6 Things Ted Cruz Wants You to Forget

Ted_Cruz_by_Gage_Skidmore_4

For the last few days, cable news has been all Ted Cruz all the time.  His 23-hour rant about Obamacare on the floor of the Senate? He wants you to think it was a filibuster to sound all grand and champion-like, but under the rules of the Senate, it wasn’t. He was not up against any extreme restrictions like his fellow Texan Wendy Davis was during her actual filibuster and his speech did nothing to prevent a vote on a bill, as Davis’ efforts did.

His effort really served only two purposes: (1) his own self-aggrandizement; and (2) to have his tea party fans focus on his Green Eggs and Ham moment in order to keep attention off some other things about him:

 1. He wants you to forget he was born in Canada. Yes, Cruz is an American citizen because his mother is and was at time of his birth. But he wants his fans to think he is a “natural born” citizen, just in case he ever decides to run for president. But conservatives can’t have it both ways — they can’t keep stirring the pot of whether Barack Obama was born in the U.S. (which he was) and keep insisting that to be eligible to run for President a candidate must be born on U.S. soil.  Being born in Canada, makes Cruz  a Canadian citizen, as well, though Cruz claims he’s “renounced” that. Officialy, though, he apparently he is still a Canadian unless he’s completed the official paperwork.

2. Odds are his health insurance is a “Cadillac plan” from Goldman Sachs. While the junior Senator from Texas is trying to prevent more Americans from getting any sort of health plan at all, some have wondered — how can U.S. Senators be against a government-backed health insurance plan when they benefit from one themselves?  Good question in the hypocrisy department, but Cruz may have even better coverage than his Senate colleagues. Cruz’s wife is the head of a regional Goldman Sachs office (yes, THAT Goldman Sachs), and according to a 2009 New York Times report, top executive officers and managing directors there “are eligible to participate in a health care program that costs Goldman more than $40,000 in premiums for each particpant’s family annually.” Apparently Cruz hasn’t answered questions about which insurance plan his family uses, but if you had a choice between premiere coverage or something that covered less, and neither was going to cost you anything, which would you choose?

3. His aunt was a counter-revolutionary against Fidel Castro. While Cruz’s father fought alongside Castro before fleeing Cuba, the elder Cruz’s sister fought against the Communist regime. How many people can say they’re related to revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries?  His aunt’s role will probably play with the very politically influential Florida Cuban voting bloc if he really has presidential aspirations. His dad’s pro-Castro past? Not so much.

4. Cruz clerked for two extreme judicial conservatives. If you have any question about just how conservative Cruz is, look no further than two far-right jurists he clerked for, the late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and J. Michael Luttig, formerly a judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, well known as an extremely conservative bench (though that has been changing in recent years).

5. He doesn’t like fact-checkers. Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts! As least that’s what Cruz seems to think when it comes to his statements. Reporters have been fact-checking assertions Cruz made in his Obamacare super-speech, and he is outraged! Cruz claims that fact-checking is “a particularly pernicious bit of yellow journalism that has cropped up that lets journalists be editorial writers and pretend they are talking about objective facts.”  So I guess he believes in the Chuck Todd method of reporting?

6. His real name is Rafael. That’s shouldn’t be a biggy. Many people who are named after their fathers go by a nickname. But as someone who seems to have an eye on the White House, surely Cruz knows what happens to candidates who have names that seem a little out of the ordinary to the tea party crowd?

Click here for the updated version of Six Things About Ted Cruz.

Image via Wikimedia Commons/Gage Skidmore/CC License

  • Beverly Uhlmer

    The fact that Cruz was born in Canada could be an issue if he runs for president. However, he never tried to hide the fact, did not create an obviously fake birth certificate to prove otherwise, and is not currently running for anything.
    Do you have any proof that he has a “Cadillac” health care plan or is this just a ploy to discredit him. So let’s stick to facts, just as you desire for him to do.
    As for his name being Rafael–if he wants to hide his Hispanic identity, he would have changed his last name as well. Since his father is named Rafael, going by the name of Ted is probably just a way to prevent confusion, a common situation with a parent and child with the same first name. Definitely, no biggie!

    • Vincent Pittman

      Typical republicans! No comparisons! Obama was born in Hawaii regardless of what all the ifiots out there say and cruz was born in Canada! FACT not FICTION!

      • SandyT

        Neither Cruz nor Obama are really eligible for the office of president. Obama’s birth in Hawaii and American citizen mother make Barry a citizen, but not a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen. Cruz’s Canadian birth to an American mother gives him citizenship, but his Cuban immigrant father who didn’t become a citizen until 2005 means Ted is NOT a natural-born citizen. Ted has two strikes against his being a natural-born citizen, Obama has one strike against his being a natural-born citizen. Born in the U.S. + two citizen parents = natural born citizen. The only exception to that is for military members in the service of our country who have a child in a foreign country, as long as both parents are citizens. Rubio and Jindal are likewise not eligible, because, although both were born in the U.S., their respective parents were only green card holders, not citizens when their sons were born. Oh, yeah, I am a life-long conservative Republican who believes in following the Constitution.

        • AKRNC

          I’m sure you’ll be happy to show us the legal standard that states a natural born citizen equals two citizen parents and born on U.S. soil. Right? Birthers have been claiming for six years that they all “remembered” being taught this in school yet not on can come up with a textbook that states the same. I clearly remember being taught that born on U.S. soil equals a natural born citizen, that’s all. Nothing else needed and that was true whether parents were aliens or citizens unless they were a diplomat or member of an invading army. Several courts have also agreed with this during the 200+ court cases birthers have filed and lost.

          • SandyT

            AKRNC, you really should read this…all of it. It might help you understand that a natural born citizen MUST have two citizen parents. Just being born on U.S. soil without regard to the citizenship of the parents is NOT what the founders had in mind for the presidency. Please, I implore you, read it! You were taught wrong. The presidency and vice presidency are two very special offices and are the only two that require one to be born with all three things in place; born on U.S. soil, citizen father and citizen mother.
            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpuzo1.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F04%2Ffounder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html&ei=Z8MhVevQEI_3oATBnYD4DA&usg=AFQjCNF79cuS1o0WiwNVlYO-bvtCI6ZLqw&sig2=P5V5TPqb-kuycuYYLxjGpg&bvm=bv.89947451,d.aWw

          • SandyT

            These gentlemen think Ted Cruz is eligible? Really? He was born outside of the US. His father was not a US citizen. Their entire argument relies on the fact that, having a US citizen mother qualified him to become a citizen at birth by Congressional statute.

            There’s a problem with this line of reasoning . . . the United States Supreme Court doesn’t seem to see things the same way these two learned gentlemen do. The United States Supreme Court is generally considered the final arbiter of what’s Constitutional in our system of government.

            In the 1971 Roberts v. Bellei case, the entire Court, both those holding to the majority opinion as well as those dissenting believed Aldo Bellei to be a naturalized citizen. The only dispute
            amongst the members of the Court was whether or not his citizenship enjoyed 14th Amendment
            protections, but they ALL agreed that the mechanism by which he acquired his citizenship was “wholly statutory” and thus that he was a naturalized citizen. [See:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/…]

            Aldo Bellei was born outside of US territory as was Ted Cruz. Also, like Ted Cruz, Aldo Bellei’s father was not a US citizen. Aldo Bellei’s mother, like Ted Cruz’s mother “was” a US citizen and
            therefore furnished the basis for the application of US statutory law [currently 8 USC sec. 1401] to acquire his citizenship. Ted Cruz’s citizenship therefore was acquired in exactly the same manner as Aldo Bellei’s and, like Aldo Bellei, he MUST be a naturalized citizen based on guidelines established by the United States Supreme Court.

            So who do we choose to believe? Do we look at what the generally accepted final arbiter of what’s Constitutional, the United States Supreme Court, says about statutory citizenship, or do we choose to believe in the “opinion” of a couple of guys writing a piece in the Harvard Law Review? It would seem to me that the Court’s opinion should be considered more authoritative.

            H/T to “teddlybar”. He has done lots of research on NBC, also. Read the court decision that he describes.

  • Ken

    @Bev – I’m not sure whether you are attempting to refer to “President” (yay) Obama with your ‘obviously fake birth certificate’… If so, I feel really sorry for you.

  • Cheryl

    Um no. We still don’t know if he is a birth-right American citizen because we don’t know if his mother was married to his father at the time of his birth. Remember in 1970 an unmarried American woman giving birth to a child on foreign soil could NOT confer citizenship on the child. Soooo we need to understand when Rafael Cruz Sr. divorced his wife, when Eleanor Darragh Wilson divorced her husband and when they married each other. To date no one has located either sets of divorce papers or a marriage certificate. Come to think of it Eleanor may have still been married to Mr. Wilson. OMG! Is Ted Cruz claiming birth-right citizenship through his mother’s first husband?! Now that would be a story.

    • SandyT

      You are referring to naturalization statutes, Cheryl. That is different from what the Constitution says and Congress doesn’t have the power to change what the qualifications for president are. They only have the power to regulate naturalization. “Natural born” means “of nature”, which no man can change. A baby born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents doesn’t have to do anything or depend on any rule, any law, whatever, to be a natural born citizen. Ted is a naturalized by congressional statute citizen, not natural born citizen. Rubio and Jindal are not natural born citizens, either, because NONE of their respective parents were citizens at the time their sons were born. Marco was 4 years old when his Cuban immigrant parents became citizens. Jindal’s parents arrived in Baton Rouge from India, to attend LSU only 4 months before Bobby was born. He is my governor and I have voted for him every time he has run for office. He is a great guy, but he is not Constitutionally eligible for the presidency and I won’t vote for him for potus. They are all CITIZENS, but none of them are natural born citizens, born on U.S. soil (jus soli) to parents who were citizens (jus sanguinis). It takes BOTH, to be NBC and eligible for the presidency.
      Everything you said should make others stop and think…just like Obama, there are so many unanswered questions about Cruz. He is a 1st term Senator, like Obama was when he decided to run the first time. There are missing bits of information about his birth and whether his parents were married to each other or maybe still legally married to their first spouses. Is Cruz’s mother still alive and if so, why hasn’t she appeared with him at any rally? Is he going to hide his records like Obama did, to make himself appear eligible? When did his father become a Canadian citizen and why did he wait so long to become an American citizen. They moved back to the U.S. when Ted was 4, but Cruz, Sr. didn’t become a citizen until Ted was in his 30’s. Ted talks a good conservative game, but Obama talked a good game for his base when he was running, too, and consider how well that has worked out!!!

    • Dave B.

      Oh for crying out loud. In 1970 or TODAY, “an unmarried American woman giving birth to a child on foreign soil” would give birth to an American citizen as long as she has satisfied the requirement of 8 US Code Sec. 1409(c), that sometime prior to the birth she had been physically present in the US or its outlying possessions for a period of one continuous year.

  • Brooke

    ” We still don’t know if he is a birth-right American citizen because we don’t know if his mother was married to his father at the time of his birth.” – I just researched this, based on a Free Republic thread I found. If the American citizen was the father, there would be a question, but because the American citizen is the mother, if Ted Cruz had born illegitimately, he would have gained his U.S. citizenship all the same. Look it up:

    “Retention Requirements for Illegitimate Children

    The retention requirements applicable to legitimate children are inapplicable where U.S. citizenship is transmitted by a U.S. citizen mother to an illegitimate child. Such a child obtains unconditional U.S. citizenship and is not required to establish residence in the U.S. or to take any other action to retain such citizenship. However, where the U.S. citizen parent is the father, statutes before 1986 place an illegitimate child in the same position as a legitimate child once legitimation has occurred. Such a child is therefore required to establish residence in the United States in the same manner as a legitimate child.” – http://www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html

    See also: http://harvardjlg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Antognini.pdf

    • SandyT

      There is a big difference between being a citizen and being a natural born citizen. The Founders specified that a Senator or Representative had to be a citizen and meet age and residency requirements, but to be President, one had to be a natural born citizen and meet age and residency requirements. If “citizen” and “natural born citizen” mean the same thing, why then did the Founders use the two different terms in the requirements? They did it because they wanted more strict requirements for the person who would be president and commander-in-chief of the military…precisely to prevent as much as possible, a “Barack Hussein Obama”, a usurper with divided loyalties, more in tune with his Kenyan father and Indonesian step-father and their muslim backgrounds. He has no loyalty to America.
      As far as Ted Cruz’s citizenship…he is a citizen because his mother was, but only if she filed the CRBA and that would only confer citizenship on him, not natural born citizenship. One must be born on U.S. soil or in its jurisdiction to two citizen parents, to be a natural born citizen. One cannot be made a natural born citizen by any statute, law, rule, act, etc. Cruz is at best, a “naturalized-by-Congressional-statute” citizen, not NBC. NOT eligible!

      • The Man

        Obama is so muslim, muslims have a hit put out on him.

        • SandyT

          The radical muslims just “eliminated” a bunch of Sunni muslims, just because the Sunni’s weren’t as radical as they are. Even if Islam takes over the entire world, there will never be peace, because they will only kill each other when there is no one else to kill. That’s the “religion of peace” for you.

  • Russ Ramey

    The Left’s double standard at work as usual. Rafael Theodore Cruz was born within the guidelines of a natural born American citizen and it is beyond doubt.
    No games, no lawsuits, no confusion. Obama has been a fake from the beginning. A cypher, an empty suit, an empty chair…

    • Michael Hedrick

      Get a dictionary for God’s sake! Double standard – a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups. You’re the one with the double standard! LOL! You just stated Cruz was “born within the guidelines of a natural born American citizen and it is beyond doubt”. How is Obama any different other than he was born directly on American soil? Another low IQ, low information voter!

      • SandyT

        Neither one, Obama or Cruz, are natural-born citizens, so neither one is eligible for the presidency. It’s not where they were born that is the obstacle, it’s that neither of their fathers was a citizen at the time of their sons births.

        • Dan Kistner

          You ARE wrong! NO WHERE does it state that the FATHER has to be a US Citizen! Nice dumb-ass republiCAN’T Anti-American CONS=CONServative GreedyOilPrick=GOP try! Rapael’s daddy came to The United States Of America with FORGED UNLEGAL papers! Mommy DENOUNCED her US CITIZENSHIP when she became a Canadian! NICE TRY! John McCain was born to TWO US Citizens on FOREIGN SOIL, and was NOT a NATURALIZED US Citizen! Senators Barack Obama, and Hilary Clinton, AMONG others, passed

          S. RES. 511
          IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
          April 10, 2008
          Mrs. McCaskill (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Obama, Mr. Coburn,
          Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Webb) submitted the following resolution;
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
          RESOLUTION
          Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
          Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible
          for the Office of the President, a person must be a “natural born Citizen”
          of the United States;

          Whereas the term “natural born Citizen”, as that term appears in Article II,

          • Dan Kistner

            Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

            Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress
            to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the
            military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

            Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of
            the “natural born Citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States, as
            evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term “natural born
            Citizen”;

            Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and
            enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside
            of our national borders;

            Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States
            of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

            Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American
            military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

            That John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II,
            Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

          • SandyT

            The only previous presidents who were “born out of the United States” were 8 of the first 9 presidents who were “grandfathered in”, “…or a citizen of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” and they were born in what had been British colonies that became part of the U.S. After those presidents, ALL of the rest have been born IN the U.S.

            What you have quoted is simply a Senate Resolution, not a Supreme Court decision. It was proposed by Democrats, including Barack Obama and Senator Claire McCaskill, to take the focus off of Obama’s obvious lack of eligibility. Obama was never eligible, no matter where he was born, even if he had been born IN the White House, since his father was not a citizen.

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud

          • SandyT

            Gee, but you have a nasty mouth!

    • Silenzdugood

      Russ,

      You are a fat white racist internet troll. Your ‘disqus’ history proves this.
      I quote you…. and I drink your milkshake.

      “If you all were working and not robbing stores you just might not get shot…think about that before you say something really stupid…how many blacks get shot on the job?”. Russ Ramey

      “Not to the Eugenics Planned Parenthood crowd…genocide writ large. They are too ignorant to defend themselves from planned genocide.”Russ Ramey

      “…working at wal-mart part time…why should i hire them,? They have no critical thinking skills. They are ignorant savages…useful idiots for the left.”Russ Ramey

      “Let the sheet heads try this here in the general population and we will kill them all…”Russ Ramey

      I can’t wait to hear a racial, ignorant, god-spouting, convoluted reply to my observation.

    • Dan Kistner

      WHO is Rafael Theodore Cruz?
      DID you MEAN Rafael Edward Cruz?
      The dickhead that has an ILLEGAL ALIEN CASTRO CUBAN father, and a Canadian Mother, who renounced HER United States Citizenship, while in Canada?
      No games, No lawsuits, No confusion, NO SHIT!
      Just bring mommy forward, to EXPLAIN W H Y she renounced her American Citizenship!
      Done deal! End of story!
      Can’t FIND HER?
      WHY NOT?
      WHY is it HARD (impossible) for YOU to speak the truth? Family trait? Political Party Platform Policy?
      YOU don’t even know WHO you are talking about!
      Rafael Theodore Cruz DOES NOT EQUAL Rafael Edward Cruz! NOT the same person!
      Nice L-I-E! Nice Try!
      They rhyme!
      Big deal!
      WHY are you so JEALOUS of President Barack Obama?
      And YOUR empty chair, empty suit, empty head, stupidity, is that a republiCAN’T trait?
      Must be, ya ALL are.
      NOW, explain HOW ya ALL are PRO-MILITARY, when ya A-L-L are ANTI-Veteran?
      OR don’t ya know, RETIRED Military persons, ARE Veterans?
      Ya might, if ya WENT to school, and LEARNED something , other than HOW to turn on the
      “what does the fox say?” channel.
      The NON-News republiCAN’T political Ad outfit owned by FOREIGNER – Australian Rupert Murdoch is #1 & the #2 owner is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi.
      The Arabian who said ‘a strong American government is not good for us
      ‘Does Prince Alwaleed bin Talal support ISIS? ( I am NOT sure, sounds like he does)
      IF he does, SO DO YOU! And ALL of your CONS=CONServative tea-baggers!
      NOW who is the one doing the DOUBLE TALKING?
      Sure sounds like YOU are!

    • SandyT

      Ted was born within the guidelines of a naturalization code, Russ, meaning that he is a naturalized by congressional statute citizen, not a natural born citizen. He IS NOT eligible. I am a lifelong conservative Republican and I supported Cruz for the Senate, because one only has to be a “citizen” to qualify for the Senate, as long as they meet age and residency requirements, but he does NOT qualify for the presidency and I will not vote for anyone, no matter which side, who isn’t Constitutionally qualified! Obama was never eligible, even if he had been born on the steps of the WH, because his father was NOT a citizen, either, like Cruz’s father. There are stricter standards for the presidency and vice presidency than for any other offices in our government!

  • radicalhw

    Crunching away…

  • Joanne Bamberger

    There is no definition of “natural born citizen.” Lots of people assume there is, but the phrase is used in the Constitution w/o definition and the Supreme Court has never weighed in. Traditionally it has been thought to mean being born in the US — nothing about whether one or two parents are citizens. That was a problem for John McCain when he ran because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Dems decided not to contest it and a congressional declaration was passed, for him alone, stating that he was a natural born citizen. For “birthers” who opposed President Obama on the grounds that he was born in Kenya (which he wasn’t) rather than on US soil, they will have a hard time arguing that Canadian born Cruz is a natural born citizen. I suspect Dems in 2016 won’t be in a rush to give Cruz a pass the way they did with McCain.

    • SandyT

      Obama never was eligible for the presidency, because he’s not a natural born citizen. However, neither is Ted Cruz. We still have no definitive proof of where Obama was born, but even if he were born on the steps of the White House, he still would not be eligible because his father wasn’t a citizen. Cruz was admittedly born in Canada, so that let’s him out, too, plus the fact that only his mother was a citizen. His Cuban immigrant father didn’t become an American citizen until 2005, 30+ years after Ted’s birth, so he has two strikes against him. Neither one can legally be president. Just because high powered people have covered for Obama doesn’t make it right for the Republicans to nominate another ineligible candidate. At least McCain was the product of two citizen parents whose father was in service to our country. The Dems won’t contest Cruz’s citizenship…they would be giving away Obama’s own lack of natural born status. I’m a Republican, but I won’t vote for an ineligible candidate, even on our side. Rubio and Jindal are not natural born citizens, either. They were both born in the U.S. but their parents were not citizens at the time their sons were born.
      There IS a definition of natural born citizen, Joanne. “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” Vattel’s Law of Nations
      There are indeed, several Supreme Court decisions that validate Vattel’s definition of NBC.

      • richdoll

        Obama is an American citizen born in the 50th state of Hawaii to a white American woman named ann dunham who has roots in kanas going all the way back to the mayflower. yes his father was an African keyan but Obama was born on American soil . yes the democrats can contest ted cruz his mother went to canda to give birth gave his father Raphael a green card.

        • SandyT

          Ignorance, pure ignorance! It takes being born in the U.S. to TWO citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. Cruz is a naturalized-by-Congressional-statute citizen, not a natural born citizen. His father did have a green card when he lived in the U.S. before moving to Canada, but he, himself, said that he became a Canadian citizen at some time during the 8 years he and Ted’s mother lived and worked there. They moved back to the U.S. when Ted was four years old. Ted was born with dual citizenship, which also means he is not eligible, because the Founders of our nation wanted the president to have sole allegiance to the U.S. without ANY ties or loyalty to another country. I will concede that Obama was born in Hawaii but that still doesn’t make him a natural born citizen, because his father was NOT a citizen. Perhaps, you should go back to school and learn what a natural born citizen really is. Having just one citizen parent doesn’t cut it! Neither one of them is eligible!

          • Pam Parizo

            Your statements do not have legal proof. Ted Cruz was an American at birth. Your statements about both parents are not accepted law, and the law has affirmed that a person born outside the US is eligible to run. There are only two types of citizens.

          • SandyT

            Well, if he was an American at birth, so was he a Cuban at birth and a Canadian at birth, Pam. NO dual citizenship for the presidency! He is not eligible!

          • Pam Parizo

            Can you show me where it says that in the law?

          • SandyT

            Not all Born Citizens are considered for President because of the following observations that could allow the admission of Foreigners into the Administration holding the post of Commander in Chief.

            All born citizens owe allegiance to the United States.

            Not all born citizens under jus soli have complete and sole allegiance to the United States from birth, and some may be considered foreigners.

            Some born citizens, especially those born to alien parents inherit citizenship via jus sanguinis from their parents’ native countries.

            i. It is possible for a born citizen US citizen to be born with citizenship in three distinct countries. These citizenships can come from the country of birth via jus soli, and the country of the father and the country of the mother via jus sanguinis.

            Not all born citizens under jus sanguinis have complete and sole allegiance to the United States from birth, and some may be considered foreigners.

            Some born citizens overseas receive citizenship in the country of birth via jus soli.

            Some born citizens overseas receive citizenship from a non-US citizen parent via jus sanguinis.

            All born citizens under both jus soli and jus sanguinis from both US citizen parents have complete and sole allegiance to the United States from birth, their allegiance cannot be claimed by another country.

            No other country can grant citizenship via jus soli.

            No other country can grant citizenship via jus sanguinis.

            i. Naturalized citizen parents have renounced their former citizenships to become naturalized American citizens and can no longer pass on jus sanguinis citizenship of their former country as an automatic birthright.

            We can now say with certainty that the term “a natural born citizen” is a person who is born owing to only one country his or her complete and undivided national allegiance. It is only to this individual that the Constitution of the United States of America entrusts the office of President and the responsibilities of Commander in Chief to, there is no other. A natural born citizen is a refining subset of that group of citizens called born citizens.

          • Pam Parizo

            Are these your observations? What is the source? Are these a recognized part of our law?

          • SandyT

            Pam, they are not MY observations, they are in the writings of the Founders, themselves. You may read them for yourself, if you take just a little time and effort. There are those who don’t want to believe it for reasons of their own, either covering for Obama, or because they are heavily invested in a particular candidate and they are afraid if they look too hard, they will find out that they have been duped. The source is the Founders and their contemporaries. See for yourself. If the Founders’ own words aren’t good enough for you, no others will be, either. Oh, and Arizona Patriot was right in most cases, except when he/she cited that the Founders used the translated edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations. They actually used the original version in French, which language they were quite conversant in, since at the time, French was the recognized diplomatic language. They had no need to wait for a version translated into English. Research, Pam. It will do you good. If Cruz (the “Constitutional scholar”) is lying about his eligibility, what else will he be willing to lie about in the future? Perhaps, a bit too ambitious, or eager to believe that he is eligible? Those who are telling Cruz, Rubio and Jindal that they are eligible have an agenda. Even some Republicans want to ease the requirements for POTUS, but they don’t have the power to do so, without a Constitutional Amendment and ratification by the States. The Founders tried to PROTECT us from those like Barry Soetoro Obama. Are we going to throw that away?

          • Pam Parizo

            Actually, there is some question, and there was controversy that Chester Arthur may have been born in Canada.

            Usually I tend to doubt people that are not able to supply sources. If you think something is a fact, you should know where you got it. The works of the Founding Fathers, as I said, are many. There is also a recent Congressional study that determined John McCain was eligible. And according to the facts of their study, which included historical precedent, Cruz would be also. Other than their study, there, has not been a legal determination at the Federal level on “natural born”. The FF understood that there, are diplomats and military personnel outside of the US who could have children. I would find it unusual that they would exclude the foreign born children of citizens.

          • SandyT

            The reason that McCain was determined that McCain was eligible was because both of his parents were American citizens and his father was active duty military and stationed in Panama’s Canal Zone, Pam. Cruz had only one parent who was a citizen and his parents were not in the military. Even Vattel’s Law of Nations says in Book I, Chapter XIX p,217:

            § 217. Children born in the armies of the state.

            For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

            What gives you the idea that Cruz’s circumstances are anything like McCain’s birth to two citizen parents in service to the country? Cruz, Sr. had lived in the U.S. from 1957 until 1966 and didn’t become a citizen. He and Eleanor Darragh Wilson moved to Canada and began a business there and had Ted in 1970, At some point during the 8 years they lived there, Rafael became a Canadian citizen, although when is in question, before or after Ted’s birth? Rafael had also said during one of his many speeches or interviews that Eleanor also became a Canadian citizen…yes or no, and before Ted’s birth or after? They moved back to the States when Ted was 4 years old, in 1974. Rafael didn’t become a citizen until 2005 when Ted was in his 30’s. Why did he wait so long to become an American citizen? Ted was born with dual citizenship, or was he? If both of his parents became Canadian citizens before he was born, he wouldn’t even have American citizenship at all. If his mother didn’t give up her American citizenship, then the most Ted would have is naturalized-by-congressional-statute citizenship. With a Canadian Birth Certificate, how is it that Ted didn’t know he had Canadian citizenship until he read it in the newspaper? Do you understand the reasoning behind the natural born citizen clause, Pam? The FF put it there to protect the nation from a potential “Barack Obama”, who has followed the dreams of his Kenyan, muslim, anti-colonialism, socialist father. There are still so many questions that have never been resolved about Obama, but almost as many questions about Cruz remain unanswered, too.
            As far as Chester Arthur goes, a political rival of his started the rumor that he, Arthur, had been born in Canada, but the real question was that his father was not a citizen at the time Chester was born.

          • Pam Parizo

            Sandy, I’m not sure where Vattell’s book comes into question. We are talking about American law which is based on English common law, slightly different from European law. I haven’t seen any proof that the FF used Vattel as a source. The Congressional report laid out the legal foundation for confirming McCain’s status and according to their criteria, Cruz would be eligible. If his mother had become a Canadian citizen, which I haven’t read anything about, then Cruz would have had to have been naturalized in order to obtain American citizenship. I haven’t seen anything to that effect either. If he did not have to go through naturalization, then it must be assumed he has been an American citizen from birth. The weight of law is in his favor.

          • SandyT
          • Steven Wittlake

            Read presidential and vice presidential clause listed about a dozen times above.

          • Pam Parizo

            I would like to see the proof that Ted’s mother became a Canadian citizen. If Ted were not an American citizen, he would’ve had to acquire it upon coming to the US. He didn’t that we know of, nor did his mother, that we know of. People like to state a lot of things without proof.

          • Steven Wittlake

            That is what Automatic naturalized citizenship is all about. Everyone acquired it who was foreign born with foreign born birth certificates starting with 1940 naturalization laws. I do not know for sure if this continued past 1982 naturalization laws. Ted is an Automatic naturalized Citizen but he definitely not a natural born citizen due to his birth in Calgary.

          • Pam Parizo

            That isn’t true. As the son of a citizen, he was automatically a citizen at birth. However, if the foreign-born citizen needs authentication of their citizenship, then they have to get a document. But they are not considered naturalized in the use of that term.

            http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

            http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html

          • SandyT

            Pam, a “citizen at birth” is not the same thing as “natural born citizen”. All natural born citizens at birth, but not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens. Cruz was a citizen at birth because of his mother’s citizenship, but she was supposed to go to the nearest embassy or consulate to register his birth abroad to an American citizen. So far, the Cruz campaign or family has NOT produced any CRBA, as proof that she did do that. Maybe they were not aware at the time, that they should apply for the CRBA, or maybe Mrs. Cruz had become a Canadian citizen before Ted was born, which would have meant that Ted wasn’t an American citizen at all. I don’t know what the situation is, but regardless, Ted Cruz is a naturalized by congressional statute citizen, at best, because of his Canadian birth, not a natural born citizen. Citizens born overseas/out of U.S. jurisdiction, even to two citizen parents are naturalized citizens, and are not eligible for the presidency.

          • Darian Jorda

            Pam, what part of “may aquire” do you not understand?

            “A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. “

          • Dave B.

            In Senator Cruz’s case, those requirements were that, prior to his birth, his mother had been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. There were no other statutory requirements.
            Only in the case of a child born abroad out of wedlock to a US citizen father and a mother incapable of transmitting US citizenship (because of alienage or lack of sufficient physical presence in the US or its outlying possessions) are there additional requirements that must be satisfied after the birth in order for the child to acquire US citizenship at birth.

          • Darian Jorda

            Agreed. Thank you.

          • Dave B.

            You really, really don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about, Steven.

          • SandyT

            It wasn’t a congressional study, Pam, it was a Senate Resolution, and at the time, the Senate was controlled by Democrats. It was a smoke screen to divert attention away from Obama’s ineligibility and was sponsored by Senator Claire McCaskill, and 5 others, all but one were Democrats. See Obama and Clinton? Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT]*04/10/2008Sen. Obama, Barack [D-IL]*04/10/2008Sen. Coburn, Tom [R-OK]*04/10/2008Sen. Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY]*04/10/2008Sen. Webb, Jim [D-VA]*

          • Pam Parizo

            See the above link I posted to the study by the Congressional Research Service.

          • Darian Jorda

            You are not truthful. The law has clearly established since 1795 children born abroad to citizens as themselves citizens. Specifically,

            ~ they are defined as citizens and not natural-born citizens, and

            ~ dependent upon the children going through a well-defined process to aquire US citizenship. Read it and weep, Rafael.

            http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

          • SandyT
          • SandyT

            Pam, Senate Res. 511 was simply a smokescreen to distract from the two ineligible candidates, Obama and McCain. It has NO weight of law, much less, set precedent.

            Shown Here:
            Agreed to Senate (04/30/2008)

            110th CONGRESS
            2d Session

            S. RES. 511

            Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

            IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            April 10, 2008

            Mrs. McCaskill (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Obama, Mr. Coburn, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Webb) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

            April 24, 2008

            Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment

            April 30, 2008

            Considered and agreed to

            RESOLUTION

            Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

            Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States;

            Whereas the term “natural born Citizen”, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

            Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

            Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term “natural born Citizen”;

            Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

            Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

            Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

            Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

            The original co-sponsors of the bill were Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT]*04/10/2008Sen. Obama, Barack [D-IL]*04/10/2008Sen. Coburn, Tom [R-OK]*04/10/2008Sen. Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY]*04/10/2008Sen. Webb, Jim [D-VA]* ~~~~~ 4 Democrats and 1 Republican, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama! Nothing was even mentioned about Obama’s eligibility or lack thereof.

          • Steven Wittlake

            Constitution states President and Vice president must be natural born citizens. Also states citizens are eligible at the time of the adoption of the constitution. not only are all these citizens dead and have been for at least 150 years. the following wipes out every argument anybody has presented. See following from Constitution. Enough said.

            Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

            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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

            Term limit amendment – US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951

            No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

          • SandyT

            Isn’t that what I have been saying, Steven? Only a natural born citizen can be president or vice-president. Obama, Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are all ineligible because none of them are natural born citizens. One MUST be born on U.S. soil or in its jurisdiction, to two citizen parents, so that no other country may claim any kind of sovereignty over the president and commander-in-chief of the military. I don’t know why so many people have such a hard time understanding that. Citizens at birth are not the same thing as natural born citizens. All natural born citizens are citizens at birth, but not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens.

          • Steven Wittlake

            I have been referring to the President and vice President clause in the Constitution and it is very tricky to understand. At the time Constitution was adopted you had everyone who became citizens. The next day you had natural born citizens being born and the people who became citizens dying off. This class of citizens continued to decline until they had all died off. Naturally some of these people became President and Vice President like George Washington. When the citizens all died off you had only natural born citizens who were eligible to be president and vice president being born. You still had groups of people who immigrated to the USA and were born in foreign lands who were just citizens and could not be classified as natural born citizens like John McCain. I told you this tricky and hard to understand.

          • SandyT

            You’re very confused, Steven. At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, there were citizens, no natural born citizens, because it was a new nation and no one could have been born in the new nation to parents who were also citizens AND the child had reached the age of 35, which is the youngest a president can be. It’s not that “people were dying off”, lol. Eight of the first nine presidents had to be “grandfathered in” (…or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…). After enough years had passed that a child born IN THE NEW NATION, to parents who were citizens (which would have been at least 35 years after the new nation was “born”, then ALL future presidents HAD to be born in the U.S. (or one of its possessions/jurisdiction) to two parents who were also citizens of the U.S. NO foreign influence, sole allegiance, and no other country that could claim any kind of sovereignty over the president. It’s NOT tricky, it’s very simple. I learned all of this in school back in the 50’s, and have also done a lot of research on “natural born citizen”. Did you not pay attention in school? Or have you been reading liberal blogs or articles that have been trying to make Obama, Cruz and others eligible, when they are not. Even Mark Levin is wrong. He spoke without knowing the facts and now, he is too proud or narcissistic to back down and admit his error.

          • Pam Parizo

            Sandy, the Constitution does not define natural born. The statements you have made, about two American parents is codified in our laws. The Congress has determined that natural born means a citizen at birth or by birth.

          • SandyT

            http://birthers.org/misc/logic.htm ###The Logic of a Natural Born Citizen ###

            At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution, there was one and only one definition that combined both principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis into a definition of natural born citizen.

            “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.” Emmerich Vattel, Law of Nations, § 212. Of the citizens and natives

            Vattel’s definition of what a natural born citizen is was first codified into American Common Law in the Supreme Court decision of THE VENUS, 12 U. S. 253 (1814)

            “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’”

            This definition was echoed by Congressman John A. Bingham, who is considered the architect of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the congressman said this concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1866, this definition was not replaced by the Fourteenth Amendment.

            “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866

            This definition has been again codified into American Common Law through the case of MINOR V. HAPPERSETT

            The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. Unanimous opinion of the court. MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)

            The definition of a natural born citizen written by Vattel and recounted by both Congressman Bingham and the Supreme Court, was what the Framers of the Constitution wanted when the wrote and ratified Article II, Section 1. There can be no other definition that provides the strong check that John Jay urged Washington to incorporate into the Constitution to guard against those who could have allegiances to a foreign power from being Commander and Chief of our armed forces. Until we as a nation change the Constitution this is the only standard we can use to call someone an Article II natural born citizen.

          • Pam Parizo

            Bobby Jindal was BORN IN THE USA. Don’t know why there is a question of his citizenship.

          • SandyT

            Pam, one last time. Bobby Jindal IS a citizen. I never said that he wasn’t a citizen. He is a citizen because of the 14th Amendment which makes anyone born here a citizen and his parents were here legally, on green cards, so he is not an anchor baby. BUT, anyone who acquires his citizenship via any kind of legislation, like the 14th, or US Code, or naturalization law, is by law, a naturalized citizen. He is one of a class of citizens that is naturalized at birth by Congressional action, and no, he never had to swear allegiance, etc. He was born a citizen, but NOT a natural born citizen, as required by the Constitution for the offices of president and vice-president. A natural born citizen is one, simply because he/she is born on U.S. soil to parents, both of whom are also citizens. I don’t know how to explain it to you in any simpler language. He is not eligible for the presidency! Neither is Rubio, for the same reason. Cruz has an additional hurdle of being born in a foreign country, with a non-citizen father. Ted’s American citizen mother makes him a citizen, not a natural born citizen. That is, only IF his mother didn’t become a Canadian citizen before Ted was born. If that is the case, then he is not an American citizen at all, and not even eligible for the Senate seat he holds.

          • Pam Parizo

            Sandy, what you are saying is not what the law says. Bobby Jindal is as much a citizen as I am, and my ancestors go back before the Revolution. We are all citizens by legislation. When the country was born, they had to define by legislation who was and wasn’t a citizen. Our laws have not defined natural born citizen according to the definition you are using. Congress resolved that a natural born citizen is one who is a citizen at birth or by birth. At birth being, born in the USA. By birth is by being the child of citizens.

          • SandyT

            You’re either a liberal troll or you’ve been listening to them. Jindal was born in Baton Rouge 4 MONTHS after his parents arrived from India to attend LSU. He’s my governor and I love him. I have voted for him every time he has run for office, but his parents were only green card holders when he was born. Yes, he is a citizen, but he is NOT a natural born citizen because his parents were not citizens at the time he was born. It’s a very simple concept that you should be able to understand, Pam. Born in the U.S. to citizen parents. That way, the child has sole allegiance to the U.S. Had his parents already been sworn in as citizens before he was born, then and ONLY then would he be a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency or vice presidency. If you just did a little unbiased research for yourself, you would see that I am right. Parents with allegiance to NO other country. NO other country can claim any kind of sovereignty over the president.

          • Jan123456

            Sandy, While I admire your passion on this subject…all you would need to do to convince me (and I am guessing Pam also) is to cite a US law (case or legislative) that supports your positions on “natural born” and “dual citizenship” as they apply to the US presidency.

            1. A US law that defines “natural born” as being born on US soil of two citizen parents.

            2. A US law that disqualifies a person from the presidency if another country decides s/he is a citizen there too.

          • Darian Jorda

            Jan123456, many SCOTUS decisions have identified natural-born status with being born in this country. You are just trying to squeeze through using a loophole and a “law” that was soundly repealed in 1795

          • Jan123456

            Jan123456, many SCOTUS decisions have identified natural-born status with being born in this country.

            Absolutely! Not only SCOTUS decisions, but actual US law. What is not defined is that two citizen parents are required. At least one decision confirms that a child born on US soil to two citizen parents is a natural born citizen, it does not say it is REQUIRED. That is my argument with Sandy.

          • Darian Jorda

            Okay, I must have misinterpreted you. I agree. Birth on US soil, yes. To two citizen parents? Nice but not necessary.

          • Dave B.

            Your new buddy Sandy emphatically disagrees.

          • SandyT

            Do you understand that when the Constitution was written, women automatically became a U.S. citizen when she married a man who was a U.S. citizen? Both parents were then U.S. citizens and any children they had were automatically “natural born U.S. citizens”.

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud

          • Dave B.

            I understand that native citizens have always been natural born citizens whether their parents were citizens or not.

          • SandyT

            § 212. Of the citizens and natives.

            “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.”

          • SandyT

            At the time the Constitution was written and until the 1922 Cable Act, the citizenship of an unmarried woman was the same as her father’s. Upon marriage, her citizenship automatically became that of her husband’s citizenship. If he were a U.S. citizen and she was not (as was the case with several of the first few presidents), she became a U.S. citizen at the moment she married, so indeed, BOTH parents were then citizens and any children they had were “natural born citizens”. Likewise, if she had been a U.S. citizen, and she married a man who was not a citizen, she lost her U.S. citizenship and acquired whatever citizenship her husband had. Women’s citizenship was declared to be independent of her father’s or husband’s as of the Cable Act’s passage in 1922. It STILL takes both parents being U.S. citizens and their child born on U.S. soil or its jurisdiction, for the child to be a “natural born citizen”, with allegiance solely to the U.S. and NO other country being able to claim any kind of sovereignty over the child, for the child to grow up eligible for the presidency.

          • Jan123456

            That is very nice.

            It just does not support your statements that:

            1. There is a congressional statute that defines “naturalized at birth”.
            2. That the two citizen parent/born on US soil is required for the presidency. (Cite US law)
            3, That being born with dual citizenship is an automatic disqualifer for the presidency. (Cite US law)

            I know you fervently believe what you say. You just have no evidence to support it. When you have US law that agrees with you, I will read and comment on it. Until then, knock yourself out if it makes you feel good to waste electrons.

          • SandyT

            chrome-search://thumb2/http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2840767/posts

            chrome-search://thumb2/http://www.crfimmigrationed.org/index.php/stuff/187-naturalized-citizens-and-the-presidency

          • Jan123456

            Neither one of your links are US law.

            I found it interesting though that the 2nd says,

            “Today, there is little disagreement about what “natural born” means. Taken literally, the natural-born citizen clause refers to someone born within the borders of the United States. This has been the most accepted meaning of the term to this day. ” And says NOTHING about needing two citizen parents.

          • SandyT

            Do you understand plain f**king English, Jan? If even ONE parent is NOT a citizen, then the child also inherits the citizenship of the non-citizen parent! Dual citizenship is NOT SOLE allegiance to the U.S. BOTH parents MUST BE CITIZENS!

          • Jan123456

            Sandy….cite a law….a US law that supports what you said. As I have said before, allegiance is a personal decision, not merely an accident of birth.

            I understand that you believe that a child born to at least one non-citizen parent is not eligible for the presidency. So, I do understand plain f**king English. I just believe you are totally wrong. Your own citation agrees with me.

          • SandyT

            Where Does the Term “Natural Born Citizen” Come From?

            The earliest known reference to the term “natural-born citizen” comes from John Jay, the man who would become the nation’s first chief justice. When he was secretary of foreign affairs in 1787, he wrote a letter to George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. In this letter, Jay suggested that “the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” Jay believed that a foreign-born president was too risky for the nation.

            Jay’s proposal became a qualification for anyone considering a run for the presidency. The Constitutional Convention did not debate the subject. Some did propose a stricter requirement, which would have meant that the president, vice president, senators, and representatives all would have to be natural-born citizens. The Constitution was ratified without that strict language.

            One exception does allow naturalized citizens to be president, but the exception excludes anyone living today. The Constitution allows anyone who had been naturalized by the time of the Constitution’s adoption to be president. That exception is no longer relevant to any presidential candidate.

          • SandyT
          • SandyT

            Here is a SCOTUS decision for you, Jan!

            “Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequentto that citizenship.

            The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. In 1964, he received a letter informing him that his citizenship had been revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.”

            Read this, Jan. “The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). 1874, got it? Automatic naturalized citizenship granted by congressional statutes. He wound up losing his naturalized citizenship because he didn’t fulfill the requirement to reside in the U.S. for the prescribed period of time, but he originally acquired his “naturalized” citizenship in the same manner that Ted Cruz did. Ted did fulfill the required residence, but that still does NOT make him a natural born citizen. He is not eligible for the presidency!

          • Jan123456

            Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874 is not about naturalization. It’s a misogynistic passage which has since been updated to include mothers.

            “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and
            jurisdiction of the United States whose fathers were or may be at the
            time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the
            United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to
            children whose fathers never resided in the United States.”

            As I have cited to you multiple times, Bellei was not naturalized. He was a citizen at birth via the 1934 update to Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874.

            “He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States”

            Rogers v Bellei, page 401 US 828

            Yet he was still a citizen. At least until SCOTUS took his citizenship away.

          • SandyT

            You just like to argue for the sake of arguing and I’m done with you. Ignorance is not a virtue and I have no patience with idiots.

          • Pam Parizo

            Sandy, I am not a liberal. I’m probably more conservative than most on a lot of issues. My concern is the law, and the law doesn’t say what you’re saying. That may be what people want it to say. But the Naturalization Act of 1790 says a lot about the original intentions of the FF. Born in the, USA or born to citizens. And that is the way Congress defines it as well.

