Going Birther on Ted Cruz: I didn’t want to do it

I like Cruz and won't vote for him, but that makes no difference in the statutes or his eligibility. It is what it is. The statutes be damned as they are irrelevant as no statute can make you an NBC. Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one’s birth. Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. He is not an NBC period.

 

Just read it..............

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
Provided

 

I agree with (g). Reread the phrase beginning with "at least---" . If Obama was born in Kenya, his mother did not qualify.

 

Of course she qualified.. You don't understand what you're reading.. She was born in the US and lived in the US her whole life... You think that her citizenship rights were not activated because she was 17 years old.

You could make that claim IF she had lived overseas most of her life..

 

The difference of opinion relates to how long she lived in the US after the age of 14. Different people have different opinions.

 

You don't understand what you are reading. She always lived in the US... If she had left the US to give birth, her citizenship was not compromised.

You think that her US citizenship wasn't activated until she spent time in the US after age 14.. You're wrong.. Her US citizenship was activated at her birth.

 

This is all bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and everyone knows it. All of the birther business was just a smokescreen for pubs saying that Obama couldn't be possibly be President because he was BLACK. Didn't matter if he was elected or not, it just wasn't possible for a black man to be President in THEIR Amerika.

Why do you think they all made such a fuss about him being "Kenyan"? when I don't think he'd ever been within a thousand miles of Kenya in his life, and why did they say he was Muslim, at the same time they were criticizing him for going to a Christian Church they disapproved of?

Republicans would be funny but the guns make them dangerous

 

So what I'm getting from this is that although you like him, you won't vote for him because God's law says that he is not "natural born" ? But, God wants him to run and to be president! Cruz said so! How do you deal with that?

 

Ted Cruz was granted US citizenship based upon the naturalization laws of Congress and is therefore a naturalized US citizen.

If, for example, all of Title 8 was repealed by Congress there would only be natural born US citizens and no naturalized citizens and Ted Cruz would not be a US citizen. Ted Cruz is only a US citizen based upon our statutory naturalization laws and is therefore a naturalized US citizen.

It baffles me that so many people don't understand the simple fact that if a person secures their citizenship based upon statutory naturalization laws that they are a naturalized citizen.

If Title 8, which contains all of our statutory laws of naturalization, didn't exist then Ted Cruz would not be a US Citizen because he wasnt' born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Natural born citizenship is a "natural right of the person" established by Jus Soli (the right of soil) and not based upon Jus Sanguinis (the right of blood) because a "natural right" cannot be dependent upon another person (e.g. the parent).

 

Many views of expert disagree. You have read them. Ultimately, it will be decided by the SCOTUS. Until then, one interpretation is no better than the other I suppose.

 

The language is "citizen at birth"...............

 

You liberals are a real hoot, I will give you that!

 

No I wont vote for because the constitution not god requires a natural born citizen. I never said he was not naturally born just that he was not born a natural born citizen of the US.

- - - Updated - - -

No its NBC. Citizen at birth once more was rejected by the founders.

 

It says Citizen at Birth...............

 

NBC= citizen at birth.

 

The central question is "What is a natural born citizen?" It is not defined by the constitution, by any statute or administrative code, nor has any court ever ruled on it. So how can you so assuredly say that he is not a NBC? Personally, I don't think that he's fit to run for dog catcher, but I'm not so sure that there is a case to be made against him on these grounds.

 

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
Provided

 

Sorry, not seeing the words "Natural Born" or anything specifically related to the presidency. Maybe more coffee will help.

 

The Evolution of US citizenship law.

“CITIZENSHIP OF CHILDREN BORN ABROAD”: The Act also establishes the United
States citizenship of children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization:
"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".
1795 THE “CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1795”: On 29 January, Congress

continued

https://americansabroad.org/files/3013/3478/0295/18-04-2012_1318_971.pdf

 

Well, this is interesting. I stand partially corrected. Natural born was, at one time defined. But that was in 1795. I do believe that law was superseded by Tittle 8 enacted in 1907. I find it hard to believe that at this point in time, anyone would still believe that ones citizenship status would turn on the status of the father over the mother. That is rather antiquated thinking. As I have said, I do not want Cruz to be president but I'm having trouble making a case or being convinced that he is not eligible. If you are right, he should already be gone.

