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

a reply to: Phage

State Department - Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

How long did his mom live in the US before moving to Canada and how long did she live in Canada before he was born?

a reply to: MotherMayEye
The first thing that the justices on all levels will look at is the evidence that is presented. At the same time, the justices, the attorneys and their clerks will be digging into the law books and prior judicial cases to see if there is legal precedent that is already present in the laws and prior court cases.

There is enough in the way of laws and prior court cases to determine what the standard would be. In this case the question that the US Supreme court may be asked to decide is what kind of 3 question test that will be used to determine the outcome of this case.

a reply to: Xcathdra

How long did his move live in the US before moving to Canada?

His mother?

The first in her fam­ily to go to col­lege, Elean­or stud­ied math at Rice Uni­versity and was one of a few wo­men in the bur­geon­ing field of com­puter pro­gram­ming. She and Ra­fael mar­ried in 1969.

Sounds like more than 10 years.

a reply to: Phage

Then this case will most likely go nowhere absent a lawyer making a creative compelling argument.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes.
It would seem to be quite pointless.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

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.

I don't understand your point here. Who are you talking about? Cruz was not born on US soil. Obama was born on US soil.

The marital status ( legally married or not legally married) of the parents has absolutely nothing to do with the citizenship of a child born on American soil.

Likewise, the citizenship status (citizen, legal immigrant, undocumented immigrant) of the parents has absolutely nothing to do with the citizenship of a child born on American soil.

Why is this so hard to understand?

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There is no reference to the status of the child's parents. "ALL PERSONS BORN" is without qualification by parental status of citizenship, marriage, wealth, skin color, political opinion, preferred shirt manufacturer, possession of property, whatever. "ALL PERSONS BORN".

The single qualification is that the child must be born under the jurisdiction of the United States: which means that the children born in the US of diplomats and invading armies are not included.

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.

No. Military bases in foreign countries are NOT considered US soil.

Military Children Born Abroad

Many parents of children born abroad want to know if their children are U.S. citizens. The U.S. grants citizenship in one of three ways: naturalization, in which someone becomes a U.S. citizen sometime after birth; birth on U.S. soil; or birth to parents who are U.S. citizens. Contrary to popular belief, military bases are not considered "U.S. soil" for citizenship purposes. Therefore, the only way children born abroad can acquire citizenship at birth is through their parents. - See more at: military.findlaw.com...

Congress passed a specific law to govern citizenship rule in the Panama Canal Zone. The Zone was not a military base though there were military bases in the Zone. The law was passed after McCain was born and was not made retroactive enough to cover his birth. McCain is NBC not because of that law, nor because he was born on a military base in the Zone, but because his parents were Citizens, exactly like any other non-military birth on foreign soil.

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.

Every country on the planet gets to decide for itself what its citizenship rules are. The sole 'international' rule is that a child cannot be left stateless. Every piece of ground is the jurisdiction of some government authority or the other, even if it is disputed among several.

Sure, some countries make dual citizens decide at age 18 (or some other age) to either 'opt in' or 'opt out'. The United States does not do that. The British Empire did (and the Kenyan Government continued that rule). Obama had a choice to make (at 21 I believe) to opt in or opt out of Kenyan Citizenship and until that time he could claim dual citizenship with the USA and Kenya. Since he chose to not pursue Kenyan CItizenship, his dual citizenship status expired. American citizens who are born with dual citizenship, whether born in the US or foreign born, have no need to make such a choice to keep their citizenship; Obama did not need to make a similar choice to keep his American citizenship.

There is exactly one way, and one way only, for a born American citizen (i.e. not naturalized) to lose or forfeit their citizenship: they must convince a US Consular Official in some foreign country that they know what they are doing in seeking to give up their citizenship and they must prove that they are a national of some other country when they do so (they cannot, by international law, be left without any nationality at all).

OK, that is a slight exaggeration: there are some instances of very tenuous links to US citizenship that need to be confirmed by the 18th birthday or whatever, and there are certain acts you can do that indicate your intent to give up US citizenship - like running for political office in another country.