          • SandyT

            What part of repealed don’t you understand?

          • SandyT
          • Pam Parizo

            Sandy:

            Regardless of Supreme Court decisions in individual cases, there has been no definitive response to what “natural born” means. I’m not sure what difference Congressman Bingham’s opinion matters as a definitive answer. If we want to get back to what the Founding Fathers intended, why not the Naturalization Act of 1790 which was within one year of the Constitution?

            This article of legislation allowed an individual to apply for citizenship if they were a free white person, being of good character, and living in the United States for two years. Upon receiving the courts approval they took an oath of allegiance which was recorded. The individual’s citizenship was also extended to any children under the age of 21, regardless of their birthplace. If the applicant had never been a U.S. resident the application was disregarded.

            http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/1790_naturalization_act.html

            Maybe we should get back to that. Much simpler than our current naturalization system.

          • SandyT

            Might I remind you that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795, by the same men who wrote it, in the first place, making it NULL and VOID. You can’t make anyone a natural born citizen, quoting an Act that was repealed. The phrase “natural born citizen” in the 1790 Act was replaced by the word “citizen” in the 1795 Act.

          • Darian Jorda

            Well, nice to know someone else has studied history!

          • Dave B.

            Sandy’s a crackpot birther, who gets her information from crank birther websites. Show me who you hang around with, and I’ll show you who you are!

          • Judy Selich

            Sandy T, “Natural Born Citizen” is found in Article II of the Constitution. That is the basis for subsequent U. S. Supreme Court cases defining “Natural Born Citizen”.

          • Darian Jorda

            Everyone reading this, please know that Pam is a cruzbot. The 1790 law is a red herring, was repealed after a few years. Madison himself got on the naturalization to clean up the mess that was the 1790 law.

            The 1790 law’s replacement made clear that a person born abroad in certain cases could be a citizen, and NOT a natural-born citizen.

          • Darian Jorda

            Pam Parizo, you are Cruzbotting. The law and the facts don’t back you up.

          • SandyT

            Do you have any legal proof that you are not a troll? Or that you are even human?

          • Darian Jorda

            I have concluded myself that Pam is a cruzbot.

          • Darian Jorda

            You are repeating false information. A citizen at birth is not a natural-born citizen. That was made clear in the repeal of the 1790 naturalization law by the 1795 naturalization law. ALSO, Cruz had to go through a process to aquire (that’s the state department’s term, Pam) citizenship and it’s unknown whether he did or not.

          • Dave B.

            From the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1130, “Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parent”:
            “Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term
            “naturalization” means “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after
            birth, by any means whatsoever.” Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by
            birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory
            transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.”
            http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
            (page 8)
            Once again, the “process” to which you refer is not a naturalization process; it’s a DOCUMENTATION process.

          • Pam Parizo
          • SandyT
        • Pam Parizo

          I was a birther at first, but then realized they were wrong. If Obama was born in Kenya to Ann Dunham, it would not have made a difference, because she was an American citizen and had been since birth.

          • Darian Jorda

            You’re incorrect. See http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html
            Cruz *aquired* citizenship at birth only after going through a process outlined in the link above. That is naturalization, not natural-born.
            On top of that, we don’t know if his parents even filed the needed forms in the first place.

          • Dave B.

            It’s not going to be true no matter how many times you repeat it.

      • Pam Parizo

        Vattel’s definition has never been used decisively to define “natural born” citizen by the Supreme Court. A Federal Court however, did determine in Robinson vs. Bowen that John McCain was a citizen of the US though born in the Canal Zone. Both parents do not have to be citizens. There are only two types of citizens: natural, at birth, or through naturalization. Ted Cruz is the former.

        • SandyT

          That is such BS, Pam. There have been multiple Supreme Court decisions that have defined natural born citizen as one born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents. John McCain, though born in Panama, was born to parents who were both citizens and his father was in service to the country in the military. That is what makes the difference with McCain. All natural born citizens are citizens at birth, but not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens. ONLY those born in this country or in its jurisdiction, to parents (plural) who are themselves, citizens, are natural born citizens. Cruz is a naturalized by congressional statute citizen, not NBC! Naturalized citizens are not eligible for the presidency!

          • Pam Parizo

            Show me where what you are saying is a rule of our law. And Cruz was a citizen at birth. His mother was born of American citizens and raised in America. Not sure why you say he was naturalized by statute. Military doesn’t have anything to do with citizenship. McCain’s parents were citizens. Even if they had been contractors in the Canal Zone, he would still be a citiizen. Both Cruz and McCain have always been citizens; the statue only determined that they were eligible for Federal office.

          • SandyT

            The Constitution was not meant to be a dictionary, Pam. We know from the writings of the Founders what the meaning of their words were, their letters to and from each other, etc. It’s funny that people in the Founder’s time knew what natural born citizen meant but people NOW are trying to twist what they said to meet their own meaning according to who they want in office. The meaning of natural born citizen should be quite apparent to anyone, without an agenda to make someone who is ineligible into someone who is. There is a difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”. If you were born in this country and both of your parents were citizens at the time you were born, then you are a natural born citizen. If one or both of your parents was NOT a citizen, then you are a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. Both types of citizens have all of the same rights and benefits EXCEPT for holding the office of president or vice-president. Does that really bother you so much? McCain is a natural born citizen because, even though he was born in Panama, his parents were both citizens and his father was in the military on active duty serving the country at the time John was born and such a child is treated as though born on U.S. soil, whether he was born on a military base or not. The whole thing with the challenge to McCain’s NBC status was a smoke screen to cover for Obama. Obama is not a natural born citizen, either, because of his Kenyan father who was not a citizen. Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother, but his Cuban immigrant father didn’t become an American citizen until 2005 and neither one of them was in the military. They lived and worked in Canada for 8 years during which time Cruz, Sr. became a Canadian citizen. Whether that was before or after Ted was born is information that has not been verified. We have NEVER had a president who was born in a foreign country. Quit trying to make him eligible when he is not! If we elect an ineligible candidate just because Obama has gotten away with it, then we are just as bad and will be helping the left destroy the Constitution, too.

          • Pam Parizo

            It would be helpful if you pointed me to your sources. The Founding Fathers had many writings.

            In the meantime, here is something from the Harvard Law Review:

            http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

          • SandyT

            The Harvard Law Review is covering for Cruz in order to cover for Obama, Pam. Both of them are Harvard graduates and were on the HLR. It is a very biased article that leaves out many facts from the Founders intent.

            Google or whatever search engine you use is your friend, and very simple to find out just about anything you want to know. I shouldn’t have to “point you” in the right direction.

            This is not from the Founders, themselves, but is a list of ALL of the previous presidents and their birth status. As you will see, all previous presidents have been born in the U.S. AND born to two citizen parents, with the exception of eight of the first nine presidents who were “grandfathered in” (were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution), Chester Arthur, whose status was in question, but never proven, and Barack Obama, who was elected through fraud and the ignorance of the voters on what a natural born citizen was.

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/All-U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud

          • SandyT
          • Jan123456

            There have been multiple Supreme Court decisions that have defined
            natural born citizen as one born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents.

            Give me ONE that gives that as an exclusive definition. Although there is at least one that says that is A definition, nowhere is there a case that says it is the ONLY definition.

            And a French teacher I consulted says that the reason “parens” in the sentence you hang your hat onto is plural is a matter of French grammar. Since the “Natural or natives” is plural,
            in order to meet rules of French grammar, the noun “parents” had to be
            plural also. He used an English example so I would understand natively.
            Say you’re at a health club and the sign reads, “Only children whose
            parents are members are allowed to use the pool.” You certainly would
            not expect a child whose mother, but not father, was a member to be
            denied access even though the sign used the plural “parents”. Same
            thing here

          • Pam Parizo

            I’m sorry, but the criteria set forth in the Congressional study indicates that Cruz would be eligible.

          • Jan123456

            Pam, don’t expect Sandy to review facts and then change her mind. She makes claims about SCOTUS decisions and even when confronted with the actual language taken from the actual majority opinion (with link to the decision) that refutes her opinion, doubles down and repeats her blather.

        • SandyT
        • Arizona Patriot

          Are you serious?
          2003 Supreme Court: For 200 years domestic law of the US recognizes the Law of Nations(Vattel)

          The Court affirmed Vatell’s Law of Nations as a part of US Domestic law on page 37.

          “For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations.”

          They sourced the translated edition of Chitty.

          “eE. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Preliminaries §3 (J. Chitty et al. transl. and ed. 1883″

          Lets have a look at the Chitty translated edition and see what it says about citizen parents and natural born citizens.
          http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-339.pdf

          • SandyT

            The Founders didn’t even have to rely upon an English translation of the Law of Nations, since French was considered to be the diplomatic language of the time, and many of them were conversant in French.

          • Jan123456

            “For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations.”

            Please note the lack of capitalization (which would be there if SCOTUS was referring to a title of a book) in the reference to “law of nations”.
            As written “law of nations” is roughly the same as “international law”.

          • Dave B.

            That has nothing to do with US nationality law.

          • Dave B.

            Vattel is one authority who wrote commentary on the law of nations. Justice Souter was not referring to Vattel’s work as part of the domestic law of the United States, but the law of nations itself– and only then in limited scope: what Souter described as “limited enclaves in which federal courts may derive some substantive law in a common law way.” He described this limited scope more specifically as “international disputes implicating . . . our relations with foreign nations”

        • SandyT

          In Rogers v Bellei, Aldo Bellei was born in a foreign country, to a non-citizen, foreign father and an American citizen mother. Cruz was born in a foreign country to a non-citizen, foreign father and an American citizen mother. The Supreme Court ruled that Aldo Bellei was a naturalized citizen, therefore it should follow that Ted Cruz, with the same birth circumstances, is also a naturalized citizen and NOT eligible for the presidency.

        • Steven Wittlake

          No one was born in the Canal Zone. McCain was born in Colon, Republic of Panama. United States only possessed the right to build the Canal and defend the Canal. Nothing More. It paid a fee in Gold every year for this right. See original Treaty which is Banau-Varilla. Panama kicked the USA out when it shot 22 Students and found out that the canal existed only in their imagination.

          • Dave B.

            Okay, that’s just silly.

        • SandyT

          It wasn’t a federal court, Pam, it was simply a Senate Resolution, sponsored by Sen. Claire McCaskill and co-sponsored by four other Democrats (including Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama and one Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn. It doesn’t even have the weight of law.

          • Jan123456

            Sandy Sandy Sandy…can’t you just once look up source information before typing?

            Robinson v Bowen

            “At the time of Senator McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship
            provision prescribed that “[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits
            and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at
            the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States,
            is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”

            http://www.leagle.com/decision/20081711567dafsupp2d1144_11607/ROBINSON%20v.%20BOWEN

            I acknowledge that S 511 was an exercise with no legal weight, but when you refuted Pam’s statement without checking whether her statement had merit, that just undermines your credibility even further.

          • SandyT

            Jan, “…is “declared” to be a citizen of the United States.” The Senate has no legal authority to “declare” anyone a “natural born citizen”. The Senate saying that he was “declared” to be a citizen….has no legal weight whatsoever. It has no more legal standing than me saying that I “declare you to be an idiot”. A “citizen” is not the same thing as “natural born” citizen, anyway.

          • Jan123456

            I believe you may have missed the point here.

            Pam said,”A Federal Court however, did determine in Robinson vs. Bowen that John
            McCain was a citizen of the US though born in the Canal Zone”

            (Please note here…no reference to “natural born”.)

            You replied, “It wasn’t a federal court, Pam, it was simply a Senate Resolution…”

            Then I brought your attention to the court case that Pam referred to…along with a link to the case to show you that it WAS INDEED a real court case. I also agreed with you that SR 511 carried no legal weight.

          • SandyT

            I’m not an attorney, but when I looked at the case just now, it looked to me like the case had been dismissed. Now, just what authority does a dismissed case have? Another thing, the quote above, “At the time of …”, etc. says “…is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” That does NOT say that McCain is declared to be a natural born citizen. There IS a difference, Jan. Just because someone is a citizen, doesn’t mean that he/she is a natural born citizen. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

          • Jan123456

            I absolutely agree with you that “just because someone is a citizen, doesn’t mean he/she is a natural born citizen”. A naturalized citizen is indeed a citizen, and not “natural born”, Easy.

            Your first contention was that this case didn’t exist. I am glad to see you at least partially read a source document. That helps.

            The plaintiff (Robinson) filed for an injunction that allowed him as a presidential electorto vote for Alan Keys for president even though he was pledged to McCain. His assertion was that McCain was not an NBC.

            Citing US law (see how that works?) that McCain met the legal requirements in effect at the time of his birth for citizenship, the judge wrote:

            Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1403(a), which declared that persons in
            Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth,
            thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen,
            if he was not one already
            . This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits necessary to warrant the drastic remedy he seeks.

            (Emphasis added)

            The judge concludes:

            For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED and the motion to dismiss this case in its entirety is GRANTED. Leave to amend is DENIED and the Clerk shall CLOSE the file.

            IT IS SO ORDERED.

            The judge dismissed the case that plaintiff filed per motion of the defense. This means it’s done…finished…no more.

          • SandyT

            The same case cannot be made for Sen. Cruz, Jan. For one thing, both of McCain’s parents were citizens and his father was in service to the country in the Navy. Cruz’s Canadian birth with only one citizen parent and a non-citizen, Cuban immigrant father and not military, definitely means he is NOT a natural born citizen. He is not now, and never will be eligible for the presidency or vice-presidency, but there are other positions in which he could serve the nation.

            There are natural born citizens, native born citizens and naturalized citizens. Also, there are two types of naturalized citizens, those born overseas who come here, swear allegiance to the U.S. and become citizens, and those who are born out of the U.S. to one or both citizen parents, who are naturalized-by-congressional-statute (congressional generosity) citizens-at-birth. Cruz is of that class of naturalized citizens. NO naturalized citizen is eligible for the presidency.

            Rubio and Jindal are examples of native-born citizens. Both were born in the U.S. but none of their respective parents were citizens at the time of their sons’ births. They are native born, but not natural born and not eligible for the presidency. If even ONE parent is a non-citizen, then the child is born with dual citizenship and potential sovereignty to both countries, the one he is born in and the one his non-citizen parent is from.

            All of them ARE citizens, just not natural born citizens.

          • Jan123456

            As I said earlier, I admire your passion for this subject. But you make so many statements that just ain’t so.

            In this case, you said, “That does NOT say that McCain is declared to be a natural born citizen.” If you had read the case, you would never have written that, because indeed it DID say that. (Similar to your statemenst about that Italian guy being ruled a naturalized citizen by SCOTUS or that WKA had birth circumstances like Cruz.)

            What would help is reading the original source material before making comments. I am very careful to actually read SCOTUS decisions before posting what they say..

            I know you believe your statement, “There are natural born citizens, native born citizens and naturalized citizens.” Once again, that statement has no basis in law, either statutory or case. But that won’t stop you from believing it and continuing to post it.

      • Steven Wittlake

        Qualifications for the Office of President
        Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
        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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
        Note Constitution requires President and vice President to be natural born citizens
        citizens. a citizens of the USA at time of adoption of Constitution would be at least 228 years old and dead a long time. Only person eligible for President or vice President is a natural born citizen by direct statement of constitution.Period

        • SandyT

          Yes, and a natural born citizen is one born on U.S. soil or in its jurisdiction to two citizen parents. NO other is eligible. If a child is born outside of the United States, even if born to two citizen parents, that child is a naturalized citizen, not natural born citizen.

          • Jan123456

            That is your opinion. Please cite a US law to support that assertion to make it a fact. If you cannot, it remains merely your opinion,

          • SandyT

            US vs Wong Kim Ark: “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,…”

            Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen, he is a naturalized-by-congressional-statute citizen, and not eligible for the presidency or vice-presidency!

          • Jan123456

            That says nothing about needing two parent citizens to be considered “natural born”. That is the assertion you made and cannot support in law.

            Now fwiw, the “authority of Congress” did enact a law “conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens” and applies to Ted Cruz. That is US Code 8 Section 1401(g).

          • SandyT
          • Jan123456

            Sandy, I disagree with your statement that WKA had the same birth circumstances as Ted Cruz. If you read the majority opinion, the very first sentence is:

            “The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer.”

            So, unlike Cruz, WKA’s physical birth occurred on US soil.

            Scroll down to the last paragraph in the majority opinion.

            The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. (Emphasis mine)

            See? Citizen at BIRTH…not naturalized.

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649#writing-USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO

            I believe that proves you totally incorrect on this issue.

          • SandyT

            Rogers v Bellei. Aldo Bellei was born in a foreign country (like Cruz) to an American citizen mother (like Cruz), and a foreign non-citizen father (like Cruz). The SC ruled that Aldo Bellei was a naturalized citizen. Cruz is ALSO a naturalized citizen. NOT eligible for the presidency or vice-presidency.

          • Jan123456

            Please read the actual decision. Bellei’s HAD US citizenship and did have essentially the same birth circumstances as Cruz. It was taken away from Bellei due to his not fulfilling residency requirement per US law § 301(a)(7). Cruz DID meet those requirements.

            Once again NO NO NO NO NO. The SC did not rule Bellei was a naturalized citizen. I have cited the actual decision to you twice so far. Here it is a third time:

            “The central fact in our weighing of the
            plaintiff’s claim to continuing and therefore current United States
            citizenship is that he was born abroad. He was not born in the United
            States. He was not naturalized in the United States.” (Emphasis added in the hope you may read it this time)

            https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html

          • SandyT

            You are equating citizen at birth with natural born citizen and they are not the same at all. A child born on citizens outside of the U.S. IS a naturalized citizen at birth, not needing to take any oath, etc. but he is still NOT a natural born citizen and is not eligible for the presidency.

          • Jan123456

            Sandy, Three times you posted, “The SC ruled that Aldo Bellei was a naturalized citizen.” Three times I cited the actual verbiage of the court…along with a link to the case in proof…that the SC did not rule that.

            We were not talking about “natural born” here either.

            That subject (and dual citizenship as applied to the presidency) is dead until you come up with evidence that your opinion is supported by US law.

          • SandyT

            I admit I cited the wrong decision. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong about Cruz being a naturalized citizen. Citizen at birth does not make one a natural born citizen, Jan.

          • Jan123456

            You’re right in that an incorrect SCOTUS reference does not mean you are wrong. All you have to do is make the correct one. Or…how about a copy of his naturalization papers?

            Someplace in US law or case law you should be able to find something that supports your contention that “natural born” citizen means what you says it does. I have already posted several SCOTUS citations in which “natural born”, “native born”, “born citizen” and “citizen at birth” have been used interchangeably.

            Although I think the Vattel argument is a bunch of horse-hockey, please note that neither the original French nor any English translation prior to the US Constitution used the term “natural born”. Here are gifs of earlier translations.

          • SandyT

            What is it you don’t understand about the words, “foreign-born children of citizens”, plural, citizens, more than one? Is English a second language for you? Born in the U.S of parents owing sovereignty to NO other country. If one parent is a non citizen, then the country they are a citizen of can claim sovereignty over the child, since the child is born with dual citizenship. That’s it. I’m done with you. You are either a troll or willfully blind and I don’t have the time to put up with you. Continue to be ignorant!

          • Jan123456

            Yes, that’s a a good way to get out of having to support your assertions when you can’t use facts to do so. Just say you’re done with the person who cites SCOTUS directly from the majority opinion to blow your opinions out of the water.

            1. You have yet to cite a US law (nor can you) that some other country’s laws claiming a US citizen is its citizen also somehow diminishes that person’s status as a US citizen. The United States decides who its citizens are, by its laws…we do not allow other countries to make that determination for us nor do we let foreign laws have an impact on who can be our president. However, I cannot help it if you want to continue to believe this myth.

            2. “What is it you don’t understand about the words, “foreign-born children of citizens”, plural, citizens, more than one?” They probably were expecting it to happen more than once. Or, since they used the word “children” instead of “child”, does it (in your mind) only apply to people with multiple offspring?

          • SandyT

            Meaning BOTH parents, Jan. Even if both parents are American citizens, any of their children, whether one or multiple children, that are born OUT of the U.S, OUT of U.S. jurisdiction, are NATURALIZED citizens, not natural born citizens. The president cannot have been born with dual citizenship and no naturalized citizen is eligible for the presidency.

          • Jan123456

            Sandy,

            What you claim is not US law.

            Per 8 U.S. Code § 1401

            The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

            (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

            (Please note, no reference to parentage)

            (c) a person born outside of the
            United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are
            citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the
            United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of
            such person;

            (d) a person born outside of the
            United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a
            citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the
            United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period
            of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is
            a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
            ***********************************************************************

            Once again, please cite a United States law supporting your opinion that dual citizenship (ie the laws of another country) forces the US to disqualify a person for its presidency. Thus far you have avoided doing so.

          • Darian Jorda

            Sandy, although I agree that Cruz is not eligible, I do not agree that Vattel’s definition of NBC was adopted by the founding fathers. It’s fine if you believe that.
            But please, by doing so you are diluting the powerful and sufficient fact that Cruz was not born in the USA. That is much more relevant.

          • Elizabeth Barrett-Browning

            said the classless nasty bitch you are not just ignorant but willfully so . Obama was BORN IN HAWAII after it became a state .EOD cruz will not make it to the primary nor the other so called posers .

          • SandyT

            “classless nasty bitch”? Bless your little heart! Yes, Obama was born in Hawaii after Hawaii became a state, but his father was NOT a citizen, EB-B! Both parents MUST be citizens at the time their child is born in the U.S. for the child to be a natural born citizen! HE is not eligible!

          • Darian Jorda

            Don’t know about the nasty bitch part, but I agree that Obama is fine — born in the good ole USA — and Cruz is an immigrant.

          • SandyT

            Jan, that is still naturalization law, which cannot make Cruz or anyone else born abroad of citizen parents, a natural born citizen. Even born to two citizen parents, the child is a naturalized citizen. Cruz is NOT eligible.

          • Jan123456

            Please just cite the law to which you refer and I yell “UNCLE”.

          • Steven Wittlake

            Yes, A natural born citizen is someone born in the United States after the establishment of the Constitution in 1787. But the constitution says nothing about being a child of two citizen parents. I agree that George Washington would be a child of citizen parents at time of adoption of the Constitution and that Washington was a citizen at time of adoption of the constitution. One day after adoption of Constitution there were no new citizens as defined in presidential clause except natural born Citizens and Citizens that became citizens at time of adoption of Constitution all died out after lets say 125 years. Do not think anyone lived more than 125 years. But there was citizens established by naturalization laws past by Congress starting in 1790.

          • SandyT

            Steven, the Founders used Vattel’s Law of Nations while drafting the Constitution, as proven by reading the Founders’ letters to and from each other. Eight of the first nine presidents had to be “grandfathered in” (“…or a citizen of the United State at the adoption of this Constitution…”) because in the brand new nation, there were NO natural born citizens old enough (born in the U.S. to two citizen parents and 35 years of age) to be qualified. If the Founders had meant for just a “citizen” to be eligible for the presidency, there would have been absolutely NO NEED for the “grandfather clause” because at that point, they were all citizens, just not natural born citizens. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
            The Naturalization Act of 1790, stated that children born overseas to citizen parents were “natural born citizens” but by 1795, the same men realized the mistake they had made by saying these children were natural born citizens, so they repealed it and replaced it with children born overseas to citizen parents were “citizens”. The 1790 Act was null and void, as though it had never existed but some people still like to use it as “proof” that Cruz is eligible, and that is wrong. Congress can regulate naturalization, but they cannot make anyone a “natural born citizen”.

          • Steven Wittlake

            Is this not what I just explained above except I did not refer it as a grandfather clause 10 minutes ago.

          • SandyT

            Yes, which is why I wondered why you had addressed me when you posted the “Qualifications for the Office of President”. By addressing me, it seemed that you were saying I was the one arguing the other side. Maybe you meant to address Pam?

          • Darian Jorda

            I agree. The requirement is birth on US soil. That’s the common law interpretation. The two-citizen-parent requirement is from Vattel. I don’t believe Vattel influenced the founding fathers of the US.

            The conflation of Obama birtherism with Cruz birtherism bothers me. Obama, like Rubio, was born here. Jus soli. Cruz was not. End of story.

          • SandyT

            Vattel DID influence the Founders, Darian. Their letters to and from each other prove that. To be “natural born”, jus soli AND jus sanguinis must be in place, not one or the other. Obama and Rubio (Jindal, too) are all citizens, but they are not natural born citizens. All of them were born on U.S. soil, but in Obama’s case, his father was not a citizen. As for Rubio and Jindal, none of their respective parents were citizens, all of them were green card holders, legal residents, but not citizens. Marco was 4 years old when his parents acquired their citizenship and Bobby was born only 4 months after his parents arrived from India. They had the “jus soli”, but not the “jus sanguinis”, too. They are all citizens because of the 14th Amendment. Cruz, being born in Canada and his father not being a citizen means double trouble for his eligibility. His citizenship is thanks to USC 1401(g). All of them, were born with dual citizenship, for if a child inherits the citizenship of an American citizen parent, they also inherit whatever citizenship the non-citizen parent has. In Cruz’ case, he has a third citizenship option, from the country he was born in, so Canadian/Cuban/American. One must be born with sole allegiance to the U.S. with NO other country being able to claim any kind of sovereignty over him/her.

          • SandyT

            Steven, the only thing they had to wait for was for 35 years to pass after the new nation was born, so that a child born of two citizen parents could grow up to the age of 35 and meet the minimum age requirement for president. They weren’t waiting for anyone to “die out”, lol. I think you are confusing yourself! NO, George Washington was a “citizen”, not a natural born citizen, that is why 8 of the first 9 presidents had to be “grandfathered in”. At least 35 years from the founding of the nation had to pass before anyone could be eligible as a “natural born citizen”, born on U.S. soil to citizen parents.

          • Pam Parizo

            I might add, that the Congress that approve the 1790 Naturalization Act, was composed within 1 year of our Constitution (ratified 1789). If it had included anything contrary to what the Founding Fathers intended, that would have come out. That Act included making children of citizens citizens. Not naturalized, but at birth.

          • Darian Jorda

            Pam, try to repeat after me: The 1790 act was repealed soundly in 1795. Its assertion that such children were natural-born was removed. Do you understand that? Since 1795 such children may be considered citizens, not natural-born citizens.
            Do you understand that?

          • Dave B.

            Where, pray tell, does one find in the Constitution or statutes any law stating that ANYBODY is a natural born citizen?

          • SandyT

            Both parents were necessarily citizens because the woman automatically became a U.S. citizen when she married a U.S. citizen. ONLY 35 years had to pass for a child to be born to citizen parents, so the child could reach the minimum age to be president.

      • Elizabeth Barrett-Browning

        slag and gutter tripe is all i see

      • Dave B.

        “Vattel’s Law of Nations” is a book of philosophy. It isn’t US law.

    • Pam Parizo

      There are only two types of citizens as recognized by the Immigration and Naturalizaiton Service. A person is either a citizen at birth, or a naturalized citizen. By virtue of his mother’s American citizenship, Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the US since birth. That makes him eligible.

      • SandyT

        Cruz is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. There IS a difference.

        • Me4U

          Unless his mother, who supposedly was born in Delaware, renounced her US citizenship prior to little Teddy’s birth.

          • Tessa Johnson

            LIttle Rafael’s birth, if we check the birth certificate!

          • SandyT

            His legal name is Rafael Edward Cruz. Since his father is also Rafael, he has gone by his middle name, which the accepted “nickname” for Edward is “Ted”. You know, like Edward “Ted” Kennedy?
            Ted may be a “citizen” but he is only a “naturalized” citizen at birth, by virtue of congressional statute, since children born abroad to even two citizen parents are collectively “naturalized at birth”. NO naturalized citizen has ever been eligible for the presidency or vice presidency!

          • Dave B.

            You really ought to look up what “collective naturalization” means.

          • SandyT

            Collective naturalization…children born abroad to a citizen parent or citizen parents are naturalized at birth, through congressional statute, Dave. The parent/parents do have to register the birth at the nearest embassy or consulate and apply for the CRBA. These children do NOT have to go through any further naturalization process, like older foreign persons do when becoming a naturalized citizen of the U.S. If Cruz’s mother failed to file, then Ted might not be a U.S. citizen at all, but at best, he is just a “naturalized citizen”.

          • Dave B.

            Just look it up, for crying out loud.

          • barque

            This is nonsense. Children born abroad to one or two American parents, are citizens at birth. Although this is statutory, it is not “naturalization” in any sense of the word. Naturalization is the conferring of citizenship upon an alien.

            And no the parent does not HAVE to report the birth anywhere in order to acquire citizenship for the child. The citizenship is conferred by the birth itself, by the laws in force at the time. The only reason the parents should apply for a CRBA is for PROOF of that birth. It’s just like the hospital registering your birth record with the health department. It’s not the registration of the birth record which gains you your natural born citizenship. It’s your birth in the U.S.

      • Steven Wittlake

        Ted Cruz was born in Calgary Canada. Yes, if mother was an American citizen at birth then Ted would be an Automatic naturalized citizen of USA but that does not make him a natural born citizen of the USA. His birth place is Calgary Canada not the USA. and Calgary Canada is listed on his Canadian birth certificate as place of birth.

        • Pam Parizo

          I’m not sure where you get that he is naturalized. Naturalized means you have to go through a naturalization process. That isn’t the case with a child of a citizen born overseas.

          http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html

          • Steven Wittlake

            I described it as an Automatic naturalized citizenship process as in 1940 naturalization law. A person say like McCain who was born in Colon Panama or Ted Cruz who was born in Calgary became automatic Naturalized Citizens.

          • Pam Parizo

            No, they became citizens. They are not considered naturalized. Naturalization involves a process. John McCain and Ted Cruz were citizens at birth.

          • Steven Wittlake

            They were Automatic naturalized Citizens and natural born citizens of birth country. I have seen McCain’s birth certificate because I knew where to get it and I have a copy of it.

          • Pam Parizo

            I’m not concerned about other countries. I’m only concerned about whether they are citizens of the US, which Obama, McCain and Cruz were due to a parent or parents being an American citizen.

          • Steven Wittlake

            People born in foreign countries are Automatic naturalized citizens of the United States but the are not natural born citizens of the USA. Due to Ted Cruz voiding birth in Calgary the only thing I think he is, is a stateless person. He certainly is not a natural born citizen of the USA.

          • Pam Parizo

            There’s no such thing as a stateless person. They fall under someone’s jurisdiction, which is the basis for citizenry. Not sure what you mean voiding. Ted Cruz, as the son of a citizen, is a citizen at birth. He came to the US at the age of 4 and has been here ever since. His Canadian citizenship does not void his American citizenship.

          • SandyT

            Citizen at birth does not mean a natural born citizen.

          • Dave B.

            There most certainly IS such a thing as a stateless person– according the UN High Commissioner for refugees, there are at least ten million such persons.

          • Dave B.

            Canada doesn’t allow renunciation of citizenship that will result in statelessness.

          • Jan123456

            I looked at the Nationality Act of 1940 and did not see anything about “Automatic Naturalized Citizenship Status.” It was superseded by a 1952 bill which may be why I cannot find the phrase you use. Are you sure you didn’t just read that from some unofficial source?

            Please link me to where you found the concept of automatic naturalization.

          • RM

            Try here , this was fixed long ago

            http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg414a.pdf

          • Jan123456

            Steven said this “Automatic Naturalized Citizen Status” was a part of the Nationality Act of 1940. I don’t see the term in the 1795 version either. Actually it wouldn’t matter if I had since that law has long been superseded.

            My question is…where did Steven come up with the term “Automatic Naturalized Citizen Status”? Certainly not in US law and if it’s not there, then it’s fairy dust.

          • Judy Selich

            Pam Parizo, Steven Wittlake’s posts are absolutely correct. You are misunderstanding the concepts “Natural Born Citizen”, Naturalized Citizen.

          • Dave B.

            You’ve been had. You’ve seen a copy of a fake produced by a conman. McCain’s real birth certificate has never been released to the public.

          • Steven Wittlake

            John McCain and Ted Cruz are not natural born citizens and they did not receive birth certificate from the USA. Ted Cruz received his birth certificate from Calgary Canada and john McCain received his birth certificate from colon Panama.

          • Pam Parizo

            According to the state dept. description they were citizens of birth. They did not have to be naturalized. The Consulate document just, serves to verify the birth.

          • Steven Wittlake

            I have not stated that they were naturalized. The words I used were Automatic
            naturalized citizenship. They had to do nothing. Look up the term in 1940 naturalization Law. They certainly were not natural born citizens.

          • Pam Parizo

            I looked up automatic naturalized citizenship and that only came into effect in 2001.

          • SandyT

            “Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequentto that citizenship.

            The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. In 1964, he received a letter informing him that his citizenship had been revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.”

            Read this, Pam. “The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). 1874, got it? Automatic naturalized citizenship granted by congressional statutes. He wound up losing his naturalized citizenship because he didn’t fulfill the requirement to reside in the U.S. for the prescribed period of time, but he originally acquired his “naturalized” citizenship in the same manner that Ted Cruz did. Ted did fulfill the required residence, but that still does NOT make him a natural born citizen. He is not eligible for the presidency!

          • barque

            Steven perhaps you should read the Naturalization Act of 1940. There is NOTHING even remotely resembling automatic naturalized citizenship at birth. There is no such thing. A person is either born a citizen or is an alien who becomes a U.S. citizen through application and the process called naturalization.

            Note, in the first few lines of the first chapter of the Act, subsection “c” says “The term ‘naturalization’ means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth.”

            I don’t know if it could be state any clearer.

            Chapter II is titled “Nationality At Birth” and describes how persons are nationals and citizens of the U.S. at birth, by being born in the U.S., or being born outside the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents, and it outlines the restrictions involved in the latter.

            Chapter III is titled “Nationality Through Naturalization” and describes how aliens must apply for naturalization subject to various provisions such as length of time lived in the U.S., their ability to speak English, their skin color and ancestry, etc. All of this is only possible for a person already a citizen of a foreign country.

            There is NO mention or hint of the possibility of a person gaining automatic naturalized citizenship at birth. Doesn’t exist.

            People like you who come on the internet spouting nonsense and citing laws and provisions which in no way back up your nonsense, are what’s wrong with the world, honestly. You get other boobs to repeat your crap and try to sound just as informed as you, when you clearly haven’t even read the documents you cite while spouting your claptrap.

          • Steven Wittlake

            There is no Consulate document or any record for an automatic naturalized citizenship. it is just a point of law.

          • Pam Parizo

            If a person is born abroad, and wants to document their birth so that they can get a passport, they go to the American consulate and get a Consulate Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) that documents the birth. As an American born in Canada, Ted’s mother would’ve needed this to include Ted on her passport when they returned to the US in 1974.

          • Darian Jorda

            Now THAT I agree with. But no one has produced a CRBA document for Cruz.

          • SandyT

            Even the CRBA doesn’t and cannot make Ted a “natural born citizen”. NOTHING but birth in the U.S. or in its jurisdiction to parents who are both citizens, owing allegiance to NO OTHER country, can make a child a “natural born citizen”.

          • Pam Parizo

            Where is that defined by our government? The Supreme Court has made no definitive ruling of what a natural born citizen is. The Congress made a study to support John McCain’s citizenship, and the basis for that also supports Ted Cruz being a natural born citizen. I don’t know of any country, but particularly the US, that would classify the children of their citizens as “naturalized”.

          • SandyT

            “Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequent to that citizenship.

            The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. In 1964, he received a letter informing him that his citizenship had been revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.”

            Read this. “The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). 1874, got it? Automatic naturalized citizenship granted by congressional statutes. He wound up losing his naturalized citizenship because he didn’t fulfill the requirement to reside in the U.S. for the prescribed period of time, but he originally acquired his “naturalized” citizenship in the same manner that Ted Cruz did. Ted did fulfill the required residence, but that still does NOT make him a natural born citizen. He is not eligible for the presidency!

          • Pam Parizo

            I couldn’t find any such term as “automatic naturalized citizen”. Naturalization indicates a process. Ted Cruz was automatically a US citizen at birth by acquiring that citizenship from his mother.

          • SandyT

            He was a “citizen at birth” but only a “naturalized” citizen at birth, and you keep forgetting that “citizen at birth” is NOT the same thing as “natural born citizen”. A natural born citizen is one born in the U.S. or in its jurisdiction (Canada is NOT U.S. jurisdiction) to two citizen parents. Even if both of his parents had been citizens, he would still be just a “naturalized” citizen. Congress passed legislation making children born abroad of citizen parents, naturalized citizens at birth. If it takes any law, regulation, statute, etc. to make someone a citizen, then they are NOT natural born citizens. Children born IN the U.S. to parents who are not citizens or just one parent is a citizen, are citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, and are “citizens”, but they are NOT natural born citizens and are not eligible for the presidency or vp. (Like Rubio and Jindal)

          • barque

            There is no such thing as a “naturalized citizen at birth.” You are either a citizen at birth (natural born) or you are legally made a citizen after being an alien (naturalized.)

            For whatever reason, you loony tunes keep insisting that being born in the U.S. to two citizen parents is the only way to be a natural born citizen, but this is simply unsupported in the law, history, the common law, and judicial decisions, of the U.S.

          • SandyT

            Wong Kim Ark (1898)

            Justice Gray explained in that case:

            A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

          • barque

            Sandy, the question at hand in Wong Kim Ark had to do with persons born in the United States and within the jurisdiction. ANY discussion by justice gray about persons born outside the jurisdiction is dicta. The court had no reason to make any determinations as to the precise parameters of citizenship embodied by birth abroad to U.S. citizens. The court did not need to, nor did it, investigate the subject with any care. Whether or not a person born abroad to U.S. parents was “naturalized” or “natural born” was way way outside of the scope of the decision in Wong.

            I guess this is where I’ll note also that the quotes in Rogers v Bellei you have posted recently, where Justice Black seems to confirm your contention that one can be born abroad and be considered “naturalized” : Justice Black wrote the DISSENT, not the opinion. Nothing he wrote has any legal judicial value. His attempts to portray Bellei as being “naturalized” outside the U.S., have no support in the judicial history or the laws of the U.S.

          • Darian Jorda

            I just discovered Rogers v. Bellei. It openly states — in several places — that a citizen at birth is a naturalized citizen. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/815.html

          • barque

            AND, it only describes naturalization for children who are NON-CITIZENS and under 18 years of age. Again, NOTHING having to do with citizenship at birth:

            “It
            allows non-U.S. citizen children under 18 who have at least one U.S. citizen
            parent, and who live in the legal and physical custody of that parent, to be
            granted automatic naturalized citizenship.
            The child must reside in the United States, and be a lawful permanent
            resident, at the time that citizenship is granted.”

          • Darian Jorda

            No, Pam. Naturalization can also occur by statute, which is what happened in Cruz’s case.

          • Darian Jorda

            I just discovered Rogers v. Bellei. It openly states that a foreign-born citizen at birth is a naturalized citizen.

            It dooms Cruz.

          • barque

            I tried to reply to your other comment, but it appears perhaps gone?

            Either way, here’s my thought on the subject of Rogers v Bellei:

            I have read over the case many times. Unfortunately for your argument, all of the quotes you posted from Rogers v Bellei are from the DISSENT in the case, meaning they are of no legal value and are not considered precedent nor persuasive. The fact is, in the dissent Justice Black was positing a very convoluted argument in an attempt to portray Bellei as a person “naturalized into the United States.” He was stretching the idea, at best. In fact, he starts with “…Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship [401 U.S. 815, 840] under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens…” because those persons are not actually naturalized. They are citizens at birth. Their citizenship descends from the U.S. citizen parent.

            If you look at the entire case, it is easy to see why Black is attempting this hocus pocus in order to portray Bellei as “naturalized.” His own earlier case, Afroyim v Rusk, held that once a person was naturalized (through the normal process within the U.S.) the congress has no authority to take that person’s citizenship away, because according to the 14th amendment a naturalized citizenship is not a second class citizenship, it is coequal with natural born citizenship. Accordingly, under the protections of the 14th amendments, the congress can no more take away a naturalized citizen’s citizenship, once conferred, than it can take away natural born citizen’s citizenship, as long as the persons are born or naturalized in the United States. Get it? Black is trying to argue that Bellei, although born abroad, was “naturalized INTO the United States” and should be considered protected as a “14th amendment citizen.” Only problem with that argument is that nobody considers a person receiving citizenship abroad as a “naturalized” citizen. Just because Justice Black, in a dissenting opinion, says so, doesn’t wipe away the history of the law and practice of the U.S.

            It’s a nice try by SandyT, but a slightly better understanding of our judicial process and precedent would have stopped her from making such an argument.

          • Jan123456

            Cite that law.

          • Dave B.

            You are one confused individual.

          • Darian Jorda

            Pam, yes they were at most citizens at birth. We are in agreement. You are making an unsupported leap by assuming that’s the same thing as a natural-born citizen. Natural-born status relies on Jus Soli. Where you’re born matters a lot.

          • Pam Parizo

            Our government has made no ruling or definition of “natural born citizen” in the manner you have.

          • SandyT
          • Darian Jorda

            False. According to the state dept description they may aquire citizenship if they go through a process, which the state department outlines here: http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

          • Dave B.

            Uh, no, the State Department is quite clear that such persons acquire US citizenship AT BIRTH. Again, the process is for acquiring PROOF of citizenship.

          • barque

            No Darian, the “process” is for getting paperwork registered to prove the event. The event itself confers citizenship on the child and whether or not a paperwork process occurs immediately after the fact, or long after the fact, or never, is irrelevant to that fact. The registration process makes it far easier to prove the fact of the citizenship at birth by birth, but the process in no way confers such citizenship. The circumstances of the birth can be proven in other ways.

          • Steven Wittlake

            I hope you saw the birth certificate that I posted for Ted Cruz from Calgary Canada and the revocation of the birth certificate by Ted. So now what are you saying about birth of Ted. how do you define a stateless person.

          • Dave B.

            The “birth certificate from colon Panama” is a fake cooked up by notorious conman Donald Lamb, and authenticated by…Donald Lamb. McCain was born on the submarine base at Coco Solo. Ironically, his citizenship at birth would’ve been less controversial if he HAD been born at Colón.

          • Darian Jorda

            Pam, at most Cruz became a citizen at birth. He was naturalized at birth. There is a difference.

          • Jan123456

            Where in US law is “naturalized at birth” defined?

          • daronlady620
          • Jan123456

            1. Neither of your postings are US law, although they do reference actual case and legislative law.
            2. Neither of your postings even attempt to define “naturalized at birth”.

            That being said, your first article explicitly states:

            “CITIZENSHIP OF CHILDREN BORN ABROAD”:
            The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization:” (Emphasis added)

          • daronlady620

            What’s your point? Mine was simply to clarify how US citizenship is currently defined, since there seems to be a lot of confusion about the topic, and I wasn’t trying to provide any explanation of the phrase “naturalized at birth” which, as far as I can determine, doesn’t occur anywhere (and makes no sense anyway).

          • Jan123456

            My question to Darian was “Where in US law is “naturalized at birth” defined. You simply posted two links (without any other explanation as to why) to me directly after that post.

            Had you told me the purpose of your post, I would not have assumed you were trying to answer my question.

            (And, I do agree with you…it makes no sense anyway.)

          • Darian Jorda

            It’s a constitutional issue, and it’s well-documented in SCOTUS rulings.

            Here, for example, is Rogers v. Bellei. Aldo Bellei was born in Italy to an Italian-citizen father and a native-born (Philadelphia) American-citizen mother. The Court declared him to be a citizen at birth:

          • Jan123456

            Nope. The majority opinion in Rogers v Bellei ruled, “He was not naturalized in the United States.” (Page 401 US 827)

            The court did NOT declare Bellei a naturalized citizen. That statement was written by the minority – read “losing side”. In addition, the minority also wrote, “but Bellei, since he acquired his American citizenship at birth in Italy as a foreign-born child of an American citizen, was neither born nor naturalized in the United States,..”( page 401 US 839) (Emphasis added)

            At the time of WKA it was true that you had to be born in the jurisdiction of the United States. However, since then congress passed legislation that allowed for other scenarios. (8 USC 1401)

            That all being said…NONE of what you wrote provides a definition of “naturalized at birth”.

