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

a reply to: rnaa

What makes you so sure that they didn't?

I have no idea if they did or didn't. Would you have preferred that I used the word "assume" rather than "imagine?" I was obviously establishing a hypothetical. If you know for sure, please share.

Of course not, the USA does not extradite persons for failure to perform military duty...

As I said...

...any more than Canada does (you have heard about all the Americans that moved to Canada to avoid the US draft?).

Well, yeah. I knew a couple.

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.

Interesting, thank you. Good examples of the type of respect for other nation's laws and sovereignty that we must consider and reflect in our laws.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

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.

Well, I will grant that point, though it is disputed by some. The point is irrelevant one way or another. You seem to be unable to read, because if you had actually read my post to which you replied, you would have read this statement:

(me, referring to the 14th Amendment which applies to persons born on American soil)

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".

It doesn't matter about the validity of the parents marriage. It doesn't matter about the citizenship of the parents.

It just doesn't. The President was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is the United States. ALL PERSONS BORN in the United States are born citizens of the United States and of the state where they were born. Period. That is simple to read and is located in the Constitution. You cannot miss it. I repeat my question from my earlier post: what is difficult to understand about that.

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.

What 'law of nations'?

You are right about the first - English Common Law - but the second source was English STATUTORY Law as the Founding Generation knew it to be.

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.

Yes. You are describing the 'under the jurisdiction' qualification to 'all persons born'. This has indeed been confirmed by the Wong Kim Ark case to mean 'diplomats, foreign armies in hostile occupation, and maybe some Reservation Indians (though I don't think this in included anymore).

That has nothing to do with Obama however, his father was not a diplomat and was not working for his government in any way what-so-ever. He was a University student; he had a student visa; he did not have diplomatic immunity; he was under the jurisdiction of the United States. University students are adults, they have hormones and emotions. Sometimes they have sex and sometimes they get pregnant as a result. Life happens.

President Obama was born in the USA, under the jurisdiction of the USA. and is a natural born citizen of the United States. His parent's citizenship and his parent's marital status has absolutely nothing to do with his citizenship status.

originally posted by: Willtell

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

All possible witnesses ended up dead, all possible records of the care of infant Obama burned in the church fire, and the public official responsible out of office.
www.americasfreedomfighters.com...

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Hmmm... during these times of fed overreach and abuse of power, I see too much potential for even more fed overreach and abuse of power. But I see the virtue in your idea, and it's intriguing to think about its possibilities for good...

originally posted by: madenusa
All possible witnesses ended up dead, all possible records of the care of infant Obama burned in the church fire, and the public official responsible out of office.

As Obama was not born in Kenya, what are you babbling about?

a reply to: rnaa
The validity of the marriage would have bearing. Especially when it would come to the nationality of the child, and the country that said child would be born in. Here one has to look into custody and family law. But ultimately this is not about Obama, but about Cruz.

Before the Constitution of the United States, the founding fathers were going off of several different references, one being the English common law and a treatise by Vattel, called “the Law of Nations.”

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 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 society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Vattel had a strong influenced over several of the founding fathers, to include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, along with George Washington.

With this new court case, the Justices are going to be asked to define what could be considered to be a natural born citizen, as long as those bringing this case before the courts can show just cause, and cast enough doubt on the validity on Ted Cruz and if he is indeed a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

and cast enough doubt on the validity on Ted Cruz and if he is indeed a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen.

When did Cruz go through the naturalization process?

a reply to: Boadicea

I have no idea if they did or didn't. Would you have preferred that I used the word "assume" rather than "imagine?" I was obviously establishing a hypothetical. If you know for sure, please share.

More of a strawman than a hypothetical, I would say. What ever it is, it is a failure as an argument.

It fails not because Panama may or may not have made him a citizen, nor because Panama may have then required he do military service.

It fails because lots of countries do exactly that. We don't need to imagine an hypothetical situation, we can refer directly to an actual real world situation. And we can notice the real world situation does not cause any trauma what-so-ever except that those of military service age have to think twice about having a vacation in their parent's home town. And that is not an unusual occurrence.

Here is another scenario for you to consider. [ignore it if you want, it is decidedly off-topic]

Suppose that the USA considers it a 'potentially expatriating act' for a dual citizen to serve as an elected official in another country. FYI 'potentially expatriating' means you might lose your US Citizenship over the issue. OK, don't suppose; this is a fact.

Now, some countries provide for a number of seats in their Parliament for representatives of 'citizens abroad'. For example, Italy and France.

So, if an American is elected to the French or Italian parliament (I don't know if that is so, I know that there are Australians in the Italian parliament), does that constitute an 'expatriating event'. Could that elected parliamentarion lose their US citizenship? Would that in turn mean they could no longer represent their constituency? Would that in turn mean they shouldn't lose their American citizenship?

Wholy, Dr. Who conundrum, Batman!

a reply to: Phage

Because then it would fall under the expatriation act, that would simply state, that she married a foreign national and thus sought to cease being a citizen of the United States of America and sought to be a member of his nationality, at the time would have first been Cuba and secondly that of Canada.

If she citizen and thus ineligible of being President of the United States of America. There are several statutes that would state as much. gave up her citizenship to become a citizen of another country, then Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen, but a naturalized.