Again the activities of the parents do not influence the citizenship of a born US citizen child. A parent naturalizing in another country may, under the laws of that country automatically include the minor children as citizens of that country - but that act does not influence the American citizenship of the child in any way what-so-ever.

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

I doubt that - surely not EVERYTHING. There is some minor opinion that asserts that his situation makes him not eligible, but majority opinion holds that he is eligible.

Now it is undoubtedly true that those who hold with ineligible are more likely to be vocal - those that hold him eligible see nothing remarkable to discuss in that regard - so you are more likely to have seen the negative case, but if you have only seen the negative case, then you just aren't interested in finding and understanding the other side of the argument.

The thing is those who hold the "he's eligible" view are more interested in discussing his policy outlook than how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Eligible or not, his political outlook is one of rabid anti-Americanism - and that affects everyone whether he is elected President or not.

This silly argument about eligibility serves no-one and only succeeds at obscuring the intentions of a very dangerous political operator (or rather several operators).

a reply to: Xcathdra
a reply to: Phage

Interestingly enough, McClatchy reported yesterday that:

--- Mrs. Cruz was married and divorced prior to her marriage to Mr. Cruz;
--- She married an Alan Wilson 1956 when she was 21, they moved to England in 1960, and divorced in 1963.
--- Mrs. Cruz returned to the USA, married Mr. Cruz, and moved to Canada in 1966

But yes, she did fulfill the requirement of living in the USA for at least five years after her 18th birthday. Now it's just about whether she relinquished her citizenship for Canadian citizenship.

a reply to: Boadicea

But yes, she did fulfill the requirement of living in the USA for at least five years after her 18th birthday.

The requirement is for 5 years after the 14th birthday.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

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.

Lets all stay on the same page here - there is no such international standard. Every country makes its own citizenship law without reference to any other county.

Kenya requires underage foreign born citizens to make a conscious decision when they reach majority; the United States does not.

Obama had to make a conscious decision to keep his Kenyan citizenship - he chose not to do so.

Cruz did not need to make any such decision to keep his U.S. Citizenship. He remained a dual citizen of the USA and Canada until he made a personal decision to 'cancel' his Canadian citizenship.

a reply to: Phage

Ooops! And I knew that -- I had just read that -- DOH!!!

a reply to: rnaa
The point is about Obama, not Cruz. Obama’s father was already married, when he married Obama’s mother, thus making the entire marriage illegal by US law and statute.
The original concept of a natural born citizen, came directly from 2 places. 1) Being the English common law, and the other 2) The law of nations, which clearly defined what was considered to be a natural born citizen.

The parents have everything to do with the citizenship of a child. A parent, or parents, who are foreign nationals, and who are currently working for their home government, and they have a child on US soil, that child could be denied being a citizen of the United States, that was at least set in the Ark case.

Also as was set in a later case, there is legal precedent when an woman of US citizenship marries a foreign national, gaining citizenship in her husband’s country, would be considered to have given up voluntarily citizenship of her originating country.

However what is going to also have to be considered would be the various acts on immigration to and from the USA, as many would have a play into the various acts as to what would and would not be considered a natural born citizen in the United States of America.

When it comes to Cruz, right now the entire question is based around his mother and her marriage to her husband. You see they did live in Canada for 8 years, and it is known that his father, a Cuban national, became a citizen of Canada at that time frame. And so the question is did his mother become a citizen of Canada, as she was on the voters rolls at that time frame or remain a citizen of the USA, and do things that would have been required. In 1966 there was a law, the Cuban Adjustment Act was passed. That means his father and his family would have been able to immigrate to the USA without any sort of massive red tape and gained refugee/immigrant status automatically. In fact according to Ted Cruz, his father abandoned the family and moved to Texas in 1974. If his mother was a citizen of the USA at that time, why did she just simply not move back to her home state at that time frame, why remain in Canada?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Don't be asinine. No other nation has jurisdiction over people not born in their nation or born to their citizens.

Don't be offensive. We are not discussing jurisdiction here, we are discussing citizenship law.