          • Darian Jorda

            No. First off, you’re quoting the minority’s opinion of what the majority said. You’re not quoting what the majority actually said. Both sides — majority and minority — referred to Bellei as naturalized, and both sides agreed that he was born a citizen.

            Citizen at birth: “”He also acquired United States citizenship at his birth under Rev. Stat. 1993, as amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, 1, 48 Stat. 797, then in effect.”

            Blackmun, writing for the majority, said that Bellei had no US citizenship at all because he failed the statutory requirement of establishing residence in the US. But he does call Bellei’s citizenship “wholly statutory” and thus subject to Congress’s naturalization rules. Bellei broke those rules, so Blackmun said Bellei’s entire citizenship should be revoked. “Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
            The Court has recognized the existence of this power. It has observed, “No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with . . . .” ”

            Black, Douglas, and Marshall, for the minority: “As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization when used in its constitutional sense is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization.”

            The only difference between the majority and minority SCOTUS judges was that the majority said Bellei’s citizenship should be revoked. The minority said it shouldn’t.

            In sum, both sides agreed that Bellei was a citizen at birth and that he was a naturalized citizen. One may assume that he was therefore naturalized at birth, but if you’d rather assume that he was naturalized at some other time I don’t have an opinion on that.

          • Jan123456

            The minority opinion starts at 401 US 837. Everything above is from the majority. You have to read the actual ruling.

            It specifically states in the majority opinion that Bellei was NOT naturalized in the United States.

            Regardless, in neither of the rulings you cite does the term “naturalized at birth” occur.

          • Judy Selich

            Darian Jorda, there is nothing anyone can say that will convince Pam she does not understand the differences in terminology on citizenship, natural born citizen, naturalized citizen, etc.

          • SandyT

            “Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequentto that citizenship.

            The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis)

          • barque

            You do understand the term “condition subsequent” in the legal sense, right? It means a condition which must be met at some point AFTER the event, meaning in this case, AFTER the person has already acquired citizenship at the moment of birth by virtue of that birth. In Rogers v Bellei, Bellei was stripped of his citizenship which he had from the moment of birth. It did not deny him the acquisition of his citizenship. A “condition subsequent” is not a condition necessary to acquire citizenship and is not part of some sort of process for becoming a citizen.

          • SandyT

            He LOST his naturalized citizenship due to the fact that he didn’t fulfill the residency requirements, barque, but he originally acquired his citizenship in the exact same manner as Cruz did, by birth in a foreign country to one citizen parent and one alien parent. The only difference between Cruz and Bellei is that Cruz DID fulfill the residency requirement and retained HIS naturalized citizenship, but it still is NOT natural born citizenship! He is not constitutionally eligible for the presidency or vice presidency!

          • barque

            You don’t have any basis for calling it “naturalized citizenship.” You need to stop inserting your own term into discussions of actual law and court decisions. It’s deceitful.

            Bellei lost his citizenship because according to the law he didn’t meet the conditions subsequent to acquiring citizenship by birth to a U.S. parent abroad. In no way do any of the details of this situation merit you calling it naturalized citizenship. The court simply affirmed that just as the Congress has the power to require a condition precedent to acquisition of citizenship by birth abroad, the Congress has the power to also require a condition subsequent to that acquisition.

            However, Cruz did not have to meet the condition subsequent because as of 1978 congress removed such requirements.

            In any case, regardless of why or how or if Cruz was subject to a condition subsequent to his acquisition of citizenship abroad, you still have zero support to deny that his citizenship was actually by descent through his mother, by birth at birth, which the U.S. government and the general consensus of the vast majority of experts considers to be natural born citizenship.

            Sorry SandyT

          • Darian Jorda

            Regarding Bellei, while it’s true that the specific references to naturalization come from the dissenting opinion, those references weren’t dissenting from the majority opinion. The minority disagreed with the majority only in that it said that Bellei should keep his citizenship, which the majority said he should lose. There’s no indication that the majority and minority disagreed on the nature of that citizenship.

            The majority opinion did state that Bellei was at most a statutory citizen, which indicates that it too did not seem him as having natural-born status.

          • barque

            Actually you’re crossing a line when you say the majority stated Bellei was “at most” a statutory citizen. There was no “at most” about it. There was no indication in what the majority opinion said which would indicate that “statutory citizenship” as you describe it is some level less than “natural born” – there was NOTHING in the majority opinion painting as you are with those words that there were levels of citizenship.

            “The minority disagreed with the majority only in that it said that Bellei should keep his citizenship…”

            No, not ONLY. The majority said Bellei was a citizen at birth. The majority said Bellei was born a citizen, abroad, under statutes as laid out by congress, and as such, he was obviously never “born in” the United States nor was he “naturalized in” the United States, and was thus not a “14th amendment citizen”. Bellei had argued that according to the 14th amendment there is no difference in status of citizenship under the 14th amendment once conferred upon an individual, and that congress should not have the power to remove “naturalized” citizenship since it does not have the power to removed “natural born” citizenship. However, since the majority argued that since 14th Amendment citizenship extends to all those born in or naturalized in the U.S., and since Bellei was a citizen at birth outside the U.S., Bellei was neither of the 14th amendment citizenship, and THEREFORE fell fully under the power of the congress. Since congress has a right to set conditions precedent to birth (parents living in U.S. for a certain number of years), that congress also has the power to set conditions subsequent to birth (the child living in U.S. for a certain number of years.). The majority held that although Bellei was a citizen at birth, he could nevertheless lose his citizenship later if he didn’t comply with conditions subsequent to birth by congress since he was born a citizen under the statutory power of congress.

            NONE OF THAT in any way indicates Bellei was less than a natural born citizen. What is SURE is the majority states clearly Bellei was a citizen upon his birth.

            The dissent clearly attempted to portray Bellei’s statutory citizenship as “naturalized,” so the dissent could somehow twist that around to mean that being “naturalized into citizenship” is “naturalized into the U.S.” which is, if you keep on twisting, the same as the 14th Amendment’s “naturalized in the United States.” It is a poppycock argument. It was an attempt to say that the congress, since citizenship was conferred via the 14th Amendment, the had no more say in the matter and should not have been able to strip Bellei of his citizenship. But he was not either born or naturalized in the United States, and since the dissent couldn’t portray Bellei as being born in the U.S., the dissent had to pretend that Bellei was “naturalized” and should be counted as being naturalized in the U.S.

          • barque

            In contrast to my longer reply below, I’ll summarize:

            You say “while it’s true that the specific references to naturalization come from the dissenting opinion, those references weren’t dissenting from the majority opinion.”

            Actually, those references ABSOLUTELY were dissenting from the majority opinion. The majority simply said Bellei was neither born or naturalized in the United States. Thus his citizenship is controlled by statutes written by Congress, and not by the 14th Amendment processes. The dissent, by painting Bellei as “naturalized” is FULLY disagreeing with the majority opinion. The entire concept of naturalization is that it is a process which a) happens in the U.S., by legal process and b) is for converting a person born an alien, into a U.S. citizen. The dissenting opinion, trying to describe Bellei as naturalized outside the U.S. at birth, is a totally different characterization than what the majority sees it as.

          • Dave B.

            Uh, no, both sides agreed that Bellei was, in the constitutional sense, naturalized. The majority absolutely depended upon that interpretation. The dissenters just used more direct and explicit language on that particular.

            For the majority, Justice Blackmun cited to Wong Kim Ark:

            “Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was “declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,” so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688 . Then follows a most significant sentence:
            “But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”
            Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.”

            On what basis does Congress take such action? As Justice Gray pointed out, by its constitutionally-granted naturalization power. And as Justice Blackmun pointed out in his footnotes,

            “At oral argument plaintiff’s counsel conceded that “Congress need not vest a person in his position with citizenship if it chooses not to do so.””

            Justice Black took exception with the majority’s “narrow, restrictive, and super-technical interpretations of the Citizenship Clause”–

            Blackmun:
            “The central fact, in our weighing of the plaintiff’s claim to continuing and therefore current United States citizenship, is that he was born abroad. He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States. And he has not been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All this being so, it seems indisputable that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to plaintiff Bellei.”

            Black:
            “This interpretation obviously imposes a limitation on the scope of the Citizenship Clause which is inconsistent with the conclusion expressed above that the Fourteenth Amendment provides a comprehensive definition of American citizenship, for the majority’s view would exclude from the protection of that Clause all those who acquired American citizenship while abroad . . . Rather than the technical reading adopted by the majority, it is my view that the word “in” as it appears in the phrase “in the United States” was surely meant to be understood in two somewhat different senses: one can become a citizen of this country by being born within it or by being naturalized into it.”
            Justice Brennan succinctly characterized the basis for dissent in his conclusion that “that the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to persons ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time.”

            Basically, the dissenters argued that the meaning of the words “naturalized in the United States” should encompass all those naturalized BY the United States.

          • barque

            “Basically, the dissenters argued that the meaning of the words “naturalized in the United States” should encompass all those naturalized BY the United States.”

            A single dissenter said this, Justice Black. He was claiming that Bellei’s birth outside the U.S. should be considered “naturalization” and then it could be considered just as valid as “naturalized in the United States” for the purposes of giving Bellei 14th Amendment protection. It was a stretch to be sure, and it was in the dissent. The ruling of the court was that Bellei was not born or naturalized in the United States and thus his citizenship by birth outside the U.S. was under the powers of the congress. The ruling in no way suggested this counted as “naturalization,” since legal naturalization consists of converting a person born an alien into a citizen, and it must occur within the United States. Neither of those conditions exist in the event of a birth abroad conferring citizenship on a child.

            Also, people get kind of confused when the court says any citizenship not covered by the constitution is conferred “by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” This does not mean all citizenship conferred by congress is “naturalization.” The congress was given the power in the constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, meaning, congress was given the power to deal with the issue of citizenship as it relates to anyone not born within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.

            Two aspects of this power have been VERY clear from the beginning. One, naturalization is the conversion of a person who was born an alien, into a person who is a citizen; and this conversion must take place in the United States under rules set forth by congress. Second, the power also contemplates that the congress can by statute proclaim that the children born abroad of U.S. citizens are themselves citizens at birth. This requires no naturalization process, as the child is NOT born an alien. The child also is a citizen at birth and need not be present within the boundaries and jurisdiction of the United States. This quite simply is “natural born” citizenship. It can not be any other kind, lol.

            If there is still any doubt that this was the intent and the understanding of the founders, a quick look at the common law will show that Parliament had the same powers. Only Parliament could naturalize foreigners and the process was exercizsed within the jurisdiction of Great Britain only. Also, by statute Parliament specifically by statute proclaimed all children born to British Subjects abroad, “natural born subjects.” Clearly this was also NOT naturalization. The process is identical to the practice in the U.S., and the very first congress, in exercising this power, made precisely the same kind of rules in the first naturalization act, in that it set rules for people born aliens to come into the United States and be naturalized, and it also proclaimed the children born abroad of American citizens to be “natural born citizens.”

            Anyone who refuses to see the distinct and clear mirroring of the common law practice and the powers conferred on the congress in the constitution as being congruent to the powers held by Parliament in Great Britain, is willfully turning their heads away from the plain truth.

            Again, Black’s attempt to paint birth abroad as some sort of “naturalization” was not only completely at odds with the history of citizenship in the U.S., it was most certainly in the dissent and thus has ZERO legal or persuasive value. It makes no sense to pull it up out of the bowels to try to craft an argument around it.

          • Dave B.

            This is just…strange.

            “A single dissenter said this, Justice Black.”

            Okay, the full sentence from Justice Brennan which I partially quoted:

            “In the light of the complete lack of rational basis for distinguishing among citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas, the conclusion is compelled that the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to persons “born or naturalized in the United States” includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time.”

            “It was a stretch to be sure, and it was in the dissent.”

            I’ve never, ever seen anybody come up with your interpretation here. This “stretch” is a longstanding, well-known interpretation by the court of the meaning, in a constitutional sense, of “naturalization.” Blackmun made it plain that the US citizenship of persons born abroad to US citizen parents absolutely depended upon Congress’s naturalization power. Do you think he only approved of the dicta from Wong Kim Ark which he quoted, and rejected this:

            “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts,”

            quoted by Justice Black? I can’t imagine a wedge sharp enough to separate one from the other. The position of the dissenters that Bellei was naturalized is PERFECTLY in accord with the majority, and with the Supreme Court’s well-known, consistent interpretation of naturalization.

            “The ruling in no way suggested this counted as “naturalization,” since legal naturalization consists of converting a person born an alien into a citizen, and it must occur within the United States.”

            The Court ABSOLUTELY suggested that this “counted as ‘naturalization,'” and that Bellei was an alien naturalized at birth by statute.

            “Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.”

            The ONLY “proper congressional action” under the Constitution is exercise of its naturalization power.

            “4. The Court has recognized the existence of this power. It has observed, “No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with . . . .” United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, 475 (1917). See United States v. Ness, 245 U.S. 319 (1917); Maney v. United States, 278 U.S. 17 (1928). And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent. As hereinabove noted, persons born abroad, even of United States citizen fathers who, however, acquired American citizenship after the effective date of the 1802 Act, were aliens. Congress responded to that situation only by enacting the 1855 statute. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S., at 311 . But more than 50 years had expired during which, because of the withholding of that benefit by Congress, citizenship by such descent was not bestowed. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 673 -674. Then, too, the Court has recognized that until the 1934 Act the transmission of citizenship to one born abroad was restricted to the child of a qualifying American father, and withheld completely from the child of a United States citizen mother and an alien father. Montana v. Kennedy, supra.

            Further, it is conceded here both that Congress may withhold citizenship from persons like plaintiff Bellei and may prescribe a period of residence in the United States as a condition precedent without constitutional question.”

            Going to Blackmun’s citation of Montana v. Kennedy, we find,

            “In 1854, Horace Binney, one of the country’s leading lawyers and a recognized authority on the immigration laws, published an article entitled “The Alienigenae of the United States” in which he argued that the words “who now are, or have been” in the 1802 predecessor of R.S. § 2172 had the effect of granting citizenship to the foreign-born children only of persons who were citizens of the United States on or before the effective date of the 1802 statute (April 14, 1802), in other words, that the statute had no prospective application. Foreign-born children of persons who became American citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were aliens, Mr. Binney argued. In 1855, Congress responded to the situation by enacting the predecessor (10 Stat. 604) of R.S. § 1993. The provision had retroactive, as well as prospective, effect, but was clearly intended to apply only to children of citizen fathers.”

            See that? Children born abroad to American parents were, in the absence of congressional action, aliens. What congressional action would remedy that? Naturalization. Do you think Justice Blackmun would reject his own citation?
            Nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that naturalization must occur “within the United States.” Congress currently provides for overseas naturalization of spouses and children of US citizens serving in the US armed forces under 8 U.S. Code §§ 1430(e)(2) and 1433(d)(3). Maybe someday that’ll provide the case that drives the stake through Rogers v. Bellei; which I won’t call bad law, because it IS the law– but it’s mighty WEAK law.

            “Also, people get kind of confused when the court says any citizenship not covered by the constitution is conferred “by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” This does not mean all citizenship conferred by congress is “naturalization.””

            Once more, from Justice Gray:

            “Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts,” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702-3.

            Honestly, to say the justices of the United Supreme Court have been perpetually confused is a little bit goofy.

            “Two aspects of this power have been VERY clear from the beginning. One, naturalization is the conversion of a person who was born an alien, into a person who is a citizen; and this conversion must take place in the United States under rules set forth by congress. Second, the power also contemplates that the congress can by statute proclaim that the children born abroad of U.S. citizens are themselves citizens at birth. This requires no naturalization process, as the child is NOT born an alien. The child also is a citizen at birth and need not be present within the boundaries and jurisdiction of the United States. This quite simply is “natural born” citizenship. It can not be any other kind, lol.”

            I’ve already demonstrated where these arguments fail. What YOU seem to be confused about is the difference between naturalization, in the statutory sense, and naturalization in the constitutional sense. For the former, yes, a process is required. For the latter, whether or not a process is required is entirely dependent upon whether or not Congress prescribes one.

            “If there is still any doubt that this was the intent and the understanding of the founders, a quick look at the common law will show that Parliament had the same powers. Only Parliament could naturalize foreigners and the process was exercizsed within the jurisdiction of Great Britain only. Also, by statute Parliament specifically by statute proclaimed all children born to British Subjects abroad, “natural born subjects.” Clearly this was also NOT naturalization.”

            Parliament considered it naturalization. From Blackstone’s Commentaries:

            “When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles.”

            See that? “…for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries.”

            “Anyone who refuses to see the distinct and clear mirroring of the common law practice and the powers conferred on the congress in the constitution as being congruent to the powers held by Parliament in Great Britain, is willfully turning their heads away from the plain truth.”

            Well then cut it out.

            “Again, Black’s attempt to paint birth abroad as some sort of “naturalization” was not only completely at odds with the history of citizenship in the U.S., it was most certainly in the dissent and thus has ZERO legal or persuasive value. It makes no sense to pull it up out of the bowels to try to craft an argument around it.”

            This “attempt” was well-founded in “the history of citizenship in the U.S.” Justice Blackmun, who twice cited to dissents in his majority opinion, would find your assertion that a dissent has “ZERO legal or persuasive value” a bit…unpersuasive.

          • SandyT

            In 1898, Supreme Court Justice Gray in delivering the majority opinion in the case of US v Wong Kim Ark stated “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, … by authority of Congress, exercised … by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens …” [See:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 That statement clearly indicates that children of citizens who are born outside US Territory, who gain their citizenship by Congressional statute are naturalized. In other words, simply having citizen parents isn’t enough to make a natural born citizen!

            In 1951, Chief Judge Phillips in delivering the opinion in the case of Zimmer v. Acheson for the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said of someone who was born outside the United States to two US citizen parents, acquiring their citizenship under Revised Statutes § 1993 (the precursor of todays 8 USC 1401), that the nature of their citizenship “status as a citizen was that of a naturalized citizen and not a native-born citizen.” [See: https://www.courtlistener.com/…/zimmer-v-acheson…/…]

            In 1956, Judge Hamley, in delivering the opinion in the case of Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles for the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in a case pertaining to two men born outside the United States to a naturalized US citizen father, noted that Revised Statutes § 1993 (the precursor of todays 8 USC 1401) is “a naturalization law in the constitutional sense.” [See: https://www.courtlistener.com/…/wong-kam-wo-and…/…]

            And in 1971, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who just 4 years earlier had written the majority opinion in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk, had the following observation to make of foreign-born children of US citizens; “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.”

            It appears that the position of the courts for well over a century is that foreign born children of US citizens who acquire their citizenship wholly through Congressional statutes are “naturalized” citizens.
            United States v. Wong Kim Ark
            A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth,…
            LAW.CORNELL.EDU

          • Dave B.

            You should just drop it until you actually learn what the heck you’re talking about.

          • Judy Selich

            McCain was born on a U.S. military base in Panama which was, as a matter of law, U.S. soil. His father was stationed there at the time of McCain’s birth. During the birth process, complications developed that threatened the life of the mother and the baby which the base hospital could not handle and McCain’s mother was immediately sent to a better-equipped hospital, off base, to save both the mother and the child. The birth process was far along at the time of the transfer but you are technically correct, Steven Wittlake.

          • barque

            “McCain was born on a U.S. military base in Panama which was, as a matter of law, U.S. soil.”

            Judy the more I read your comments the more I realize you have no earthly idea what you are talking about. No U.S. military base in foreign countries is considered U.S. soil. This is precisely the opposite of your claim. lol. Nor are U.S. consulates or embassies. McCain is considered a natural born U.S. citizen because his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born. According to the law he only needed one U.S. citizen parent when born abroad, but he had two. In any case it was NOT because he was considered to be born on U.S. soil. He was born on foreign soil. This blows your entire theory to bits, and it is why most legal experts agree there is no doubt Ted Cruz is a natural born U.S. citizen.

          • Judy Selich

            Actually, I do understand these concepts; I practiced law for many years before I retired, and continue to review case law. I will say this just one more time: An American military base established in a foreign country with permission of that foreign government IS U.S. soil. McCain would have been a “Natural Born Citizen” if he had been born on U.S. soil. Obama was the one who argued that being rushed to an off-base hospital to save the mother and child meant he was born on foreign soil. You’ll probably never hear me say this again but “Obama was correct” on that one miniscule point. barque, the more study of these issues that you pursue the nuances will be more clear. As an attorney, one of the most important things to learn was that words can have a significant impact on the concept and the understanding of the reader. Ted Cruz IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

          • barque

            “Obama was the one who argued that being rushed to an off-base hospital to save the mother and child meant he was born on foreign soil. ”

            Obama never made such an argument. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

          • barque

            And Judy don’t give me the BS that you’re an attorney so you understand better. lol. Just the singular statement of yours that an American military base abroad is U.S. soil, tells me all I need to know about your expertise. It absolutely is not. It ABSOLUTELY has nothing to do with the citizenship of a person born there. When a person is born on a U.S. military base in a foreign country, that person is technically born in that foreign country, just like if they are born outside the base in that country. Every time. This is not even in dispute and I find it comical that you are trying to convince us all you know, because you used to be an attorney. lol.

            The only thing that makes a person born on a U.S. military base abroad a citizen, is U.S. law which says persons born to a U.S. citizen parent abroad (under conditions) is a U.S. citizen at birth.

            I study case law too. But I’m not going to pull that crap on you. You notice what I see in case law? The common law. And you know what else I see in case law? That it vastly and comprehensively backs up the general legal consensus that a person born a citizen is a natural born citizen. Goodnight Judy!

          • Steven Wittlake

            You do not go through a naturalization process for Automatic Naturalized Citizenship Status. It is something most people are not aware of receiving and is granted to children born in foreign counties. The are naturalized citizens of country they were born in and they do receive birth certificates from foreign governments as part of this procedure. Everyone receives birth certificates from their birth country. Just like McCain and the million or so kids born in Germany during occupation after World War 2. Look up Automatic naturalized Citizenship starting with 1940 naturalization Laws.

          • Pam Parizo

            They may be considered naturalized citizens of their birth country, but they are not considered naturalized Americans.

          • Steven Wittlake

            Children are on natural born citizen in the country of their birth.

          • Jan123456

            That is up to the laws of the countries that may declare the citizens.

          • Gregg P

            NO.

          • Ben Drake

            Yes, and no. They must be born on American soil to two American citizens to be American Natural Born Citizens.

            http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

          • SandyT

            Yes, Pam, they ARE naturalized Americans.

          • RM
          • Gregg P

            Pam, you do realize that ONLY the USA offers citizenship to babies born here. Children born in Canada, Germany, Japan, China, and every other country consider the child to be the citizenship of the parents – not of the geographic location. They are not naturalized citizens of their birth country, how can they be ….they aren’t even citizens of that country.

          • barque

            Gregg, perhaps you should do a little studying. All but a couple countries in the Western hemisphere practice unrestricted jus soli citizenship by birth on the soil.

            In many countries, like England and France, it was so until just a few decades ago, and even now they practice jus soli but with certain restrictions.

          • Ben Drake

            You could not be more wrong. And you use the word naturalized incorrectly. Ted Cruz IS a citizen of Canada from the instant he was born. His birth certificate is online and if I were wrong then why did he have to renounce his Canadian citizenship?

          • Pat Long Eroh

            You’ve never heard of dual citizenship? The U.S. is stupid for allowing it. He denounced his 2nd citizenship to Canada – wow you should go back to your elementary school and finish your elementary education since you don’t know anything except insulting and somehow thinking this will make them see your distorted view.

          • Steven Wittlake

            The are naturalized citizens of country they were born in and they do receive birth certificates from foreign governments as part of this procedure. This came out incorrect. Children are natural born children of the country of their birth and the country that gives them a birth certificate,

          • Ben Drake

            They are NOT, “naturalized citizens of country they were born in”. They are NATURAL citizens of he country they were born in. Naturalized indicates they had to fill out paperwork and get permission to be citizens.

          • Pat Long Eroh

            So my children who were born in Germany due to my service that you don’t believe in (but who gives a crap what you think?) are Germans? See I kNOW you are wrong.

          • Dave B.

            That’s pretty much gibberish.

          • barque

            I know. I love it when people decide to just make it up as they go. Steven, in the U.S. there is no such thing as “Automatic Naturalized Citizenship” at birth. Naturalization, in the U.S., is the process of conferring U.S. citizenship ON A FOREIGNER via a legal process. Conferring citizenship on a newborn, is citizenship at birth. Repeat: Naturalization is a process where someone who was born a foreigner becomes a U.S. citizen later.

          • RM

            This was fixed in 1795,,But they wont tell the left.

            http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg414a.pdf

          • Judy Selich

            Steven Wittlake, outstanding analysis. Too many people do not understand the difference. In fact, your explanation is one of the most comprehensive I’ve seen.

          • Ben Drake

            Except he incorrectly used the word naturalized instead of natural.

          • Pat Long Eroh

            now you’re Mr. Grammar. Obviously you knew what he meant and other than that, this is NOT your elementary English Language Arts class. Go home and wait until you grow up before you trying again.

          • Darian Jorda

            You can be naturalized at birth. At most, that’s all Cruz can claim to be.

          • Ben Drake

            You are NOT naturalized at birth. You are natural at birth. Gees, one person incorrectly uses a word and every single poster after that misuses the same word.

          • Pat Long Eroh

            You can’t even make a sentence with sounding like a complaining 2 year old. You can call every person on here a fucking asshole and tell them they are too stupid to vote but your opinion has not and will not change anyone else’s because you are wrong and glaringly so! I call you a liar for you believing you even KNOW the constitution and too stupid to form a coherent sentence. Your words are as ineffectual as a drop of fresh water in the middle of the ocean.

          • Darian Jorda

            Pam, try to notice the words “may aquire.” Cruz is naturalized, assuming his parents followed the necessary *process*. Do you know what the word “process” means?
            It’s all right there in the link you yourself provided. Jeez. If you’re an example of the type of troll Ted is hiring he really is in bad shape.

          • Dave B.

            The “process” is for acquiring proof of citizenship, not for becoming a citizen. There is a process of acquiring proof of identity. Does that make you who you are?

          • SandyT

            He was collectively “naturalized at birth”, Pam, because of naturalization laws passed by Congress making such children born abroad of citizen parent/parents, “naturalized citizens”, if they meet certain requirements. His mother would have to have gone to the nearest embassy or consulate and applied for a CRBA (Consular Report of Birth Abroad) and would have to prove that she was a citizen and that the child was born to her in Canada. Naturalization law! INA Section301(g) for a child born abroad to one citizen and one alien parent. Such children do not have to go through any further naturalization process.

          • Dave B.

            Such children don’t have to go through ANY naturalization process, and they’re not collectively naturalized, either. There is no requirement under which “His mother would have to have gone to the nearest embassy or consulate and applied for a CRBA (Consular Report of Birth Abroad).”

          • SandyT

            You need to do some more research, Dave.

            US vs Wong Kim Ark:
            “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,…”

          • Dave B.

            That doesn’t contradict anything I said.

          • Pam Parizo

            That was in 1898, not 1970.

          • Pam Parizo

            The immigration laws have varied over time. The law in effect when Ted was born did not define him as a naturalized citizen.

          • barque

            “…as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens…”

            Correct. And this is citizenship at birth, natural born citizenship. Yes, it is statutory. But no, there was no application necessary. Naturalization is the process of making AN ALIEN into a citizen.

          • SandyT

            No, it isn’t. All natural born citizens are citizens at birth, but not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens, any more than all trees are plants but not all plants are trees. The Democrats have tried to equate citizen at birth to natural born citizen but that is not true. Rubio and Jindal are examples of citizens at birth who are NOT natural born citizens. They were both born on U.S. soil but none of their respective parents were citizens at the time their sons were born. They are citizens only because of the 14th Amendment, not by natural law. Prior to the passage and ratification of the 14th, such children would not be citizens at all. They are NOT eligible for the presidency. Birth on U.S. soil or its jurisdiction + citizen father + citizen mother = natural born citizen.
            Cruz’s birth in Canada, even if both of his parents had been citizens, makes him only a “naturalized at birth citizen, by congressional statute, U.S. Code 1401(g). Cruz himself has quoted this statute as being the reason he is eligible, but it is naturalization law and cannot make anyone a “natural born citizen”. The Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate naturalization, but NOT the power to make anyone a “natural born citizen”. IF it takes any man-made writ to make someone a citizen, any law, any statute, any regulation, then the child is NOT a natural born citizen. ONLY Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen. One citizen parent is not enough, even if Ted had been born IN the U.S., for him to be a natural born citizen. STATUTORY citizens are NOT eligible!

          • SandyT

            barque, Cruz’ mother should have gone to the nearest consulate or embassy after Ted’s birth to register his birth in Canada, and apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA). If certain conditions were met, then a CRBA would be issued for him. Why has he not produced it if he has one? If he doesn’t have the CRBA, he may not be a U.S. citizen at all and in that case, would not even be eligible for the Senate seat he presently holds.
            I suppose that you are one of those who thinks Obama is constitutionally eligible, huh? Even if he had been born IN THE WH, he still would not be eligible, simply because his Kenyan father was NOT a citizen. Two wrongs don’t make a right!

          • barque

            Cruz’s citizenship depends on the circumstance of his birth, not on whether or not his mother registered the birth. Applying for a CRBA is applying for paperwork to make it easier to prove citizenship; it is not “applying” for citizenship, any more than filling out the birth forms at a hospital in California is “applying” for citizenship.

            And yes, I am “one of those” who thinks Obama is constitutionally eligible, because he is. As is Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal too. As is the child of an illegal alien being born in Southern Texas today. Sorry but thems the facts. :)

          • barque

            “All natural born citizens are citizens at birth, but not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens”

            There is no support for this claim in either the common law or the law of the U.S. or the Constitution. It’s just a claim. There is ample evidence that both the early congresses and the courts have always considered that a person born an citizen is a natural born citizen.

            “They are citizens only because of the 14th Amendment, not by natural law.”

            Actually the 14th is declaratory of the common law rule and the common and consistent practice throughout the history of the republic. Jacob Howard himself said that by the natural law a person born on U.S. soil was a citizen of the U.S. at birth. That is what “birthright” means. And since the subject of persons born abroad to Americans was not covered by natural jus soli practice, the very first congress put into statute law that those persons were also “natural born” citizens. The point is, and this is crucial, that they called them natural born merely by virtue of their citizens-at-birth.

            “Prior to the passage and ratification of the 14th, such children would not be citizens at all.”

            Completely untrue and this statement shows you know nothing of the common law or the practice in the republic up to and beyond the 14th. And I will assume you also don’t know what “declaratory” means. Through the colonial period, the early states under the articles of confederation, and then in the republic, all persons born on the soil, without regard to status of the parents, were ALWAYS considered subjects or citizens upon their birth. By natural law, the common law. If you don’t know this you’re not paying attention.

            You can keep on posting recipes but they don’t change the facts.

            Again, there is citizenship at birth, and there is naturalization later. The courts and the U.S. government only recognize these two ways to acquire citizenship. There is no such mechanism as “naturalization at birth” because only foreign nationals can be naturalized into U.S. citizens.

            And again, I will point out, the first congress, consisting of so many of the members of the constitutional congress who created the constitution just a few years before, took immediately to declaring that persons born to U.S. citizens abroad were “natural born” U.S. citizens. For any person with the least bit of intellectual honestly, this should satisfy your curiosity for the truth of their intentions.

            It can not be any clearer, that if you are a citizen at birth, even by statute, you are a natural born citizen. Because otherwise you are an alien. There is no in-between status; you can’t be a citizen by naturalization without first being an alien.

            And this is not just my opinion, or recipes cooked up to make an argument. These statements are laid out and specifically elucidated in Supreme Court decisions and treatises and considered opinions of the executive branch, and of course, the Congressional Research Service, which is a non-partisan service for researching subjects such as this and educating our lawmakers on the meaning and understanding of our historical laws and customs. You’re trying to out-logic them all and claim that you know better. Nonsense, friend, nonsense.

          • SandyT

            “And again, I will point out, the first congress, consisting of so many of the members of the constitutional congress who created the constitution just a few years before, took immediately to declaring that persons born to U.S. citizens abroad were “natural born” U.S. citizens. For any person with the least bit of intellectual honestly, this should satisfy your curiosity for the truth of their intentions.”

            barque, you are referring to the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was repealed and replaced in 1795, by the same men who wrote the 1790 Act, because by that time, they realized they had erred in saying that children born to U.S citizens abroad “shall be considered as natural born citizens”. In the 1795 version, they omitted the words “natural born” and simply said that children born to U.S. citizens abroad ” shall be considered as CITIZENS”. NOT natural born citizens. All of the liberal arguments argue that the NA of 1790 declare those born abroad are NBC, but they always fail to mention that it was declared NULL and VOID, replaced by the NA of 1795!
            Citizen at birth is NOT the same thing as natural born citizen. Rubio and Jindal are citizens at birth, born on U.S. soil but their parents were not citizens at the time their sons were born. They are citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, but they are NOT natural born citizens. Had their parents been naturalized prior to their sons’ births, then and ONLY then, would they be “natural born citizens” and eligible for the presidency or vp.

          • barque

            “because by that time, they realized they had erred in saying that children born to U.S citizens abroad ‘shall be considered as natural born citizens’.”

            Assuming facts not in evidence. Nobody felt they “erred” and it was not made an issue and no one in any way suggested there was a subcategory of citizenship whereas a person who was a citizen at birth by birth was not a natural born citizen. In other words, there is NOT A SINGLE WORD of discussion or letters or commentary suggesting the lack of the words “natural born” was supposed to deny the clear understanding of the term at the time. “natural born” was in the history of the common law the only way to refer to a subject or citizen at birth by birth.

            The 1795 Congress re-wrote the entire Act, and since the understanding both before and after that time was that a person born a citizen was a natural born citizen, it didn’t matter which term they used.

            As to your insistence that a person born a citizen has to be born to two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, has zero support in the historical record. You’re just wishing it to be true. Sorry but that’s not how it works.

            The common law, the history of legislation, the Supreme Court, treatises and commentaries and opinions of the executive branch, and the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, have ALL noted there are two and only two ways to acquire citizenship, either at birth by birth, or by naturalization, meaning being born an alien and naturalized later by application or treaty. In other words you are either at birth a citizen, or at birth an alien. If you are born an alien, you can naturalize, thus there are “natural born” citizens and there are “naturalized” citizens.

            The 14th Amendment didn’t make any kind of a new rule. In other words the 14th Amendment was declaratory of the existing practice. Look up “declaratory” if you are unclear. Also, in Wong Kim Ark, the decision noted the following:

            “”The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution… contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.”

            I’ve seen your comments and I know you’ll go on and on denying all this and re-stating your position; feel free but I’m not going to get into an “is not” “is too” circus with you, so knock yourself out. However, I do want to make one more comment about this idiocy: “All of the liberal arguments argue that the NA of 1790 declare those born abroad are NBC…”

            This is not a “liberal” argument. As stated above this is the consensus among court cases and commentaries, and the non-partisan congressional research service. Besides, you’re saying the claims that Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio are natural born citizens are the results of biased liberalism? LOL.

          • SandyT

            travel.state.gov > Legal Considerations > U.S. Citizenship Laws & Policy > Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

            NATURALIZATION LAW!

            Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

            Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock

            A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock for the purposes of citizenship acquisition when the genetic and/or gestational parents are legally married to each other at the time of the child’s birth and both parents are the legal parents of the child under local law at the time and place of birth.

            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.

          • Dave B.

            Yes, that’s nice too. And it doesn’t contradict anything I said, either.

          • Pam Parizo

            That’s the current law; under the law in effect in 1970 when Ted was born, he was automatically a citizen at birth.

          • Pam Parizo

            It doesn’t make him naturalized. It proves his citizenship that he acquired at birth. It’s like if you or me have a US birth certificate—that doesn’t make us a citizen, but it proves we are one. It is NOT a naturalization process.

          • Ben Drake

            But ted’s parent never did the paperwork when he returned from Canada. Ted is NOT even an American citizen in any way shape or form. He is a Canadian/Cuban, NOT an American.

          • Pat Long Eroh

            then why are YOU the only one who knows this or cares? Funny, I know for a fact thatTed Cruz is a candidate. and a citizen of the U.S. from birth no matter where he was born. I know that there are many of us who know about the constitution that people like you who have tried so hard to destroy it with your progressivism. Who’s YOUR candidate? Trump? That man can’t even SPELL constitution.

        • GGD

          It takes both parents not just the Mother.

          • Dave B.

            In imaginary birther law, which oddly enough nobody of any consequence gives a hoot about.

        • DownriverDem

          Where’s his mother’s birth certificate?

        • RM

          wrong..You need to understand maritime law ..Its how the founders creates parts our laws.. by this if a child were born at sea..in no mans land what country would they be in?..well they were brilliant people back then and they did fix this ..and here is why Ted Cruz is legal

          http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg414a.pdf

      • Darian Jorda

        You made up that rule, “there are only two types of citizens.” All the laws say about Cruz is, at best, that he was naturalized at birth.

        Face it, the guy’s natural-born birthplace is Canada no matter how you slice it.

        • Jan123456

          No, Pam did not make up that rule. However, you certainly made up the statement that he was naturalized at birth. You write, All the laws say about Cruz…” Show ANY of these said “laws”. Where can I find them?

          Now about Pam making up her rule. Let’s look at decades, if not centuries, of SCOTUS rulings. It has never made a distinction in citizenship except for “born” and “naturalized”.

          Minor v Happerssett

          ’Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

          “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

          “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. ”

          Luria v US

          “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands
          on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that
          of eligibility to the Presidency”

          Baumgartner v US

          “The naturalized citizen has as much right as
          the natural born citizen to exercise the cherished freedoms of speech, press and religion…”

          Elk v. Wilkins

          “The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by
          naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’”

          • Darian Jorda

            You don’t know your facts. Cruz DID have to go through a process. Do your homework.

            “A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

            http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

          • Jan123456

            But not a naturalization process…read the paragraph you cited.

            A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S.
            citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met

            Then it continues…

            The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate…

            Please note the use of the word “should”. Not “must”, but “should”.

            Now, at some point in order to, for example, get a US passport, Cruz would have to prove that his mother was a US citizen meeting the requirements of
            8 U.S. Code § 1401(g) when he was born. That is not the same as “going through a process” of naturalization.

            If you still disagree, show me any US law that talks about “naturalization at birth”.

          • Darian Jorda

            What you describe is a process. The state department describes the activities a child born abroad must do to “aquire” — and that’s the state department’s word — US citizenship. Activities. Aquire.
            Bottom line: no amount of logic-twisting will make a citizen at birth the same thing as a natural-born citizen.

          • Jan123456

            What you describe is a process.

            Once again, but not a naturalization process.

            Bottom line: no amount of logic-twisting will make a citizen at birth the same thing as a natural-born citizen.

            That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Multiple SCOTUS rulings disagree. I side with SCOTUS.

            I still want to know where you got the legal concept of “naturalized at birth”. I maintain that there is no such thing. As you said to me, “You don’t know your facts” and “Do your homework.”

          • Darian Jorda

            Jan, all the SCOTUS rulings that mention natural-born citizenship associate it with being born in the USA. So actually I’m the one siding with SCOTUS.

          • Jan123456

            ALL the SCOTUS rulings that mention natural born citizenship???? All one of them? There is only one and that is Minor v Happersett.

            That being said, you have a point. Even “Minor” does not bring up a foreign born child of a US citizen. For that you have to go to US law for scenarios that define “citizen at birth”.

            While I maintain that Cruz would overcome any challenge to his eligibility, I don’t know that there even will be a challenge. Should that happen, it will be an interesting case.

          • Darian Jorda

            Jan123456 – there are several SCOTUS cases that mention NBC. Google it. Aside from Minor, there’s Shanks, Venus, Wong Kim Ark, and others.

          • Jan123456

            Well yes, they mention the term…often in citing the Constitution or other law.., but do not have a definition…except Minor.

            WKA goes into some detail about allowing the foreign born children of citizens to be citizens, but does not use the term “natural born” in defining them.

            “That
            persons heretofore born, or hereafter to
            be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose
            fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the
            United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to
            be citizens of the United States:”

            (It’s important to understand the misogyny of the time…that a woman automatically assumed the citizenship of her husband at marriage. This is why only the father is discussed.)

          • Dave B.

            There is absolutely no activity a child born abroad to a US citizen parent capable of transmitting citizenship must do in order to acquire US citizenship at birth other than actually being born. That would be downright silly.

          • Darian Jorda

            Actually, there is: A certificate of birth abroad must be filed. So silly or not, an “activity” must be done.

          • Dave B.

            You’re quite mistaken. A US citizen parent absolutely SHOULD apply for a Certificate of Birth Abroad, but there is no requirement to do so; failure to do so does not deprive the child of US citizenship. And the idea that there are “activities a child born abroad must do to “acquire”” US citizenship is, frankly, stupid.

          • barque

            “The state department describes the activities a child born abroad must do to “aquire” — and that’s the state department’s word — US citizenship. Activities. Aquire.”

            None of those activities must be done for the child to be a citizen.

          • Dave B.

            That’s not a naturalization process. Do you know how naturalization is defined by law?

          • barque

            No, the “certain statutory requirements” had to do with whether or not his parent or parents had lived in the U.S. for a requisite number of years, etc. The child is a citizen at birth if those requirements were met.

            Applying for Birth Abroad reports are not statutory requirements, they are merely procedures for procuring documents proving birth and citizenship. Those documents don’t “confer” citizenship, they are merely proof, just like my birth certificate from Missouri proves my natural born citizenship.

        • Pam Parizo

          Darian, he was not naturalized. Naturalized indicates you have to go through a process. Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. Our government recognizes him as such.

          • Darian Jorda

            This goes for Jan123456 also. Ted Cruz DID have to go through a process. QED.

            “A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

            “According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.”

            “The child’s parents may choose to apply for a U.S. passport for the child at the same time that they apply for a CRBA. Parents may also choose to apply only for a U.S. passport for the child. Like a CRBA, a full validity, unexpired U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship.”

            From http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

          • Pam Parizo

            That s no different than you or I having our birth certified. The person is a citizen at birth.

          • Darian Jorda

            Pam, not even you believe that. Your own links detail the process and forms required, and they’re not the same as those required of US-born children.

          • Dave B.

            Those “certain statutory requirements” are found in 8 US Code Sec.’s 1401 and 1409. There is no statutory requirement to acquire a CRBA or any other proof of citizenship document in order to be a US citizen.

          • Darian Jorda

            Pam. The *process* by which Cruz could have *aquired* citizenship at birth is described right here: http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

            You are deliberately ignoring or misunderstanding simple words in print.

            Cruz may have been a citizen at birth, but only because he was naturalized at birth.

          • Dave B.

            No, YOU are “deliberately ignoring or misunderstanding simple words in print.” You’re confusing procedure for acquiring proof of citizenship with actual acquisition of citizenship. They are not the same thing.

          • Darian Jorda

            Dave B., the State Department’s words are the “process of acquiring citizenship”. The State Department’s words are *not* the “process of acquiring proof of citizenship.”

          • Dave B.

            Oh really? Then quote the State Department to that effect. Start with your own chosen reference. What a hoot.

            “When the State Department issues a CRBA it does not grant citizenship—it simply certifies that a person was a citizen at birth. Issuing or revoking a CRBA does not change the underlying circumstances of an individual’s birth and does not affect an individual’s citizenship status,” Hizam v. Kerry, 747 F. 3d 102, 107 (2014).

          • barque

            Darian, seriously, get a grip. There is no such thing as naturalization at birth. You are either a citizen at birth, or later, when you are an alien, you can be naturalized. That’s it.

          • Darian Jorda

            barque, you’re stating your assumption as fact. “One is either a citizen at birth OR a naturalized citizen. Ergo, natural-born citizens must be equivalent to citizens at birth because neither is naturalized.”

            The problem is, your assumption is wrong. And because of that your conclusion is wrong. The Naturalization Act of 1795 distinguishes between citizens at birth and natural-born citizens. And although other parts of the Act have been rescinded, that part remains in effect.

          • barque

            Sorry Darian but it’s the opposite. You are assuming facts not in evidence, as they say. The Naturalization Act does not in any way “distinguish” between citizens at birth and natural-born citizens. There is no mention of “natural-born” in that Act. The Act says that persons born to U.S. citizens abroad are themselves citizens. There is nothing in that statement which states or implies that these citizens are not “natural born.” It is an assumption on your part that not using the words “natural born” in front of the word “citizen” should necessarily mean that they are distinguished from one another. In fact, considering that in the Act of 1790 the exact same citizens at birth were referred to as “natural born”, and considering that throughout both the legislative and judicial history of the U.S. people born as citizens were variously referred to as natural born citizens or simply citizens – with NEVER an indication that the two had different attributes – leads inescapably that the congresses and the judiciary considered a person born a citizen as a natural born citizen.