The reason to return, is more of a social obligation on her part, her husband did abandon her, she did have a child, most women of that time frame would have returned home to family for emotional support and to have some form of backing in the event there was a custody battle over the child. Cruz’s father could have gone for a divorce at that time frame and then sought sole custody over the child or joint, meaning as Cruz sr, was in the USA and at that time frame, been given refugee status and a quick path to citizenship, could have had the courts side with him in this matter.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Because then it would fall under the expatriation act, that would simply state, that she married a foreign national and thus sought to cease being a citizen of the United States of America and sought to be a member of his nationality, at the time would have first been Cuba and secondly that of Canada.

No. Unless she formally renounced her citizenship, she remained a citizen. Marrying a citizen of another country does not equal renunciation of citizenship.

If she citizen and thus ineligible of being President of the United States of America.

What?

gave up her citizenship to become a citizen of another country

In that case her formal renunciation would be a matter of record and this whole bunch of nonsense would be moot. But there is no requirement to renounce US citizenship to become a citizen of another country.

then Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen, but a naturalized.

When did he go through the naturalization process?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

The validity of the marriage would have bearing.

This is getting tiresome.

The 14th Amendment:

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. 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.

Where does that statement say anything at all about parents citizenship or their marital status? It doesn't.

It talks about the child and only the child - it says 'all persons born' in the USA are citizens. It doesn't say 'all legally married citizen parents' give birth to citizen children. The status of the parents has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT (standard exception for diplomats and invading armies).

Especially when it would come to the nationality of the child, and the country that said child would be born in.

You said you were talking about Obama. Obama was born in the USA and the parents citizenship status has nothing to do with the geographical reality of that fact.

Here one has to look into custody and family law. But ultimately this is not about Obama, but about Cruz.

Make up your effing mind. I responded to your post where you specifically said it was about Obama, not Cruz. Now you say it is about Cruz not Obama. You are going to have to see a chiropractor if you keep spinning around like this.

Family law has nothing to do with citizenship law. Citizenship law may have a bearing on Family law case outcomes, but you can not realistically expect someone to study State level legislation (Family law) to interpret the Constitution and Federal citizenship law.

Maybe you should find a good acupuncturist too.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: madenusa
All possible witnesses ended up dead, all possible records of the care of infant Obama burned in the church fire, and the public official responsible out of office.

As Obama was not born in Kenya, what are you babbling about?

Barack Obama does not qualify as a natural-born citizen of the U.S. because the law in effect at the time he was born specified that "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Since Barack Obama only had one U.S. citizen parent (his mother), and his mother had not been residing in the U.S. for at least five years after the age of 16 when Barack was born (because she herself was only 18 at the time), then he's not a natural-born citizen.

His mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16

US Law very clearly stipulates: "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."
www.snopes.com...

a reply to: madenusa

Sorry madenusa, that law applied to FOREIGN BORN children.

President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai'i, United States of America - he is NATIVE BORN.

His mother's age has nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: madenusa

Sorry madenusa, that law applied to FOREIGN BORN children.

President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai'i, United States of America - he is NATIVE BORN.

His mother's age has nothing to do with it.

If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16

a reply to: rnaa

The Expatriate act of 1868, the Citizenship Act of 1907 and in its successor, the Nationality Act of 1940 combined with the 1950’s US Supreme court case of Savorgnan V. United States, would say different.

If Cruz’s senior and his wife had stayed in the USA, Ted’s citizenship would not be an issue, nor would it be, if they had not gone and applied for and gotten citizenship from Canada, which we know Cruz sr did and from the looks so did his mother. That shows that she had intended to move and stay with her husband, including, if Cuba still had diplomatic relations with the USA, she would have moved to and became a citizen of that country.

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: madenusa

Sorry madenusa, that law applied to FOREIGN BORN children.

President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai'i, United States of America - he is NATIVE BORN.

His mother's age has nothing to do with it.

If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16

if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parentswww.snopes.com...

a reply to: Phage
No, the fact that she married to Cruz Sr, a Cuban national at the time, and then moved with him to Canada, and got Canadian citizenship is all the declaration that is needed. He did not stay in the United States and seek to be an immigrant, but at the time, before things with south with Cuba, he was a Cuban national. So by the fact she married a foreign national, and moved to another country, having the right to vote in that country, and intended to stay there, is pretty much proof of her giving up her citizenship to the United States of America. There is a case from the 1950’s that showed that.

As far as Ted going through the naturalization process, that is simple. His father in 1974 would have qualified as a Cuban refugee, and thus bumped to the front of the immigration process, and did not have to return to Cuba, as he was on US ground. And if the father became a naturalized citizen, and thus it would have immediate for a 4 year old child.

Since Hawaii is part of the United States, even if Barack Obama's parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn't even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he'd still qualify as a natural-born citizen.

Barack Obama does not qualify as a natural-born citizen of the U.S. because his mother was too young.
www.snopes.com...

a reply to: Phage
He got it, when his father got it, via the Cuban Adjustment act. A child would not have to go through the same process as the parent in this case, but when the parent becomes a naturalized citizen, and has a permanent residence, the child would be granted such under the various statues and laws governing citizenship.