You are making the assertion that US law should take into account the citizenship law of foreign nations when deciding who its citizens are. That absolutely means that foreign countries would be placed in control of American citizenship law. For example Ireland makes the children of American citizens that have Irish ancestors (as far back as grandparents) citizens of Ireland. The Irish rule has no relevance to American law, but you would make it superior to American law and deny Irish-American descendants eligibility for the Presidency. Goodby Reagan and Kennedy, sorry about that.

Wow. Talk about "silly."

Pot meet kettle. In one post you say the US should take into account foreign law, and in the next you say it is silly to consider such a thing. Jurisdiction is exactly the 'reach of the law'. Irish citizenship law has no 'reach' into America, yet you would have it control the eligibility of American citizens to hold the office of President of the United States.

You really need to think things through before you post them.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

And so the question is did his mother become a citizen of Canada, as she was on the voters rolls at that time frame or remain a citizen of the USA, and do things that would have been required.

Doesn't matter if she became a Canadian citizen. Doesn't matter if she could vote in Canada.

Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not, without more, mean that he renounces the other", Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

en.wikipedia.org...

If his mother was a citizen of the USA at that time, why did she just simply not move back to her home state at that time frame, why remain in Canada?

Why should she?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

To understand what is a “natural born citizen” is we may have to comprehend what an
“unnatural born citizen” is


I would say an “unnatural born citizen" is someone born outside of American sovereignty, though with one or two American parents.

So a person born outside of America, no matter what the citizen status of their parents is, are NOT qualified to be a president, though they are a citizen. Cruz is an “unnatural born citizen” unqualified to be president.

Cruz is toast!

A natural born citizen is someone born in this country however the status of their parents' citizenship is.

So an “unnatural born citizen” is someone who is born outside of America no matter what the citizenship of his or her parents.

a reply to: Boadicea

Imagine Panama gave McCain dual citizenship as a "natural born citizen" born on Panama soil -- regardless of how and why it happened...

What makes you so sure that they didn't?

then imagine Panama passes a law requiring all able-bodied male citizens of a certain age to serve in their armed forces...

There are countries that do exactly that - Italy used to be one, however the law has changed.

If you are a (dual citizenship) male born between 1976 and December 31, 1985 and you want to live in Italy, in theory you are obliged to complete your military service unless you are enrolled in a university.

Greece still requires all male citizens between 19 and 45 to serve. There are others. Of course those countries can only make that demand 'stick' if that person enters the jurisdiction of that country.

and then demanded McCain so serve... Obviously, we would not force McCain to do so, no matter what their laws were.

Of course not, the USA does not extradite persons for failure to perform military duty, any more than Canada does (you have heard about all the Americans that moved to Canada to avoid the US draft?). If McCain were in this position, he would have actually had to enter Panama to trigger the (enforceable) requirement. On the other hand, the Italian example allows time served in the US Military against the Italian service requirement, so he'd have been OK if we were talking about Italy.

a reply to: Willtell

I would say an “unnatural born citizen" is someone born outside of American sovereignty, though with one or two American parents.

There are not many, whose legal opinions actually matter, who agree with you.

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.”

fas.org...

originally posted by: Willtell
So a person born outside of America, no matter what the citizen status of their parents is, are NOT qualified to be a president, though they are a citizen

You want to create a third type of citizen! There are only 2 types of citizens, natural born or naturalised.

If Cruz is not natural born when was he naturalised?

Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen

I say we eliminate birthright citizenship altogether, reclassify all new births regardless of parental status as civilians. Then, upon 18th bday, one must opt into National service (military, humanitarian missions, infrastructure development etc .. ) for a per-determined amount of years in order to gain the absolute rights of citizenship. If one is not willing to give their life, blood, sweat and tears for the people and country, then stay back as a spoiled civilian.

The disabled, mentally deficit, and handicapped will be addressed through a different program on a case by case basis to determine eligibility for citizenship or not, but will not be denied the basic human rights to live with dignity.

what say ye?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Willtell
So a person born outside of America, no matter what the citizen status of their parents is, are NOT qualified to be a president, though they are a citizen

You want to create a third type of citizen! There are only 2 types of citizens, natural born or naturalised.

If Cruz is not natural born when was he naturalised?

Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen

He’s a natural “naturalized” citizen

Plus he’s a jack ass so he's out