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

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Please explain the relevancy of Savorgnan V. United States

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.

False. A formal renunciation is required.

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

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

travel.state.gov...

originally posted by: madenusa
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

Care to show us that "law"?

You "forget" this...

"based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana

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

You missed this bit....

Status: False

a reply to: AmericanRealist



Makes sense to me.

a reply to: hellobruce

The constitution does not apply in cases where a person is born outside of the US. For that we have to use federal immigration laws. Those laws do set criteria where one parent is a US citizen they must have resided in the US for 10 years in order to transfer US citizenship to their child.

I linked to the relevant laws a couple pages back.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You should read the post he was replying to. Context is everything.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

one being the English common law and a treatise by Vattel, called “the Law of Nations.

Oh. I see. Vattel. Why not Blackstones 'Law of Nations'? They were much more familiar with Blackstone.

Your quote is a translation of Vattel that did not exist when the Constitution was written. Vattel never wrote the term "natural-born citizen" especially not in the original French where the term had no meaning, and the title of the book is NOT "The Law of Nations" in either French nor English.

Furthermore, you are quoting paragraph 212 and conveniently ignoring paragraph 214.

A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner

In fact the writers of the Constitution didn't use Vattel, and certainly not for their understanding of citizenship. If they used anything entitled "The Law of Nations" they would have used the Blackstone book that contained a chapter with that title.

I know you will blank this out, but Vattel's definition of citizenship, as Vattel would have understood it, and as the founders would have understood Vattel at the time, absolutely and without question would have defined President Obama as a natural born citizen, had the term actually made sense to the French. Vattellian scholars have related this fact many times.

The translation of Vattel from the French

Then there is the obvious fact that there is the "law of nations" and there are books about the law of nations. Vattel's is a book partly about the law of nations (Citizenship is not a 'law of nations'), as is Blackstone's chapter.

The phrase in the Constitution referring to "the law of nations" refers to the actual law of nations - not books about the law of nations, and not chapters in a book about the law of nations, but the actual law of nations.

Finally, it doesn't matter what you opine from the founders during your seance. The 14th Amendment says ALL persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

The 14th Amendment says absolutely nothing about the parents of ANY person born in the United States.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: hellobruce

The constitution does not apply in cases where a person is born outside of the US. For that we have to use federal immigration laws.

Obama was born in the USA, or did you not realise Hawaii was a US state?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

You should read the post he was replying to. Context is everything.

They are talking about Obama and his mother and citizenship. I am pointing out the info in the constitution would not apply to situations outside US territory. A person born in Hawaii April 30th 1900 has US citizenship (birthright). The issues revolve around where he was born and whether or not he listed a foreign country as his nationality.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: hellobruce

The constitution does not apply in cases where a person is born outside of the US. For that we have to use federal immigration laws.

Obama was born in the USA, or did you not realise Hawaii was a US state?

Obama being born in Hawaii is in dispute...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Obama being born in Hawaii is in dispute...

Not by any normal person!

a reply to: sdcigarpig

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.

Different from what? The Constitution? You gotta put down some context here dude. And you are wrong.

EDIT: Note that whatever relevance you think Savorgnan has to the discussion, you need to understand that Afroyim v. Rusk has overridden that ruling. You can do better than that, I am sure.

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.

OK, now you are talking about Cruz. I haven't really said much about his situation.

He was born in Canada, so he was born a Canadian Citizen - because that is what Canadian law says - so that much is beyond doubt.

Furthermore, when Cruz was born, his mother had lived in the United States for more than the 10 years in total since the age of 14 or when ever the counting age started.

Cruz's father is irrelevant to his American citizenship - 100% irrelevant. It may make him eligible for Cuban citizenship, but it has nothing what-so-ever with whether is an American Citizen or not. Cruz father was not, at the time an American Citizen so his citizenship status has ZERO influence.

U.S. Naturalization law says that a child born outside of the United States with at least one US citizen parent (that meets the various conditions set out in that law) is a American Citizen at birth. They do not require naturalization to be a Citizen, they are citizens from birth. This means that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

Movements back and forth across the border, father's Cuban refugee status, father's un-documented presence or not in the US, intentions of the family to live in one place or another, whether either or both of them took out Canadian citizenship - NONE OF THAT MATTERS. At all.

It is just smoke and mirrors designed by the folks that you are reading to confuse you. Anybody that tells you that this stuff does actually make a difference IS LYING TO YOU. You need to stop listening to them.

All that matters is that at the moment of birth he was in Canada and one of his parents (in this case his mother) was an American Citizen at the time of that birth. End of story.

Had he been born in the USA, his parent's status would not have mattered either - just as Obama's parent's status don't matter.

Now sure, if his mother had indeed taken out Canadian citizenship (so dual citizen) and then walked into the Consulate and said she wanted to renounce her American citizenship and completed the process BEFORE her son was born, then her son would not be an American citizen.