            Again, the courts HAVE explicitly stated on many occasions there are two ways to be a citizen: At birth, or naturalized after being an alien. You are either born a citizen, or born an alien. In the common law a person born a citizen or a subject, was referred to as a natural born citizen or subject many times. The occasions where “natural born” were not included in front of the word citizen or subject does not suddenly create a new and separate class of citizen by birth.

            Nonsense, friend, nonsense.

            The history of our practices, laws, and judicial case law and the common law, all contradict your claim.

          • Darian Jorda

            Thanks for your reply. I disagree with your interpretation of the acts of 1790 and 1795. The 1795 act intentionally and knowingly changed the definition of citizen at birth from “natural-born” citizenship to citizenship, thereby creating a distinction. You wish to interpret the actions of the Third Congress differently from me. I believe the facts are in my favor.

            Second, can you cite any SCOTUS cases that explicitly state, as you claim, that “there are only two ways to be a citizen: At birth, or naturalized…”? I am aware of one appeals court case that does explicitly state such, and I accept that that is a very strong endorsement of your position. (I don’t remember the case offhand but I’ll look it up if you need me to.)

            But, I can’t find any SCOTUS cases that make that point.

            Thanks.

          • barque

            The third congress completely re-wrote the law. However, using the word “citizen” instead of “natural-born citizen” does not “change” the definition because the 1790 Act did not “define” natural born citizens. It simply referred to persons born of American parents abroad as such. Then in 1795 it referred to those same persons as citizens. This goes directly to my point which is that citizens born was exactly the same as natural born citizens.

            The “definition” of natural born citizen, just like the “definition” of such terms as due process, writ of habeas corpus, felony, and so on, are all found in the common law, under which a majority of the original constitutional authors studied and practiced. In the common law, a person born on the soil of England, parentage irrelevant, was a natural born subject. And, by English statute, a person born abroad of English parents was also a “natural born” subject. The important thing is that if one was born a subject, he or she was a “natural born” subject. All of them. Otherwise, a person was born an alien, and to become a subject needed to be naturalized. It was simple in the common law and was the same in the colonies, and then in the states. And when the authors of the constitution wrote those words, they wrote them with the knowledge that the meaning of the term was well-understood. To be a citizen you were either natural born or you were naturalized. The constitution allowed for naturalized citizens to be elected to congress and the senate, stating quite clearly they were eligible for election after being a citizen for a certain number of years. Obviously, they could be born and alien, become a citizen, and then after some time, be eligible for election to all offices but one. To be president, you had to be “natural born.” Simple. A citizen from the moment of your birth.

            As to your question about SCOTUS, yes, it is stated a number of times. In a case that birthers love to quote for the dicta regarding natural born citizenship, the following is written very early on:

            “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

            In Wong Kim Ark, is this:

            “The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that 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, contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.”

            “Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”

            There are in fact others but really it’s all the same. The SCOTUS statements above both refer to the common law and to U.S. case law and the constitution when they explain quite clearly one is either born a U.S. citizen or one is born an alien.

            The important point here is that NO court has ever suggested there is another subcategory citizenship by birth which is not simple the natural born citizen as known in the common law and throughout the history of the republic.

            Even in the quote that people love to pretend is a “definition” of natural born citizenship in Minor v Happersett, it is obvious that one kind of born citizenship.

            “These are the natives, or the natural-born citizens, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM aliens or foreigners.”

            Rather than get into the argument of whether or not that person must be born of two citizen parents or not, I just want to point out that the court doesn’t say “as distinguished from other kinds of citizens born here.” It simply distinguishes between native natural born citizens born here, from aliens or foreigners. When it goes on to say that perhaps persons born here of one or no citizens parents are also citizens (but they don’t need to research it for this case), this would also be as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. They would definitely still be “native” which in this court and MANY is perfectly analogous to “natural born.”

          • Darian Jorda

            Thank you. Those are excellent citations and I appreciate the research. I confess I still suspect that claims like Cruz’s to “natural-born” status are a stretch and not what the founders intended, but I need to review that belief in light of the evidence you’ve raised.

            By the way, I love your mention of the “quote that people love to pretend is a “definition” of natural born citizenship in Minor v Happersett…” Spot on.

          • barque

            thanks for the reply, I appreciate when people discuss things in a civil manner, and I admit I don’t always live up to that standard, lol.

            You’re not alone in having those nagging doubts about a person born abroad being referred to as “natural born.” That’s because the most logical deconstruction of where “natural born” comes from doesn’t naturally contemplate birth outside the country. It doesn’t deny it; it just did not originally consider it. Since MOST people born citizens/subjects were those born in the country, that they are “natural subjects” or born subjects by the “law of nature” and is undeniable. They were really all just called subjects, although they were indeed, in full descriptive terms, natural born subjects.

            The idea of a person being born outside the country yet being a subject at birth came from the well established idea that a travelling sovereign or his charges were treated in foreign countries as if they were still on their home soil, and that any children born to them were “as if” born on their home soil. So it was that a child could be born out of country, but born a citizen/subject of his home country, and thus was a natural born subject

            It is this basic understanding which led the English to declare positively by law that ALL children born to their subjects while abroad were natural born subjects. Again, because they were subjects at the moment of their birth, by virtue of their birth. It was definitely a logical step removed from the on-soil natural attachment to the country of birth which led to the WORDS “natural born”, however, declaring that being born abroad to subjects makes one a subject at birth, made it ipso facto obvious you were a “natural born subject” because there were no other categories of “born subjects” than “natural born subjects.” 600-ish years ago, the concept only allowed for the simple division of people born citizens v people born aliens.

            Only through legal process could someone born an alien come into subjecthood to join all the “natural subjects” as equals. That’s why it was called naturalization. Notice that by legal process, an alien is converted to someone “as if natural born” hence the term “natural ization.”

            Let’s look at this theoretical hypothesis that there is such a thing as a “born subject” who is not considered “natural born.” It there had been such a subcategory of subject, then certainly an alien being converted to subjecthood would not have been proclaimed “as if natural born” after that conversion. They would have been proclaimed some lower tier of subject, and the process would not have even been called “naturalization.” If there would have been a lower tier subjecthood, why would an alien brought into subjecthood be brought into the separate top tier “natural born” subjecthood, ABOVE those only considered “born as subjects but not natural born”? They wouldn’t. The fact that there was only “born a subject/ natural born subjecthood” and “born an alien” was made abundantly clear and indisputable with the law which said any person born to subjects abroad was a “natural born subject.”

            Now, of course this was in England, and later Great Britain, and although some modern day theorists would have us believe that the United States isn’t the same, the fact is our tradition, our history, our forebears, are all steeped and born of the common law and the statutes of that country. The great majority of our founders were trained in the legal system and practiced law in the colonies, which was the law of Great Britain. We did not denounce and abjure the system under which law we were living, we denounced the practice of violating our natural rights and the rights under the British constitution and the common law. We insisted that we be treated equally according the the Magna Carta, the common law, etc. In the First Continental Congress of 1774, Resolve # 5 of the Delaration and Resolves stated “That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.”

            Our Declaration of Independence wasn’t a denial of the rights due the colonies, and the protections afforded by the common law to the British people against the monarchy, it was a statement that our independence was necessary to secure those rights. Thus we became an independent nation, and EVERY new state adopted the common law as the basis of their legal structure. To date, every state coming into the union with the exception of Louisianna – being a French province before accession – has set the common law as the basis of their jurisprudence. I say all this to show that anyone who attempts to say the United States hasn’t maintained and incorporated the history and practices under the common law, is simply denial the full breadth of our history.

            So it is that our founders, living under and then demanding the common law, came to use the term “natural born” citizen, both in the Constitution as a necessary condition for presidential eligibility, but also as a term in the Naturalization Act of 1790 to describe a person “born a citizen.” The term in the common law had always embraced both birth in country to anyone, and birth abroad to subjects, as natural born subjects. It would be an odd stretch for anyone now to try to claim that leaving off the words “natural born” in any succeeding Acts after that to imply the congress was suddenly, without explanation, reversing half a millennium’s conception that anyone born a citizen is a “natural born citizen.”

          • Darian Jorda

            Great and thoughtful post.

            I’ve recently come across Rogers v. Bellei, and it explicitly makes the point that children in Cruz’s situation (in this case the child was born in Italy to an Italian father and native-born American mother and acquired citizenship at birth) are naturalized citizens.

            Here are some interesting segments:

            “By Italian law the plaintiff acquired Italian citizenship upon his birth in Italy. He retains that citizenship. He also acquired United States citizenship at his birth under Rev. Stat. 1993, as amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, 1, 48 Stat. 797, then in effect.”

            ….
            “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship [401 U.S. 815, 840] under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. ”
            ….
            “The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive definition of naturalization. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization when used in its constitutional sense is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization.”
            ….
            “Bellei, as a naturalized American, is entitled to all the rights and privileges of American citizenship…'”

            Here’s the whole case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/815.html

            I don’t see a way around this for Cruz. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.

          • barque

            I have read over the case many times. Unfortunately for your argument, all of the quotes you posted from Rogers v Bellei are from the DISSENT in the case, meaning they are of no legal value and are not considered precedent nor persuasive. The fact is, in the dissent Justice Black was positing a very convoluted argument in an attempt to portray Bellei as a person “naturalized into the United States.” He was stretching the idea, at best. In fact, he starts with “…Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship [401 U.S. 815, 840] under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens…” because those persons are not actually naturalized. They are citizens at birth. Their citizenship descends from the U.S. citizen parent.

            If you look at the entire case, it is easy to see why Black is attempting this hocus pocus in order to portray Bellei as “naturalized.” His own earlier case, Afroyim v Rusk, held that once a person was naturalized (through the normal process within the U.S.) the congress has no authority to take that person’s citizenship away, because according to the 14th amendment a naturalized citizenship is not a second class citizenship, it is coequal with natural born citizenship. Accordingly, under the protections of the 14th amendments, the congress can no more take away a naturalized citizen’s citizenship, once conferred, than it can take away natural born citizen’s citizenship, as long as the persons are born or naturalized in the United States. Get it? Black is trying to argue that Bellei, although born abroad, was “naturalized INTO the United States” and should be considered protected as a “14th amendment citizen.” Only problem with that argument is that nobody considers a person receiving citizenship abroad as a “naturalized” citizen. Just because Justice Black, in a dissenting opinion, says so, doesn’t wipe away the history of the law and practice of the U.S.

            It’s a nice try by SandyT, but a slightly better understanding of our judicial process and precedent would have stopped her from making such an argument.

          • Jan123456

            Minor v. Happersett

            “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States
            in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.”

            “Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

          • Jan123456

            Wong Kim Ark v US

            “…two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.
            Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization
            under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth
            is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined
            in the Constitution.” .

      • Judy Selich

        Part of your post is accurate but some clarification is necessary. Being born to an American citizen confers citizenship at birth. However, qualification for the presidency within the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” requires that the candidate be born on American soil.

        • Pam Parizo

          I couldn’t find that anywhere in our laws. Natural born is interpreted as by birth or at birth. Either born in the USA, or born to citizens. That’s how it was interpreted in the first two naturalization acts, within the lifetime of the Founding Fathers. Congress also defines it that way. I can’t believe that the founding fathers would exclude children of citizens born abroad.

          • Darian Jorda

            Incorrect. Natural born is not the same as “at birth” or “by birth.” I’m well aware that that’s the tack Cruzbots are taking, but it’s a false equivalence.

          • Pam Parizo

            What do you base that on?

          • Darian Jorda

            I’m not going around in circles anymore with you. It is a false equivalence because
            1. There is nothing to base the equivalence on. Neither the Constitution nor SCOTUS rulings assert any equivalence. Read that slowly until you understand it.
            2. Moreover, the naturalization act of 1795, in its harsh repeal of the act of 1790, explicitly defined children born abroad of citizen parents as citizens — that is, citizens at birth — not natural-born citizens.

          • Pam Parizo

            Our government does see the equivalence in the study done to support the resolution on John McCain. In any case, I can see that you all think yourselves the last, word on Natural Born, and most of your opinions are nowhere defined in law. Most legal experts support Ted Cruz.

          • Darian Jorda

            Incorrect. Katyal, Clement, and Maskell support Cruz, while the US state department, naturalization law, and many SCOTUS rulings go against Cruz. Katyal, Clement, and Maskell are private citizens and their opinions have no authority.

          • Dave B.

            The State Department most certainly does NOT go against Cruz. The position of the State Department has long been that the issue of eligibility for persons who acquire US citizenship at birth abroad to a US citizen parent is ambiguous and unresolved.
            “Naturalization law” is not the least bit ambiguous on the matter: such persons are not citizens by naturalization.
            While you can find citations from the Supreme Court that support a broader definition of naturalization, the Supreme Court has never decided a case of presidential eligibility.
            Jack Maskell was not writing as a private citizen, but as an employee of Congress charged with researching the topic for members of Congress. And to say scholarship has no authority would come as a surprise to members of the Supreme Court, who seldom do anything without turning to, and citing, authoritative scholarship. For some of the very best in authoritative scholarship, from one of the most respected authorities in US jurisprudence on nationality, I’d recommend Charles Gordon and his 1968 article for the Maryland Law Review, “Who Can Be President of the United States: the Unresolved Enigma,” which can be easily found by searching for its title.

          • MMikeJBenN

            I keep seeing “naturalization”. Being naturalized is not the same thing as Native citizen. I do know that much.

      • Dylan McCreary

        The point is that many ridiculous people were claiming that Obama was ineligible, based on the (incorrect) belief that he was born in Kenya, even though his mother was a US citizen. Following that same logic, those same people should also believe that Ted Cruz is ineligible as well.

        • Dave B.

          While Cruz was indeed born a US citizen in Canada in 1970, a fictional Obama born in Kenya in 1961 wouldn’t have been born a US citizen– under the very same law. And it’s the same law that made the President’s younger half-siblings Maya Soetoro Ng (born in Indonesia in 1970) and Mark and David Obama Ndesandjo (born in Kenya in 1965 and 1967) US citizens at birth. It’s never been true that every child born to a US citizen parent will be born a US citizen.

          • KarenJ

            But since Obama was born in Hawaii, which was a state at the time, there’s no question of his citizenship and eligibility.

          • Dave B.

            He would’ve been just as much a natural born citizen if he’d been born in Hawaii before it became a state, the same as Barry Goldwater was a natural born citizen because of his birth in Arizona Territory.
            Which is just one more reason it baffles me that people want to bother making up imaginary law to make an imaginary foreign-born Obama eligible.

      • DownriverDem

        How come no one can find his mother’s birth certificate?

        • KarenJ

          Or for that matter, whether or not his parents were legally married to each other at the time of Ted Cruz’ birth? No one has been able to unearth documented proof of divorce papers for either Rafael Senior or Eleanor Darragh.

          That’s another caveat that would disqualify Ted, as well as if Eleanor Darragh gave up her US citizenship when she became a Canadian.

          • Dave B.

            No, that’s not “another caveat that would disqualify Ted.” It wouldn’t hurt to read the actual laws sometime.

      • FirstShirt

        Pam, the Immigration & Naturalization Service did not exist when NBC was created in the Constitution. No law, Agency, Organization, Presidential Decree, or Federal Law can modify one single syllable of the Constitution. That requires a Constitutional Convention; not an easy task. The fact that Ted was born in Canada to a Canadian father eliminates him from being a natural born citizen. Ted’s father, Raphael Cruz in an interview with NPR many years ago said he and his US wife moved to Canada and both emigrated into Canada, becoming Canadian Citizens. Maybe Ted’s father was just lying. . . But I don’t think so.

        • Dave B.

          When did he ever say his wife became a Canadian citizen? And if she did, but never renounced her US citizenship, what difference would it make?

      • Ben Drake
    • Steven Wittlake

      Children of U.S. citizens born in foreign lands are given a birth certificate from that land and Automatic Naturalization Citizenship but not natural born citizenship. In addition to McCain receiving a Panama birth record from Colon and Automatic naturalization Citizenship as a child Born of 2 U.S. Citizens parents and there were about 1 million Children born in Germany during occupation from 1945 +60 years who were given German birth certificates and Automatic Naturalization Citizenship from USA. There was a Panama Canal zone only in the imagination of the USA. By Treaty USA receive only permission to build and defend said Canal for a set payment in Gold. Banau-Varilla Treaty which was revoked when USA shot 22 student demonstrators. Congressional declaration was for Obama and McCain because it was not worth the paper it was printed on. It was not ratified by 3/4 of the States. I would not be to quick regarding Obama problems. There is an airplane ticket from Kenya when Obama was 3 days old
      but records for the week are mission from files. This is information many years old but it is recently talked about within past week on internet. Ted Cruz is not home free because there is no information that his mother was a U.S. citizen yet that I know of. His father is immaterial because he was not a citizen at time of his birth. Look at 1940 INS which is first immigration law to recognize only the mother and not the father in these type of cases.

      • Pam Parizo

        Ted Cruz’s mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. Her parents were both born in Delaware. Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh. I’ve been studying his family tree.

        • Steven Wittlake

          What are you trying to say.

          • Steven Wittlake

            somewhere in this mess is a copy of birth certificate of Ted cruz from Calgary canada

          • Steven Wittlake

            Reattached

          • Steven Wittlake

            revocation of Canadian birth record by Ted

        • Steven Wittlake

          I do not know that Eleanor was born in Delaware. All I have found is birth records of parents.

          • Pam Parizo

            According to the 1940 census, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh was born in Delaware. She lived in Delaware until she went to college in Texas, which she graduated in 1956 when she would’ve been 22. That certainly qualifies her as a citizen.

          • Steven Wittlake

            Mother is a natural born citizen of the USA as far as I know but Ted certainly is not. There is a divorce between Raphael and Eleanor which means there was a marriage and they probably took out citizenship in Canada because Raphael voted in a Canadian election in 1974 and you cannot vote unless you are a citizen.

          • Steven Wittlake

            Divorce of Rafael B Cruz and Eleanor Cruz is in Harris county Texas and is dated in 13 Feb 1997.

          • Pam Parizo

            That was long after they came to America. So what’s the point?

          • Kansan

            Correct. Where did you get that date?

          • Pam Parizo

            Do you have a source for him voting in Canada? Even if he did, that doesn’t affect Ted’s mother’s citizenship unless you can document that she renounced it. This is a lot of hearsay. They came to America when Ted was 4.

      • Pam Parizo

        See above. They are not naturalized.

      • Pam Parizo

        Can you provide sources on this?

      • Judy Selich

        Cruz’ mother was born in the United States, there is no question about that and her entire family lived here as well. She was definitely an American citizen from birth. Cruz held his dual Canadian citizenship until shortly after he declared for the presidency.

      • Dave B.

        That’s pretty much nuts.

    • Pam Parizo

      Yes, but the documentation Congress used to back up McCain also supports Ted Cruz.

      • Joanne Bamberger

        I would guess that it does not, because one of the things that got McCain by on this was that the Panama Canal Zone military base where he was born was deemed to be part American territory

        • Steven Wittlake

          The Panama canal zone was never American property, Read the treaty Banau-Varilla. It was strictly an illusion and wishful thinking on the part of the United states. They received the right only to build and defend the canal for a yearly fee in gold. Panama kicked the USA out when they shot 22 student demonstrators.

        • Pam Parizo

          This, is from the Congressional Research Service Report:
          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.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.[2]

        • Dave B.

          No part of the Canal Zone was “American territory” as far as the 14th Amendment is concerned. Nobody ever acquired US citizenship just by being born in any part of the Canal Zone.

      • Steven Wittlake

        there is no documentation.it is just a point of law.

      • SandyT

        NO, it doesn’t, Pam. McCain had TWO citizen parents and his father was serving in the Navy. Cruz has only one citizen parent and neither of them were in the military.

    • Steven Wittlake

      There is if you have had any experience with reading the constitution.
      Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility
      requirements for serving as president of the United States:

      Citizen of USA at time of adoption of the constitution? Everyone was a Citizen at time of adoption of the Constitution and included such people as George Washington and about
      8 other Presidents. These people are all dead and have been for at least 150 years.
      Natural born citizens? Now who could these people be? Naturally, anyone born in the USA the
      day after the adoption of the Constitution. You have to think when you are reading the Constitution.

      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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not
      have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a
      Resident within the United States.

      • DownriverDem

        Where’s his mother’s birth certificate? It has been said that she was a Canadian citizen when Ted was born?

        • RM

          she is an american as long as she never gave it up and she didnt ..
          http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg414a.pdf

        • Gregg P

          His mother was born in Delaware. She was born a US citizen and has always been a US citizen. She just lived in Canada for a few years.

          • Melinda Craig

            yet he had to renounce his Canadian citizenship to be able to run for President.

          • Jan123456

            No, he didn’t HAVE to…at least not legally. However, people were getting their undies in a wad and he renounced so they would believe his sole allegiance was to the US.

          • Melinda Craig

            :) Another winger who claims God talks to him, that won’t be in our White House in 2017

          • RobietheCat

            Seriously, he didnt have to? So in your book, a dual citizen is eligible for the US presidency? Show me where in the Constitution it allows that?

          • Jan123456

            Show me where it forbids it.

          • barque

            He didn’t have to. He felt it would look better if he did. Legally there was no reaso for him to renounce his Canadian citizenship, because legally it does not affect thta fact that he is a natural born U.S. citizen.

          • Judy Selich

            barque, Cruz cannot be a “Natural Born Citizen”, within the meaning of the Constitution. Natural Born Citizen means: born on American soil, to two citizen parents. There is no other definition of Natural Born Citizen.

          • barque

            Judy I’ve seen your comments and you’ve probably seen mine. There is no such definition. The meaning of “natural born citizen” is defined through historical use and understanding in the common law and the U.S. legal system. I am not going to repeat for the zillionth time what all those instances are. You will not be convinced.

            But I will say this: Do you not find it odd that the vast consensus, and considered opinions of both the legislative and executive branch, and ultimately, the effect of the law, is that 1. anyone born on U.S. soil, even to illegal aliens, is a natural born citizen and is eligible to the presidency, and 2. anyone born a citizen, even outside the United States, is a “natural born citizen.”

            Born a citizen is natural born. A person is born a citizen or born an alien. If born an alien the only way to become a citizen is to be naturalized through process of law.

            This is so simple that it boggles the mind people like you continue to insist that somewhere there exists “definitions” of natural born when no such definitions exist except in how it was understood in the common law.

          • Ben Drake

            Barque, I won’t bother to explain it to you because your mind seems closed. The term NBC has long been defined by Jefferson, Washington, Madison and SCOTUS. Read below and let the Supreme Court convince you.

            http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

          • Pat Long Eroh

            so when are you going to shut up then since you have not managed to convince anyone who did not already have the skewed view you have. You’ve posted on every single post here like you think you are so important. Finish high school first and THEN tell us what you think. Or preferably, don’t. Glad you are too young to vote.

          • barque

            Ben, clearly based on your intellectual laziness I don’t owe you a single word, but I will post a couple sentences here so that the good folks coming to read the content in this forum will get some good information out of it.

            Any and all of you here who propose to make an argument by simply posting a link to a whole site which seemingly supports your position, you are lazy unthinking idiots. Ben, thanks for not trying to bother explaining anything to me, because honestly it would have probably been insufferable blather and would have been a worse waste of my time than the effort I put into checking out your nonsense link. After looking at the first two of those all-important supreme court cases I am satisfied that the lunatics who vomited up that pap don’t have the faintest idea about the law and history, nor do they even know how to read a court decision.

            The Venus. The site, fourwinds, despite the fact that the Venus case had NOTHING to do with natural born citizenship, decides to tell us all what The Venus says about citizenship. And I know why, of course. The Venus quotes Vattel a number of times, and birthers LOVE Vattel. The references to Vattel are not surprising since Vattel wrote about the law of nations, and the Venus was about prize confiscation on the high seas during wartime. International agreements on proper conduct in war regarding property and prize capture. In summary, the case decision was wrapped around whether or not the persons who lost their ship, being naturalized U.S. citizens, had established intent to adhere to the enemy during wartime or if their “intention” to return to the U.S. would allow them to keep their property. I won’t bore anyone with the details. I just want to address some ridiculous GLARINGLY erroneous statements fourwinds makes regarding the case.

            Your amateur-hour website fourwinds says:
            “In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:”

            First, the decision was not unanimous. Second, the majority decision of the court was written by Justice Washington. Third, Justice Livingstone did not even concur with the majority, nor did he write anything at all. Justice Livingston, without comment, concurred with Chief Justice Marshall, who DISSENTED from the court’s decision.

            So finally, it was Chief Justice Marshall, in his dissent, who quoted the entire section of Vattel, which incidentally the fourwinds site cuts off about 1/3 into the quote. This is odd since what Chief Justice Marshall went on to comment about was the section fourwinds neglected to even post, the section which had nothing to do with citizenship but instead had to do with the concept of fixing domicile in a foreign country with the intention of doing business, and either returning to your home country in some time, or not. Here’s just the beginning of what Marshall said about the Vattel section:

            “A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but ‘an intention of always staying there.’ Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than ‘simple habitation.’

            Although this intention may be implied without being expressed, it ought not, I think, to be implied, to the injury of the individual, from acts entirely equivocal. If the stranger has not the power of making his residence perpetual, if circumstances, after his arrival in a country, so change as to make his continuance there disadvantageous to himself, and his power to continue doubtful, ‘an intention always to stay there’ ought not, I think, to be fixed upon him in consequence of an unexplained residence previous to that change of circumstances.”

            So in other words, Marshall was quoting Vattel in the hopes of clearing up a concept of intention to fix permanent domicile or not. He had NOTHING to say about citizenship or natural born citizenship at that.

            MOST IMPORTANTLY, nothing Chief Justice Marshal said anyway means anything legal as it was in his dissent. And of course, as I said, Livingstone simply concurred with Marshall in dissent.

            Why am I explaining all this? Just to show how JACKED your stupid link is. That’s the FIRST of the four court decisions which the site fourwinds attempts to use to prove a point which is untenable.

            The second is Shanks v Dupont, I will be BRIEF: The quotes about the subject partaking in the national character of her father – as if citizenship is determined by the father and not the place of birth – is unfortunately for your argument about “election” during the revolutionary war with Britain. The case states that during the years of the war, 1776-1783, both the U.S. and Brittain claimed all persons in the colonies/states to be citizens or subjects of their respective countries; both countries settled on persons making an “election” as to which country to adhere to. The subject in question may have been an adult upon the death of her father, in which case the court says she could make that election herself; she may have been a minor, in which case the court says she would partake in the character of her father. But farther down in the decision it is make clear by Justice Story that this is because the father is to make an election on behalf of his minor children, meaning his election binds to his minors. This is NOT because the childrens’ citizenship at birth is dependent on the father’s citizenship, but rather because their citizenship at birth, which depended on the PLACE of birth, was British, and that the war forced all to decide to keep that subjecthood and go to England, or take on the citizenship of the new United States and stay. A minor could not make that decision.

            Minor v Happersett, this has been discussed ad infinitum: Dicta. Everything Happersett purports to say about who is or is not a natural born citizen is dicta. Look it up if you have to. I am going to assume you know less than the amateurs at fourwinds.

            US v Wong Kim Ark. This case was about a person born in the United States subject to the jurisdiction. While the court is free to express some ideas about the status of those born overseas to parents who are citizens, it is all dicta. It has nothing to do with the case at hand, the idea of naturalization or citizenship by birth out of the jurisdiction not being thoroughly investigated because it doesn’t have to.

            Alright, I’m done. Thanks for the colossal waste of an evening based on you simply throwing down a link to site which is no more than a circus of buffoons.

            But again, I want to thank you for not trying to explain anything to me. You are probably utterly incapable of actually trying to make any of those arguments yourself, in your own words, so it would have been kind of painful for the both of us.

          • Ben Drake

            barf, clearly based on your intellectual laziness I don’t owe you a single word. But I will say a couple things. Because you are rude and smug in your feeling superior, you have thus far proven yourself to be a know it all as s who really knows little. Please feel superior and we will know you are simply a moron.

          • barque

            Will do, thanks Benny

          • Wild_Bird

            There’s that low IQ name calling . . . . again.

          • Ben Drake

            There’s that stupid mimicking.

          • Wild_Bird

            There’s your low IQ showing . . . . again.

          • barque

            Ben, just know, my response TO you, was not really FOR you. You are a legal and historical half-wit and for the most part don’t understand the issue at hand anyway. But others coming to read the forum here, will see that you posted a link to a site because you don’t have the brain-power to actually make an argument. They will see further that I went to that link, and that I laid out why each one of the four cases that idiotic site says makes the argument you wish you could make, actually don’t even come close. They’ll see that the information the site claims regarding The Venus, is SO messed up, SO wrong, doesn’t even get the justices straight as to who wrote what, and claims that a justice who concurred with a dissent, is the justice who wrote the majority decision, etc etc., all shows that the website is run by a barrell of buffoons who don’t probably know their butt from the constitution. But feel free to keep posting that same link over and over in response to others here actually making valid cases against you. lol.

          • Feet2Fire

            If there were no difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen,” we would not have two different terms. They mean different things. So does “naturalized citizen.” = 3 different things.

          • barque

            Have you people lost your minds? A natural born citizen is a citizen, and a naturalized citizen is a citizen. Why do you keep acting like I am saying there is no difference between citizen and natural born citizen? Try to concentrate here. There are two types of citizen. Natural born citizens, and naturalized citizens. But they are ALL citizens. “Citizen” is not a third kind of citizen. The president, according to the Constitution, needs to be a natural born citizen. That’s a person born a citizen. Simple. Because the only other kind of citizen is a naturalized citizen, meaning, a person born an alien and then later made a citizen. Congressmen and senators only need to be citizens, meaning, either kind. They can be a citizen from birth (natural born citizen), or a citizen after being an alien (a naturalized citizen). The only restrictions are that they need to be citizens for a certain minimum amount of time first, if they are naturalized. There is no such provision for president because the person has to be a natural born citizen, meaning they have to have been a citizen since birth. How is this so difficult for you people to understand? It’s mind-numbing. It’s like your TRYING to be obtuse about this whole thing.

            There are NO subcategories of citizenship. Nowhere in the common law or the historical record is there ANY indication that there is a difference between a person “born a citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” They are the same animal. Precisely the same. If you are born an alien and become a citizen, it is by naturalization. Why do you think they use that term? “Naturalization” means to be made like a “natural born citizen.”

            Think, for a second. If there was some other secondary kind of citizenship by birth that was not “natural born,” then first of all why isn’t there a name for this kind of citizenship? “Citizen” wouldn’t cut it because they are both citizens. If there actually was this mythical in-between and unnamed non-natural-born but born citizen, then why in the world would the process of making an alien into a citizen actually vault this new citizen to the status of “natural born” instead of to the second tier level? The reason it is called “naturalization” is because the alien is being made into a citizen, equal to those born as citizens, meaning equal to natural born status of citizen. And I’m not just assuming this. It is in the record of the common law. In the common law it is stated specifically that by the process of naturalization, an alien becomes a subject equal to and as if they were “natural born” subjects. They are being naturalized by law, where being born a citizen is being naturalized by birth. Other than those aliens naturalized into citizenship, there are ONLY natural born citizens.

          • Feet2Fire

            Wrong. Am not wasting time reading your rant. There are 3 kinds of citizens, for purposes of trying to gain the Presidency–only “natural-born” of which are eligible:

            (1) citizens born in USA (who may or may not be natural-born, depending on their parents’ status, such as anchor babies); these are also called “native citizens” meaning they were BORN here; (2) citizens born outside USA whose parents are citizens and whose citizenship is conferred on their child; and (3) “naturalized” citizens, who are aliens who have jumped through all the hoops and won the right of citizenship and have naturalization papers to prove it.

            PERIOD. End of discussion. If these were not three different situations, we would not have three different terminologies for them and we would not be arguing hither and yon about it. And as far as Cruz is concerned, even if he were a natural-born citizen (which he is not, according to these distinctions), we would not vote for him. Just plain don’t like the guy nor the associations his wife is involved with, CFR and GS.

            P.S. It is very RUDE to keep telling folks to THINK and insinuate “lost minds.” YOU need to think… about your own rudeness. Amen.

          • barque

            “PERIOD. End of discussion.”

            I am rolling on the floor laughing. Thank you.

          • Feet2Fire

            YW. Enjoy!

          • tmanosaurus

            You seemed to have assembled some meanings incorrectly. Maybe you are a bit dyslexic or somewhat too passionate for the discussion, or just trolling for confusion..

          • RobietheCat

            re: “There are NO subcategories of citizenship.”

            Except for the requirement of natural born for president.

            Clearly stated.

          • barque

            You seem confused. lol. That’s a “category.” There is natural born and there is naturalized. After stating that I said there are no SUBcategories. Because there aren’t. There is no “born citizen” who is not a “natural born citizen.” Understand now, genius?

          • RobietheCat

            Do some homework, you’re embarrassing youself. Ignorance is not a good look.

          • RobietheCat

            By your logic, you assume a child born in the USA to illegal aliens, is now ‘natural born?’

            The leftists have so twisted the logic and words of the US Constitution it becomes anything they wish it to mean.

            By your logic as well, since there is nothing stating a dual citizen cannot be president, you assume it it permitted? We are doomed.

          • barque

            No, by my logic he/she is not “now” natural born. My position is that a child born in the U.S. to aliens, legal or illegal, permanent or passing through, have ALWAYS been natural born citizens, and when we were still colonies those same people born in the colonies were natural born subjects.

            So, no. “leftists” have not twisted or distorted anything. The record shows that in the common law and into the formation of the republic, birthright citizenship has been the standard. And that, by the way, has nothing to do with the Constitution. Agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that anyone born on U.S. soil is a ‘natural born citizen’ isn’t any way a twist of the constitution, because there is no pretension of a definition of the term in the constitution. This conversation of the meaning of “natural born” falls 100% outside of the constitution. Genius.

            Correct, there is nothing stating a dual citizen can not be president. There is only positive declaration that the president must be natural born, 35 years or older, and has to have been resident in the U.S. for 14 years. You can’t just start adding DISqualifications based on your ideas of what is or is not true allegiance to the country. If you did so, you would specifically and by definition be making the constitution what you want it to be.

          • tmanosaurus

            Thank you, this is turning into trollville and i wonder ifvits dometimes not trolls or children

          • SandyT

            The Constitution cannot be changed “by consensus”, barque! Born a citizen IS NOT natural born. Through a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, even children born on U.S. soil are now “considered” as citizens. Do you really think the Founders would have approved of an “anchor baby” who might not even have been raised here in the U.S., to be able to grow up and become president? That absolutely defies common sense! The Founders wanted the most stringent qualifications for the person who would lead our government and our military! That’s why there are only two offices for which a person MUST be a natural born citizen. Senators and Representatives only have to be “citizens”, but the President and VP MUST be “natural born citizens”.That is NOT someone born here to illegal parents and it is NOT someone born in a foreign country with possible foreign ties, either through blood or place of birth. Birth IN the U.S. + citizen FATHER + citizen MOTHER = natural born citizen. That is the only way the child has NO other choice of country for his/her citizenship. SOLE allegiance to the U.S. with no other country that could possibly claim any kind of sovereignty over or demand loyalty from him/her! Even with two citizen parents, a child born in another country COULD be drafted into that country’s military. Cruz could have been born under the jurisdiction of possibly three different countries, the U.S., Canada AND Cuba, unless his father had already become a Canadian citizen before Ted was born. NO ONE can “become” a natural born citizen retroactively! It’s what you are born with that counts.

          • barque

            “The Constitution cannot be changed “by consensus”, barque! Born a citizen IS NOT natural born.”

            The constitution doesn’t define “natural born.” Saying “natural born” means being born a citizen, or not, doesn’t “change” the constitution in any way. For an alleged legal mind you are pretty whacked in the logic department.

          • RobietheCat

            I don’t think you understand the concept at issue.

          • barque

            You mean the concept of whether or not there is such a thing as “naturalized at birth”? Or the concept of whether or not there is a “definition” of natural born citizen in U.S. Case law saying one must be born to two U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, or not? Or the concept of whether or not there is anything in U.S. law or common law which would make dual citizenship a disqualifier for the presidency?

            I understand the concepts quite clearly.

          • Jae Ashley Stewart

            Please stop perpetuating this lie.  Even Trump’s lawyers said Cruz is eligible.  In the beginning of the 6th debate even Trump accidentally blurts out that it’s true.  And It only takes ONE PARENT.  Here are the laws straight from the Constitution and statutes that PROVE WITHOUT A DOUBT that CRUZ IS ELIGIBLE.

            Ted Cruz has broken NO laws as a U.S. Senator OR during his bid for President.

            “Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for senators: (1) they must be at least 30 years old, (2) they must have been citizens of the United States for at least the past nine years, and (3) they must be inhabitants of the states they seek to represent at the time of their election.”

            At birth, Ted Cruz was a natural-born citizen of Canada AND the United States.  He was born in Canada in 1970 to a mother who is a U.S. citizen and a father who moved to the U.S. in 1957 but was not a U.S. citizen at that time.  Cruz was automatically a natural-born citizen of BOTH Canada and the United States.  He renounced his Canada citizenship to run for president of the United States because you cannot have a dual citizenship as president.

            Arnold Schwarzeneggar also had a dual citizenship (U.S. and Austria) when he served as governor and still has a dual citizenship. However, Schwarzenegger is a natural-born citizen of Austria and a naturalized citizen of the United States, SO HE CAN NEVER RUN FOR PRESIDENT even if he did renounce his Austria citizenship.

            These are the two laws that pertain to Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president:

            “United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,

                           ***
            …  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens….”

                                 and

            “IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952

            TITLE III–NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION.

            NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

            Chapter 1–  Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization

            Sec. 301. (a)  The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

                                  ***
            (4)  a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;”

            The reason Cruz is being attacked is because he is gaining in the polls and his opponents feel threatened and are scared.  They can’t attack Cruz on his record because HE HAS NO BLEMISHES.

            Ted Cruz is totally legal.  He IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a true conservative patriot.

          • Ben Drake
          • barque

            Ditto to everything I said about that loony site. Start thinking for yourself Ben. Those goofs are a travesty.

          • RobietheCat

            If course it does.

            If not, then Prince Hashim of Jordan, born to US Citizen Queen Noor is also eligible? Must be hundreds out there like him and Cruz.

          • barque

            Queen Noor relinquished her U.S. citizenship in order to marry another head of state and take on a royal title. So no, actually Prince Hashim of Jordan is not remotely eligible.

            On the other hand, yes, there are hundreds, thousands actually, of persons like Cruz who were born abroad and met the conditions for obtaining citizenship at birth, by birth. So, being born as citizens, and not aliens, and not ever needing to go through the process of naturalization, they are natural born citizens and are eligible to the presidency, at least once they’re 35 and have spent at least 14 years residence in the United States.

          • Jae Ashley Stewart

            Yes, LEGALLY he did have to renounce his Canada citizenship.

          • barque

            Sure just keep claiming it, haha. You will find nothing in the law, the constitution, or anything in judicial decisions in our history. To say he “legally” had to do it means there’s a law governing this issue.

          • barque

            No, really, stop, this is incorrect. To say he “legally” had to do it means there’s a law governing this issue. You will find nothing in the law, the constitution, or anything in judicial decisions in our history saying such a thing.

            “He renounced his Canada citizenship to run for president of the United States because you cannot have a dual citizenship as president.”

            Again, there is NOWHERE in our laws or judicial decisions saying “you cannot have a dual citizenship as president.”

            You keep saying he is eligible, which I totally agree with, but stop throwing in completely unsupported non-factual claims!

          • Judy Selich

            Melinda Craig, renouncing his Canadian citizenship would not render Cruz eligible for the Presidency. His birth on foreign soil and only one U.S. citizen parent (if she was) makes him ineligible. At the time he renounced his Canadian citizenship (2014) he contended he was not aware of having Canadian citizenship. It do not know if he followed through with the renunciation, but I assume so.

          • Ben Drake

            He didn’t. And we are supposed to believe he was unaware he had dual citizenship? I wonder if he has any bridges to sell.

          • Ben Drake

            No he didn’t and he hasn’t. Paperwork is required to denounce citizenship and he has never done so. Either way, he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen and he cannot run.

            http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

          • tmanosaurus

            Are you confused or an agent for barakish?

          • RobietheCat

            So he was a dual citizen. Can someone please show us where it states in the Constitution that a dual citizen is eligible for the presidency?

          • Jae Ashley Stewart

            Yes, Cruz had a dual citizenship. You cannot be a citizen of two countries and run for president, so LEGALLY, CRUZ HAD TO RENOUNCE HIS CANADA CITIZENSHIP IN ORDER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

          • Melinda Craig

            That same rule applies to the other political offices he’s held.

          • RobietheCat

            Eight years is not a few years.

        • Robert

          Ted Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh, was born on 23 November 1934 in Wilmington, Delaware, to Edward John Darragh Jr. (1905-1988) and his wife, the former Elizabeth E. Cicchini (1912-1992).

        • tgvas

          the state of Delaware continues to deny the existence of any records of Eleanor Darragh ………..

          • Judy Selich

            tgvas, that is true. I looked it up a several months ago when I realized Cruz was going to run for the presidency. I printed out a birth certificate that I thought was hers, but later found out it was not the correct person based on D.O.B.

          • tgvas

            They have recently found her BC, or made one, whichever, as long as we stick to the constitution to the letter and never set any precedents that allow foreigner to run!
            TRUMP 2016!

          • tmanosaurus

            Is that maliciousness.?

          • NymRod

            BS.

          • tgvas

            You’re a little late on your upchuck nimrod, I’ve been stating this for over a year and finally they found or created a Birth Certificate YOU RAT ASS, and the moment they came through with it I made statements on nearly every post that I was glad they did this so we would not be setting a precedent for later future Obama’s running for president that just arrived from Saudi Arabia etc.
            I still stand by that Cruz is not eligible, he is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, but thank GOD, it doesn’t matter since TRUMP is going to win and he already knows CRUZ is just another Banker Puppet, you NIMROD!

          • tgvas

            BTW NIMROD, where was your sorry ass when the State of Delaware did, for over two years say that they had no records about Cruz’s mother?
            Did you want him to run anyway, fuck the Constitution?
            I will never support a man who was part of Obama’s TPP, NEVER, and then like a whimpy little shit for brains Banker Puppet change his mind at the last moment when he knew Obama-trade was a shoe in.
            people like that we do not need in office!

        • tmanosaurus

          It doesnt matter after the child was born, its her status of citizenship when the child was born and can only be changed by the perso, at the age of majority.

        • NymRod

          Cruz’s mother didn’t live in Canada long enough to become a Canadian citizen before Ted was born.

          Ted’s mother’s birth certificate.
          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-mother-birth-certificate/

        • Judy Selich

          DownriverDem A couple of days ago, apparently some family members found it. I printed out a copy. I do not contest she was an American Citizen; however, her citizenship is a minor issue. The U.S. Supreme Court has, ruled several times on the issue of what constitutes a “Natural Born Citizen”. To my knowledge, based on research (including when Obama was trying to convince America he was “natural born citizen”) the Supreme Court has never veered on the requirements of NBC as it relates to the elements of Natural Born Citizen. They simple and straightforward: 1. Birth on American soil; 2. BOTH parents must be American citizens at the time of the birth. This is not a complex issue. The question of whether a candidate for POTUS is a Natural Born Citizen and thus, Constitutionally eligible for the presidency, requires answers to only three questions: 1. Was your MOTHER an American citizen at the time you were born? In Cruz’s case the answer is yes. 2. Was your FATHER an American citizen at the time you were born? In Cruz’s case the answer is “No, he was a citizen of Cuba”. 3. Were you born on U.S. soil? The answer is: “No. I was born in Canada and lived there until we moved to the United States.”

      • FirstShirt

        To take the “answer” to it’s easiest conclusion we need to understand what the phrase “natural born citizen” meant when the Constitution was written, not what the New World Order politicians and Corporate folks wish it means.

