>>61228617 No, he's a naturalized citizen because he was born in a foreign country to an American mother.
To be a natural-born citizen, he would of had to have been born on U.S. soil.
This is why Obama's birth certificate was such a big issue, and why he had to prove that he was actually born in Hawaii. If he was born in Kenya, he would have been disqualified, even though his mother was an American citizen at the time.
>>61228736 >They wouldn't even let him run if he wasn't. The smaller commie parties routinely run ineligible candidates, several states allow them on the ballot. This includes people underage for the office and openly-naturalized immigrants.
Very true in every respect. Candidates born outside of US territory have been disqualified, like Alexander Hamilton. Candidates born inside US territory have been qualified, like Goldwater and McCain.
You have to be a special kind of retarded to even question this. The fact that natural born was enforced within a decade of our nation forming proves that it does matter and has a clearly defined meaning that isn't a misinterpretation of the founding fathers' intent.
>>61229002 Obama didn't even grow up in the US, he spent most of his childhood in the Phillipines. Why anyone would expect him to have some inborn loyalty to the US is ridiculous (which is the intention of the "native born citizen" requirement)
>>61229643 >Candidates born outside of US territory have been disqualified, like Alexander Hamilton.
>No Person except a natural born Citizen, ***or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,*** shall be eligible to the Office of President; The citizen at time of adoption clause was specifically put in place so Alexander Hamilton would be eligible. None of the presidents until Martin Van Buren were "natural born" American Citizens in any sense.
>>61229380 Which is dumb, because what if people are on vacation?
They've gotta change the law. The old legal definitions are from a different age when convenient travel wasn't possible
If someone is a citizen of a foreign country, or was raised in a foreign country, there should be a question as to their inborn loyalty to the country. Which geographical location they happened to be born in is besides the point
Yet the founding fathers listed it in the constitution, explained it, and enforced it.
For fucks sake, you're basically acting like a literal originalist who thinks the constitution cannot be applied to anything not explicitly mentioned in it. Which I wouldn't mind to a certain extent, but you can't ignore non legal documents of the founding fathers that explain legal clauses. Lets just forget the Federalist papers even exist but still try to interpret the law!
Similarly in 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor , the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens”, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. The court referred to the case of Wong Kim Ark, and provides a compilation of the arguments pertaining to this topic.
A clarification to this interpretation was made in 2010, where a three-judge panel of the United States court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that natural born citizens can lose their citizenship if their territory of birth later ceases to become U.S. territory. The case involved a Philippine-born litigant who could not claim U.S. citizenship on the basis of his parents, who lived all their lives in the Philippines, because they were born while the Philippines was U.S. territory prior to being given its independence. The Courts for the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits have also held that birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship. It is also important to consult court cases that distinguish "incorporated" U.S. territory (the states and territories that were to become states), as "U.S. soil", from "unincorporated" U.S. territory (Puerto Rico, Guam), or leaseholds (Panama Canal Zone, Guantanamo).
Alexander Hamilton became a citizen at the time the constitution was ratified, but he's the one who explained the purpose of natural born because had this exception not been made, he would not have been qualified to run. He was not born in US territory and thus was not natural born bar the exception made. This exception hardly exempts Cruz. He was born in Canada. He is not natural born.
The exception had to be made or else the US couldn't have a President until 1822 at the earliest.
That would be dumb. If you aren't born in the US, you're less likely to be attached to the country. You'll have friends, family, and a cultural background that isn't American. I definitely think we should expand the citizenship clause to forbid US "citizens" who mostly live abroad. We can't have a head of state with foreign allegiance.
Natural born never meant this. For a period of five years, a law extended natural born status to children born anywhere in the world whose fathers were US citizens. Current laws allow foreign born children of US citizens automatic citizenship but not natural born status.
>In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Just because there's no official constitutional interpretation doesn't mean natural born is undefined. The status clearly referred to people not born in the US, hence the exception for the first American citizens who could not have been born in America at the time our constitution was ratified.
>>61230908 “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.”