Do you have any evidence - real evidence, not assertions from biased propaganda slingers who have a vested interest in sowing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt?

If so great, I love to see Cruz flushed down the crapper. If not, please stop promoting untruths and misinformation about American citizenship law. It just isn't necessary.

a reply to: madenusa

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 you were born overseas, yes. Not if you were born in the United States.

This is not rocket science here, madenusa.

a reply to: rnaa

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

Okay. I seriously have no idea what point you're trying to make... all I tried to do is give an example of how and why such laws can affect the laws and sovereignty of other nations, and that we should respect the laws and sovereignty of other nations in crafting our own laws... apparently you have a problem with that? We should not respect the laws and sovereignty of other nations? Okay. I sure don't agree. And if you want to call my argument a failure, okay.

a reply to: Phage

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

Is there any way we would know? How would the oath of renunciation be filed or recorded or whatever? (If you know of course!)

a reply to: Boadicea

Okay. I seriously have no idea what point you're trying to make... all I tried to do is give an example of how and why such laws can affect the laws and sovereignty of other nations, and that we should respect the laws and sovereignty of other nations in crafting our own laws...

My point was that your "hypothetical" is not "hypothetical" at all for two reasons:

1) Your 'argument' is a strawman, not a hypothetical:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

No one is suggesting that the United States should "not respect the laws and sovereignty of other nations". The discussion has nothing to do with that.

2) The scenario you describe is "hypothetical" only in the sense that Panama probably does not do what you suggest. Other countries most certainly do, and there is no conflict between their "laws and sovereignty" and ours.

apparently you have a problem with that? We should not respect the laws and sovereignty of other nations?

I have no problem respecting the "laws and sovereignty" of other nations. If we expect people to respect our laws and sovereignty, then we should respect theirs.

You seem to see that there is a conflict between American law and Foreign law where none exists. The crux of the issue is a thing called "jurisdiction".

Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a legal body to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility, e.g. Michigan tax law.

Every nation has not just the right, but the responsibility, to define who its citizens are. The USA does that and other countries do that. Those definitions may overlap at times so that individuals may be 'claimed' as citizens by two or more countries. There is no conflict there, the USA has no right to tell Canada who its citizens are anymore than Canada has the right to tell the USA who its citizens are. Furthermore, all countries have the right to impose responsibilities on its citizens, national service for example.

Now every country has the right to enforce its "laws and sovereignty" WITHIN ITS OWN JURISDICTION - that is within its own area of responsibility - but not outside its own jurisdiction. America's jurisdiction is within America; Canada's jurisdiction is within Canada. In the sixty's, thousands of Americans crossed into Canada to avoid the draft and America asked Canada to send them back. Canada declined, noting that there was no treaty that included draft dodging as an extraditable offense and they were not breaking any Canadian law. The draft dodgers were in Canada's jurisdiction and American law doesn't apply there.

Likewise, when it comes to enforcing Citizenship law, no country can enforce ITS citizenship law on individuals who are in someone else's jurisdiction. If Country B demands that their (dual) citizen should perform national service, B has no right to expect Country A to send him to B. B has no jurisdiction in A. If the dual citizen travels to B, then they are in the jurisdiction of B and subject to national service.

There is no conflict, the principle of jurisdiction manages the conflict. Overlapping jurisdictions or insisting that one jurisdiction is more important than another causes wars.

Okay. I sure don't agree. And if you want to call my argument a failure, okay.

It was a failure because it attempted to deflect the issue not address it.

The fact that another country claims an individual as its citizen has nothing to do with which individuals America claims as its citizens. There is no conflict. A natural born citizen according to American law can also, at the same time, be a natural born citizen of other countries.

What other countries claim about an individual's citizenship has no affect and should not have any affect on whether or not America considers that individual a natural born citizen. To do otherwise is granting those other countries a jurisdiction superior to our own - and that, by the way, is forbidden by the Constitution. We have no control over their laws, why should they have control over ours?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Phage

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

Is there any way we would know? How would the oath of renunciation be filed or recorded or whatever? (If you know of course!)

In writing. Similar to the way naturalization oaths are recorded.

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...

a reply to: rnaa

Oh dear... but okay. If it makes you feel oh-so-awesome about yourself to analyze and tear down a simple hypothetical intended to illustrate a simple principle that you actually seem to agree with... okay. If you cannot accept my clear hypothetical in the spirit in which it was intended and must mischaracterize it as a strawman argument purported as fact... okay. Whatever floats your boat. I won't lose any sleep over it.

a reply to: Phage

Unfortunately, your link didn't answer how an oath of renunciation would be filed, or how anyone could access that information -- but thanks for the link.

But I was happy to read this:

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship.

It always bothered me when Obama Birthers suggested that the actions of his mother/father/stepfather could make Obama lose his citizenship status, which meant anyone could. Just never seemed right to me.

a reply to: Boadicea

Here are the instructions on how to accept and file a renunciation.
www.state.gov...