        A fellow named John Jay is credited historically for writing this portion of Article Two. By the way, John Jay was also the 1st Supreme Court Justice. But, anyway, most of the Founders poured over three copies of an International Law book written by a fellow named Vattel. His book was titled, “Law of Nations.” Back before the US Constitution there was no federal law, policy, or other guidance. This nations creators certainly were not going to base US law & policy on the British standard!

        Law of Nations, the Federalist Papers, letters written back and forth between Madison, Jay, Washington, Hamilton, and others clearly define what a NBC was. It was a child born in the nation to parents who were the nation’s citizens. At this point it is important to realize that in those days, and now, a child inherits it’s last name from the father, not the mother. That child also inherits it’s citizenship from the father. That was the international, established standard then, as now. “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

        • Berkshirean1836

          All true. Vattel did specify that a natural-born citizen is someone who was born in this country, of parents who are citizens, noting that the father’s citizenship overrules. Except things started getting shifted almost immediately. Even if the Constitution was written based on the writings of Vattel – which it certainly seems – they failed to clarify in the actual document, then just a few years later the loose language is clarified in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which specifies that a child born outside the country, to US citizens, is a “natural born citizen” as long as it’s not a child who’s father has never been a resident. That’s the part that throws me. Why does it specify that last part? If the kid’s father has never been a resident of the US, but his citizenship is based on his father’s, why are we even talking about it? Unless they’re basing citizenship on the mother’s, and the father just needs to be a resident for a couple of years prior. Or perhaps I’m completely misunderstanding…

          • barque

            The part that throws you, is thus: If I am born in Germany, to a U.S. citizen father who did grow up in the U.S., then I am a citizen. But if I never live in the U.S., and then I have a child in Germany, my child on the one hand is born to a U.S. citizen father, he however can’t be a citizen because I have never been a resident of the U.S. The goal was to not have perpetual citizenship conferred on generation after generation of people who never set foot in the U.S. itself.

          • Berkshirean1836

            That makes sense.

          • RobietheCat

            Excellent point.

          • Dave B.

            “Even if the Constitution was written based on the writings of Vattel – which it certainly seems…”
            Why does it “seem” so?

          • SandyT

            The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced five years later, by the same men who wrote the 1790 version, because by that time, they realized that such children could NOT be “natural born citizens” and jive with the Constitution. The 1795 version omitted the words, “natural born” and simply left that children born abroad to citizen parents….”shall be considered as citizens”….NOT natural born citizens. The left and some on the right love to refer to the 1790 Act, but omit even mentioning that the 1790 Act was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795, making the original NULL and VOID.

          • Ben Drake

            But is still states that obozo, cruz and rubio can not run for potus.

          • tmanosaurus

            Its clear you have trouble researching and updating what you know.

          • Ben Drake

            Its clear you have trouble researching and updating what you don’t know.

          • showme2

            The 1790 act, together with the history of English law, upon which much of the Constitution was based, tells you what the framers meant. Assuming arguendo that Congress meant to change the original meaning of the Constitution, that can only be done by amendment, not an act of Congress.

          • Ben Drake

            No, it doesn’t. The 1790 act was illegal and replaced in 1795.

          • RobietheCat

            True, Congress could not change the meaning or effect of the natural born clause without a constitution amendment.

            If Cruz really wanted to be eligible he should seek such an amendment.

          • barque

            Proclaiming a kind of citizenship to be “natural born” would not be changing the natural born clause. The natural born clause only sets the requirement that the president be “natural born.” It does not define the term. So calling someone natural born does not change or alter the constitution in any way.

          • aniptofar

            Agree but the amendment could only define what it means in natural law or amend the req. NBC is natural law. It can’t be legislated anymore than the acceleration of gravity.

          • barque

            LOL it wasn’t “illegal.” It was just superceded by a new version of the law. If being replaced made a law illegal, then the 1795 Act was also “illegal” because it was replaced in 1802, and that Act was replaced later, and so on.

          • Ben Drake

            Yes, it was illegal. Congress stated in it what a NBC was. They have no authority to do so and it was illegal. ONLY SCOTUS can issue a judgement on that as it is a Constitutional issue and only a Constitutional Convention can change it.

          • barque

            Since NBC is not defined in the constitution, it’s not a constitutional issue. It was not ever proclaimed as illegal, was never challenged as illegal and never deemed so by SCOTUS, which in fact is the only body that can overturn or render ineffective a piece of legislation.

            When SCOTUS does, it deems it “unconstitutional” not “illegal.”

          • Ben Drake

            I see you are still an educated idiot claiming the wrong point. Since NBC IS in the Constitution, it IS a Constitutional issue. Man you are an argumentative idiot.

          • barque

            The words “natural born citizen” are in the constitution. The definition is not. For congress to deem a class of persons to be natural born citizens based on circumstance, is not a “Constitutional issue” since the constitution has nothing to do with who is or is not a natural born citizen. The question of who is or is not a natural born citizen, equates to the definition of the term, which must be found elsewhere, not in the constitution.

            Another example is “due process.” The term is in the constitution, the definition is not. Determining what amounts to “due process” is a matter of legislation, the courts, case law and the common law (where – like “natural born” – the usages and a line of case history of the term can be found).

            If the issue is brought before SCOTUS, the Court may find the congress in error in applying the term in legislation, or it may not. Either way, this doesn’t make the congress’s use “illegal” or “legal.”

            And if you want to suggest that someone is an idiot for presenting an opposing opinion, you might not want to make statements like “…only a Constitutional Convention can change it.” Changes to the constitution can be made by either Congress passing an amendment and presenting it to the states for ratification, OR a constitutional convention could be called by the states. So far, every Amendment has been executed by the first process. Not a single Constitutional Convention of the states has ever been called for making a change to the constitution.

            Go ahead and call me an idiot over and over, but please also continue to make your silly assertions about the constitution and all manner of governmental processes. It is quite enlightening. :)

          • SandyT

            Congress DID NOT change the Constitution. They wrote the Naturalization Act of 1790, which said that, (paraphrasing) children born abroad of citizen parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens”. Five years later, the SAME MEN realized that by saying those children were considered “natural born citizens”, it contradicted what the Constitution meant by NBC, so in the 1795 version, they left out the two words “natural born” and simply said “shall be considered as CITIZENS”, NOT natural born citizens. Both Acts were within Congress’ power to regulate naturalization, NOT change the Constitution. The Constitution was NOT based on English law. We had fought a war to get our independence from England, so why would we base our own Constitution on their laws?

            This is from the “Constitutional Rights Foundation” Educating About Naturalization.

            Do naturalized citizens have the same rights as those who are citizens by birth?
            Yes. Naturalized citizens share all rights possessed by citizens who are born in the United States except for one: Naturalized citizens cannot run for president or vice president. See U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

          • pisher

            We didn’t just make up all our laws out of scratch. Any expert on our legal system would tell you our laws are descended from those of England and France, and from all the earlier systems that influenced those countries.

          • barque

            From England. Not France.

          • Judy Selich

            SandyT, nicely done. I think some people do not fully understand the points you have raised but it is essential, as you pointed out, that there be no confusion between a “naturalized” citizen and a Natural Born citizen. There have been some posts on other sites that do fully comprehend the difference.

          • RobietheCat

            Moreover, if Cruz received approval for naturalized birth as a US Citizen, he received it by statute, who rules can change according to Congressional whim.

            A natural born US citizen’s status is not subject to statute. Nor does it require govt approval. That is the difference.

          • Jae Ashley Stewart

            RobietheCat, stick to meowing. That’s the only way you make ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER.

          • barque

            “by saying those children were considered “natural born citizens”, it contradicted what the Constitution meant by NBC”

            The Constitution did not define NBC. You can’t contradict what the constitution means by NBC if the Constitution doesn’t say what it means. The Constitution simply requires that the president be a “natural born citizen.” The actual meaning of what qualifies as a natural born citizen must be found elsewhere.

            If Congress says a person born outside the country to citizen parents is a “natural born citizen” then it is defining NBC in some way. It may or may not be right, but most certainly it isn’t contradicting the Constitution because the constitution doesn’t define NBC. And just because a later congress writes a new version of the law and in that version only says the children born to citizens abroad is a citizen too, that doesn’t mean the citizen is not a natural born citizen. Considering that in the common law all persons who were BORN subjects – as opposed to persons who were born aliens and then converted to subjects via naturalization – were “natural born subjects.”

            With that understanding, the founders naturally would consider all persons who are born citizens to be “natural born citizens.” The phrases are interchangeable. If in one Act congress says “natural born citizen” but in another act says “born a citizen” they are simply using interchangeable terms.

            The important factor is being BORN a citizen. Notice, in John Jay’s letter, the word “natural” was not underlined. “Born” was underlined.

          • Jae Ashley Stewart

            And TED CRUZ IS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT because HE IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. PERIOD!

          • lib2libertarian

            Eligible or not, he IS running. He has shown himself to be a liar and a hypocrite who will say or do anything to be elected. Reminds me of Hillary.

          • Mookie Webster

            It’s called Common Law upon which all of of the laws of the US are based. Of course the Constitution was founded on “their laws”. What a ridiculous statement.

          • dmarie

            Your arguments are the only ones that make any sense. Let me further that by saying that by Cruz’s father not being a U.S. citizen but instead being born in Cuba, this might reveal the possibility that Cruz could be heir to the Castro dictatorship, where had his father been born in the United States it would pretty much rule out that possibility. So given that possibility, what if Cruz’s father is actually one of Castro’s sons? That would make Cruz the grandchild of a communist dictator and possible heir to anything that comes with it. I think this drives home the point of what our founding fathers really meant by the term “natural born citizen” in that they didn’t want an heir to the throne of England getting their digs in and usurping our nation back to British rule..

          • SandyT

            Fidel Castro would have been only 13 years old when Rafael Cruz was born.

          • dmarie

            Thanks for the reality check, LOL.

          • rivardau

            right, and citizenship was changed – in the 14th Amendment. Go back and read your constitution!

          • showme2

            I have read the Constitution. What has that got to do with my comment? My point was that Congress cannot override the Constitution by act of Congress as Trump is saying. The 1790 Act and English history both made children born to U.S. citizens in a foreign country, natural born citizens of the U.S. without anything else being
            done. That just helps elucidate the framers intent but does not change the Constitution. The 14th Amendment does change the Constitution. However neither of Andrew Jackson’s parents were citizens but he was because he was born in the U.S. the 14th amendment extended that to all people born here (except children of foreign diplomats) other than white Christian males.

          • barque

            Minor point of correction, Jackson was born in the colonies before the revolution, not the U.S.

          • barque

            The 14th didn’t “change” citizenship. It just extended the existing practice of birthright citizenship to non-whites. It was “declaratory” of the common law rule already in effect.

          • Ben Drake

            It is clear that you do not have ALL the information. SCOTUS defined what a NBC is. It isn’t cruz, obozo, rubio, etc.

            http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

          • Berkshirean1836

            Interesting read. Right up until:

            “CONCLUSION

            Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

            “Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.”

            Where on earth do they get off rationalizing court cases that don’t immediately concern the matter at hand and using this information to base a wild allegation. SCOTUS never defined it. The article sources a handful of rulings from the 19th century and twists them into a statement to support their claim. Ridiculous…

          • Ben Drake

            So your reading comprehension is your problem. I’m sorry it is so hard for you to understand the written word. Perhaps you should no longer vote since you have no ability to comprehend facts.

          • Berkshirean1836

            Please, copy and paste any clip from the cases in the article you reference that even remotely addresses whether a child born to two american citizens out side of the US is, or is not, deemed “natural born.”

          • Ben Drake

            You will see I highlighted one word two times below setting them aside by the use of *** and I have capitalized them. The below is a SCOTUS case and their decision and opinion is the final word. I have been told that the entire Senate voted that John McCain was eligible to run. That is wrong as he was born on foreign soil since a military base in a foreign country is NOT now, nor has it ever been US Soil. http://military.findlaw.com/family-employment-housing/military-children-born-abroad.html

            I am not surprised that Rubio and Cruz voted McCain was eligible since neither of them, or obozo, are eligible to even run.

            United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

            In this case,
            Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S.
            Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th
            Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the
            court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in
            Minor vs. Happersett:

            At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

            On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion
            coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born *** IN ***
            the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave
            a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship
            to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and
            foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term
            “natural born citizen.”

            CONCLUSION

            Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the
            category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the
            Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural
            born citizen” to any other category than “those born *** IN *** the country of
            parents who are citizens thereof”.

            Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical
            designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No
            member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or
            appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use
            any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because
            unconstitutionally.

            http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

          • tmanosaurus

            Lost basis. Lost cause. You are citing incorrect basis. Those are either not current or are good fiction.
            Fourwinds isnt the constitution…did you ever think of that?

          • Berkshirean1836

            Well put. What I was trying to make him understand by asking him to site specifics of what we’re discussing is that there are none. He is siting an article in which the writer is siting actual cases, but they have nothing to do specifically with a child born of two citizens in another country. Yet, he is siting the author’s “conclusion” as though it’s a quote from the constitution.

          • Judy Selich

            tmanosaurus, the citation of the Wong Kim Ark case by Ben Drake is correct in all respects as it applies to Natural Born Citizen. This is an oft-cited case despite its age and is often cited in immigration cases, etc. If you read the case in full, I think you will find you are in error. The Wong Kim Ark case is an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court decision. The “fourwinds10.net” was apparently the mechanism used to access the case.

          • barque

            We all have access to the full case, Judy.

            Just because a quote comes from a famous case does not mean that quote has any legal weight. Or, put another way, the case was about someone born IN the United States. Any discussion by the court about persons outside of the United States, is obiter dictum.

            Come on, legal genius, you know this.

          • Berkshirean1836
          • Ben Drake

            Doesn’t make him a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, only a citizen.

          • barque

            A citizen at birth. Which is a natural born citizen.

          • Jae Ashley Stewart

            Ben, you need to learn how to comprehend what you read. If a person is a citizen AT BIRTH then he IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. In order for a person to be “naturalized,” that person has to seear an oath to be loyal to the United States. DO YOU BELIEVE A BABY CAN SWEAR AN OATH!

          • Ben Drake

            Jae, you need to learn how to comprehend what you read. I said nothing about being naturalized.

          • Berkshirean1836

            Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952,

            Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

            (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.

            So, unless you’re going to split hairs and argue that people who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth” aren’t necessarily “natural born,” I think a mic drop is in order…

          • Judy Selich

            Ben Drake, The Wong Kim Ark case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898 is often cited as the most understandable of the four earliest cases addressing the issue of NBC. The language is clear, and relatively uncomplicated in terms of conveying the essential elements of NBC. Some of the earlier cases (dating back to 1814) were convoluted and difficult to decipher. The definition of NBC in Wong Kim Ark is accepted as the standard for the Constitutionally-required elements of Natural Born Citizen. As you have noted in your post, the court’s pronouncement is the definitive statement of the required elements of Natural Born Citizen. In Article II of the Constitution, the Founders clearly stated that only a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN could become president of the United States. There is no existing statute or case law that in any manner changes or alters the requirement of Natural Born Citizen within the context of the presidency.

          • Ben Drake

            You are correct. But you’ll get in trouble agreeing with SCOTUS and me.

          • Judy Selich

            Ben Drake, I’m retired now and no longer practice so if someone disagrees, it’s just water off a duck’s back; well, most of the time. I have enjoyed the back and forth conversation on this important issue. You have certainly done your homework so far as I can see! I want to have a clean election, a good nominee, and take back this country. I know that many have been upset that I raised the issue about Cruz; however, if he became the nominee, Republicans would lose the White House to Clinton. That is to be avoided at all costs. With a good, experienced nominee and then President, we can bring our America back. Isn’t that the real goal?

          • Ben Drake

            Of course and you are correct to feel that way. I have finally mostly given up as I do get tired of the complete nastiness of people who refuse to see the law as it is. Thank you

          • Judy Selich

            Ben Drake, I could not agree more that John McCain was eligible for POTUS. I followed it closely and was astounded at what happened. I don’t know whether McCain sought legal counsel on the issue, but if not, that was a serious mistake. I have cited McCain case several times because it also involved Obama. As a side note, Obama is the “poster child” for why the Founders insisted on Natural Born Citizen status to become president. America would not be heading into the dumpster if McCain had succeeded. Briefly, McCain is, without doubt, a Natural Born Citizen. His parents were stationed on a U.S. Military base in the Panama Canal Zone and the military base existed with the permission of the Panamanian government. Thus, the base was American Soil. At the time of birth, McCain’s mother was at the military base hospital; complications developed and the mother and baby were in extreme danger. The base hospital did not have the necessary equipment or personnel to save the mother and baby so she was transported off base to another hospital a few miles away during the birth process. Shortly after arrival he was delivered, they remained in the hospital for a time and upon release they returned to the military base. There is no question that under this factual situation McCain was and is eligible for POTUS. As I noted earlier, perhaps he did not seek legal counsel and that is why we ended up with Obama.

          • Ben Drake

            Judy, thank you for being civil. Most people who disagree with me are not. I’m sorry to say that being born on a military base, anywhere except CONUS and it’s possessions is NOT being born in the US.

            Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S.Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:

            Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United
            States within the meaning of the14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

            http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

          • Ben Drake

            Opps, I hit before I was ready

            By reason of this rule, no one born outside of CONUS or US posessions is a Natural Born Citizen since they are not born in the US. This means McCain, Goldwater, Cruz and several more who attempted to run are not qualified as they are NOT citizens at birth.

          • Dave B.

            Good golly, where’d you come up with that fish story?

          • SandyT

            “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress.

            Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

          • Judy Selich

            Sandy T, Thank you for posting this case. It is an important case and to my knowledge, was a significant milestone in clarifying the status of naturalized citizens as opposed to those born to two citizens parents, or indeed born on foreign soil. Those in situations such as Ted Cruz, are indeed only “naturalized citizens”, as is Cruz.

          • RobietheCat

            Have a look at Minor v. Happersett – 1875. Very interesting and precedent setting definition of natural born citizen. Minor is also referenced in Wong Kim Ark.

            In the majority decision of the US Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark, the court cited favorably to a prior US Supreme Court case, i.e. the Minor v Happersett case where it was held that the 14th Amendment, as a part of the US Constitution “does not say who shall be natural born citizens”, but the 14th Amendment does say who shall be born US citizens.

            Ergo: a born US citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen.

            The majority decision of the US Supreme Court in the Minor v Happersett case also recognized unsolved doubts if native-birth on US soil was sufficient to make a US citizen at all.

            This was also cited favorably by the US Supreme Court in the majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case.

            The majority decision of the US Supreme Court in the Minor v Happersett case, also favorably cited by the majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case, held that a natural born citizen was a person who was not only native-born on US soil, but also born to US citizen parents.

            The majority decision of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark also favorably cited cited Horace Binney’s recognition of two types of born US citizens.

            One being “the child of an alien, if born in the country” and the other being “the natural born child of a citizen”.

            In essence the US Supreme Court has consistently held that native-birth on US soil does not suffice to make a natural born citizen of the US, but does in most cases suffice to make a born US citizen, and further the court held that the term “natural born” is exclusively peculiar to US citizen parents.

            The US Supreme Court has never held or ruled that native-birth on US soil was sufficient to make a natural born citizen of the US.

            Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1869213-wong-kim-ark-case-us-supreme.html#ixzz3xGGhpqvB

          • barque

            “Have a look at Minor v. Happersett – 1875. Very interesting and precedent setting definition of natural born citizen.”

            It’s not a definition, and it’s not precedent. It is obiter dictum. That means it is not part of the ruling and is outside of the decision the court was tasked with making.

          • barque

            Judy, Sandy’s quote is from the Dissent.

            There is no such thing as naturalization at birth.

          • SandyT

            BS, barque!

          • barque

            BS that your quote is from the dissent? lol. It is from the dissent.

          • barque

            Sandy, your quote is from the dissent. To pretend this was a ruling of the court is dishonest.

          • RobietheCat

            A ‘natural born’ citizen has no need or requirement of naturalization.

          • barque

            Sandy, this is from the Dissent written by Justice Black. It’s legally irrelevant. Putting the name of the court case below a quote from the dissent is either an embarrassing mistake, or is dishonest.

          • SandyT

            Both sides came to the same conclusion, barque, that Aldo Bellei WAS a “naturalized” citizen, so yes, it is revelant. Bellei was born in Italy to an Italian father and a U.S. citizen mother. Cruz was born in a foreign country to a non-citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. The only difference is that Bellei didn’t fulfill the residency requirements and Ted did fulfill the residency requirements, but BOTH of them, Bellei AND Cruz were “naturalized” citizens, NOT natural born citizens. That is the point!

          • barque

            The majority opinion did not call Bellei a “naturalized” citizen. The majority opinion was that congress had the power to set conditions precedent to birth and thus had the power to set conditions subsequent to birth, which Bellei failed to meet. So, he lost his citizenship which he had acquired at birth, by birth, not through a naturalization process.

            The bottom line is your impression that the majority opinion in Bellei considered him to be “naturalized” is totally mistaken! You keep playing yourself off as some sort of a legal expert but you have no idea what you are talking about.

            And the point is there is no such thing as being “naturalized at birth”

          • barque

            The majority opinion on the case did not conclude Bellei was a “naturalized citizen.” And the quote you gave was from the dissent and is legally irrelevant. Period.

          • Jae Ashley Stewart

            .
            TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT:

            Ted Cruz has broken NO laws as a U.S. Senator OR during his bid for President.

            “Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for senators: (1) they must be at least 30 years old, (2) they must have been citizens of the United States for at least the past nine years, and (3) they must be inhabitants of the states they seek to represent at the time of their election.”

            At birth, Ted Cruz was a natural-born citizen of Canada AND the United States. He was born in Canada in 1970 to a mother who is a U.S. citizen and a father who moved to the U.S. in 1957 but was not a U.S. citizen at that time. Cruz was automatically a natural-born citizen of BOTH Canada and the United States. He renounced his Canada citizenship to run for president of the United States because you cannot have a dual citizenship as president.

            Arnold Schwarzeneggar also had a dual citizenship (U.S. and Austria) when he served as governor and still has a dual citizenship.

            These are the two laws that pertain to Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president:

            “United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,

            ***
            … And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens….”

            and

            “IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952

            TITLE III–NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION.

            NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

            Chapter 1– Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization

            Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

            ***
            (4) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;”

            The reason Cruz is being attacked is because he is gaining in the polls and his opponents feel threatened and are scared. They can’t attack Cruz on his record because HE HAS NO BLEMISHES.

            Ted Cruz is totally legal. He IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a true conservative patriot.

          • SandyT

            NO ONE can be a “natural born citizen” of two different countries! A natural born citizen is one born IN A Country to Parents (plural) who are also citizens of the same country their child is born IN. Cruz was born in Canada (citizen of Canada with Canadian birth certificate) to a father who was either still a Cuban citizen or had become a Canadian citizen (so Teddy would have inherited whichever one his dad had at the time of Ted’s birth) and a mother who was a U.S. citizen (probably) so Ted would have inherited U.S. citizenship from her. That’s at least TWO different countries, and maybe THREE countries that Ted could have acquired citizenship at birth from. That is NOT natural born citizenship! NO ONE can become a “natural born citizen” retroactively! It’s what you are born with that counts. Giving up one doesn’t make him NBC of the U.S.

            The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by the NA of 1795, so it’s been null and void since 1795. The 1795 version was almost verbatim except it said children born abroad to citizen parents “…shall be considered as citizens…”, NOT natural born citizens. Also, INA of 1952, Section 301(g) is “naturalization law” that does not and cannot make anyone a natural born citizen. It only makes Cruz a “naturalized by congressional statute” citizen, and NOT eligible for the presidency or vice presidency!
            It doesn’t matter how “conservative” he is. IF he is elected to potus or vp, then you are validating Obama’s usurpation of the presidency. He was never eligible even if he had been born IN the WH, because his Kenyan, British subject father was not a citizen.
            Valerie Jarrett was born to two citizen parents but she was born in Iran. The only thing keeping her from being a natural born citizen and eligible is her foreign birth. If we allow Cruz with foreign birth and one citizen parent, how could we challenge Jarrett with foreign birth and two citizen parents? Think about the unintended consequences of electing another ineligible candidate like Cruz or Rubio.

          • barque

            Wow you are all over the board with this one. For starters there is no such thing as congressionally naturalized at birth. Naturalization is a legal process, and its defining characteristic is that it is processed upon an alien, that is, someone born an alien as opposed to a citizen.

            Congress is given the power and authority to establish law in all U.S. issues outside the bounds of the U.S. Being given the authority to establish uniform rule of “naturalization” does not restrict congress to only naturalize people. Congress, in “naturalization” acts, can rule a person born abroad as a “natural born citizen,” and can rule a person a “citizen at birth” meaning the person is a born citizen and does not need to be naturalized. It is consensus that this makes a person a natural born citizen, as it was in the common law. ALL persons born subjects of England, whether within or without, were “natural born subjects.” This is where the term comes from and this is why the operation is identical in the U.S.

            the 1790 Act is valuable in that it tells us that to the founders, being born a citizen was the same as being a “natural born citizen,” just as in the common law. While it was replaced in 1795 saying the child born overseas is a born a “citizen” the operation is identical. Born a citizen is to be a “natural born citizen.” It never changed.

          • SandyT

            “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress.

            Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

          • barque

            Well we’ve come full circle on your ridiculous use of this quote. This quote is FROM THE DISSENT in the case. It’s irrelevant.

            And as I said earlier, to place the quote, and then put the name of the case below it, AS IF it was from the majority decision, is tantamount to lying. You are either lying, or you are oblivious to the procedures of the judiciary.

          • barque

            “NO ONE can be a “natural born citizen” of two different countries!”

            Sez you. However, there is nothing in the law, the constitution, the common law or judicial history which says that. It is an opinion of yours, nothing more. But it is unsupported. U.S. code acknowledges that people have multiple nationalities based on their place of birth and their parents’ nationalities. But if you are a citizen at birth according to the U.S., then according to the U.S. it simply doesn’t matter if other countries bestow citizenship at birth upon you too. That’s up to the other countries. Doesn’t affect the process in the U.S. at all. If one’s “natural born” citizenship of the U.S. was conditional on other factors like other countries’ laws and traditions, it would say so somewhere in U.S. code, law, or practice. It simply doesn, because there are no such conditions or restrictions in existence.

            And on the contrary, in the common law and the statutes of England, it was acknowledged that since English law stated a child born abroad to subjects was a “natural born subject” of England, that the country of that child’s birth would consider that child a subject or citizen there, by birth, and that the child would owe a natural allegiance to the country of birth, WHILE IN THAT COUNTRY. However, when that “natural born subject” of England returned home to England that the allegiance the child owed was only to England.

          • barque

            “Valerie Jarrett was born to two citizen parents but she was born in Iran. The only thing keeping her from being a natural born citizen and eligible is her foreign birth.”

            lol she is a natural born citizen and is eligible. This conversation keeps getting funnier. For everyone arguing that Cruz can’t be eligible because he was only born to one U.S. citizen, note that Valerie Jarrett was born to a natural born U.S. citizen father, and a natural born U.S. citizen mother, while they were working in Iran.

          • Pat Long Eroh

            you think you are the only one who should vote? haha. Loser, you have NO power. These people WILL vote and you will continue to lose. What an imbecile! You don’t even know the difference between someone’s opinion and a fact.

          • Judy Selich

            Berkshirean1836, The language cited by Ben Drake is in fact accurate.

          • RobietheCat

            We need to be careful with SCOTUS and their ‘definitions.’

            Is speech defined in the constitution? No? Well, then why did the Supreme Court declare flag burning as protected speech in 1990?

            The record of the Supreme Court shows they’ve been wrong as often as they’re been right.

            “The right of free correspondence is not claimed under the Constitution of the United States, nor the laws or treaties derived from it, but as a natural right, placed originally under the protection of our municipal laws and retained under the cognizance of our own courts.” –Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Petition, 1797. ME 17:361

            Is the natural right that all men are created equal in the constitution? Guess that has to go too.

          • Ben Drake

            You are wrong. The 1790 was superseded in 1795 because it was realized that the rules of 1790 were unconstitutional. Check it out.

          • Judy Selich

            Bershirean1836, your post is fascinating reading. No, I don’t think you misunderstand. Even in the early opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court, some of the language is convoluted and difficult to decipher. The opinions use 20 words, where today we would use five. The punctuation is odd, etc. One of the earliest cases is “The Venus” from 1814 and demonstrates the influence of Vattel’s work from 1757. When the Founders were writing the Constitution and other documents as they organized this new country, someone gave them a copy of Vattel’s work to use in drafting language particularly concerning citizenship, native born, etc. In fact “Natural Born Citizen”, to my understanding first arises when John Jay wrote to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention

          • RobietheCat

            The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced five years later, by the same men who wrote the 1790 version, because by that time, they realized that such children could NOT be “natural born citizens” and jive with the Constitution. The 1795 version omitted the words, “natural born” and simply left that children born abroad to citizen parents….”shall be considered as citizens”….NOT natural born citizens. The left and some on the right love to refer to the 1790 Act, but omit even mentioning that the 1790 Act was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795, making the original NULL and VOID.

          • Jae Ashley Stewart

            But later, the 1790 act was reinstated. You didn’t read far enough.

            ALSO: If a person is a citizen AT BIRTH then he IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. In order for a person to be a “naturalized” citizen, that person has to swear an oath to be loyal to the United States. A BABY CANNOT SWEAR AN OATH!

            TED CRUZ WAS A NATURAL-BORN AT BIRTH.

          • FirstShirt

            An Act of Congress (Naturalization Act of 1790, as an example) can not modify anything within the US Constitution. To do that is very difficult because it requires a Constitutional Convention.

            Not even Obama’s Executive Order can change the Constitution, although I’m certain he will attempt it, sooner or later.

          • Jae Ashley Stewart

            You need to learn how to comprehend what you read. If a person is a citizen AT BIRTH then he IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. In order for a person to be a “naturalized” citizen, that person has to swear an oath to be loyal to the United States. A BABY CANNOT SWEAR AN OATH!

            TED CRUZ WAS A NATURAL-BORN AT BIRTH.

        • Jae Ashley Stewart

          FirstShirt: The “child also inherits it’s [sic] from the father.” THAT’S A NEW ONE. Making these up as you go, are you?

          • Ben Drake

            No, firstshirt is NOT making it up as he goes, but you are. The US Constitution clearly states that a Natural Born Citizen is the only person who can run for the top two. SCOTUS has clearly defined what a NBC is. Nothing has happened to change that.

            http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

          • tmanosaurus

            Cant read? Get help. You are citing constitutionaly superceded law.

          • Ben Drake

            You’ll have to prove that as it is not true. Must be you can’t read. You should get help. BTW, before you embarrass yourself, you better make sure you are right, because you are not.

          • NymRod

            From the Harvard Law Review. “Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.”
            http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

          • Ben Drake

            So you;re convinced by an ultra-liberal so called school. LOL

          • RobietheCat

            Citing that poorly written article doesn’t help your case.

          • pisher

            Right–however, the waters get muddied when only one parent is a citizen, and she may have had dual-citizenship.

            Cruz’s mother had been living in Canada for some time when he was born, and may have been eligible to vote there.

            I think Cruz can probably legally run, but given how much of a stink he’s making about other immigrants, he’s clearly one of the biggest hypocrites of all time.

            And the right will only let him get away with it because he’s one of them–and white.

          • NymRod

            Cruz’s mother didn’t live in Canada long enough to become a Canadian citizen before Ted was born.

          • RobietheCat

            Why was she on the federal voting rolls in Calgary then?

          • disqus_8zbuSwYc2s

            Where has that been proven?

          • Sam

            Everybody gets on the voting rolls. You could give the enumerator your dogs name & it gets on the roll. There is no request for ID, etc.

          • Nena Sullins

            the Canadian government said they had mistakenly sent her the form which she never filled out or returned, she never became a Canadian citizen they said

          • mary

            they owned a company they started, so they didn’t go there on a transient basis ..they were there for the long haul and relinquished their american citizenship while there….the real question was this done before or after Rafael.”.aka ted” was born.
            From the sound of it he was born to newly canadian citizen parents.

          • barque

            Cruz’s mother did not relinquish her American citizenship. Even if she applied to naturalize in Canada, and even if she took the oath and even if she said she renounces any foreign allegiances… she did not lose her American citizenship. The reason for this is simple. U.S. law is that to lose one’s citizenship one must positively be declare intent to U.S. officials, in addition to performing the potentially expatriating act. The law is, that if you perform a potentially expatriating act, like naturalize in a foreign country, you have to do so specifically with the intent to lose your citizenship. You have to say to the U.S. officials, yes I did it with the intent of losing my citizenship. If you are attempting to re-enter the U.S. after naturalizing in a foreign country, and it has come to the attention of U.S. officials that you took a foreign nationality and/or voted in a foreign nation’s election, then the official must ask you if you performed those actions with the intent to lose your citizenship. If you say no, you are on your way. If you say yes, you still have to fill out paperwork and it must be accepted by the U.S. to officially end your U.S. citizenship. There is no record of Cruz’s mom ever doing such a thing. She did return permanently to the U.S. four years after Ted’s birth, and lived as a U.S. citizen here ever since. Obviously, she never had her citizenship revoked.

          • DownriverDem

            Maybe so, but don’t you find this all hypercritically disgusting?

          • barque

            You mean hypocritical? If so, who do you mean?

          • mary

            thanks that interesting to know, as for her actions and what either of them did regarding their citizenship, only they know, it was said his father renounced his canadian citizenship in 2005 …. odd that Raphael only renounced his canadian citizenship 18 months ago….

          • barque

            Whether or not Ted’s mother applied for and/or received Canadian citizenship, the fact remains that her U.S. citizenship was never relinquished or revoked. Meaning, whether or not she acquired Canadian citizenship, Ted’s mom was a U.S. citizen at his birth and thus he was a U.S. citizen at birth, by birth. Based on historical legal understanding, he is thus a natural born U.S. citizen.

          • Sam

            Ever check any facts? They moved to Canada in 1967, Cruz was born in 1970. You had to be a resident of Canada for 5 years before you could become a citizen.
            And how would you know they gave up their US citizenship? What utter garbage you guys one up with.

          • rivardau

            No, 3yrs residency is all that is required to apply for Canadian citizenship.

            america requires minimum 5 yrs….Canada only 3.

          • mary

            both parents had relinquished their us citizenship in canada, so technically he was born to canadian parents

          • DownriverDem

            How do you know that?

          • mary

            reading its fundamental….just gathered the info thru several media outlets- as a citizens of canada they also registered to vote, what i find incredulous for an individual who was raised in us, all this time ran for senate clerked for judges and he didn’t renounce his canadian citizenship till 18 months ago, although his dad did so 10 years back, becoming a us naturalized citizen for the 2nd time.

          • Sam

            What utter garbage.

          • mary

            ps- don’t forget that an apple doesn’t fall far from the tree….his dad is a crazed evangelical pastor who is an anti-gay, racist bigot…and has made many comments to back this up…and one time it was wondered how this would affect his candidacy as his father used to campaign with him…and he has more than once had to explain his off color remarks as a “joke”.

          • Darlene Joan

            It would seem so.

          • Sam

            Do you ever quit lying?

          • rivardau

            hey, you were wrong on a fact above…..so shut up already!

          • Judy Selich

            Sam, “Mary” is absolutely correct. Both parents were Canadian citizens.

          • Nena Sullins

            not true, his mother never had Canadian citizenship

          • Judy Selich

            Nena Sullins, Ted Cruz’s mother was indeed a Canadian citizen. His father became a citizen in 1968 and in 1969 his mother was a Canadian Citizen. Both were listed on Canadian Voter Rolls in 1969 until they returned to the U.S. Thus, Ted Cruz was born in Canada to two Canadian citizens. Actually, it doesn’t effect his eligibility for POTUS, because he has never been eligible. His birth on foreign soil to even one non-citizen parent (his father, originally a Cuban citizen) is an automatic disqualification under Article II of the Constitution.

          • barque

            “Actually, it doesn’t effect his eligibility for POTUS, because he has never been eligible. His birth on foreign soil to even one non-citizen parent (his father, originally a Cuban citizen) is an automatic disqualification under Article II of the Constitution.”

            The words of the constitution say nothing of the sort. The issue here is that you feel his being born a citizen in a foreign country, means he is not a “natural born” citizen. But it is not the constitution saying that. Despite your claims to understand the law and the constitution, you actually have an amazingly vague and distorted understanding of how it all works. That’s as nicely as I can put it.

            Article II says the president must be a natural born citizen. It doesn’t define the term. It doesn’t say a person is automatically disqualified if born on foreign soil to one non-citizen parent. it may be your opinion that this so, but to say under Article II he is disqualified, you are bordering on lying. At best, it’s an illogical leap.

            In fact, scholar-wannabe, it actually doesn’t say anywhere in the law, the common law or U.S. case law, that such a thing is a disqualification.

            On the contrary, the only established precedent on the issue of who is or is not a “natural born” citizen, is the common law and statutes of England. In that history, the knowledge under which the founders lived and worked, any person born a subject of England, was a “natural born” subject of England.

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            My goodness “nobody”, but you “Knows-It-All” even to the point of knowing Barrack was born in Hawaii! hahaha You’re funny!!

          • DownriverDem

            Yep. I’m white and find repubs a total embarrassment.

          • JOEYBIGBALLS

            Hey Down the drain democrap, Republicans find you embarrassing to be a Democrat!

          • aniptofar

            Cruz is in now way NBC. He fails two of the three reqs.

            It’s not muddy at all. If you have a foreign influence or allegiance at birth, game over. That is clearly the intent.

            If you need law to define your citizenship, again, game over.

          • Nena Sullins

            Cruz mother was never a citizen of Canada according to Canada

          • Judy Selich

            Did you actually look at the Voter Rolls? In fact, she became a Canadian citizen under their laws in 1969. When Ted Cruz was born, he was born on Canadian soil to two Canadian citizens. His mother could not have passed U.S. citizenship to Cruz, because she was in fact a citizen of Canada.

          • barque

            Whether or not Ted’s mom applied for or acquired Canadian citizenship, she never lost or relinquished her U.S. citizenship. That’s the crux of the matter. According to U.S. law he was a U.S. citizen at birth by birth.

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            Well, last I looked Trump is white, too and Trump was going after him??

          • RobietheCat

            1. Historically since Roman and Greek eras, citizenship passed from paternity
            2. Please provide a link or supporting evidence for you last assertion.

            My understanding is the last time Congress inserted or used the phrase ‘natural born’ citizen was with the Act of 1790. There is no record that phrase was ever used again in legislation. So provide some proof. I can’t take your word for it.

          • rivardau

            14th Amendment — was totally about extending citizenship to residents who were never counted as citizens before….primarily former slaves….but it was broad-reaching.

            and as an amendment, it IS a part of the Constitution, and thus if you are claiming to know the constitution, you should know this part of it.

            as for roman or greek eras of 2,000 yrs ago….does NOT apply.

            WTF?!

          • barque

            The meaning of natural born citizenship was not changed during WWII to accommodate service personnel abroad. A person is a natural born citizen by being born a citizen. A person is born a citizen abroad by being born to either two or one U.S. citizens, no matter where they are, and whether or not those parents are serving in the military. If a child born to military members abroad is a citizen, it is not because the parent is a military member in service of the U.S.; it is because the parent is a U.S. citizen and meets the conditions necessary for the child to be born a citizen.

          • Lia111

            and meets the conditions to “transmit citizenship” to the child.

          • rivardau

            right, so all the blathering about Obama for 8+ yrs was totally irrelevant and a waste of the GOP’s time……as no matter whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya, his mother was a Kansas citizen, and thus, Obama had american citizenship and eligibility to be President, no matter where he was born!

            Thanks for verifying the proof that the birthers were crackpots from the get-go!

          • barque

            Yes, it was a total waste of their time. Also, it primed so many rabid birthers into crazytown that they are now turning their sights on one of their own. The irony.

            But slight correction: IF Obama had been born outside the U.S., there is a case that his mother did not meet the qualifications to confer citizenship. She was only 18 and I think the law was that at the time of Obama’s birth the mom would have had to have lived at least 4 years in the U.S. after her 15th birthday. She wasn’t old enough to have done so. But, the idea Obama was born outside the U.S. is ludicrous anyway, so there you go.

          • rockribbedrushy

            According to the law in force at the time she need 5 years past her 16th birthday.
            Hawaii gave birth certificates to children born abroad on a regular basis.
            By the way, no marriage certificate was ever produced so that Obama could get his inheritance when the father was killed in 1982.

          • barque

            The law at the time, for those born OUT OF THE COUNTRY, was 5 years past her 14th birthday. Since she was only 18 at Obama’s birth, she would not have met that requirement. So IF Obama had been born OUTSIDE the U.S. it would have been an issue. But he was born in Hawaii and it is utterly irrelevant.

            Only the most hard-core gullible uninformed nutjobs still believe he wasn’t born in Hawaii. Oh, sorry, you’re one of them? :)

            “Hawaii gave birth certificates to children born abroad on a regular basis.”

            The birth certificates Hawaii produced for people born abroad, actually SAID the child was born abroad.

            That’s all that need be said about that, under normal circumstances, but then again people wouldn’t still be resurrecting that goofball claim under normal circumstances, so…

            Obama’s certification gave a time and date and place of his birth, in Hawaii. A state-stamped sealed certificate would not say you were born at a certain minute, hour, and day, in Hawaii, if it did not have the original document from the hospital saying all those things. The state of Hawaii, by issuing the certification, is stating/certifying, that the information on the sealed document is accurate and on file at the state. If you don’t believe the certificate you simply are saying Hawaii is lying.

            And, honestly, I can’t believe I am even having this conversation roughly 7 years after all these nonsense assertions you are making were debunked in the first place. haha, time-warp.

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            KNOCK-IT-OFF! You can’t prove chit from shinola! Just trying to blow smoke up everybody’s #$@%!!!

          • Joy Beum

            Too bad the woman with the Hawiian Health Department who faked his birth certificate was the ONLY person killed in a commuter plane downing. The only person killed. Blunt force trauma. No one else had a scratch.

          • barque

            lol

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            They just shrug their shoulders and walk away saying “what a sad coincident”, same with the Supreme Court Judge!!

          • barque

            As I said to charles I’m feeling good this morning so I thought I would address this. Fuddy didn’t die of blunt force trauma. It was a heart attack. After the fact, when everyone survived with minimum bumps and bruises. Honestly Joy if you can’t be bothered to even do MINIMAL checking of facts – and I mean at the level of your run of the mill simpleton – how can you expect anyone with an average intelligence to take anything you say seriously? LOL you people.

          • Joy Beum

            Wow…you must be an ‘associate professor’ of bullshit at a mediocre JC in California. You are rude, pompous and self-absorbed….even more than most libtards.

          • barque

            Love how you try to pass it off as BS that I am pointing out the level idiocy it must take to claim Fuddy died of “blunt force trauma.” LOL. I guess the more wrong you are about everything, the more strongly you must have to insist that persons correcting you are pompous and self-absorbed.

            It doesn’t take a “libtard” to do simple, basic, 3rd-grade level research.

            Just thank me for straightening out your ignorance. You’re welcome.

          • Buzz

            Kind of points a loaded gun does it not? The wife of Abercrombie whom was politically connected at the time.

          • Joy Beum

            The elite has protected him all the way through, after hand picking and grooming him for what he is doing. He must have a coating of teflon all over him.

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            Hawaii is lying and people are dying! It’s hard to believe that people can actually function with IQ’s in the 20’s, like you!

          • Joy Beum

            ‘…can’t believe I am even having this conversation’… For not believing it, you wrote more than most people… Truth is truth and even circumstantial evidence is enough to convict the guilty in a court of law. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/12/hawaii-official-who-verified-obamas-birth-certificate-dies-in-plane-crash/ There are many more sites you can visit with the push of a button!

          • Juan Time

            What true? You want to quote something from Glenn Beck’s Blaze as the true! Beck’s so far right even Fox fired him! You wouldn’t know the truth if it hit you in the face! Other Trump supporter riding the looney tune train!

          • Joy Beum

            For being so ‘in love’ with Cruz, you neglected to offer one positive comment about him.

          • BillW in StL

            Hillary sure started a mess.

          • barque

            Her people looked into it and almost immediately dismissed the whole scenario. It is the nutty nut righty rights who made the mess, my friend. You can’t seriously suggest all this birther insanity has come from anywhere but the conservatives for the past 8 years. Even now, the vast majority of anti-Cruz and Rubio birtherism is conservatives. This is just part of the nonsense civil war going on in the GOP.