Need to see the full, original longform of his mothers Oath of Citizenship to Canada. When she took it, she renounced all other citizenships.
Nobody has yet posted the exact date she took that Oath. If it was before Rafael fell out of her anus, then he's no citizen of the U.S. under any circumstances.
Also, the fact that he claimed duel citizenship all his life disqualifies him. Nobody gets to sit in the Whitehouse (and ahouldn;t be allowed to sit in our Congress if they held any citizenship other than American.
I MIGHT be persuaded to allow some cases (for Congress only) where they have held only a U.S. citizenship for a minimum of 30 years prior to declaring their candidacy.
>Supreme court rule's he's ineligible >Suddenly a huge percentage of republican voters unaffiliated >FBI arrests Hillary Clinton >huge percentage of democrat voters unaffiliated >Rand Paul is shown as the voice of reason among lunatics >Rand Paul wins the election
>George W. Romney was born in Mexico to Mexican parents living in theMormon colonies in Mexico; events during theMexican Revolutionforced his family to flee back to the United States when he was a child.
George Romney was a Mexican and a refugee. America re-elected a nigger instead of electing our first Mexican POTUS.
I don't know if this has been succinctly answered yet, but here's how it works: A natural-born citizien is >A citizen of the USA >Who got that citizenship at the moment of birth, and did not have to go through a naturalization process The circumstances of his birth are irrelevant, outside of whether or not he was given US citizenship at the moment of birth. He was, so he is a natural-born citizen.
>>61235787 Reading through the thread, I can see that there's a common misunderstanding. >People born on US soil are natural-born US citizens (true) >Thus, people who aren't born on US soil are not natural-born US citizens (false) There are different ways to have been born a US citizen, like Cruz was. Here's a Harvard Law Review article on it. http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
>>61236473 >The weight is on the side of he's not a natural born citizen. There actually isn't any argument in the law community as to whether or not he's a natural-born citizen, since the definition of the term has never been contentious. I get that you want to shill for your candidate of choice, but you should really pick your battles.
>We should disqualify candidates based on the alternate definitions of words, tea leaves, and star signs. That's the conservative thing to do. If you don't want to vote for Cruz, you don't have to. Pretending that his candidacy in ineligible is just silly.
>>61236605 No, you fucking marble mouthed budget German. You aren't allowed to just hand-wave the concerns about Cruz's eligibility that are being spoken by several constitutional experts in our country. We even have a sitting Supreme Court Justice -- a conservative icon, I might add -- on record in an official judicial opinion saying that people born outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. are "aliens to our Constitution." We have precedents like Montana v. Kennedy, Rogers v. Bellei, Dred Scott, Wong Kim Ark, Minor v. Hapersett, that weight heavily against the idea that we ever as a nation considered "natural born citizen" to include someone born in a foreign nation to an alien father and a citizen mother. That is a novel idea. It is not our tradition, and it wasn't the common law either, either under Vatel, or Blackstone. Read his commentary on citizenship.
Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen. And frankly, I'm sick of you shills shitting on our Constitution in this way and trying to devalue American citizenship.
>>61236954 >Montana v. Kennedy Was about whether or not a specific child could be granted citizenship. Cruz already was granted citizenship at birth, so this doesn't really apply - the """"question"""" here is whether or not Cruz's citizenship, granted him at birth, qualifies him as a natural-born citizen, not whether or not Cruz is allowed to be a citizen of the US (which hopefully you don't intend to debate). >Rogers v. Bellei >challenges the constitutionality of § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. What does this have to do with Cruz's situation? The supreme court even stated in this case that: >Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), defines those persons who "shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." Paragraph (7) of § 301(a) includes in that definition a person born abroad "of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States" who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Are you just listing random names and sticking "v." in the middle? I'm not even going to bother looking at the rest of those. There is literally zero credible argument from anyone with the slightest of inclination towards law as to why Cruz would be ineligible. You're just being silly.
>>61237404 >Was about whether or not a specific child could be granted citizenship. Cruz already was granted citizenship at birth, so this doesn't really apply the """"question"""" here is whether or not Cruz's citizenship, granted him at birth, qualifies him as a natural-born citizen, not whether or not Cruz is allowed to be a citizen of the US (which hopefully you don't intend to debate).
