must do so explicitly.

People who have held dual citizenship since birth or childhood — or who became citizens of another country after becoming a US citizen and were not asked to renounce their previous citizenship — can remain dual citizens in the United States.

www.legallanguage.com...

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
sign an oath of renunciation

travel.state.gov...

Someone else has decided to force the issue on a different level:

Arizona legislator: Let's define natural-born citizen

Townsend is circulating a measure at the Arizona Legislature that would call a U.S. constitutional convention to outline what it means to be a natural-born citizen.

I sure don't support this. I am not an advocate of a constitutional convention for any purpose, including the current calls by folks on both the left and the right for an Article V Constitutional Convention. But I would support an amendment defining "natural born citizen" ratified in the traditional manner. Rep Townsend obviously disagrees:

Townsend is a fan of such conventions, which would need concurrence of at least two thirds of the states to amend the U.S. Constitution. She said although her preference would be to require both parents of a presidential candidate to be a U.S. citizen at the time their future candidate is born, it would be up to convention delegates to settle that question. "Just define it!" Townsend said of her measure, which she began to circulate on Thursday, the same day Cruz is expected to get hit on the issue in the GOP presidential debate.

The more I think about it, an amendment passed by Congress may be the best way to resolve this issue. It is Congress' Constitutional responsibility to establish citizenship/naturalization laws after all. This probably should have been done a long time ago, instead of allowing it to be a political football.

originally posted by: Phage
False.
A child born in the US, to citizens of another country. Does not have to decide anything. Though they may renounce their US (or other) citizenship if they wish to do so, they must do so explicitly.

No, that's wrong. There are many nations that ask children born of their citizens in foreign countries to declare a citizenship by a certain age.

Kenya is one of them and Obama declined to declare citizenship there.

a reply to: MotherMayEye
If you go by the drafters and founding fathers, then Cruz is ineligible as his father was a citizen of first Cuba and then Canada at the time of his birth, and his mothers nationality would have no bearing on his actual status.

But laws and ideas change, the very notion and intentions can only be second guessed as to what they did or did not mean, along with how things are often viewed.