          • charles17121

            barque , Evidently you weren’t around or old enough in 1961 to know the legal race definition of a black person was known as Negro or Black and not African-American . There is no such race as African-American ! African-American is a feel good term made up in the late eighties to pacify the Negro/black population in the US . On the fraud and usurper barack hussein obama’s FROGED birth certificate it gave the race of his father as African ! Again there is no such race as African-American !

          • barque

            You’re under the mistaken impression that on Obama’s birth certificate the person filling it out was using “legal race definitions.” The parents filled out their own personal information. There wasn’t a government employee there going down a list of legal race classifications. You’re killing me, dude.

            And also, his father is listed as “African” on the birth certificate, not “African-American”. You can’t even get that right? LOL.

            Obama’s father classified himself as “African” for his race. You know why? Because ALL black men in Africa called themselves “African.” NONE of them called themselves Negro or Black. Do a little research. I don’t have to have been around to be able to look up basic available information.

          • barque

            And by the way I’m only answering these IDIOT comments about Obama’s birth certificate because I’m in a good mood this morning. You knuckledragging imbeciles who after 8 years insist that Obama was not born in Hawaii, really don’t deserve any more attention on this matter. You are truly braindead, it’s pathetic.

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            What inheritance? lol

          • lib2libertarian

            This is true. Obama’s sister has a Hawaiian birth cert even though there has never been any dispute that she was born in Indonesia. This just proves your point about Hawaiian birth certs of the era and does not prove whether or not Obama was born there.

          • barque

            A person born abroad to a Hawaii resident, can get a Hawaii birth certificate later saying they were born abroad to a Hawaii resident. Note, let’s be sure you get this: If someone who was born abroad gets a Hawaii birth certificate, that certificate SAYS they were born abroad. It does not say they were born in a particular hospital in Hawaii at a certain minute, hour, and day. So yes, actually, Obama’s birth certificate does absolutely prove he was born there. LOL, I can NOT believe we are having this conversation 8 years later still. :)

          • lib2libertarian

            The accident of Obama’s birth has never been an issue to me. That he was educated in a madrassa, adopted by an Indonesian Muslim, and then dumped on his communist grandparents to spend the next several years of his life in a drug-induced haze as part of the “Choom gang,” has been. Mercifully, it’s almost over.

          • barque

            His school was not a Madrassa, you are being fooled by ignorant rhetoric. His adopted father may have been a Muslim. Big deal. He was obviously not a radical Muslim, and Obama only lived with him for a while. Obama’s grandparents were not communists. Again, falling for BS.

          • lib2libertarian

            From the Huffington Post: “term madrassa means “a Muslim school, college or university that is often part of a mosque.” And Obama has acknowleged that as a child in Indonesia he did attend a “Muslim school.” It’s also been widely reported that the grandparents were communist sympathizers if not registered as such. Further, Barry Soetero’s (as he was known then) mentor, Frank Davis, was also a communist sympathizer. Davis was friends with Obama’s chief advisor, Valerie Jarret’s father-in-law, yet another communist. AND “FBI) files reveal Valerie Jarrett’s family connections to hardcore Communists” When Obama spoke of his Kenyan birthplace, I’ve no doubt he was misremembering due to the drugs. It’s a free country. Viva America! Gracias a Dios somos casi al final.

          • barque

            You intended the word madrassa to imply a radical muslim extremist indoctrination school. Notice the Huff Post and dictionaries and other sources confirm that the term merely means “school” but don’t play games, you were attempting to imply something different.

            The claim that Obama’s maternal grandparents were communists is spurious. There is zero evidence to back this up, so just call them his “communist grandparents” is just more BS.

            Obama did not ever call Kenya his birthplace. LOL.

          • lib2libertarian

            http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/shocker-obama-was-still-kenyan-born-in-2003/
            Barack and Michelle Obama have referred to his birthplace as Kenya in the past–when it served their purpose. As I’ve already stated, I don’t care where he was born. But there has always been room for doubt brought to us by the Obamas themselves. Meanwhile, where was Ted Cruz born? lol

          • barque

            Neither of them have ever referred to Kenya as his birthplace.

          • lib2libertarian
          • barque

            LOL ok and where in that video do either of them say he was “born” in Kenya or that it is his “birthplace”? Nowhere. And not in any other video, transcript, email, letter, or memo. It is a figment of your wild-eyed imagination.

            The term Michelle used – “his home country” – while it is an unskillful way to refer to Kenya as Barack’s “ancestral home”, this is all she meant. My parents are from Tennessee and we all in the whole family call Tennessee our “home state” even though I have never set foot there. Only true drooling lunatics and imbeciles can twist “his home country” into “his place of birth.”

            Again, NEVER have either Barack or Michelle claimed he was born in Kenya or referred to it as his birthplace.

          • lib2libertarian
          • barque

            You’re going to make a reference to intellectual inferiority about a solidly red state? I see. I am sure the irony is evident to most conservatives, thanks for that.

            And that link, which you already posted once before, is about a literary agency piece calling Obama “Kenya born.” Is there something wrong with your brain?

            Your claim is that BARACK and MICHELLE have said he was born in Kenya.

            This is untrue. It is false.

            Your links are proving you a buffoon. They don’t remotely show what you say they show, namely, either Michelle or Obama claiming Kenya as his birthplace. I think you need help.

          • lib2libertarian

            Look, I don’t care where he was born. I don’t care what you think of me. I do believe that Obama and his wife have referred to Kenya as his home of origin, which means to me, where he was born. But, whatever. He’s out soon.

          • barque

            lol and I don’t care that you don’t care.

            I know you want to believe that Obama and his wife have referred to Kenya as “his home of origin,” but they haven’t. Neither of them have. Michelle, one time, said “his home country” but as most sane people know, doesn’t mean she claimed he was born there. Just like Tennessee being my “home state.” Obama has never even said anything remotely close to Michelle’s inartfull phrasing, so you can’t even misunderstand him to have suggested it. It’s pretty funny how you will insist, however. Either way, at least you should concede neither of them have claimed Kenya is his birthplace. Ever.

            “He’s out soon.” I love this attitude. Thank God in Heaven, that Obama’s eight years are almost over. Finally we will see the end of an era which has seen unemployment drop to under 5%, the economy grow to be the largest in history, taxes maintained at historically low rates, insurance and auto and real estate industries brought back from the dead, Osama bin Laden double-tapped and dropped into the ocean, Americans home from Afghanistan and Iraq, and so on! It has been unbearable! Look at what the Muslim communist usurper has wrought!! LOL.

          • BillW in StL

            Obama’s parents met in 1960 in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, where his father was a foreign student on scholarship.
            Who learns Russian during the Cold War?

          • barque

            You win the award for the least relevant comment on the thread, lol. What does where they met or the topic of the class have to do with natural born citizenship?

          • BillW in StL

            … since only communist sympathizers would be caught dead learning Russian at that time

          • barque

            Actually if you had half a brain you might know the U.S. State Dept was encouraging college students and military personnel to learn Russian. Twelve ways to Sunday it was an important skill. In the same way the State Dept the last 20 years has encouraged college students and civil service candidates to learn Arabic. But don’t worry about knowing basic historical fact, it just gets in the way of your biases.

            In the meantime… that STILL has NOTHING to do with natural born citizenship. Focus, Bill, focus. lol. Honestly, there is ZERO relevance to the political sympathies of Obama’s parents and whether or not he or Cruz are natural born citizens. Just keep coming with the LOL hilarity, I love it…

          • Helen Wallace

            Obama spent most of his four years in Indonesia studying at Santo Fransiskus Asisi, a Roman Catholic school run at the time by a stern Dutch priest. Students attended Mass each morning before classes and ended each day with Christian prayers.

          • lib2libertarian

            So, he’s Dutch now? Wonder why he didn’t attend the Scalia funeral Mass if he’s familiar with the ritual.

          • Joy Beum

            Where have you been the last seven years barque? Most of this is not even disputed anymore.

          • barque

            Most of this has been settled as conspiracy loon nonsense. I’ve been living in the real world the last 7 years. Repeat: Only the most hard-core gullible uninformed nutjobs still believe he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

          • charles17121

            Joy Beum , barque = obama troll ! Stop feeding the obama trolls and they will go away . Their hole purpose in life is to get you to respond to their obama lies !

          • barque

            charles then I guess that means I am a Cruz troll and a McCain troll. And a George Romney troll and a Goldwater troll, and so on. This has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the fact that neither you nor Joy have any clue what you are talking about.

          • Joy Beum

            Almost over, but not quite…unfortunately.

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            Oh sure … and, the hospital says “no he wasn’t”. Did they loose his records?? Oh yeah, just another one of those coincidences since, they know there’s a lot of “dumb low IQ fools – who will swallow anything”!!

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            OKeeeee … where’s it at???

          • yogiman

            14th birthday, not 16th. He was a British subject at birth because of her age regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii, Kenya or Timbuktu.

          • barque

            Birth on U.S. soil is natural born citizenship regardless of where parents are from.

          • yogiman

            Birth on US soil to a foreign parent is anchor baby citizenship.

          • barque

            You can call it “anchor baby” if you want but it is citizenship in the U.S. by birth on the soil and is natural born citizenship, lol.

          • yogiman

            How can being born in Canada to a Cuban father be natural natural citizen of the USA?

            Was he born before, or after, his mother became a citizen of Canada? Why is his ‘personal papers’ kept under lock and key like Hussein? What is he hiding?

            Even considering dual-citizenship, would you vote for someone who was a citizen of Canada by birth for 44 years (40 in the USA) before they decided to run for the presidency of the USA?

          • barque

            “How can being born in Canada to a Cuban father be natural natural citizen of the USA?”

            Because he was born to a U.S. citizen outside of the U.S., under the circumstances which by law make him a U.S. citizen at birth, by birth. Are you suggesting that the law has exceptions, like, “unless the other parent is Cuban and the country of birth is Canada”? It doesn’t. The law is specifically about being born to a woman whose husband is an alien, in a foreign country.

            “Was he born before, or after, his mother became a citizen of Canada?”

            Don’t know, but as long as she never lost her U.S. citizenship in the process of either applying for or receiving citizenship in Canada, she was still a U.S. citizen and Ted was thus a U.S. citizen at birth, by birth.

            “Even considering dual-citizenship, would you vote for someone who was a citizen of Canada by birth for 44 years (40 in the USA) before they decided to run for the presidency of the USA?”

            I could yes, because in addition to being a natural born citizens, he meets all the requirements as to age (35) and amount of time lived in the U.S. (14) before running. I say I “could” because I am not voting for Cruz in any case, although I believe he is eligible.

          • yogiman

            Being a U.S. citizen is one thing; being a natural born U.S. citizen is another.

            Isn’t being a natural born U.S. because of his mother’s citizenship discrimination? What if his father was a U.S. citizen and his mother a citizen of Cuba, would he have been a citizen of Canada from Cuba or a natural born citizen of the USA because of his father’s citizenship?

          • barque

            “Being a U.S. citizen is one thing; being a natural born citizen of the USA is another.”

            True. If you are born an alien, you can naturalize and be a U.S. citizen by naturalization. If you are born a U.S. citizen, you are a natural born U.S. citizen. Those are the only two ways. This has been established through centuries of practice and legal decisions.

            “Isn’t being a natural born U.S. because of his mother’s citizenship discrimination? What if his father was a U.S. citizen and his mother a citizen of Cuba, would he have been a citizen of Canada from Cuba or a natural born citizen of the USA because of his father’s citizenship?”

            This is a real question to you? lol. The law lays out every scenario. If he was the child of a U.S. citizen father and an alien mother, then the only additional requirement would have been the process for establishing paternity. Since his mother was the citizen, we know she is his actual mother :)

            “It takes two to tango barque, and citizens of two nations makes a child a dual-citizen, not a natural born citizen of either nation.”

            Yes Ted is definitely a dual citizen, but in his case it’s not because his parents are citizens of two different countries. He was born abroad as a U.S. citizen by U.S. law because of his U.S. citizen mother. But he was also born a Canadian citizen by being born in Canada. However, the important thing is, there is nothing that another country might claim which changes the fact of his natural born U.S. citizenship. This has also been established through centuries of practice and law.

            You may want to believe that if a person is a dual citizen at birth they can’t be a natural born citizen. But that’s just a supposition on your part which has zero basis in the law or history. None. Sorry.

          • yogiman

            If being born with only one parent makes a child a natural born citizen of the USA, or being born on U.S. soil makes a child a natural born citizen of the USA; that would mean the child of an illegal alien who came to the USA to have a child for that “anchor baby” citizenship law, that child could be taken home and when they reached their 21st birthday, they could come back to the USA, life here for 14 years and become eligible to become president of the [goodoleUSA].

            If anyone who is such a citizen is constitutionally eligible to become president, God help the USA.

            I don’t think that’s what the founders were thinking when they put that clause in the constitution.

          • barque

            “If being born with only one parent makes a child a natural born citizen of the USA, or being born on U.S. soil makes a child a natural born citizen of the USA; that would mean the child of an illegal alien who came to the USA to have a child for that “anchor baby” citizenship law, that child could be taken home and when they reached their 21st birthday, they could come back to the USA, life here for 14 years and become eligible to become president of the [goodoleUSA].”

            Yes, that is exactly what it means. They indeed considered that one might spend much – maybe most of – his or her life outside the U.S. and still be eligible. Do the math. Had to be 35 but only had to have lived in the U.S. 14 years. The consideration however was that being born a citizen, and spending 14 years within the U.S., was the minimum necessary to assure that the person would – IF ELECTED – act in the interests of the U.S. So look, the person still has to be elected. The beauty of the system is that, yes, a person who spent 21 of his 35 years outside the country, is eligible, yet the people still get to decide if what that person has done and the commitment that person has exhibited, warrants the trust they have to put in him to occupy the office of the presidency. You don’t have to vote for Cruz. If you don’t like that he was born outside the U.S., don’t vote for him. But, he IS eligible.

          • yogiman

            So a dual-citizen is a natural born citizen of the USA. Are they also natural born citizens of their father’s nation? They’re always diligent lovers of their mother’s USA and never a diligent lover of their father’s nation? I don’t think so, and I don’t think a one American parent was the thoughts when they put that clause in the constitution.

            If so, why did the 1st session of Congress in 1790 put that definition of natural born citizen into law as a child whose parent(s) (not parent) were citizens (not (a citizen)) of the nation in which they are born.

            In 1795 the 5th session of Congress re-wrote that law leaving the two words [natural born] out of the definition. They corrected it to add a child is a natural born citizens regardless of where they are born: They are natural born citizens of their parents nation… not nations.

          • barque

            “So a dual-citizen is a natural born citizen of the USA.”
            Yes. Because it doesn’t matter if a natural born U.S. citizen is also claimed as a citizen of another nation. You are clearly having a hard time understanding this. There is nothing in U.S. law saying a person born abroad to one U.S. citizen is a citizen at birth ONLY IF no other countries try to make claims on that person too. It doesn’t matter if YOU think there is a loyalty problem. It simply isn’t a distinction in the law. It doesn’t matter what other countries say. The U.S. determines who are its citizens at birth by birth, and there aren’t any exceptions in the law or in practice saying the child is a different status of born citizen if other countries’ decisions are involved.

            The plain fact is, at the time the 1790 Act was written, if a person was born abroad they were ALWAYS claimed by the nation of birth as a citizen of their country too. And the founders knew this and yet they called that child a natural born citizen. They even discussed the entanglements a U.S. citizen might find themselves in if they were living in the foreign country of their birth when war between that country and the U.S. were to break out. But absolutely none of that altered the fact of that person’s natural born U.S. citizenship.

            “I don’t think so, and I don’t think a one American parent was the thoughts when they put that clause in the constitution.”

            Whether the law says one parent or both parents, has varied over time. In 1790 it said parents plural because it didn’t recognize the autonomy of women. Women couldn’t even vote until 130 years later. The more important fact is that by whatever law or criteria a person was deemed a citizen at birth by birth, that person who is born a citizen is a natural born citizen. That is ALWAYS how it had been in the common law and statutes of England, and it is how it was in the colonies, and the new U.S. There was never a change in the practice. To this day.

          • yogiman

            We’ve obviously come to different conclusions on our studies of history. My conclusion? If a child is a dual citizen of a mother who is a citizen of the USA, and of a father who is a citizen of another nation is a natural born citizen of the USA, why did the founders put that particular natural born citizen clause in the constitution? Are such children natural born citizens of both nation or only the USA; if so, why?

          • barque

            I have come to a very straightforward conclusion. If you are born a citizen, whatever the reason, you are a natural born citizen. That is as opposed to being an alien who later becomes a citizen through naturalization. The requirement was put into the constitution to restrict the presidency to someone who has been a citizen since birth. It is not complicated.

            We know this is what it means because that is what it always meant. In the common law in England a person could be born a subject, either by being born in England even to aliens, or by being born outside of England to one or two English subjects, by statute. Whether it was both parents or just one varied over time, exactly as it has by law varied in the United States. The important aspect of this whole process is this: IF one was BORN a subject, by whatever process, then that person was a natural born subject. Every time. There were never exceptions to this, ever, in English history. There was never a single person who was a subject at birth, who was not considered a natural born subject.

            So when the term was used in the constitution, it was used by men who lived under and understood the common law and the laws of England. They ALL knew that a child born a citizen might also be considered by other countries to be citizens or subjects of those other countries, either because they were born in those countries to Americans, or they were born in America to citizens or subjects of those countries. In other words, there was never a thought of dual citizenship altering or invalidating natural born U.S. citizenship, just as the same situation never changed whether or not a natural born English subject was so.

            You are coming to “a different conclusion” because you simply don’t understand or know the history. In history, a person born a subject, and a person born a citizen, was a natural born subject, a natural born citizen. No laws or statutes or practices ever changed that. You are currently applying an opinion that perhaps this is wrong, but the opinion is just that; it is not based on any historical or legal precedent.

          • yogiman

            Being a citizen is one thing, being a natural born citizen is another. And I believe I know the history of that subject than you.

            Perhaps you should study history on that subject more. Why did the 1st session of congress put that restriction into law? So an illegal aliens child can become president of the USA someday? I don’t think so.

          • barque

            “Being a citizen is one thing, being a natural born citizen is another.”

            You’ve said this already. There are two ways to be a citizen. Being born a citizen, and naturalizing. The common law, history, practice, legal decisions, and legal opinions, all point to being born a citizen as being a natural born citizen. The other way to be a citizen is to naturalize. It has also been clearly established that to be “naturalized” is to be “made like a natural born citizen.” In other words, if you are a citizen, you are either a natural born citizen, or you are a naturalized citizen. Supreme Court decisions have quoted the literature from the legal history of England and the common law which says those are the only two kinds of citizenship there are. The reason I know you don’t have any idea what you are talking about, is that you don’t seem to know this legal history even exists.

            “Why did the 1st session of congress put that restriction into law? So an illegal aliens child can become president of the USA someday?”

            You are confused. The first congress was making a law to cover the situation of persons born ABROAD (meaning, OUTSIDE the United States) to U.S. citizens. That law had nothing to do with persons born inside the United States. In the common law, and in the ENTIRE history of the colonies and the United States, anyone born in the country, regardless of the parents’ status or origin, is a citizen at birth by virtue of being born in the U.S. The fact that those parents could be here illegally, is irrelevant. And it most certainly has nothing to do with the first congress’s law about children born abroad to citizens.

            C’mon, friend, stop making yourself look so uninformed.

          • yogiman

            Sorry, I missed the word in the remark “Why did the 1st session of congress put that restriction into law? So an illegal aliens child can become president of the USA someday.” It should have been “so an illegal alien’s child cannot become president…”

            Again, if anyone is a natural born citizen at birth regardless of their parents citizenship, why did the founders put that clause in the constitution if it’s so meaningless?

            If an illegal alien’s child is a natural born citizen and the citizenship of the father is meaningless, God help the USA.

          • barque

            You’re turning out to be pretty clueless.

            Let’s try this again: The 1st congress made a law about birth OUTSIDE the U.S. To be born a citizen OUTSIDE the U.S., you must be born to at least one U.S. citizen. At the time 1790, the law was both parents had to be U.S. citizens. This, however, has nothing to do with “illegal aliens” because the only way a child of an illegal alien can be a citizen at birth is to be born INSIDE the U.S.

            Birth INSIDE the U.S., is natural born citizenship regardless of parentage. There is no law written by Congress which restricts citizenship to children of citizens if the child is born in the U.S. Inside the U.S., every child born is a citizen at birth, regardless of the status or citizenship of the child’s parentage.

            The natural born clause in the constitution is not meaningless. It separates out those who were born citizens, and those who were not. If you are a citizen by any other path besides being born a citizen, you are not eligible for the presidency. How hard is this to understand? lol.

          • yogiman

            We obviously read and think differently, so be it. Neither of us will convince the other which one is wrong.

          • barque

            Not trying to convince you my friend. Just putting this up on the forum, for the record. People who come to read this will understand who’s right and who’s wrong. I do find it a little sad that you are not willing to go and read the record a little bit. The fact that you literally have no idea that the act of 1790 has nothing to do with births within the United States, says everything we need to know about your understanding of the issue. It is quite flawed.

          • yogiman

            We obviously have different concepts. And obviously agree to disagree; both thinking the other is wrong.

            I only remember what I’ve read on the issue, and all things considered, I can’t imagine the founders putting that clause in the constitution if they felt it would be fine for anyone who was a citizen by one parent should be considered as a natural born citizen.

            The mother is the only parent mention as the “producer” of a natural born citizen. What kind of citizen would the child be if it was the father who was a citizen of the USA? The citizen of their mother or a natural born citizen of their father following their heritage?

          • barque

            “I can’t imagine the founders putting that clause in the constitution if they felt it would be fine for anyone who was a citizen by one parent should be considered as a natural born citizen.”

            This comment makes no sense. They put “natural born citizen” in the constitution because they wanted to restrict the presidency to “natural born citizens.” They KNEW what a natural born citizen was. It was anyone BORN a citizen. lol.

            “The mother is the only parent mention as the “producer” of a natural born citizen.”

            You’re talking gobbledigook. What era are you talking about? And are you talking about kids born in the U.S. or abroad? If born IN the U.S., it has NEVER mattered who the parents are. Neither parent has had to be a citizen. If born OUTSIDE the U.S., it was whatever the statutes of Congress (and before the revolution, the Parliament) said, at the time. Right now, it can be a citizen father if paternity can be established, or a citizen mother only, as long as residency requirements are met pre-birth, or of course it could be two citizen parents. Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen because by law, being born to a U.S. citizen mother who had spent a certain number of years in the U.S., he was a citizen upon his birth. That’s natural born citizenship. Doesn’t matter what the laws of Canada were, doesn’t matter what his father’s nationality was. The only requirement of the law was that the mother is a citizen and met minimum residency in the U.S.

          • yogiman

            In other words, if Cruz was born in Canada to a woman who had renounced her citizenship of the USA and became a citizen of Canada, Cruz would be a natural born citizen of the USA.

            To me, a natural born citizen is a person who’s parents are citizens of the same nation. I can’t logically see a dual citizen as a natural born citizen of either of their parents nation.

          • barque

            “In other words, if Cruz was born in Canada to a woman who had renounced her citizenship of the USA and became a citizen of Canada, Cruz would be a natural born citizen of the USA.”

            Nope. If she had legally renounced her citizenship, and the U.S. officially had accepted her renunciation, and thus she was NOT a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, Ted would absolutely not be a citizen at birth, and thus of course not a natural born citizen.

            But she didn’t. LOL.

            That you can’t “logically” see a dual citizen as a natural born citizen of either country doesn’t change the facts.

            Let’s put it another way: Let’s say Canadian law was, if you are born in Canada, to be a citizen at birth at least one of your parents needs to have been born in Canada too. Since neither of Ted’s parents were born in Canada, that would mean Canada would not consider Ted a citizen of Canada. Would that make a difference or alter his “natural born” status as an American? Of course not. Why should it? Why would the status of a child born to an American abroad be affected in any way by the laws of other countries??!! WE decide who are our citizens. WE put into our own laws that if any American abroad has a child, that child is OUR citizen, an American at birth, by birth. It makes no difference if Canada does or does not claim that child too. It makes no difference if Cuba does or does not claim that child too.

            I am always surprised when I see conservatives flip-flop on this issue of American legal sovereignty. They get outraged and blustery if ever there is an indication that the laws, whims, or claims of other countries affect American policies or judicial decisions in any way whatsoever – but then start yammering on about how if Italy or Cuba or England or Yemen considers a child born in America to an immigrant from their country to be a citizen of their country at birth, that now our whole classification of that child as a natural born American is tossed all topsy turvy. Why?!?

            An American with citizenship at birth, by birth, is a natural born American citizen. Other countries’ claims are irrelevant.

            The authors of the constitution weren’t idiots. If they meant the presidency to be restricted to persons born only on the soil, and only to existing citizens, it would have been precisely phrased that way.

            The term “natural born,” for HUNDREDS of years to the point of the writing of the constitution, meant specifically that the child was BORN a subject, either inside England to any parentage whatsoever, or outside of England according to the Parliamentary statutes of the time of birth. To say the authors of the constitution accidentally used the same phrase “natural born” even though they really didn’t mean anyone born outside the country, is to say the authors were all idiots. Not one of them objected. Not one of them inquired as to whether they should put a NEW definition into the record in case generation after generation of Americans would mistakenly assume the phrase still meant what it had ALWAYS meant. LOL. And, to say John Jay, who was probably the foremost expert at the time on the common law and the statutes and constitution of England, sent that phrase to Geo Washington in a letter without actually meaning it to mean precisely what it had meant for half a millennium, is to say John Jay was an idiot too.

            And then how about that first congress. They write an Act to precisely mirror the analogous Parliamentary Acts stating that a child born abroad to citizens (subjects) was a “natural born citizen” (“natural born subject”). Golly, what a bummer that they used precisely the same phrasing for precisely the same situation of a child born abroad, when according to modern geniuses like you and your websites all know that they were using “natural born” in an entirely new way! Idiots!! :)

          • barque

            By the way, agreeing to disagree is acknowledging that we both have different opinions, but opinions about facts which aren’t really in dispute. What’s going on here between you and me is not that. You don’t actually grasp the facts. Your opinions are based on fundamental ignorance of what the common law is and what the statutes apply to. You don’t really know what applies to birth in the country and why. You don’t get what controls birth outside the country and why. So this isn’t about agreeing to disagree. lol.

          • yogiman

            Ignorance is in the eyes of the beholder, and to think it would be fine for a former citizen of Canada to become president tells me you’re pathetically ignorant on the logic of natural born citizenship.

            If you feel it’s great to have a citizen of two different nations as your president it being immaterial as to which nation they favor, so be it. I prefer one who is a solid citizen (both parents) of the USA.

          • barque

            It doesn’t matter whether or not you or I are comfortable with a Canadian dual citizen being president. Why do you think I “feel it’s great” if the president is a dual citizen? LOL. I just care about the truth. What matters is that he is eligible.

            Personally, I would never ever vote for Cruz. But he is eligible.

          • yogiman

            I care about the truth, also. And I do not believe a dual citizen is a natural born citizen of any nation. They are citizens of two different nations at birth, and what would make one with citizenship of Timbuktu love the USA?

            As I understand it, the concept of natural born citizen was applied to be sure a potential candidate would be a 100% supporter of their nation; which is normal for the vast majority.

          • barque

            “They are citizens of two different nations at birth, and what would make one with citizenship of Timbuktu love the USA?”

            The eligibility clause says the person must have lived in the U.S. at least 14 years. Apparently to the authors, living in the U.S. for 14 years is what would make a dual Timbuktu/US citizen, love the U.S. Or at the least, have the interests of the U.S. at heart if elected to the presidency. They could have made it 30 years. They could have made it 50. They didn’t, they made it 14 years. Again, they weren’t idiots. Born a citizen, and lived in the U.S. at least a decade and a half. To the authors, this was safe enough.

            And does it matter if you or I don’t think so? No. They put the provision in that the candidate be a natural born citizen and a resident of at least 14 years and of the age of 35 or older. That’s the requirement. Cruz meets those requirements and frankly it’s nutty nuts to think he would be putting the interests of another country ahead of the U.S.’s if he was president, lol.

            Let’s put it this way: At the time, the late 1700’s, it was understood in England that many of their born subjects, who they called Natural Born Subjects, were also subjects or citizens of the countries in which they were born. This was known throughout the dominions. But they were still natural born subjects. In the new United States, the founders also understood that there were a great many circumstances under which natural born citizens of the U.S. were also considered subjects or citizens of other countries. There were discussions about this. So, in the 1600’s and the 1700’s there were a great many “dual citizens” or “dual subjects” who were natural born subjects of England anyway.

            The term “natural born citizen” is used in the Constitution. It means anyone born a citizen. That is what it had ALWAYS meant. It doesn’t matter what YOU believe. YOU are a fairly uninformed inhabitant of the 21st century. YOU are not John Jay, James Madison, or any of the others who understood quite clearly what “natural born” meant, and also understood the implications of dual citizenship. And it’s the phrase they used.

            The other thing the authors understood, is that whomever was running for president, would have to be a citizen put forth as a candidate and trusted enough to be elected to the position. You keep discounting the fact that the person clearly would have to have demonstrated his desire to act in the best interests of the country. You’re really being ignorant about this whole thing. Ted Cruz has lived here since he was 4. He only knew he was an American. Go ahead and question his love for the country but frankly I think it is pure lunacy to suggest that his Canadian citizenship, such as it was, a second citizenship which he didn’t even really think he validly held, somehow defeats the fact that he grew up in Texas and has served in law and government for decades. I am not advocating for Cruz; I will not be voting for him under any circumstances whatsoever. But I think you people are nuts for questioning his legitimacy. Absolutely bonkers.

          • yogiman

            We obviously have different opinions. I imagine we had different educations on the subject in our younger lives. Here is a article you might be interested in; it makes sense.

            Have you ever known anyone who changed their love of a nation from one nation to another? I haven’t.

            http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/240572-when-dual-citizenship-becomes-conflict-of-interest/

          • barque

            We have different opinions but not different facts.

            Again, your opinion about whether or not dual citizenship guarantees a “safe” President, doesn’t matter. Nor mine. You continue to attempt having philosophical conversations about the trials and tribulations about dual citizenship, and I do appreciate those conversations for what they are. But they are irrelevant with regard to what “natural born citizen” means.

            It means what it meant in 1787. In 1787 it meant anyone born a citizen. That’s what it had meant for nearly 400 years to that point. Our constitution restricts the presidency to a natural born citizen, who is at least 35 and who has resided in the U.S. at least 14 years. The authors didn’t put anything in about parentage or dual citizenship or divided loyalties, other than the restrictions in the eligibility clause. Whatever worries one might have about dual nationality or having immigrant parents or an enemy parent etc, were covered, apparently, but the restrictions in that clause, as far as the authors of the Constitution were concerned.

            On a related topic, you seem to have a bit of a distorted view of what most concerned the delegates to the convention. Meaning, you keep trying to emphasize or at least suggest that the delegates spent time wringing their hands over how to protect the presidency from foreign influence. They really didn’t. They were most concerned over representation of the states in the federal government. There are weeks and weeks of argument and proposals regarding how each state’s population, and each state as a whole, would be properly and fairly represented at the national level. But you know how long they discussed the qualifications for the presidency? Zero hours. None. They did not ever discuss for even one minute how to guarantee the loyalty of the president, or if he could be naturalized or have natural born citizenship, or anything of the sort. The big discussion about the presidency was not about the person who would be president, but HOW the person was elected.

            The delegates went round and round and round on whether the congress should appoint the president, or electors appointed by the congress should elect the president, or the governors of all the states would appoint or elect the president, or the presidency, the “executive”, should be a committee made up of appointees from state governments, or a committee installed by the Senate, and so on and so forth. THIS is the discussion where foreign influence came in. The fear expressed was, if the president was appointed or elected by the House of Representatives, then the president would be beholden to them, and have to acquiesce to their wishes, or at least to those who most evidently put him in office. Further, if foreign sovereigns could influence enough representatives, they could by proxy influence the president, if the president felt bound to make the representatives happy. This is the extent of all the discussion which surrounded the idea of foreign influence. This is why they eventually went with the electoral college, which was counted by the same representation of the senate and house, but which was made up of independent electors appointed by each state Fascinating, eh?

            Notice however, that there is NO discussion at all about European powers “planting” someone with divided loyalties to be made president. And why? Because again, the authors of the constitution envisioned a president who would be a known quantity. The president would be someone nominated from the people, from the states, and voted on by independent electors. The states themselves would surely put forth a qualified and loyal, well respected individual.

            So it is that the delegates simply never found it of any interest to busy themselves with the qualifications for the president. They had a lot to deal with, mostly having to do with the very real differences in interests between the north and the south. There were most immediately the concerns of slavery, and related to that, the daunting task of setting up a government which could represent each state and their populations fairly. This regarded not only population representation, but how to count the population, and whether slaves, not being people, would count as whole persons or parts of persons, or counted at all, for the purposes of representation.

            Once they hammered out the general structure of the First House (Senate) with each state being represented equally, and the Second House (House of Reps) being represented according to population, they then did have some discussions about the qualifications of each of those positions.

            And to your concern about loyalties, they decided that Senators and Congressmen would have to have been citizens for some minimum amount of time (3 years, 10 years, 30 years… they discussed many variable minimums). Notice of course they contemplated that the person could very well have been born an alien and then immigrated and naturalized. They never discussed that there was some sort of a danger of plants being sent from European nations.

            The U.S. was a nation of immigrants, and greatly encouraged immigration. In fact, one of the main complaints in the Declaration of Independence was that England made it very difficult for the colonies to attract immigrants and naturalize them to build their populations and their economies. States wanted and needed to grow. So it was normal and natural that they could put their trust in persons who had come to the states as immigrants and naturalized as citizens. So long as those persons were citizens for a certain number of years before taking political office.

            I find it funny when people discuss the “natural born citizen” clause and start all their sentences with “the founders wanted the president to…” or “the founders were concerned with foreign loyalties” and so on, when in fact not one single delegate to the convention ever discussed the qualifications for the presidency. It was never brought up; not for one second in the months and months of the convention. The suggestion that the president be a natural born citizen came from John Jay, from outside the convention, and it entered via a letter to Washington, who obviously passed it on to a committee who was putting the final draft together for vote, and that committee inserted the phrase without comment. On the floor of the convention not one delegate said even a single word about it. The votes to approve the draft came without any discussion of the clause at all. All to say, that when people start talking about why the authors included the phrase, and how they were concerned about this or about that regarding the loyalties of the president, those people are, to be frank, just making shit up.

            The only person to suggest that the president be a natural born citizen, is probably the one person most well-versed and of the most comprehensive understanding of, the common law and statutes of England. John Jay was a lawyer and a judge under the common law, was the Chief Justice of the New York supreme court, wrote the first New York State Constitution (in which the common law and the statutes of England were established as in full force and effect as they had been in the colony before the revolution), and ultimately was appointed as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. That guy, the one who knew the laws and practices as well or better than anyone else in America, is who suggested the president be, in his words, a “natural BORN citizen.” He underlined born.

            He knew what natural born meant. They all knew what natural born meant. It meant being born a citizen.

          • yogiman

            We obviously was taught history through different courses. Mine was before the government formed the Department of Education and taught the children what they wanted them to know.

          • barque

            Look, you keep saying we are having a simple difference of opinion. I keep showing you factually where you are going wrong. This has nothing to do with public school brainwashing. You just simply don’t know or understand the history you are trying to overlay your viewpoint on.

            Trying to suggest our differences of opinion all come down to what we did and did not learn in school is either dishonest or painfully ignorant. Or both. None of what we have been discussing is taught in primary or secondary level public education, nor in high school level course study in private schools. Trying to pretend this is just a matter of the era you went to school makes you look like a blithering idiot. You don’t actually know ANY of the above information, and your opinions are not base on any of that information; they are based on a wholly subjective modern viewpoint of someone who just can’t see why dual citizenship in no way affects the centuries old definition and practice of natural born citizenship.

          • yogiman

            Was the Supreme Court wrong in their decision in the Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) case? They ruled that if an individual is born in the United States and both parents are citizens of the United States at the time of birth, that individual is. in fact, a natural born citizen. That same Court addressed the same issue where if one of the parents is not a citizen of the United States, the child’s natural born citizenship status is [in doubt].

            When was it changed to “no doubt”?

          • barque

            I’ll assume that since you are so misinformed about the constitution in the first place, that you probably are easily fooled by the boobs who keep insisting the supreme court “ruled” something when all they did is write some dicta.

            Minor v Happersett did not “rule” any such thing. The issue of Virginia Minor’s natural born citizenship was not relevant to the issue before the court, and therefor anything the court had to say about it was obiter dictum. The court even said, DIRECTLY, that they didn’t need to, and were not going to, investigate the issue of someone who is born to only one parent citizen. All they had to know was that Minor was a citizen, to them it was plainly obvious that she was.

            Mentioning that there is no doubt about the citizenship of a person born to two parents in the U.S., is not “ruling” on anything, nor is it defining anything. Further mention that there have been doubts about other circumstances, also, does not limit the operation to the case where there are no doubts. Either say, didn’t define or rule anything, because what they ruled on was whether or not Minor, as a female citizen, could be denied the voting franchise by her state.

            So, no, the same Court did NOT address the same issue of one parent not being a citizen. They specifically SAID they would NOT address it, lol. Nice reading comprehension, genius.

            Just a little info for you: The reason dicta is never valid as a precedent or even as persuasive in future court cases, is precisely because it has not been given the attention it would get if it was in fact the issue the court was investigating and ruling on. It is an “oh by the way” issue, a side stream of reasoning leading to either the reasoning or the strategy for addressing the actual issue.

            Anyone who has fooled you into believing that Minor v Happersett is IN ANY WAY a definition or a ruling on natural born citizenship are themselves fools. Or dishonest. Take your pick.

            So while we are the subject of court rulings: Those same geniuses who tell you Minor v Happersett is a “ruling” on the issue of natural born citizenship, is appealing to the authority of the Supreme Court, and yet those same geniuses ignore the hundreds of years of Court rulings which make up the common law, rulings which are actual rulings and which establish the law regarding citizenship. In the common law, it has been well established by both rulings and statutes for hundreds of years, that anyone born a citizen/subject, is a natural born citizen/subject. This is clear in the legal history and in practice. It’s funny how all that gets pushed aside by modern boobs trying to suggest a throwaway line in Minor establishes a new and unsupported definition on the issue. lol.

          • yogiman

            Excuse me, they didn’t mean what they said, they only said it “out of office”? Gimme a break.

            I doubt it because its too logical, but maybe you might be interested in http://birthers.org/misc/logic.htm/

          • barque

            You don’t actually know what obiter dictum is?? Cmon dude you are looking like a preschooler.

            What they said was an incomplete analysis, and was not part of the ruling. Honestly, I am surprised you know how to tie your shoes.

          • yogiman

            Well, I guess it might be considered they were in a friendly BS ‘get together’. Which makes me wonder what subject they were thinking about when the made that comment.

          • barque

            “Well, I guess it might be considered they were in a friendly BS ‘get together’. Which makes me wonder what subject they were talking about when they made that comment.

            But I guess I think differently than you… thank God!”

            You’re just a certified idiot.

            Before you start trying to tell people that every word that is written in a court decision is some sort of a definition or a binding decision, take at least a little time to learn about how the court system works. Pay attention to stare decisis, binding precedent, ratio decidendi, and obiter dictum. Understand what a “ruling” is, what a “decision” means, and how it’s important to pay attention to what the question before the court is during a proceeding.

            In Minor, the court specifically was supposed to decide whether or not a state can withhold the voting franchise from a citizen. The question before the court had nothing to do with the mechanism for which a person acquires the status of “natural born citizen.” The court discusses this, in showing how they satisfied themselves that Virginia Minor was indeed a citizen. However, the court also states quite clearly that their purpose was not to explore full width and breadth of what makes a person a citizen. With the little information they had about Virginia Minor’s birth, they had all they needed to know to move on to the actual question before the court.

            The point is, “what subject they were talking about when they made that comment” was NOT the subject of the court case. So whatever they said about citizenship in that context is obiter dictum.

            NOBODY with a whit of legal sense would ever suggest that the few sentences of dicta about citizenship by birth should amount to some sort of a proclamation, definition, or precedent-setting establishment of an understanding of citizenship or natural born citizenship.

            I do appreciate that you are apparently fearless in your willingness to expose your ignorance, as it is almost humorous that you just keep coming back with these weird excuses that our difference of opinion is based on our era of education or other such nonsense. Dude, one thing is clear: You don’t understand the law. That’s the whole crux of our disagreement. I understand from your comments that it’s a little late in the game for you, but better you learn the rules now than to keep playing it wrong. Just a suggestion.

          • yogiman

            Well dud, ignorance is like beauty… in the eyes of the beholder.

            No, I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I have read the Constitution and thought I understand it pretty well; at least in my frame of mine.

            Question: If a dual citizen is a natural born citizen of the USA because of their mother’s citizenship, what nation would they be a natural born citizen of if their father was a citizen of the USA and their mother was a citizen of a foreign nation?

          • barque

            “And no, I’m not an expert constitutional lawyer, but I have read the Constitution and thought I understood it pretty well; at least in my frame of mind.”

            There’s nothing in the constitution which can tell you what a natural born citizen is. So congratulations for reading and understanding the constitution. Now read and understand the notes from the convention and you will see that there were zero discussions about the issue. The meaning of “natural born” was already well known, and the meaning had meant the same thing for many hundreds of years in the common law and the statutes of England. So when John Jay sent the suggestion to Washington and Washington forwarded it to the committee, the committee simply inserted it into the final draft. The claim that the use of it suddenly and mysteriously meant something different than it had meant for HUNDREDS of years, is absurd.

            “I cannot think the founders of this nation would be so willing to to accept a possible enemy from within as a potential leader in the Oval Office they had just established.”

            This “enemy within” concept is a figment of your imagination. The founders considered that someone who was a citizen from birth, who lived in the U.S. at least 14 years and was at least 35 years old, who then would be ELECTED to the position, would not be an enemy plant.

            “In your concept of natural born citizen, any citizen who isn’t a naturalized citizen is a natural born citizen. Help us Lord, for we know not.”

            It’s not my concept; it was the concept since before the year 1400 and has never change. Are you starting to see a pattern here in your misunderstanding? You keep suggesting that this concept is some sort of a new and novel interpretation of a phrase, but that phrase has meant literally the exact same thing in our history for over half a millennium. I suspect you don’t really get the absurdity of what you are suggesting.

            “Question: Since only the mother’s citizenship is mentioned regarding citizenship; If a dual citizen is a natural born citizen of the USA because of their mother’s citizenship, what nation would they be a natural born citizen of if their father was a citizen of the USA and their mother was a citizen of a foreign nation?”

            This question doesn’t make sense because “only the mother’s citizenship” is not mentioned. If I understand your comment correctly (and let me know if I am not hearing you right) you seem to think the law only makes someone a natural born citizen if the mother is the U.S. citizen and not the father?

            U.S. law is, regarding children born OUTSIDE the U.S., that the child is a citizen at birth if EITHER the father or the mother are U.S. citizens, or both, with certain conditions.

            Any child born a natural born citizen might also be considered a natural born citizen of another country. Not sure what you question means. But here’s a scenario: My parents are from England. They come to the U.S. and naturalize, so they are both U.S. citizens. They have a child here, me. I am a natural born citizen of the U.S. But according to English code I am also a natural born citizen of the UK. In fact, if I visit the UK, for any length of time, and then later have a child here in the U.S., that child also would still be considered a natural born citizen of the UK, because by their law descent of citizenship goes two generations as long as the parent has spent ANY time in the UK before the grandchild is born. Should that affect my own natural born U.S. citizenship? Of course not. And in fact it would not have affected it in 1800 or 1900 either. If my parents are on a trip to Mexico to see the pyramids, and have another child, my sister, she would be, follow me on this, a natural born U.S. citizen, a natural born Mexican citizen, and a natural born UK citizen.

            For the most part that page is pretty accurate, with a couple of GLARING misconceptions.