Absolutely wrong. it applies because the case demonstrates that at common law a child born to an alien father and a citizen mother outside American jurisdiction is not considered a natural born citizen. Otherwise Montana would not have been declared a non-citizen, because common law would have recognized his natural born citizen status. That weighs against Cruz. It demonstrates that he is only a citizen because he was naturalized by an act of Congress. Congress only has power over citizenship via their naturalization power in Article 1. That is the only way Congress can draft citizenship laws, and therefore the only way citizens can be made under such laws is through naturalization. Naturalization is not the same as natural born citizenship we know through a series of opinions I have already cited.
>What does this have to do with Cruz's situation?
You are dwelling on the Court's statutory analysis. Don't bother, it's unnecessary for you to do. Bellei demonstrates merely the application of the jurisprudence established by Montana via the 1952 Act which Cruz was born under. It shows the court sticking with Montana's implication through the law that touches Cruz. Again, this weighs against Cruz.
>Are you just listing random names and sticking "v." in the middle?
Not at all. Educate yourself.
>I'm not even going to bother looking at the rest of those.
Then we're done here. You are not qualified to be in this conversation.
Try again when you're informed yourself enough to be qualified.
>>61237766 >Absolutely wrong. it applies because the case demonstrates that at common law a child born to an alien father and a citizen mother outside American jurisdiction is not considered a natural born citizen. Actually, it was about whether or not that kid would be granted US citizenship at all. He wasn't, Cruz was. If the kid had been granted US citizenship in this case, he would also have been retroactively treated as 'natural-born', but he wasn't 'natural-born' because he wasn't a US citizen. Since you haven't read the things you're listing, I won't either. If you won't put in the effort to produce a credible argument, I'm not going to squander my time. Here's something you can read about yourself: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
>>61237944 >Actually, it was about whether or not that kid would be granted US citizenship at all.
Now you're just obfuscating. That is beside the point. The point is that absent the statutory authority to naturalize Montana, the Court was forced to conclude that Montana was not a citizen of any kind. This is meaningful because it shows that without Congress, a child born in Cruz's circumstances will not be considered a citizen, of any sort, natural born or otherwise. But since Congress can only naturalize people, and cannot bestow natural born citizen status (we know this from the other cases I cited) that means Cruz is a naturalized citizen, and not a natural born citizen. Calm down, take a breath, consider my points, and you'll see I'm right.
>He wasn't, Cruz was.
Yes, via a naturalization law. Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen. Read the article I posted above.
>If the kid had been granted US citizenship in this case, he would also have been retroactively treated as 'natural-born'
Not at all. He would have been considered a naturalized citizen, like Cruz.
>Since you haven't read the things you're listing,
Don't play that game, pussy. You don't know what you're talking about and it shows. We can do this if you want, but you will lose.
>If you won't put in the effort to produce a credible argument, I'm not going to squander my time.
See ya later pal. Don't let me catch you making shit arguments about our Constitution again.
>>61238190 >a child born in Cruz's circumstances will not be considered a citizen Which is clearly not the case, considering that he was granted US citizenship at the point of birth, did not undergo a naturalization process, and is thus a natural-born citizen. >B-but he was naturalized at the point of birth! So is literally everyone else who is a 'natural-born' citizen if you care to split hairs that way, hence the term. >Was Cruz granted US citizenship at the point of birth, without undergoing a naturalization process? >Yes, thus he is a natural-born citizen.
No, it clearly is the case, and both Montana and Bellei demonstrate. Without statutory authority, children born in foreign countries to citizen mothers and alien fathers are not considered citizens, natural born or otherwise. Therefore, Congress has to correct what nature did not do and naturalize (get it yet, dummy?) that child at birth. Ted Cruz is only a citizen because he was naturalized by a law that Congress passed. He was never conferred natural born citizenship status because Congress simply does not have the power to confer such a status. They ONLY have the power of naturalization. Read Article I, Sec. 8 of our Constitution and stop making a damn fool of yourself.