As we have agreed upon....this article goes on to say

 

Americansabroad site linked above discusses the evolution of citizenship law.. I only quoted a short blurb.

I don't like Cruz either, but I do think he's eligible.

 

Yes, the "experts" disagree but the fundamental disagreement is on whether the Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, establishes "natural born citizenship" or whether the statutory laws passed by Congress can establish "natural born citizenship" but even Title 8, in addressing different forms of citizenship (which includes the 14th Amendment defintion) doesn't enumerate that the child of a US citizen born outside of the United States is a "natural born citizen" of the United States. We also know that a child of a US citizen born outside of the United States isn't even a US citizen unless that citizenship is applied for. A case in point would be Leeland Davidson that was born in Canada, like Ted Cruz, served in the US Navy during WW II, lived in the United States all of his life, but in his 90's found out that he wasn't a US citizen at all. That was quickly rectified once he applied for citizenship but he wasn't a US citizen until that application for citizenship was submitted under the provisions of Title 8.

Of course we don't know if the Supreme Court will ever render a decision upon this because we don't know who would have "standing" to bring a lawsuit in the first place. Congress can't bring it nor can any individual person and I doubt that even the President has standing in this case. Without establishing standing the Courts won't hear the case. Perhaps a "state" has standing but the "state" can arguably just exclude a candidate from being on the ballot and who has standing to challenge that? Perhaps the candidate but because it's a "state" issue and not a "federal" issue it has no bearing on the nation as a whole. The state's argument is quite simple because the person's birth certificate establishes that they weren't born in the United States and I can't see them losing the case based upon this critieria.

The closest we've come to a Supreme Court decision is the case of the US v Wong Kim Ark but that didn't specifically address who wasn't a US citizen but instead established that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen of the United States because he was born in California and California was a state. So the Supreme Court confirmed natural born citizenship based upon the 14th Amendment but did not address anyone that didn't meet the 14th Amendment criteria of "born in the United States... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". We know that anyone "born in the United States... and Subject to the jurisdiction of thereof" is a natural born US citizen and that citizenship cannot be revoked by any statutory law.

Even if someone has "standing" the decision of the Supreme Court is based upon the arguments presented by the plaintiff and is situation specific in many cases. For example the "right to same-sex marriage" was denied in the Minnesota Supreme Court case of Baker v Nelson because the plaintiffs failed to provide an argument of financial loss because they were denied marriage. Later, in Hollingsworth the US Supreme Court overturned federal law that didn't recognize same-sex marriage because an actual financial loss based upon the inheritance tax was demonstrated by the plaintiff.

I don't believe anyone has standing to challenge Ted Cruz on his citizenship and even if they did then they have to put forward a significant argument based upon the Supremacy of the Constitution and the fact that Congress is limited by the Constitution to addressing laws of naturalization and that all citizenship acquired based upon the provisions in Title 8 are naturalization provisions. It's not a difficult decision to make but it hinges upon whether the Supreme Court rules based upon the Constitution or based upon statutory law.

The arguments for Ted Cruz being a natural born citizen are all based upon statutory law (Title and not on the US Constitution. Generally speaking the Supreme Court always supports the supremacy of the US Constitution over statutory law and, in that case, it would rule that Ted Cruz is not a natural born US citizen (IMHO).

 

As it stands, Cruz is eligible.

If Obama had been properly vetted, he would not be president, and a court should uphold objections.

 

There is no distinction between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen, neither had to be naturalized to gain citizenship. Congress determines citizenship through statute. Stop beating a dead horse.

 

I not beating anything. I am reluctantly agreeing that he is probably eligible to be president.