            First, but not terribly important is this sentence:
            “Historically jus sanguinis is the oldest principle used to determine citizenship.”
            In England and in the U.S., this is completely erroneous. The oldest principle used to determine citizenship is birth within the nation (jus soli). It was by default since time immemorial, thus in effect in England since before the new world was discovered. Laws passed by Parliament conferring subjecthood on children born to its subjects abroad (jus sanguinis), did not even exist until hundreds of years later.

            Secondly, the Euler diagram is a useless waste of time if one is to start parsing citizenship beyond the simple “born or naturalized” designations. The authors of the page are using this tortured analysis in order to try to say there are varying levels of allegiance involved in each type of conference of citizenship. Only problem with trying to suggest the citizenship of a child born a citizen to two citizen parents in the country is different than the citizenship of a child born a citizen to two aliens in the country, is that these segregations are artificial. In other words, put simply, there is nothing in the law, in practice, in the common law, or in judicial decisions, which contemplate any born citizenships to be more valid than any other. Citizenship has ALWAYS only been classified as a dichotomy: EITHER the child is born a citizen, or is later naturalized as a citizen. Those are the two types of citizenship. There are no shades of grey in the history of England or the U.S. To suggest that there was ever any way to judge the level of allegiance of an individual based on their parentage or place of birth, besides simply noting they were born a citizen or they were a naturalized a citizen, is totally unsupported. Such further grey area classification DO NOT EXIST in the history of the U.S. and England.

            Third, this: “Jay recommended and the framers agreed that this person must have a natural allegiance that is total and absolute to the Nation and to no any other nation or potentate.”

            Totally made up. Jay simply recommended the person be a natural born citizen. Nothing at all was suggested by Jay with regard to “allegiance that is total and absolute…” and “to no other nation of potentate.” Jay never uttered such rubbish to anyone, let alone suggested it to the founders. Additionally, “the framers agreed” is equally complete BS. The “framers” never commented on the phrase, let alone the eligibility of the president. This site is doing what you are doing, which is to overlay upon history their own perception of how the phrase came about. However, there is NO suggestion in any of the writings of Jay, the framers, the notes on the convention, in legal circles, treatises on the convention and the constitution – NOWHERE – that Jay and/or “the framers” thought the president must have some sort of an “absolute” allegiance to the U.S. and none to anyone else. Incredibly dishonest nonsense written by the dipshits at birther.org. Incredibly unscholarly. At least it whips up the frenzy of those with little ability to research and no ability to discriminate between facts and unsupported BS.

            I’m not continuing past this point in my analysis because I see it just gets muddier from there.

            The summary is they are saying that we can only guarantee absolute and undivided “allegiance” from those born both in the U.S. and only to two citizen parents.

            Two problems with this, in short:
            1. “allegiance” is something owed to the jurisdiction while within the country. If am a dual citizen but living in the U.S., I ONLY, SOLELY, at that time I am living here, owe my full and undivided allegiance to the U.S. This is not just my own personal analysis, this is a principle which was known and written about many hundreds of years ago and exists as a principle in the common law.
            2. To say we need to consider various levels of allegiance is to use a completely different set of standards than to just decide if a person is born a citizen or is a naturalized citizen. In other words, the constitution doesn’t say there are various criteria for establishing to what extent a person born a citizen may or may not be wholly invested in the best interests of the country, and that we need to separate out the children of citizen parents from the children born in the U.S. of alien parents and so on. The constitution says “natural born citizen.”

            You, and birthers.org, are making this WAYYYYY too complicated. It’s a circus.

            “natural born” in England meant EVERY. SINGLE. CHILD. BORN. A. SUBJECT. Always. Ever. It’s sort of amazing this is so impossible to accept. Just read a little.

            John Jay practiced law under and was a judge under, the common law and statutes of England. To suggest he had a different view of the term “natural born” than the definition which was clear and simple under the common law and the statutes of England, is absurd. A “natural born” citizen was a person born a citizen.

            At this point the conversation here has gone off the rails and we’re really just circling back over the same stuff repeatedly.

          • yogiman

            An article you might not be interested in, or probably won’t: https://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/excellent-article-on-natural-born-citizenship/

          • barque

            I’ve read this article multiple times and then have read quotes from it or paraphrases, because birthers think it so clever and well thought out. It’s nonsense.

            The very first part displays the author’s ignorance:
            “If “natural born citizen” is a synonym for “citizen,” then there is no reason for adding the exception “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” None at all. Being a citizen is not sufficient, unless you happened to be alive when the Constitution was adopted.”

            First mistake is that no one claims “natural born citizen” to be a synonym for “citizen.” This is idiocy. Natural born citizen is one kind of citizen. The only other kind is a naturalized citizen.

            So “citizen” is the status, and either “natural born” or “naturalized” is how one acquires the status.

            So now, in context, it makes sense that the constitution says only a natural born citizen (a person BORN a citizen) is eligible. It means if you were not born a citizen, you can’t be president. They put in an exception, because none of the founders were natural born citizens of the U.S. since of course the U.S. didn’t exist when they were born. The exception is that if you became a citizen by the time the constitution was adopted, you were able to be president.

            So again, no one is saying “citizen” means “natural born citizen.” A natural born citizen is a citizen who acquired that citizenship at birth, by birth. A naturalized citizen is a person who was made a citizen though the legal process some time later after being born an alien.

            I won’t get into the rest of the bafflegabbish goop the author gets into with all those silly categories. You are either born a citizen, or you are later made a citizen. Notice in John Jay’s letter he underlined the word “BORN”

          • yogiman

            Amazing: A person can come to the US because they had learned to love her, but as a naturalized citizen they cannot consider becoming president of her. But an enemy of a foreign nation can come here and have a child born here and qualify to become president at birth.

            For some unexplainable reason I don’t think that’s what the founders had in mind when they put that clause in the constitution.

          • barque

            Put your thinking cap on, genius. We’re talking about the child born here, not the parents.

            A person can come here and naturalize, but while most of them would come here for the love of liberty etc etc, some may not. They may have lived 25, 35, 45 years in a foreign country, and then come here and become a citizen. The natural born citizen clause closes the presidency to them all.

            A person BORN here, even if the parents have ill intention, is a natural born citizen by birthright. It will be a MINIMUM of 35 years before that baby is old enough to be president, AND 14 of those years would be spent here in the country of their citizenship. The likelihood of that child somehow having the interests of another country at heart is very low.

            None of this is really relevant, however. Your opinion or mine of which is the safer bet, isn’t the important factor. The ONLY factor is, what does “natural born citizen” mean? The authors of the Constitution included a phrase which had meant the same thing for hundreds and hundreds of years: born a citizen, or born a subject. They were not idiots. If they meant to restrict the presidency to only those born IN the U.S. to two citizen parents, they would have used that language. They wouldn’t have simply used a phrase which had a clear meaning known for hundreds of years, if they meant it to refer to only a subset of the people that phrase normally described.

            You can make this as complicated as you want, and you can keep throwing hypothetical scenarios into the mix and trying to argue that golly you just don’t think this is what the framers had in mind… but you’re not going to change the original and well-settled meaning of the phrase they used.

            There are a lot of things the founders didn’t have in mind. They didn’t consider that women would ever vote. They didn’t consider that the Senate would be decided by popular elections instead of being appointed by the states. They didn’t consider that black persons would ever be persons, let alone citizens, let alone natural born citizens eligible to be president. Go ahead and keep trying to add to the list of what the founders probably did not have in mind, lol. It doesn’t change anything.

          • Joe Roberts

            Really? So the leader of North Korea or Iran could come here for a visit, have a kid while they are here and that child is a natural born citizen of the United States? I don’t think so. Stop making yourself look so uninformed.

          • barque

            “So the leader of North Korea or Iran could come here for a visit, have a kid while they are here and that child is a natural born citizen of the United States?”

            No, of course not. The leader of any country is an official representative of that country, and enters the U.S. with credentials as such and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. while here. Therein is the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction.”

            Any other visitor, tourist, immigrant, etc, from any of those countries, who are not here under diplomatic credentials, is fully subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. while here, and if they happen to have a child here, that child is a natural born citizen of the U.S. by virtue of birth on the soil.

          • barque

            “So the leader of North Korea or Iran could come here for a visit, have a kid while they are here and that child is a natural born citizen of the United States?”

            No, of course not. The leader of any country is an official representative of that country, and enters the U.S. with credentials as such and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. while here. Therein is the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction.”

            Any other visitor, tourist, immigrant, etc, from any of those countries, who are not here under diplomatic credentials, is fully subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. while here, and if they happen to have a child here, that child is a natural born citizen of the U.S. by virtue of birth on the soil.

          • Joe Roberts

            Seems like you are the one applying opinion. Telling him he doesn’t understand the history as if you’re the expert. Well, lets look at the history. Up until the last few decades, people always got married when they had children. There were no single parents. If a woman were to get pregnant and not be married, she went to a home for unwed mothers and if the dad didn’t step up and marry her, he was considered a POS. Women couldn’t even own property so let’s not try and make it out that just her citizenship alone counts as him being natural born. The fact is that her husband was not a citizen of the United States at the time he was born and he is a citizen but not a natural born citizen as his “parents” would have had to be citizens at the time of his birth. You can twist it any way you want but it doesn’t make it so.

          • barque

            My opinion is that he doesn’t understand history. I am basing it on the fact that he is ignorant of very relevant facts. The facts are not my opinion; they are facts. He is basing his opinion on his ideas, not on the relevant facts.

            The historical evidence is quite clear. We worked under, and adopted, the common law and statutes of England as the basis of our legal system. In the common law and the statutes of England, for hundreds of years, the definition of “natural born” was well established and settled: any person born a subject or citizen and not having to naturalized later. This is not in dispute. It is a clear historical fact.

            What ol’ yogiman here is doing, however, is proposing that when John Jay used the term “natural born” in his letter to Washington, and when the committee inserted that phrase into the constitution, and when the first congress used the term in the Act of 1790, that instead of meaning what the term had meant for hundreds of years in our legal system and our common practice, they were instead using a new “definition” contained in a sentence of a book about international relations and only available in French at the time. Further yogiman is suggesting that while intending the meaning of “natural born” to be completely different than it had been in the entire history of England and the colonies and the early U.S., those writers didn’t bother to express the new meaning or define it in any way or even to cite the alternative source from which they allegedly derived it. LOL.

            This is akin to saying that when I write about putting a new “shoelace” in my sneakers, I don’t mean what we’ve all known “shoelace” to mean for generations, but rather I mean it to be a thing described in a small book on footware written by a French designer about 30 years ago and is as yet not translated to English, where the lace needs to be a flattened black satin woven rope about .5 meters long. Of course when I write “shoelace” I expect you all to understand I am speaking of the alternate version as presented by the french designer, not the commonly understood version which actually needs no definition other than the decades of use to which we’ve all grown accustomed.

            “Up until the last few decades, people always got married when they had children. There were no single parents.”

            LOL, this is utterly ludicrous. But it is neither here nor there in our discussion. The law is what matters.

            “The fact is that her husband was not a citizen of the United States at the time he was born and he is a citizen but not a natural born citizen as his “parents” would have had to be citizens at the time of his birth. You can twist it any way you want but it doesn’t make it so.”

            The law at the time of Cruz’s birth specifically had provisions for all scenarios, both parents citizens, the father only, or the mother only. Read and learn Joe.

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            PROOF PLEASE …

          • barque

            Proof of what? That the rabid birthers have turned on Ted Cruz?

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            Not me, lame-brain! I’m a forever Trump supporter and a Birther, so what do you have to say about that?
            NOW DON’T LIE, AGAIN!

          • barque

            yeah I don’t even know what you’re saying, lol.
            You said “proof please” – I am asking what you want proof of

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            What Proof do you have that the “lying fraud” was born in Hawaii? Everything that they claimed has been proven to be a fraud and even if not, what’s he hiding? huh??

          • barque

            Yes, you’re right. He’s a fraud. On behalf of all the other co-conspirators I would like to apologize to everyone for usurping the presidency. I think back on it, we did better than initial projections. We weren’t even sure we could get him into Harvard. DAMN sure we weren’t getting him into the Senate! But look how far we came! And we would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you kids. You never gave up. You just kept typing and typing, sometimes in ALL CAPS into the internet machine, and it paid off. You broke us. Partly it was Derrek’s fault, because the idiot couldn’t fake a birth document without 177 layers in a PDF. Derrek, you had ONE JOB! Well anyway, now what? Do we just, you know, give the presidency to someone else? We’ve never thought about what happens when it’s all over. We’ve never done this before. Oh, and hey, keep an eye out for 2028 elections! We’ve been on that one for about 30 years and getting excited because it’s kind of just around the corner! You’re not going to believe it. But perhaps I’ve said too much.

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            Oh now, we’re playing dumb after calling everybody names! lol

          • midmo

            Actually you’re the one who started with the name calling. I really feel sorry for you.

          • lib2libertarian

            I hope they have turned on Cruz. He is one scary dude.

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            Yeah sure, I think Cruz turn up proving himself to being a little Shyster in Iowa, didn’t he? Once a shyster, always a shyster!!

          • Buzz

            I read that also; do not remember if it was Klayman or Orly.

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            Ok, HOT-SHOT, if that were true then, “WHY does your fake-fraud squatting in the WH, continue to LIE? Why did he spend millions to hide his past/all of his records?? Why did he steal an old dead mans SS??
            IS IT BECAUSE, HE’S JUST AN HABITUAL-SOCIOPATHIC LIAR???

          • Helen Wallace

            He didnt spend millions to hide his records. He did not steal anyones SS number.
            http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/obamas-legal-fees/

            http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp

          • DarlK

            Then why didn’t he produce his records? His SSN was originally issued to a man born in CT and was deceased. Obama wasn’t born in CT, was he?

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            No, he wasn’t born in CT, as far as we can tell he was born under a rock!!

          • barque

            This is not true. It’s not hard to look up

          • DarlK

            Then why doesn’t he provide his records? What is he hiding? If it is so easy to find his records. then provide a link so the rest of us can see these well kept secrets. And don’t even try to pawn off as real that fake HI birth certificate, either.

          • barque

            Your claim that Obama’s SSN was originally issued to a CT man is untrue. Again, do some basic research. BASIC research.

            The man the conspiracy whackadoodles keep claiming from whom Obama’s SSN was stolen from, first of all had an SSN which started 045. Obama’s starts 042. Secondly, the man didn’t die until 1981 and Obama received his own SSN in 1977. The whole conspiracy theory is nonsense, a tale spun by loons.

            As far as the SSN originating in CT: At the time Obama’s SSN was issued to him, SSN’s were not issued by place of birth. The numbers were coded based on the zip code of the mailing address of the applicant. Obama’s mailing address zip code was 96814. The zip code in Danbury CT is 06814. It is pretty easy to see that a simple typo turned Obama’s zip into Danbury’s zip, 96814 to 06814. Does it matter? No of course not. So his social starts with 042.

          • DarlK

            You are so far out of it , you should be pitied.
            Read it and weep.

            An intensive investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose Social Security number (SSN) is being used by President Obama: Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, emigrated to the United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 (Obama’s current SSN) in or about March 1977.

            Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut. Because of that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few reserved for Connecticut residents.

            Obama never lived or worked in that state! Therefore, there is no reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None whatsoever!

            Now comes the best part! Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii, where he died.

            Conveniently, Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals.

            The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig’s death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there were no benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised.

            The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not a U.S. citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro simply scoured the probate records until she found someone who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits, and selected Mr. Ludwigs Connecticut SSN for Obama.

            Just wait until Trump gets past the birth certificate and onto the issue of Barry O’s use of a stolen SSN. You will see leftist heads exploding, because they will have no way of defending Obama.

            Although many Americans do not understand the meaning of the term “natural born” there are few who do not understand that if you are using someone else’s SSN it is a clear indication of fraud.

            2014 Version:
            For those of you who don’t know …at the very bottom of this article the attorney who authored this is John Wayne’s daughter, also a Graduate of USC…

            SSN 042-68-4425

            Well, Well, Well, it looks like someone thoroughly checked this out! I was wondering who was going to do research into B.O.’s SSN’s numbers…
            ———————
            Jean Paul Luwig or Barak Hussein Obama? SSN# 042-68-4425 WOW, read this, it’s short – very interesting.

            An intensive investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose Social Security Number (SSN) is being used by President Obama: Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890,immigrated to the United States in 1924,and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 (Obama’s current SSN) rec’d
            on or about March 1977.

            Mr. Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut . Because of that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few reserved for Connecticut residents.

            Barack H. Obama never lived or worked in that state! Therefore, there is no reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None whatsoever!
            Now comes the best part! J. P. Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii, where he died. Conveniently, Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals.

            The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig’s death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there were no
            benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised. The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not a U.S. Citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro, simply scoured the probate records, until she found someone, who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits, and selected Mr.. Ludwigs Connecticut SSN for Obama. Just wait until Trump gets past the birth certificate and onto the issue of Barry O’s use of a stolen SSN You will see leftist heads exploding, because they will have no way of defending Obama.

            Although many Americans do not understand the meaning of the term “natural born” there are few who do not understand that if you are using someone else’s SSN it is a clear indication of fraud. Let’s all get this information out to everybody on our mailing lists. If the voters of this great nation can succeed in bringing this lying, deceitful, cheating, corrupt, impostor to justice it will be the biggest and best news in decades for our country and the world. If you can just say “oh well; ho hum” after reading this you get what you deserve.

            “In God We Trust.”

            Aissa Wayne
            __________________________________
            LAW OFFICES OF AISSA WAYNE
            (contact information removed by TruthOrFiction.com)

          • barque

            LOL well DarlK as I have told some of the other IDIOTS posting about this SSN nonsense, just the slightest 4th-grade level research would reveal to you how flawed this story of Mr Ludwig is.

            First off, since you are too stupid to look it up yourself: Jean Paul Ludwig died in 1981. Barack Obama got his SSN in 1977. Super fail on your idiot comment right off the bat.

            Secondly, why don’t you look at Ludwig’s SSN? It was 045-26-8722, NOT Obama’s SSN 042-68-4425. Super fail #2.

            Third, that moron conspiracy asshat says Ludwig got his SSN in March 1977. He actually got his number in 1951. OBAMA was the one who got 042-68-4425 in March 1977. Strike Three.

            Thanks for playing.

            Learn to read.

            And you pity me? lol and lol again.

          • DarlK

            And I suppose you still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, too. LOL!! And, yes, I pity you even more. You should be the poster boy for be kind to dumb animals.

          • barque

            You know, by literally refusing to look up this readily available information, you are just doubling down on looking like an imbecile. Congratulations.

            Try again, child:
            Ludwig died about 4 years after Obama was issued his SSN.
            Ludwig’s SSN was 045-26-8722 and he was issued it in 1951.
            Obama’s SSN was 042-68-4425 and it never belonged to Ludwig.

            But hey, it’s OK. Try to pretend I am the one believing in fairy tales. Boob.

          • DarlK

            The fairy tale you’re living in just came crashing down last Tuesday. LOL!!

          • barque

            a. Faced with the absurdity of those conspiracy whackadoodle fantasies which were roundly disproven six or seven years ago, you just decide to ignore the basic simple facts set before you and pretend I’m the gullible one. LOL

            Go ahead and keep believing that stuff. It’s cute. And go ahead trying to deflect and insult anyone who points out how stupid anyone is to never question the internet boobs selling you on the stolen SSN tale. That’s cute too.

            AND all this cute conversation will stay on the internet probably long after you’ve realized how badly you’ve been snookered by morons.

            b. Not sure what you’re even saying about last Tuesday. Going to guess it’s about Trump. However, no matter how frazzled your brain is you should recognize I’m not a Cruz supporter. lol again.

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            Get you head out of your rear-end long enough to do some serious research! HINT .. .. .. Snopes or ovomitconspiracy doesn’t quiet cut it, dummy!!

          • Buzz

            Yep, they are right only about 50% of the time.

          • disillusioneddem

            Did he release the college and law school transcript, because I really want to see those.

          • Buzz

            Never did and I think his name is ROOT, he has penned some pieces who claims that Obama would have been in the same classes with him in college or the university…he was never seen nor ever seen on campus.

          • Buzz

            Again, you are in error! He spent millions to keep his case out of the courts! He did steal someone’s SS number; an aged man that was deceased; an undercover agent found another 48 SS numbers that he had used throughout his lifespan.

          • taylor

            Trying to argue with partisan links is pathetic in my opinion.For every link you post, anyone can post 5 at the very least saying the exact opposite. Even though his BC has been proved beyond a doubt that it was a computer generated document, its rather irrelevant at this time. In a few months odrama will be gone. We don’t need any documents or certificates to learn that he has , is and probably always will be an habitual liar. We have seen 7 plus years of that 1st hand.

          • Buzz

            Have any of you heard of the SUBDU cult, look it up, he was in it and well might still be..vicious, despicable.

          • David

            No, the thing hasn’t been decided. Obama and Dem appointed judges have blocked it from a decision. But if Cruz is nominated, suddenly the wheels of “justice” will start humming very efficiently!

          • yogiman

            Not according to the laws in 1961. His mother could not pass her citizenship down to him. His father was a foreigner and his mother a teenage girl. She had to have lived in the USA for a minimum of 5 years after her 14th birthday. If not, the child was the father’s child. She was just over 18 at his birth.

            He was a full British subject at birth.

          • barque

            “Not according to the laws in 1961. His mother could not pass her citizenship down to him. His father was a foreigner and his mother a teenage girl. She had to have lived in the USA for a minimum of 5 years after her 14th birthday. If not, the child was the father’s child. She was just over 18 at his birth.

            He was a full British subject at birth.”

            This is all only if he was born outside the country. Inside the U.S., like Hawaii where he was born, he could have been born to two aliens and he is natural born.

          • yogiman

            In other words; a couple from China… or Russia… or hell, any other known to be enemy nation, could come to the USA, give birth to a natural born citizen of the USA… in the USA, and that child could become president of the used to be good ole USA after 35 years.

            What in the hell was our founders thinking about in 1776?

          • barque

            As long as the child lived at least 14 years in the U.S., yes. But of course you’re ignoring the fact that to even think about running for president, as a practical matter, you need to be a somewhat known quantity. You generally need to be in politics and hold political office for years, decades even, and have established backing and so on. Are you honestly afraid that somehow a kid born to communists and raised out of country could come back and spend years 21 through 35 here and then run for President successfully? LOL. Science fiction. Look at what Ted Cruz is going through, and he has been in Texas and is a Senator and worked for a Supreme Court justice and has argued in front of the Supreme Court, and everyone is flipping out that he was born in Canada. lol. yeah, so let’s shake out heads about the fact that theoretically a baby born to a chinese couple could grow up to be president. :)

          • yogiman

            If Ted Cruz loves the USA so vividly as he claims because he studied the constitution so deeply, why did he live in the USA for 40 years as a citizen of Canada? Because he decided he wanted to become president and decided he had better ‘convert’ his citizenship?

            It’s obvious we think differently of the Constitution of this nation and what the founders were thinking about when they formed it.

            Damned if I want communists to come here from known enemy nations to produce a president for this nation. It already isn’t the nation I grew up in.

          • barque

            “If Ted Cruz loves the USA so vividly as he claims because he studied the constitution so deeply, why did he live in the USA for 40 years as a citizen of Canada?”

            This is simply a stupid question. As I understand it, he didn’t really even realize he was also a citizen of Canada. Even if he did, however, he lived the life he was given. He only remembers living in the U.S. He grew up a Texan. He went into law and government and elected office. You think having a second citizenship changes what he thinks about his country? It’s not like he left the U.S. and naturalized in Spain and spent a decade or two over there, and THEN came back to try to become president.

            Many many many Americans, natural born Americans, have second and even third citizenships based on their parents or where they were born. It doesn’t in any way change or alter or diminish their own natural born U.S. citizenship.

            “Damned if I want communists to come here from known enemy nations to produce a president for this nation.”

            That won’t happen. It’s the nightmare of lunatics, friend. Get help.

          • yogiman

            Wait a minute; you mean to say a man with his obvious intelligence didn’t know he was a citizen of Canada for 44 years until he finally learned about it when he decided he wanted to become president of the USA? Gimme a break.

            Which makes me wonder, which nation did he vote in the last 27 years?

          • barque

            Are you some sort of an imbecile? He grew up in Texas. His American life is all he has known since he was 4. He has said, and it is entirely plausible, that since he never went back to Canada he assumed he didn’t still carry citizenship from there. I imagine he never even investigated it, until yes, it would have been important to know when he contemplated running for president.

            The reason I am calling you an imbecile, however, is, IT DOES NOT MATTER if he was also a citizen of Canada or not. What matters is that he was a natural born citizen of the U.S. He didn’t even need to renounce his Canadian citizenship, lol. He only did it because of twits like you.

            LOL you conservatives just kill me. :)

          • yogiman

            He didn’t know he was a citizen of Canada for 44 years until he “discovered” it when he thought about running for the Oval Office? BS.

          • barque

            Just keep playing the clown, yogiman. I didn’t say it was because his parents never said anything to him. Also, as I’ve said, his Canadian citizenship is irrelevant. I guess at this point the only argument you can hold on to is whether or not he’s lying about knowing it? lol

            Cruz knew he was born in Canada, and he said his mother had always told him as a child if he wanted to claim Canadian citizenship when he grows up, he could. This is how it is in many countries. If you are born there to foreign parents, then upon reaching the age of majority you can elect citizenship. Cruz however grew up in the U.S., had an American passport because he was a citizen by virtue of birth to a citizen mother, and since he never went to Canada to claim citizenship at the age of 18, he always considered that he didn’t have it. This is not complicated to someone with at least average intelligence, yogiman. :)

            But just one more time since you’re clearly befuddled by all this: He is a natural born citizen of the United States. Doesn’t matter if Canada or Cuba or any other country also consider him a citizen or subject. Doesn’t matter in the slightest. He renounced his Canadian citizenship as a knee-jerk reaction to finding out he possessed it, in the same way Michelle Bachmann renounced hers when she started toying with the idea of running for president a few years ago, even though she knew full well she had became a dual citizen when she married her Swiss husband in 1978. When she renounced she said it was to make it perfectly clear that she loves America 100% or something like that. It was an unnecessary gesture, by both of them. They are merely pandering to the uneducated, nationalist, rabid birthers who believe there is some sort of mystical magical virus in dual citizenship which causes a person to not be a patriotic American.

            It is so unfortunate that so many people are so flat out uninformed about our nation’s founding. Sad.

          • barque

            And they weren’t thinking it in 1776. The Constitution was written in 1787.

          • Jimbo Jones

            Except for the fact that Obama shares no allegiance to the United States as is proven by his complete disrespect and condemnation of our great nation on a continuous basis.

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            NOT SO FAST, LAME-BRAIN! That was “ONLY IF” one of the parent’s was a legal US Citizen “meeting all of the necessary requirements/conditions for the child to be born a citizen” … which, the fluoooozy screwed that one up real good!!
            STOP trying to protect the dirty no-good, communist, fraud!!

          • disillusioneddem

            Unless the definition is born to two parents who are citizens.

          • mabramso

            Funny, the GOP will tell you the same thing. Except for an obscure 1-term Congressman from IL, THEY didn’t spend any time on this issue — at least at the federal level. That would be attributable to private citizens and the news media, who loves to make the GOP look bad.

          • BillW in StL

            Don’t call Hillary a crackpot.

          • Buzz

            No, not at all…he would have needed the N-600 also; it was not filed for him.

          • lamk123

            I also thought this was true but that is not always the case. If the citizen parent meets the criteria of having spent enough time in the US prior to the birth then citizenship can be transferred/acquired by the child. A parent who was raised or lived 5-10 years in the US with 2 of those years over the age of 14 meets that criteria.

            (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.)

          • barque

            I can’t tell what comment you are responding to, so I don’t really know what “I also thought this was true but…” is referring to. I’d like to know and will be glad to respond.

          • GroundhogDay

            A good friend of mine, while serving in the Military and stationed at the then NATO base in Keflavik, Iceland had their third child there. They had to submit forms to record the birth with the US Embassy there. That child inherited the citizenship of her parents however–because she was born in Iceland if she chose to at the age of 21, could claim her Icelandic citizenship. If she did not, then she could no longer be an Icelandic citizen.

            Ted Cruz just recently 2014 decides he is no longer a Canadian citizen.

            These citizenship of parents bestowed on the child is to protect the child. They can’t be left behind or become illegal immigrants can they? That does not make them anything but naturalized. He has a Canadian Birth Certificate.

            I guess we don’t care anymore and before you know it a naturalized citizen can run for President if they’ve lived in the US for a certain amount of time.

          • barque

            Whatever you are saying about either Iceland’s or Canada’s citizenship policy, is irrelevant.

            What is relevant to this discussion is that whether or not your friend’s decided to keep or reject her Icelandic citizenship, your friend was born a U.S. citizen according to U.S. statute. She was born a U.S. citizen. She is a U.S. citizen by birth, at birth. She never will have to go through the process of naturalization to become a U.S. citizen. She was not born an alien, and the only people who can become naturalized U.S. citizens, are foreigners, meaning persons born aliens.

            Both your friend’s child, and Ted Cruz, were born U.S. citizens. Natural born U.S. citizens.

          • mrfxx

            Yep – my sister and I (born to a US citizen father – in the military – and his wife, also a US citizen, who “earned” her citizenship because she was still a minor when her parents – who came to the US in the 1920s – became citizens – about 20 years before she married Dad) – are natural born citizens – and we were both born on military installations overseas (our 3 brothers were born in the US).

          • barque

            You are natural born citizens because you were born citizens. You were born citizens because you were born to citizens. It had nothing to do with the fact you were born on military bases. U.S. military bases in foreign countries are foreign soil, not U.S. soil. (Your three brothers born in the U.S. are natural born citizens because they were born citizens by being born on U.S. soil. This would be true if your parents were both illegal aliens).

          • charles17121

            When referring to qualifications for US President or VP, one must be a Natural Born US Citizen not just a citizen of the US ! There is a difference between being just a US Citizen and a Natural Born US Citizen . A Natural Born US Citizen is one born at the time of their birth to two US Citizen parents on US Soil . US soil can be a military base , a US Embassy or any US installation under US government Control.

          • barque

            charles17121: “When referring to qualifications for US President or VP, one must be a Natural Born US Citizen not just a citizen of the US !”

            True! People who were naturalized are just citizens of the U.S. People who were born citizens, not naturalized, are natural born citizens of the U.S. and eligible to be President or VP.

            charles17121: ” A Natural Born US Citizen is one born at the time of their birth to two US Citizen parents on US Soil ”

            True! OR one born to one U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, OR one born to aliens on U.S. soil. ANYONE born on U.S. soil is born a citizen and is thus a natural born U.S. citizen.

            charles17121: “US soil can be a military base , a US Embassy or any US installation under US government Control.”

            Totally untrue! Military bases, Embassies, and any other installation on foreign soil under the direction of the U.S. government, is still foreign soil. It is NEVER considered U.S. soil!

            So, charles, if you did just a MINIMUM amount of research, you would see that last point of yours is dreadfully ill-informed. U.S. military bases and embassies have never ever been considered U.S. soil. You can look that up.

            Secondly, considering you didn’t even put the most basic research into your statement on that last count, you should consider that perhaps you might just as much be ignoring important historical and legal facts which also show your first two points wrong.

            You shouldn’t just claim something because it sounds right. Law, practice, and precedent legal decisions, throughout our history and the history of the common law, along with English statute from before our independence, all show that natural born citizenship is NOT restricted to only those born on the soil to two citizens. It has ALWAYS been true both in England and the U.S. that anyone born on the soil, even to aliens just passing through, is a natural born citizen or subject. Also, by law in England, anyone born to one or two subjects abroad, outside the jurisdiction of the Crown, is a “natural born” subject, with some conditions of residency which the parent or parents must meet.

          • FirstShirt

            Unfortunately, you are incorrect. We must continue to use the definition of natural born as it was when the Founders of the USA intended it to be when they placed that requirement in the Constitution. And, the US Supreme Court has confirmed precisely what that means on multiple cases. The first one was in 1814, just 28 years into the history of the USA.

            The Supreme Court reference the definition of natural born citizen in 1814 in the opinion The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814)6. Justice J. Washington of the Supreme Court stated:

            “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

          • Arlene Peters

            I have an Aunt & Uncle who have children. My Uncle was in the U.S. Air Force and was stationed in England. My Aunt was with him there. She gave birth to their first child in England and was told (as they told me) that she MUST give birth in the “base Hospital” in order for their son to be considered an “American Born Citizen”, because the base was located on what was American soil, as ALL American bases are considered in foreign countries. My cousin has his birth certificate stating he was born in England on American land. HOPE THIS HELPS BECAUSE IT SURE SETS IT STRAIGHT FOR ME… AMEN

          • barque

            Arlene your Aunt and Uncle are wrong. NO American Bases in foreign countries are EVER American soil. You can look this up. They never have been. Neither are American Embassies. If you feel strongly that perhaps I am wrong about this, check with the State Department.

            All American military bases, and all American Embassies abroad, are always still considered to be foreign soil.

            Your cousin’s birth certificate, while it may say he was born on an American base, in an American hospital facility, the birth certificate in NO WAY would say it was “American land.”

            Your cousin is however an American citizen by birth at birth. Because even though born in a foreign country, any child born to an American mother and American father anywhere in the world, is a U.S. citizen at birth.

          • Arlene Peters

            barque, This is the way I understood it but then again I was young and may very well have misunderstood. I am sorry for this if that is the problem and now I am even more curious. I thank you for your input but am still wondering why they were told that their baby “must” be born in the “base hospital” since they were both “born in America” themselves. I will be calling my Aunt soon and will let you know what I find out but please do not think that I don’t believe you. I am just curious myself. Thank you again for your interest.

          • Lia111

            Former U.S. Consular Officer here, who adjudicated “births of U.S. Citizens Abroad” —

            The courts have never ruled on a definition of “natural born citizen.” The issue to which you are referring is U.S. nationality law, which has changed over the years. For an individual born abroad, we look at the year of birth and the relevant U.S. law in effect at the time of the individual’s birth.

          • Jae Ashley Stewart

            I have been quoting the Constitution and laws in effect at the time of Cruz’s birth. Plain and simple.

          • Lia111

            Yes, we use the citizenship law in effect at the time of child’s birth to determine if the parent was able to transmit citizenship to the child. As my employer, the State Department, says, that law says nothing about whether that child is eligible to be president. The court should finally decide what “natural born citizen” means. This will only continue to be an issue into the future until a court finally decides.

          • FirstShirt

            Without commenting on your lack of ability at polite conversation, (THAT’S A NEW ONE. Making these up as you go, are you?) let me say that the Supreme Court has commented in four cases down through history about the term “natural born citizen.”

            The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

            “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
            “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

            Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

            The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
            The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

            Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

            The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
            The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

            United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

            In this case the Justice Gray​ gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
            At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

            Please notice that the Justices above all used the term “parents” which means both of them. So, Jae Ashley Stewart, it seems unlikely I have been Making Things Up as I go …

          • Jae Ashley Stewart

            Please stop perpetuating this lie. Even Trump’s lawyers said Cruz is eligible. In the beginning of the 6th debate even Trump accidentally blurts out that it’s true. And It only takes ONE PARENT. Here are the laws straight from the Constitution and statutes that PROVE WITHOUT A DOUBT that CRUZ IS ELIGIBLE.

            Ted Cruz has broken NO laws as a U.S. Senator OR during his bid for President.

            “Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for senators: (1) they must be at least 30 years old, (2) they must have been citizens of the United States for at least the past nine years, and (3) they must be inhabitants of the states they seek to represent at the time of their election.”

            At birth, Ted Cruz was a natural-born citizen of Canada AND the United States. He was born in Canada in 1970 to a mother who is a U.S. citizen and a father who moved to the U.S. in 1957 but was not a U.S. citizen at that time. Cruz was automatically a natural-born citizen of BOTH Canada and the United States. He renounced his Canada citizenship to run for president of the United States because you cannot have a dual citizenship as president.

            Arnold Schwarzeneggar also had a dual citizenship (U.S. and Austria) when he served as governor and still has a dual citizenship. However, Schwarzenegger is a natural-born citizen of Austria and a naturalized citizen of the United States, SO HE CAN NEVER RUN FOR PRESIDENT even if he did renounce his Austria citizenship.

            These are the two laws that pertain to Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president:

            “United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,

            ***
            … And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens….”

            and

            “IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952

            TITLE III–NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION.

            NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

            Chapter 1– Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization

            Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

            ***
            (4) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;”

            The reason Cruz is being attacked is because he is gaining in the polls and his opponents feel threatened and are scared. They can’t attack Cruz on his record because HE HAS NO BLEMISHES.

            Ted Cruz is totally legal. He IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a true conservative patriot.
            .

          • Stan Silliman

            That’s the rub. At the time of Ted’s birth, his mom had become a Canadian and may have even given up her American citizenship. At least this is what I’ve been told. His dad was a Cuban and had applied for Canadian citizenship which was still a few years at the time Ted’s birth. Would those facts make a difference?

          • Nena Sullins

            his mother never became a Canadian citizen according to Canada records

          • Behind every blade of glass!

            That “NOT” a “NEW ONE”! Where have you been? That’s been brought up many times with this fraud in the WH!!

          • lib2libertarian

            The child is a citizen but not natural-born unless born IN the country.

          • barque

            The short and sweet answer to your claim is that the consensus legal opinion is pretty clear: being born a citizen (at birth, by birth) is natural born citizenship, whether or not that birth was in the U.S.

          • DarlK

            The only way that the Constitution can be changed is by a Constitutional Amendment. There has been NO Amendment added to change the original intent of the meaning of a “Natural Born Citizen.”

          • disillusioneddem

            The definition of citizen, not natural born citizen. Cruz, a lawyer, knows this.

          • FirstShirt

            In order to change anything within the US Constitution requires a Constitutional Convention of Individual States, not merely passing a federal law written in some back room. Please provide me with the specifics of your alleged change during WW2.

          • Buzz

            You are wrong….in this case he still would not be and is not..the N-600 is mandatory to garner US citizenship and it has to be filed at a Consulate or an US Embassy; he is not even legal to be a US Senator.

        • http://www.matrixwebdesigners.com/ Eric

          Finally, someone who actually knows the where the term “natural born” comes from. Thank you

        • barque

          “A fellow named John Jay is credited historically for writing this portion of Article Two.”

          Not exactly. John Jay is credited with using the term “natural born citizen” in a letter to George Washington regarding the qualifications for the commander in chief. Jay was not a member of the Constitutional Convention, so he didn’t write any portion of any article. The logical conclusion of course is that Washington passed on the suggestion to someone who passed it on to the Committee of Style who was putting on the finishing touches to the wording of the final document after all the portions of the Constitution had been approved by the Convention. Jay is credited with adding the term “natural born citizen.”

          But I am glad you brought up Jay, and I am glad you are pointing out that he knew a lot about the law, to the point that he was appointed the very first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

          Before that, he had been the Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court of Judicature, and served in the New York Provincial Congress upon the declaration of independence, and drafted the first state of New York Constitution. He was trained in the law in the colony of New York and practiced law after joining the bar in New York in 1768.

          Hey, sorry for rambling on about John Jay’s history, but you know, he is THE ONLY PERSON who even brought up the term “natural born citizen” with regard to the presidency and the Constitution. So while you all go on an on about how “the founders” supposedly poured over Vattel’s Law of Nations, and how the founders at the convention were trying to insulate the office of the presidency from foreign influence… it was actually John Jay, independently, from outside the convention, who inserted the term “natural born citizen” through a letter to Washington.

          I think if we want to get a better understanding of how the term was understood by the founders, we might want to look at where John Jay could have gotten it, eh? He was in fact a founder and a patriot and as you point out above, he was respected as one of the foremost experts on the law and he was placed in charge of the first Supreme Court of the United States.

          The history of U.S. Case law shows that the basis of law in this country is the common law. This isn’t even in dispute. Several Supreme Court decisions have specifically pointed out that definitions of terms in the U.S. Constitution, where not defined, should be found in the language and history of the common law.

          John Jay was trained in the common law. He practiced in the common law. He was also by the way a part of the first and second continental congress before the revolution. The common law was seen as a protector of the rights of subjects against the monarchy. This is Resolve # 5 from the Declaration and Resolves put forth from the First Continental Congress:

          “Resolved, N.C.D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.”

          In other words the colonists demanded the common law.

          After the Declaration of Independence, when Jay was serving in New York’s Congress, Jay drafted the first constitution of the independent State of New York.

          In the New York Constitution:

          “And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.”

          Of course New York was not unique in adopting the common law as the law of their state. EVERY one of the 13 states of the Union continued practicing under the basis of the common law and officially received the common law as the basis of adjudication in their States. In fact over the next two centuries every new state with the exception of Louisiana, has set the common law of Great Britain as its basis of law.

          In the common law the term “natural born” was used to describe ANY person born a subject. In the common law you were born a subject, or born an alien. If you were born a subject you were called a natural born subject. There was no other kind of subjecthood to be born into. So if you were born within the dominions of Great Britain, you were called a natural born subject. If you were born outside the dominions of Great Britain, to parents who were themselves natural born subjects, according to Parliamentary statute, you were called a natural born subject. In every instance of being born a subject, you were a natural born subject. Without exception. If you were not a natural born subject, you were born an alien. If you were born an alien, you could become a subject by coming into Great Britain, applying, and being granted subjecthood by “naturalization.” Naturalizing meant to be made like a natural born subject.

          In Great Britain, in the common law the only difference between a natural born subject and a naturalized subject, in terms of rights, was that only a natural born subject could be a member of the “privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military…” That last part, an office of military trust, would include officers and of course a general or any top commander.

          John Jay was such a respected legal mind that he was Chief Justice of New York’s supreme court and later the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and drafted New York state’s first constitution. And considering that, considering his immersion in and practice of the legal principles of the common law, where the “natural born” definition is clear and obvious, is it any wonder that he wrote a letter to George Washington, who had been the Commander in Chief of the continental army and would most surely be the first President of the United States, and that in the letter he said it would be wise that the commander in chief of the United States military should not be anyone who was not a “natural born citizen”?

          John Jay, who again is THE ONLY PERSON who even used the term and got it inserted into the new constitution, knew “natural born” to be born a subject, born a citizen. Neither he nor anyone else of his knowledge and experience would have any cause or reason to re-define this phrase as meaning one had to be born in the country to two citizen parents. The common law is completely and utterly void of that requirement. It is nonsense for contemporary “internet experts” to now proclaim that without question “natural born” means born in the country to two citizen parents. Nonsense.

        • KevinR.

          The founders also considered in addition to Vattel’s Law of Nations, English Common Law which they were very familiar with.

          You can also consider the acts of the First Congress, as the Supreme Court gives significant consideration to the First Congress.

          There is no requirement to be born in the US. The First Congress is a
          valid source to understanding natural born citizen, as some of the same
          men who wrote and signed the Constitution were in the first Congress and
          they wrote and passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 which stated “the
          children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond
          Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as
          natural born Citizens” The act may have been superseded by the Act of
          1795, however, the words in the Act of 1790 are a clear indication of
          the founders meaning and understanding of the term natural born citizen.

          • SandyT

            The Naturalization Act of 1790 saying that children born abroad to citizen parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens” was beyond the power given to Congress by the Constitution, so HAD to be repealed and replaced. Congress does NOT have the power to “create” natural born citizens, they can only set “uniform rules for naturalization”. The NA of 1795 simply said that such children “shall be considered as CITIZENS”, NOT natural born citizens.

          • barque

            it was not beyond their power, and no such ruling was ever offered as such, and the congress itself never made a single mention of this supposed overreach. They considered a citizen at birth to be the same as a natural born citizen. Interchangeable terms.

          • Jae Ashley Stewart

            The 1790 Act was reinstated. Read on….

          • KevinR.

            Interesting, can you provide the court case that the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional?

            Since those who actually wrote the Constitution wrote the act , it is reasonable to think the signers of the Constitution actually knew the Constitution and what they intended when they wrote it.

            It is still a valid source for consideration on the meaning of natural born citizen.

        • DarlK

          Finally, someone who has studied our Constitution and the Founders writings as they pertain to a “Natural Born Citizen.” The “Law of Nations ” is a real eye opener. You Cruz lovers might want to read it, if you can comprehend it. It is some pretty heavy reading.

        • Behind every blade of glass!

          Then, Obama needs to leave, NOW!!

        • Buzz

          : ) Thanks a million.

          • Buzz

            Yet, the N-600 is also deemed necessary probably for the very same reason that you wrote FirstShirt.