>considering that he was granted US citizenship at the point of birth, did not undergo a naturalization process
What is this "naturalization process" bullshit? Where the fuck did you pick that nonsense up? The process is whatever Congress decides it is. Whether it's birth, or a residency requirement (which Cruz had to fulfill to keep his citizenship, btw) or any other process, it's decided by Congress. It can be small and unnoticeable, or heavy and burdensome. Or non-existent. There's no requirement to have any process at all to naturalize, the Constitution neither states or implies one.
>So is literally everyone else who is a 'natural-born' citizen if you care to split hairs that way, hence the term.
Not at all. If you read the other cases I cited, they demonstrate that it was understood that at common law children born in country to citizen parents were considered natural born citizens without any need for statutory distribution of that status. That's what common law IS.
Hey, no skin off my back if you want to get schooled some more.
>>61238676 >Therefore, Congress has to correct what nature did not do and naturalize (get it yet, dummy?) that child at birth.
>And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States. shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
>What is this "naturalization process" bullshit? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=naturalization
>>61239086 First of all, if you finally stopped being a complete retard and read the article I cited, you'd know why the 1790 law doesn't help you:
>Third, Katyal and Clement put much weight on the first U.S. naturalization statute, enacted in 1790. Because it contains the phrase “natural born,” they infer that such citizens must include children born abroad to American parents. The first Congress, however, had no such intent. The debates on the matter reveal that the congressmen were aware that such children were not citizens and had to be naturalized; hence, Congress enacted a statute to provide for them. Moreover, that statute did not say the children were natural born, only that they should “be considered as” such. Finally, as soon as Madison, then a member of Congress, was assigned to redraft the statute in 1795, he deleted the phrase “natural born,” and it has never reappeared in a naturalization statute.
Secondly, google is not in our Constitution, sorry. Read Art I., Sec. 8. The naturalization power delegated to Congress does not, expressly or implicitly, require any sort of "process" to be attached to naturalization. That's a fact. And you're venturing into crazy person land by denying it.
>>61239192 >The naturalization power delegated to Congress does not, expressly or implicitly, require any sort of "process" to be attached to naturalization That's just nitpicking. I don't really see what point you're trying to make here.
In any case, I still don't see you making any credible argument against Cruz being a natural-born citizen. Would you care to make one, or are we done?
>>61239308 It's not nitpicking. You brought up a "naturalization process" as if it's in any way whatsoever related to Congress' naturalization power or how natural born citizenship gets conferred. It unequivocally does not.
If you're done making points, so am I. I don't care about convincing you. You're not even an American. I'll let anons decide which side is more persuasive. But I won't let you make shit arguments unanswered.
>>61239423 >But I won't let you make shit arguments unanswered You haven't answered, though, outside of just spamming the thread with irrelevant links and names. If you were just trying to argue for a bit online, congratulations, you've epic trolled me into squandering a portion of this last half-hour. That's about all it's amounted to.
>>61239583 >Cruz is a natural-born citizen because he was granted citizenship at birth without being naturalized You haven't discredited this at all, regardless of what you think posting a million unrelated cases achieved. I went through them, and there's really no precedent set within them which invalidates the above point. If you're done wasting time, I have other things I could be doing.
>>61239693 Nope. Still wrong. I've destroyed that position entirely. I cited the cases and then explained them and how they are relevant. One need only read the thread. Montana, Bellei destroy the idea that Cruz is a natural born citizen. Happersett, Wong Kim Ark, demonstrate the distinction between NBC and naturalization. Dred Scott outright says if you ain't born here you ain't any NBC. That's the case law on the matter. To support your claim that Cruz is an NBC... there's nothing. Except an article that has been debunked by a subsequent, better researched article.
Now go play in your windmill or make some wooden shoes or whatever the fuck it is you have to do, faggot.
>>61230648 He was born in the territory that later became the US. I'd imagine that if the title 'natural-born' were not given to residents of British America, then there would have been a serious issue of there being no eligible presidents.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.