      • Judy Selich

        Steven Wittlake, I have one point of clarification: To be a “Natural Born Citizen” you must be born to two U.S. Citizens. It would not always include “anyone born in the U.S.A.; children born in the U.S. to a foreign diplomat, do not acquire U.S. citizenship. Children born to illegal aliens, do not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. They can be 14th Amendment citizens at birth.

        • barque

          “Children born to illegal aliens, do not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. They can be 14th Amendment citizens at birth.”

          What does that even mean? They aren’t citizens at birth but they are 14th Amendment citizens at birth?

          • Judy Selich

            The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . .” This is one of the problems the U.S. has to deal with concerning the illegals. Many are saying “kick them out”; however, when a person is born on U.S. soil, they are what is known as “14th Amendment citizens”. There are exceptions to this, such as children born here to foreign diplomats who do not acquire this type of citizenship.

          • barque

            And so the children of illegal aliens born here are citizens at birth. Perhaps you didn’t notice in the above comment you said they aren’t citizens at birth, but they are 14th Amendment citizens at birth.

          • Ben Drake
          • Pat Long Eroh

            You idiot – anything YOU disagree with is a rant. American citizens birth American citizens you Fin idiot. YOU tell our military that while they are serving in the military overseas they are being screwed by not having natural born citizens. YOU are defining NATURAL born the way YOU want it to. Scared of Ted yes? I understand why!

          • Ben Drake

            No, asshole, I define Natural Born Citizen the way the framers did, read the Federalist papers and the letters from Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc. And the way The Supreme Court does. Why are you so fucking vile? Can’t stand being wrong?

            READ THIS IDIOT

            http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

          • Pat Long Eroh

            what grade are you in? 5th? or are you LESS smart than a 5th grader. You aren’t even smart enough to know what the founding fathers said, much less agree with them.

          • barque

            The framers defined it the way it had always been defined: Anyone BORN a citizen. Pretty simple really.

          • barque

            Just posting the link to a web site which keeps making all these loony arguments doesn’t stand in for a thoughtful response.
            Based on court decisions and the common law, it is unreasonable to deny that there are two and only two ways to acquire citizenship: By birth, or by naturalization. If you are born a citizen, you are a citizen at birth by birth. If you are born an alien, you can become a citizen by naturalization later. Only an alien can be naturalized to become a citizen.

            Note that the meaning of naturalization is to “make as if a natural born citizen.” That’s why it’s called naturalization. If there really was a born citizen who was not a natural born citizen, then whey would there be a legal process called naturalization, making an alien “as if natural born” if there was a secondary lower tier citizenship below natural born? Or rather, why would a naturalized citizen be vaulted directly into citizenship to be like they were natural born, if there was another “born citizen” who was not natural born? Shouldn’t the making of an alien into a citizen be called “citizenization”?

            But I digress.

            Let’s just put it this way Ben Drake: The vast consensus is that a person born a citizen is a “natural born citizen.” That’s not likely going to change. But happy link-pasting anyway.

          • Ben Drake

            Why are you so happy being so completely incorrect? I have explained it several times. I’m sure you have read my explanations, you just like being nasty. You may be correct that there are only two ways to acquire citizenship, but there are more TYPES of citizens than just two. There is born citizens, naturalized citizens and Natural Born Citizens just to name 3 of the many possibilities. No matter what the vast consensus is, ONLY THE LAW matters. If the framers thought any citizen could be potus they would have said citizen and not NBC. But since they bothered to mention citizen and Natural Born Citizen within a few lines of each other there must be a difference between the two. The SCOTUS took that subject to task and cleared it up with the examples in the link I sent. I’m sorry I didn’t actually tell you to read it. I figured out anyone wanting to know about the subject would understand a link was placed to read. I’m sorry you didn’t understand what a link was for.

            Read the Federalist papers and the letters between Jefferson,
            Madison and Adam’s and Washington and you will see exactly what a Natural Born Citizen was to the framers. They put it in so a foreigner would not run and ruin our country. Use obozo as the best example of why this is a good rule.

            So now I instruct you to read the SCOTUS decisions on what a NBC is. You will see they clearly understood what the difference between a NBC and a citizen. But I will tell you their decision so you will recognize it should you actually care enough to read it. They ruled that a NBC is someone who is born ON American soil, to two US Citizens. Now read the below link.

            http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

          • barque

            I’ve already addressed this elsewhere but I’ll summarize. There are only two types of citizen: Natural born, or naturalized. They are both “citizens.” “Citizen” is not a third type of citizen. So there are Natural Born citizens (those born citizens and who do not need to be naturalized), and there are Aliens who, to become citizens, need to apply and naturalize. The constitution allows for “citizens” to be congressmen and senators. That’s available to ALL citizens, both natural born and naturalized. The restriction is that there are a minimum number of years a person has to be a citizen to be eligible to congress, meaning if they are naturalized they need to wait a specified amount of time before running for congress. The president, however, can not be a naturalized citizen. The president has to be a citizen from birth, a natural born citizen. A citizen who never was an alien. You understand? Are you still unclear as to why the authors of the constitution would use the word “citizen” in one sentence and “natural born citizen” in another? lol.

          • Ben Drake

            I’m not confused but you sure are. BTW, have you been an as s all of your life or are you just getting started on it. How someone could spend some many words on a subject and still be so completely wrong as you are I’ll never know. Bye as s hole.

          • barque

            Yes I’ve been an asshole my whole life. But I’m also right :) Thanks for playing.

          • Wild_Bird

            There’s that low IQ name calling.

          • barque

            You did ask the question, and the answer is really quite simple. They use citizen and natural born citizen in separate sentences because natural born citizen is a subset of citizen. Congressmen and Senators can be any citizen, naturalized or natural born, but the president can not be a naturalized citizen, just a natural born one.

            One thing I can tell you are confused about, and if you’ll excuse my aholishness I will address it for a second, has to do with court precedent and the ability or lack thereof of the court to re-define something which has already in history been quite clearly defined in the common law.

            You can’t just point to a bunch of court cases saying this one defined NBC and that one quoted Vattel who defined NBC and so on. The concept of stare decisis is that the court needs to rule consistently with previously established precedents on anything which is similar to those precedents. In other words, if in the deep and vast history of the common law if case after case have established, as they have, that a natural born subject or citizen, is simply one who is born a subject or citizen, and that there are only two ways to acquire subjecthood or citizenship, birth or naturalization, then later court cases can not just willy-nilly change those interpretations or alter them in a way which is inconsistent with their historical court-established defnitions. They need to rule on their case based on the established precedents.

            That’s just one problem you are having. The other, just as egregious, is that you’re pointing to a website which has a horrible understanding of how to even read a decision, let alone what that decision supposedly establishes. None of the “four cases” your silly web site points to, says what the site insists they say. NONE of the quotes which your websites point to in trying to support it’s position, are binding or persuasive on the issue because they are ALL dicta, and some are even in the dissent, meaning WORSE that obiter dicta in a majority opinion. You need to get a better understanding of how the legal system works before you embarrass yourself by posting up, OVER AND OVER, a link to such a joke of a web site. 99% of legal minds, if shown that site, would say the same thing to you. It’s not my aholiosity talking here, it’s common sense.

      • Pat Long Eroh

        so military children born in Germany are not citizens? Really? How about a family on vacation in France and the baby comes really early? Not a citizen. A history of over 200 years – all children born to U.S. citizens anywhere in the world – ARE U.S. citizens. Bet you slept through the Obama debate over this? That was your guy so you ignored the fact that no matter where he was born, the claim was that he gave up his citizenship when he claimed to be a citizen of whatever African Nation he went to school as a citizen of, according to the claims. But any child born to an American citizen IS an American citizen. Always has been.

        • Ben Drake

          You ignore the term Natural Born Citizen in your above rant. Read what the Supreme Court defined it as.

          http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

          • Pat Long Eroh

            You are a real idiot. You post some rag’s opinion and pretend it is the gospel. Funny but children born in Germany, France, and all over the world to American citizens have and always will be citizens! You can look all over for an opinion on line that agrees with you but some of us don’t listen to your short little rant claiming YOUR opinion outweighs history. Find me a child born to a military member or other citizen in another country that was declared NOT to be a citizen. Didn’t happen and would not happen. They are NATURAL citizens. Idiot Don’t like my opinion so you call it a rant – too bad cuz it’s what you get here. I served 20 years so you and I can give our opinion. Go elsewhere if you don’t like it.

          • Ben Drake

            Well I don’t like you because you are a fucking asshole. If the Supreme court can’t convince you it’s just because you are a fucking brain dead asshole.

          • Pat Long Eroh

            loser – who cares what you think or who you like. The Supreme court didn’t try to convince me – you did and you are a loser.

          • Ben Drake

            I gave you the courts rulings. That you are so brain dead is not my problem. You really are an asshole and I call you a liar that you served. People like you never serve our country. You are a fat pig, on welfare and food stamps, and you stink. You are to stupid to vote. Please don’t

          • Pat Long Eroh

            hahaha! What a low life loser liberal. You don’t even know how to insult someone enough to make them care. I could not care ANY less about what you think. Love to see you explode with every response you make.

          • barque

            He can’t possibly be a liberal.

          • Pat Long Eroh

            and finally – funny how you little people are cry babying all over the place over Ted Cruz but yet, he is STILL running and very well may be president whether you like it or not. haha

      • Darrin Underwood

        Steven, you never responded to Joanne’s point, you simply restated the words of the constitution. Let me help you. Yes, the constitution says all of the things you mentioned, but it “does not” define a natural born citizen as Joanne said. For example, (a natural born citizen is a person…). Joanne is correct, you need to try again.

      • miamahboy

        Founding Fathers wanted to exclude foreigners[like British & Canadian] that might want to come to America and run for POTUS!! The application of citizenship due from being a child of a US citizen born in a foreign soil was adapted due to wars and needing as many warm bodies as possible and has never been tested for use as a candidate for POTUS. Support Ted at your own risk!!

      • Darlene Joan

        People in Iowa may want to know these things…As should the rest of the Country…He did forfeit his Canadian Citizen but no papers to show for it and he just became an American Citizen some “months back” His Mother was American Born but became a Canadian citizen along with her Cuban citizen husband before dual citizenship was recognized. Ted Cruz was NOT born to an American Citizen as it looks and he had to renounce his citizenship in Canada? He was not born in or on US soil. Doesn’t make a difference anyway huh? It is just another part of our Constitutional Laws that nobody pays attention to anymore anyhow…:(

      • Pk Mitchell

        you have an absolutely incorrect definition of this.

        this part “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” is called the “grandfathering clause” this is what allowed the first 8 of 9 presidents to hold office, even though they were born in the colonies they were British subjects at birth and had foreign citizen parents, so they were grandfathered in until an American born president born to two American citizen parents could be old enough to take office. (Martin Van Buren)

        there was one president after Martin, William Henry Harrison that fell under the GF clause but he died within months of taking office and that was the end of the clause.

        every president since then up until barack obama has been American born to two American citizen parents .

        https://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/All-U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud

      • Behind every blade of glass!

        Gheeeez … that’s too hard and being that some of these so-called presidential candidate’s act like they’re three then, that makes them unqualified to run!!
        {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ Trump for America 2016 Presidential elect }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

      • Buzz

        I believe that would cover we Native Americans at that time and the aborigines? Right or wrong?

    • Steven Wittlake

      The Canal zone only existed in the imagination and desires of the United States. By treaty the United States has the right only to build and defend the Canal for an annual payment of Gold. USA was kicked out after the shot 22 student demonstrators. Now who do you think owned the Canal..

      • Pam Parizo

        Steven, the States only have to ratify amendments. This wasnt an, amendment, but a defining of an article.

      • Dave B.

        Okay, I can’t tell anymore whether you’re just joking or not, because that’s just nuts.

      • barque

        Don’t even know what you mean by the “Pelosi Amendment” applying to McCain and Obama. Are you referring to the Senate proclamation that McCain is a natural born citizens and eligible to the presidency? That wasn’t an amendment, and in fact wasn’t even a law. It was a non-binding Senate resolution. Basically it was a statement by the Senate that as far as they were concerned, McCain was eligible to run and everyone can basically put that argument to bed. And no, it wasn’t referring to both Obama and McCain, it was just referring to McCain since McCain was born outside the U.S. Everyone in the Senate at the time knew Obama was born in Hawaii so it was not even an issue that needed to be addressed.

    • Judy Selich

      Joanne Bamberger, there are at least four U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing the issue of “natural born citizen”; however, none of these cases address it in the context of the presidency. The four cases are “The Venus” 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 (1830); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875); and, the more definitive case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). “Natural Born Citizen” is a fairly vague designation but gained some traction when Obama first ran for President. Suffice it to say, more extensive research and clarification needs to be done. I would like to point out that John McCain was born while his father was stationed at a military base in the Panama Canal zone. To my knowledge it was universally accepted by noted legal scholars that he was born on American soil although, because of medical issues, his mother had to be transferred during the birth process from the military base hospital to one with more extensive medical staff and resources for the actual birth.

      • Pam Parizo

        Judy, our Congress recognizes Natural Born as meaning at birth or by birth, either within the US or born to citizens of the US. The Supreme Court has never defined natural born. Most legal authorities recognize birthright citizens as natural born, and children of citizens born abroad as well. Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio are all eligible for the presidency.

        • Judy Selich

          Pam, please cite the reference where “Congress recognizes “Natural Born” as meaning “at birth or by birth”. Ted Cruz’ mother was an American Citizen at the time of his birth. BUT: his father was a Cuban citizen and Cruz was born in a foreign country: to-wit: Canada. That is not within the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” as set forth in case law. To my knowledge, there are no more recent cases addressing “Natural Born Citizen” than U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, cited above. Ted Cruz would take U.S. citizenship from his mother. However, this is the sticking point: Cruz was born in Canada, not on American soil and that IS a requirement for the presidency. I have stated my case and I done discussing the issue.

          • Pam Parizo

            Judy, please cite for me where our law says natural born means born in the USA. The Congressional Research study prepared for the resolution on John McCain (and only Congress can enact law) states that natural born is at birth or by birth which includes citizens born abroad. It is nowhere defined as having two citizen parents, and in fact there is a willingness from Congress to allow the people to decide by ballot. Congress hasn’t spoken on the eligibility of Cruz, Jindal or
            Rubio and probably won’t unless the Dems push it. I think people are scared that Cruz might win.

          • barque

            She can’t cite any law or court decision which says “natural born” means only “born in the USA.” While it is true that “born in the USA” is indeed “natural born” citizenship, it does not mean ONLY born in the USA leads to natural born citizenship.

          • barque

            “Cruz was born in Canada, not on American soil and that IS a requirement for the presidency.”

            There is NOWHERE the requirement that a person be born on American soil to be eligible for the presidency. The requirement is that the person be a natural born citizen. We all know this.

            Just because you believe that one can only be a natural born citizen by being born on U.S. soil, doesn’t magically make being born on the soil the requirement. For a person who pretends to be grounded in knowledge of the facts, you love to take leaps.

          • Dlanor

            The Senate, by unanimous resoluton of 4-30-08, said McCain was eligible. In that resolution, the Senate did not state that a
            person who was otherwise a citizen without needing to be naturalized
            after birth could become President only if born on a Federal base.

            McCain is not known to have produced a CRBA report. Some people evidently doubt McCain was even born in a military hospital:

            Posted by: TheGribbler | May 2, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

            McCain was born in Colon, Panama, on the Atlantic Side of Panama. There was no military or US civilian hospital on the Atlantic at that time he was born. This is the reason there are no Canal Zone Health Department records. He was not born in the Canal Zone. His birth record is right in the Colon Hospital, Panama, records along with every one born on the Atlantic Side of Panama who was living in the Canal Zone at that time. His birth location of Colon is no secret in Panama. In fact, those of us from the Canal Zone are amazed about his “military hospital birth” claim which is pure fiction.

            See also http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/john-mccains-fake-birth-certificate/ and http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf, at footnote 1: “1Though Hollander makes this allegation in his complaint, in his objection he states, “[s]ince the hospital at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station did not even exist until 1941 . . . , it is reasonable to assume that [McCain] was born in the city of Colón in the Republic of Panama.” Hollander has also provided a copy of McCain’s birth certificate, which lists his place of birth as Colón. The defendants dispute this theory, but it is irrelevant to the present motion in any event.”

      • Dave B.

        Well, you may be a bit confused about Senator McCain’s circumstances. That “transfer” is a novel piece of fiction I’ve never seen ANYWHERE else. Senator McCain was born in the hospital at the submarine base in Coco Solo, Canal Zone. But the Canal Zone was never part of the United States or even an outlying possession of the United States; for most nationality purposes it was foreign soil. Nobody ever acquired US citizenship just by being born in the Canal Zone. In fact, when Senator McCain was born in 1936, there was a considerable consensus within the US government that NOBODY born in the Canal Zone acquired US citizenship at birth.
        And no US military base outside the US is considered part of the US for purposes of citizenship.

        • barque

          No US military base outside the US is considered part of the US for any purposes. It is foreign soil, for all purposes.

      • Dlanor

        Regarding John McCain (born in Panama)(See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=0):

        Birthers usually say birth in the U.S. is required. However, both McCain and Cruz were born outside the U.S.

        Birthers say mere parentage is not enough unless the person were born in the U.S. But both McCain and Cruz are citizens at birth only because of statutes. Actually, because of versions of the same statutory scheme (that relates to the citizenship of parents).

        If citizenship at birth because of statute is “naturalization,” then both McCain and Cruz were naturalized. Unless naturalization by citizenship at birth can confer status as a natural born citizen, then neither is or was a natural born citizen. Same analysis for Charles Curtis, George Romney, and Lowell Weicker, and maybe even as to Barry Goldwater (but for legislative action/statute organizing the territory of Arizona, Barry’s birth outside any state of the union would not have constituted a birth in country).

        Previous foreign born candidates for presidency or vice presidency:
        – Edward Telfair (born in Scotland) — Election of 1789
        – James Iredell (born in England) and Samuel Johnston (born in Scotland) — Election of 1796
        – George Romney (born in Mexico)(Was George Romney a dual citizen of Mexico and the U.S.? Was he a citizen of undivided allegiance of the U.S. when Mitt Romney was born? http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/02/mitt-romneys-father-was-a-mexican-citizen-when-mitt-was-born/)

        – Barry Goldwater (born in Arizona Territory)(but for legislative action/statute organizing the territory of Arizona, Barry’s birth outside any state of the union would not have constituted a birth in country)

        – Lowell Weicker (born in Paris)(See http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/03/historical-newly-discovered-evidence-of.html)

        – Charles Curtis (born in Kansas Territory)(but for legislative action/statute organizing the territory of Kansas, Curtis’ birth outside any state of the union would not have constituted a birth in country)
        Vice President 1929-33 under Herbert Hoover, Curtis was born in 1860, of a mother who was of the Kaw nation, in the Kansas Territory. When his mother died when he was about 3, Charles lived for some time with her family on the Kaw reservation, and returned to them in later years. Under the Kaw matrilineal system, he inherited directly from her. Eventually, Curtis (and his three children) were allotted about 1,625 acres in total of Kaw land in Oklahoma.
        Despite having been born in a territory and having dual citizenship with an Indian Nation, he served as Vice President. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Curtis.

    • Dean Anniballi

      There is a reason the Constitution does not define natural born citizen (NBC). That is because they had a common understanding of what the term meant, and that was based on Emmerich Vattel’ Law of Nations, which the founders proclaimed vital in forming our Constitution. Vattel’s definition of NBC was a child born here of two US citizen parents. Also, there is a Supreme Court ruling that define NBC using the same qualifiers used by Vattel (Minor v. Happersett, 1874). Thus Ted Cruz is indeed ineligible. The intention of our founders was that no President would have any potential loyalties to any other nation. Cruz has potential loyalties to both Canada and Cuba.

    • christinaak

      I completely agree with your analysis. Unfortunately, Ted Cruz is definitely an American citizen. The reason he should not be President of the United States is because he is an extremist idiot.

    • MMikeJBenN

      I sure hope not. It is illegal to allow Ted Cruz to run for president, or to serve as president, as he is not a natural born citizen.

    • gasface

      …Rafael is relying on the hope most Americans will not read Article Two of the US Constitution, under Clause 5. and the Twelfth (12) Amendment: (and Rafael seemed to since that the Amendment is not clearly expressed – 35 age of years or over, for presidency and 14 years after renouncing the country/continent of original origin. Rafael “Tri.cos.tate” Cruz, as of Dec 22, 1970, to date, is 42 years old. He has 5 years to go till he’s eligible to run for President of the United States. So, he challenged the Administration – and President Obama? Pot luck, Ted…

      • Dave B.

        Gosh, sounds like YOU’RE hoping nobody reads it, because that ain’t what it says. And your “5 years to go” remark doesn’t even make sense.
        Oh, and “to date,” Cruz is 44 years old.

        • gasface

          …1 more year…

          • Dave B.

            That doesn’t make any sense either.

          • gasface

            …He may sneak by if we don’t challenge the 4 year coming from Alberta, Canada date of birth. Dec 22 will mark Cruz’s 45 year of his birth. He needs 1 year to be safe for president-elect. Nov 3 2016 will be the time of his sneaking by with his Dec 22 birthday of 2016. Some would say to look into his background for the (true) date of Cruz’s birth…

          • Dave B.

            Which STILL doesn’t make any sense. At all.

          • gasface

            …{Some say} the Senior Cruz and his mother changed the date of his birth to one year before. That’s the point !! Raefal, according to where he lived and according to neighbors in the Calgary area, have said this to be true !! That’ why he called Raefal and not Ted, He is sitting on Pens & Neddle’s, wishing to avoid answering questions about his birth. Raefal needs One (1) year to make things right, Dec 22 2016…

          • Dave B.

            Your record for not making any sense at all still stands.

    • SandyT
      • barque

        “Happersett v Minor set binding precedent on natural born citizen in 1875.”

        lol

        Exactly the opposite is true. Happersett’s discussion on “natural born” citizenship is all dicta. The binding precedent the case set was the state’s right to withhold the voting franchise and other political rights from citizens.

        Check with anyone who has ever graduated law school what “binding precedent” means. In summary, it has to speak directly to the singular question before the justices in the case. The case had nothing to do with determining whether or not Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen. It had to do with whether, as a citizen, she should have the right to vote.

        Just because the term “natural born” citizen is in the decision, does not in any way make the discussion surrounding it binding, or even persuasive. The decision itself even said there were questions around the term which this court need not even investigate.

    • Mcarey60

      It’s also been a long standing traaditi0n to consider military bases and military families bsed out of the United States as being on U.S. soil.THe problem isn’t in the definition. The problem is in the hypocrisy of conservatives who have spent years attacking Obama on just that point, and are giveing Rphael a pass. I think you are correct in thay Democrats won’t give him a pass, but that’s a pretty blatant example of bigotry, and shows the chatractrr of conserviatives who stayed silent on the whole issue with Obama.

      • Dave B.

        Well, some people may observe such a tradition, but under the LAW, “military bases and military families bsed out of the United States” are NOT on US soil.

      • NeedACleverName

        Not under the law.

      • barque

        “It’s also been a long standing traaditi0n to consider military bases and military families bsed out of the United States as being on U.S. soil.”

        This is simply not true and I am a little perplexed that people keep repeating it, lol.

    • DownriverDem

      How come Ted’s mom’s birth certificate is no where to be found?

    • Bebe Peters

      It IS defined in Minor vs. Happersett. Also there are many writings from our Founders’ era about natural born citizenship, like Vattel’s Law of Nations, the writings of Founder and historian David Ramsay, etc.

    • FirstShirt

      To understand the meaning of phrases within the Constitution you might
      want to do enough research to comprehend what the authors actually
      meant. The framers sought to prevent the influence of foreign
      governments or monarchies and wrote in to the Constitution Art II
      Section 1 the Natural Born Citizen clause ” 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
      not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen
      Years a Resident within the United States.”

      This clause and its
      wording were a direct result of a conversation in letters, specifically
      this letter between John Jay and George Washington.

      For those
      that do not know of John Jay and his importance in the drafting of the
      Constitution I present the following. John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and
      James Madison were the writers of The Federalist, or more popularly
      known as The Federalist Papers, where they articulated to the people of
      New York why they should support the ratification of the Constitution.
      John Adams later said in reference to who was the most influential
      proponent of constitutional reform that Jay was “of more importance than
      any of the rest, indeed of almost as much weight as all the rest.”

      After
      seeing the draft language by Alexander Hamilton of the requirements to
      be President, John Jay wrote this in his letter to George Washington
      dated 25 July 1787. John Jay was an avid reader of Emmerich de Vattel’s
      The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758). In this book
      the definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is can be found here p.
      101 in section 212. “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those
      born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    • FirstShirt

      Simply being born on US soil does not make one a natural born citizen. That is only one part of the journey.

    • gasface

      …Ms Bamberger…12/15/2015 LA schools closed, also, the death of 14, and things changed. Trump: “Until we are able to determine & understand this problem & the dangerous threat it poses…” Cruz is not toughen mentally – he unfeeling, unsympatheic, and unable to make sharp turns !!…

    • Faithful Sentinel

      SOURCE [Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 Id. at 1291]
      On March 9, 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio clearly stated, “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

      • barque

        Just because everyone born within the U.S. is a natural born citizen, doesn’t mean that everyone born outside the U.S. is NOT a natural born citizen. There are statutes which determine citizenship for those born to one or two U.S. parents in foreign countries. If a child is born a citizen, anywhere, that child is a natural born U.S. citizen.

    • Judy Selich

      Joanne Bamberger, there are at least four U.S. Supreme Court cases that discuss the meaning and intent of “Natural Born Citizen”. The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 (1830); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 1898. There may be more recent cases, but since I no longer practice, I have not kept up with all the resources. It is well-settled that the requirements for the presidency remain as stated in Article II of the Constitution. As it happens, I do believe that Cruz is in ineligible for POTUS, not only because he was born on foreign soil (to-wit: Canada); but more to the point, his father was a Cuban citizen. He states his mother was born in Delaware in 1934, and was thus a U.S. citizen. However, there are no records, no birth certificate, substantiating this. There are additional arguments that support the concept Ted Cruz cannot, under any circumstances, a “Natural Born Citizen”: 1.) He was born on foreign soil; 2.) His father was not a U.S. Citizen; 3.) Despite this contention his mother was a U.S. citizen, there is record of this.

      • Dave B.

        Most birthers throw Dred Scott in there as well, so you get a little credit for leaving that one out.

        • barque

          lol, yep.

    • barque

      Joanne the unanimous, bipartisan, declaration that John McCain was a “natural born American” is because he was born to U.S. parents abroad. They wanted to squelch all the nutty nuts before they got started, and good for them because McCain was a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen, just as Cruz is.

      “Traditionally it [natural born citizenship] has been though to mean being born in the U.S….”
      Yes, true, because being born on U.S. soil makes one a citizen at birth, by birth. Natural Born citizenship.

      However, ALSO, TRADITIONALLY, in the common law and in the very first congress’s statute regarding citizenship, one born abroad to U.S. parents would also be a “natural born citizen.”

      Although it has not been specifically ruled such in the Supreme Court, it simply doesn’t need to be and probably never will be. The court has however noted more than once that there are two, only two, ways to acquire citizenship: By birth, or by naturalization. This is simplicity. Either you are born a citizen (natural born citizenship), or you are born an alien and can only become a citizen via naturalization (making you like a natural born citizen.).

      Democrats will “give Cruz a pass” if you want to call it that way, because MOST Democrats understand natural born citizenship. The birthers, far and away the majority of them, come from the right. Sorry.

    • Porkchop

      Read the federalist papers as others here have stated.

    • Ben Drake

      There IS a definition of Natural Born Citizen. First, if you took the time to read the papers of Law of Nations, the Federalist Papers, letters written back and forth
      between Madison, Jay, Washington, Hamilton, and others clearly define
      what a NBC was.

      Additionally, SCOTUS has CLEARLY defined what a NBC is. Please do some studying before you speak up on a subject you know so little about.

      http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

    • Ben Drake

      Joanne Bamberger, There is a definition of “natural born citizen.” and there has been from before this country began. Read the Federalist papers, read the letters between Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc. They all define what a NBC is. Then read the below link, ALL OF IT. SCOTUS has clearly defined what a NBC is. Please do some study before you start talking about a subject you know so little about.

      http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

    • PureAbsolute

      I’ve heard ‘vice versa’ — Born to parent’s, the soil doesn’t matter. I think you are thinking of how illegals can have babies on US soil and have them considered Citizens, which is different from this argument about Natural Born citizens.

      The problem is an ‘Old’ definition, vs a ‘New’ definition. The old definition, you needed two US citizens as your parents, born on US soil, which is why McCain got vetted. The canal zone was a territory, but people born there weren’t citizens when McCain was born. However retroactively people were given citizenship, which would have made McCain fully Natural Born. But the question at the time was was that retro citizenship good enough for the ‘Natural Born’ status.

      The new definition is ‘Citizen at Birth’. The old definition made sure your loyalties lied 100% with the US (no dual citizenships etc). The new definition is more a guarantee that you are a citizen (at least in part). There is historical precedent for both versions (old english law, etc), however the loyalty version makes the most sense. Unfortunately, it is a matter of opinion. There is only one case that dealt with the issue at the supreme court level (Minor vs Harpersett), and that wasn’t definitive.

      With respect to Obama and Cruz — a lot of those ‘Birthers’ are consistent — they are arguing against Cruz as well as Obama — so you can’t trip them up. But that is based on the ‘old’ school definition.

      The new school definition follows our naturalization laws which define who is a citizen, including who is a citizen at birth, and the 14th amendment. There are people who are born under the jurisdiction of the US on US soil — these are the ex slaves (the original purpose of this clause in the 14th amendment), but presumably could include the children of people with green cards, etc. They meet the ‘Citizen by birth’. And then you have the Citizens by statute people — this includes people like Cruz and Obama.

      I know you are thinking — “Born a citizen”, just like when an illegal has a baby here — point made! But no — these babies are born on the soil, but not under the jurisdiction of the US. Children of ambassadors also fall into this category — they don’t become US citizens just because they were born in a US hospital.

      So how are Cruz and Obama different? Cruz’ mother was a citizen of the US. Therefore he had dual citizenship. If Cuba were recognized, he may have had triple citizenship. Obama is very close to this exact scenario, with his father being Kenyan (a British citizen I believe..). Here is where the rub is.

      If Obama was born in Hawaii, there is no issue. If Obama was born in Kenya, then, according to statute, Obama’s mom had to be 19 (5 years after the age of 14) if the Dad was a foreign national. Which he was. She was only 18 when Barak was born.

      Cruz does not have this issue. So no — us ‘Birthers’ who are willing to accept the new school will have an easy time arguing against Obama and for Cruz. Just on the law front.. I didn’t let it define the campaign for Obama, and I won’t let it define the campaign for Cruz. Just pointing out facts for those people who like to follow laws.

    • tmanosaurus

      You get a “greatest BS Award”. You state falseties. Not worth voting down let alone reading.

    • Judy Selich

      Joanne Bamberger, I realize your post is old, but I wanted to clarify some points: First, the U.S. Supreme Court has indeed issued opinions on Natural Born Citizen. The first case was in 1814; another in 1830; 1875; and then U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). It is important to note as well, that the opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court over the past 200 years, make clear that our Supreme Court uses “Natural Born Citizen” only to refer to those “born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

    • RobietheCat

      re: “There is no definition of “natural born citizen.”

      Question: Is there a definition of ‘speech’ in the constitution?

    • aniptofar

      People who think it is land only have done ZERO research and not even bothered to study intent. It was the intent of the framers to prevent foreign influence and foreign allegiances. Obviously the son of a king or other landed person would exert foreign influence.

      Therefore it is blood and soil. As citizenship is extended to women, it now means BOTH parents must be citizens and you must be born in the us.

      A fundamental nature of NBC is that it IS NOT LEGISLATED. You are and can only be a US citizen. That is why it is undefined in law.

    • http://bizarrotheater.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

      In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark, USSC robes practically settled what defines natural-born citizenship of the United States.

      The USSC justices ruled that natural-born citizens are those persons who are born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, without regard to the nationality of their parents. The affirming opinion relied upon many more works than merely Blackstone. That case was settled in 1898.

      169 U.S. 649. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18). Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 Decided: March 28, 1898

      The preponderance of the ruling revolves around the meaning of natural-born. By affirming, the robes in the majority in practical effect decreed Ark not only a citizen but a natural-born one.

      • barque

        “By affirming, the robes in the majority in practical effect decreed Ark not only a citizen but a natural-born one.”

        This is all true, but it does not restrict natural born citizenship to only this operation. While it is true that anyone born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., to any parentage, is a natural born U.S. citizen, it is also true that persons born to one or two U.S. parents on foreign soil, under conditions laid out by U.S. nationality law, are U.S. citizens at birth, by virtue of that birth. For many hundreds of years, in the common law and the statutes of England, being a subject at birth, under ANY circumstances, was “natural born” subjecthood. That has never changed and it is generally understood by most legal scholars and historians that if one is a U.S. citizen at birth, by birth, with no need to later naturalize in order to become a citizen, then that person is a “natural born” U.S. citizen. Just like in England for centuries, whether born within the country to even alien parents, or born out of country according to conditions within the law, the child born a subject was a “natural born subject.”

        • http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

          “it is also true that persons born to one or two U.S. parents on foreign soil, under conditions laid out by U.S. nationality law, are U.S. citizens at birth …” ~ barque

          Being made citizen by force of law is the essence, the exact definition of not being natural-born.

          Natural-born requires two components:

          1) Allegiance by birth by having been born under the jurisdiction of Congress
          2) Being born to at least one U.S. citizen under jurisdiction of Congress

          Being born to foreign nationals in the USA or the incorporated territories of Congress fails to make anyone natural born, e.g., Rubio.

          Being born outside of the USA under the jurisdiction of other law givers fails to make anyone natural born, e.g., Cruz.

          Being born outside of the USA under the jurisdiction of Congress in de jure incorporated territory of the USA makes someone natural born, e.g., John McCain.

          Good luck!

          • barque

            Smack: “Natural-born requires two components:
            1) Allegiance by birth by having been born under the jurisdiction of Congress
            2) Being born to at least one U.S. citizen under jurisdiction of Congress”

            But you just made that up. There is nothing in the history of the common law or tradition or statutes or SCOTUS decisions or anything which lay out your claim. There is a difference between just pulling stuff out of your butt, and actually knowing how this legally works, lol.

            1. Allegiance by birth by having been born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. (regardless of parentage). That’s not quite the same as your wording, but is accurate.

            2. Being born to at least one U.S. citizen parent outside the country, according to U.S. nationality law as passed by Congress (although, this is not “under jurisdiction of congress.”)

            Smack: “Being born to foreign nationals in the USA … fails to make anyone natural born.”

            It makes one a citizen at birth by virtue of that birth in the U.S. That actually IS “natural born.”

            Smack: “Being made citizen by force of law is the essence, the exact definition of not being natural-born.”

            Being born a citizen by force of law is being a citizen at birth by birth (natural born). Being MADE a citizen by force of law, upon application and entry into the U.S., after having been born an alien, is naturalization.

            Smack: “Being born outside of the USA under the jurisdiction of Congress in de jure incorporated territory of the USA makes someone natural born, e.g., John McCain.”

            Panama Canal Zone was not a “de jure incorporated territory.” It was an unincorporated territory and was not U.S. soil and the persons in that territory were not born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. If this claim of yours was true, ALL persons, Panamanians, French, and otherwise, if born in the Panama Canal Zone, would have been U.S. citizens at birth just like John McCain. And by that logic, all persons born in other unincorporated U.S. territories like the Philippines would have been natural born U.S. citizens too. And of course they weren’t. John McCain was a citizen at birth (a natural born citizen) by virtue of his birth to U.S. citizen parents. This would have been true anywhere in the world; it just happened to be in the unincorporated U.S. territory of Panama Canal Zone.

          • http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

            “But you just made that up. There is nothing in the history of the common law or tradition or statutes or SCOTUS decisions or anything which lay out your claim. ~ @barque:disqus

            I did not “just” make it up. And there are court rulings.

            Good luck honing your false beliefs.

          • barque

            There are zero court rulings stating that those two components (being born “under the jurisdiction of Congress”; and being born “to at least one U.S. citizen under jurisdiction of Congress”) necessarily make someone a natural born U.S. citizen.

            Your sentences are inaccurate and not supported by any court rulings or laws. They are made up. Even your phrase “under the jurisdiction of Congress” makes no sense. It is found nowhere in the law or court rulings.

            You summarized your belief about the necessary components of natural born citizenship. But that was a summary of your view of it; it is completely inaccurate as any kind of description of the law or history. So that’s why I said you just made it up. You’re describing how you think it is or should be. But you don’t have any source documentation of any kind which backs those statements up.

            Note: You started your statement with “Natural-born requires two components:”

            LOL that’s made up. There is no list of requirements as such. SCOTUS has never ruled any such thing. SCOTUS hasn’t even said this in dicta. It’s your view. Not based on facts; zero support in history or the common law or practice. In other words, “made up.”

          • http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

            Cruz? Cruz is the 100% maple leaf all-natural-born Canadian and un-American dummy who was crushed by Trump.

            LOLZ.

            Hopefully Texans vote Cruz the scumbag from office when his term expires.

            Better luck next time.

          • barque

            I think you are mistaking my discussion of the facts with some sort of political support for Cruz. lol. I have/had zero support for either Cruz or Trump. I am liberal.

            The FACTS, however are that Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth, by virtue of his birth according to conditions set out in U.S. nationality law. The generally understood consensus among legal scholars, is that being a citizen at birth, by birth, is what “natural born” means. The reason this is the consensus is that this is what “natural born” has meant for half a millennium.

            Cruz was definitely ALSO a natural born Canadian citizen, but dual nationality does not in any way refute the fact of his natural born U.S. citizenship.

          • http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

            Ted Cruz is an immigrant who emigrated from Canada. Ted Cruz became a naturalized U.S. citizen eight years after his birth.

            TAKE OFF, EH. IS TED CRUZ IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN? PUNDIT LAWYERS GET THIS SO WRONG, THE HOSERS.

            THE TED CRUZ CRIB SHEET. THE 34 REASONS WHY TED ISN’T NATURAL-BORN AND CAN’T BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

            PL 414 was the law under which Cruz was in the process of naturalizing. Cruz wasn’t even made a U.S. citizen until 1978, eight years after his birth.

            WAS TED CRUZ A U.S. CITIZEN AT BIRTH? THE MCCARRAN-WALTER ACT (THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952) WHICH THE RULED OVER HIM SAYS MAYBE, BUT IT ALSO COULD HAVE STRIPPED HIM OF CITIZENSHIP.

            Blimey. Ted Cruz could have worked for the Queen of England as her second-in-command agent for years.

            TED CRUZ COULD HAVE BEEN IN THE HIGHEST SERVICE TO HER MAJESTY, QUEEN ELIZABETH II, IN CANADA. SO HOW CAN TED BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA?

            Ted Cruz will always only ever be a natural-born Canadian.

          • barque

            Ted Cruz never naturalized, as he has been a citizen from birth. Whatever site you are reading which says Cruz naturalized, is a whackadoodle cesspool of misinformation.

          • http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

            LOLZ. The prevailing law at Ted’s birth, the 1952 MCCARRAN-WALTER ACT required Ted to assert his citizenship-by-law upon reaching the age of 18.

            In 1978, Congress at the time repealed the section of law that required Rafael “Ted” Cruz to do so. Only after repeal of that section did Ted become a citizen BY THE FORCE OF LAW.

            WAS TED CRUZ A U.S. CITIZEN AT BIRTH? THE MCCARRAN-WALTER ACT (THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952) WHICH THE RULED OVER HIM SAYS MAYBE, BUT IT ALSO COULD HAVE STRIPPED HIM OF CITIZENSHIP.

            You Ted Cruz morons are all alike. You are too stupid to understand jurisprudence.

            Better luck next time dummy.

          • barque

            Try reading the McCarran-Walter Act instead of perpetrating a fraud.

            There is NOTHING in the entire text of the act which says what you claim about having to assert citizenship. The only people here who are dummies are those making claims and assertions which don’t at all comport with reality.

            The relevant text in the 1952 nationality act is the part listing who are citizens at birth.

            “(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United

            States and its outlying possessions of parents one of w’hom 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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age

            ” of fourteen years: Provided^ That any periods of honorable service

            in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent

            may be included in computing the physical presence requirements

            ” of this paragraph.

            (b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States

            at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality

            and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to

            attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following

            any such coming be continuously physically present in the United

            State for at least five years: Provided^ That such physical presence

            follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the

            age of twenty-eight years.”

            * Again, instead of making yourself out to be a liar and claiming something is in a law which is not, read the law and quote the relevant parts. All of you whackadoodle morons who insist on making crap up are the problem. The internet lets you run your gums non-stop spewing complete nonsense.

            One more time, Sparky: Ted Cruz was a citizen upon his birth, by virtue of that birth. He never had to “claim” his citizenship. He never had to naturalize. He is a natural born citizen and is eligible to the presidency. Other than making sure to uphold the truth, I personally don’t care that Cruz is eligible because I would never support him in a million years.

          • http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

            Someone here needs to read the act, but that one is not me.

            Ted Cruz never will be president of the United States of America.

            Ted Cruz is a 100% natural-born Canadian and scumbag for having run for the presidency. Cruz was the only anti-constitution who had run.

            WAS TED CRUZ A U.S. CITIZEN AT BIRTH? THE MCCARRAN-WALTER ACT (THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952) WHICH THE RULED OVER HIM SAYS MAYBE, BUT IT ALSO COULD HAVE STRIPPED HIM OF CITIZENSHIP.

            Congress made Cruz a citizen by law in 1978, eight years after the Cuban spawn’s birth.

            Better luck next time, dummy.

          • barque

            Your entire answer to that is that I am the one who needs to read the act? I am the one who quoted the relevant text, showing you to be a complete blithering idiot for making claims without ever reading the act.
            The 1952 Act makes Cruz a citizen at birth. Read it. I posted the part saying the child of one alien and one citizen is a citizen at birth. No need to “claim” the citizenship.

            I know what you are confused about though. So confused. The 1952 act allows congress to strip persons of such citizenship if they don’t come back to live in the U.S. for at least 10 years by the time they are 18, IF they haven’t returned by the time they are 14. Cruz came to the U.S. when he was roughly 4 so it would never have applied to him.

            In 1978 Congress repealed that part of the law, even though as I said it was completely irrelevant with regard to Cruz.

            Now, go ahead and call me a dummy again, lol. I love you making vacuous claims and dunderheaded proclamations WITHOUT ever reading the relevant law, even after I’ve posted the part of the law which clears up your confusion. LOVE it.

            You know what’s cool? All this conversation will remain on the internet for probably years and years. Ol’ Whackadoodle MaccaDougal will be looking like an ignorant boob for quite a while!!

            Oh, you know what else is cool? This is true even if you delete your idiot post! Why? Because I am pasting it here:

            SmackMacDougal:
            “Someone here needs to read the act, but that one is not me.

            Ted Cruz never will be president of the United States of America.

            Ted Cruz is a 100% natural-born Canadian and scumbag for having run for the presidency. Cruz was the only anti-constitution who had run.

            WAS TED CRUZ A U.S. CITIZEN AT BIRTH? THE MCCARRAN-WALTER ACT (THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952) WHICH THE RULED OVER HIM SAYS MAYBE, BUT IT ALSO COULD HAVE STRIPPED HIM OF CITIZENSHIP.

            Congress made Cruz a citizen by law in 1978, eight years after the Cuban spawn’s birth.

            Better luck next time, dummy.”

          • http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

            You have been given the link twice dummy.

            Ted Cruz morons do not get it. Ted is a natural-born Canadian and a U.S. Citizen made so by law.

            Teddy never was a natural-born American.

            Better luck next time dummy.

          • barque

            That link is to an opinion blog. Just another moron like you.

            You can link an opinion blog all you want, Sparky. Doesn’t change the law or the facts. Bottom line, read the law, understand it, and don’t continue looking like a fool.

          • http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

            Facts are not opinions, dummy. Word-for-word copying of law is not opinion dummy.

            Speaking of dummy opinions, you have made your dummy opinion known to me. There is not anything else you can do. Why repeat yourself, dummy?

            Ted Cruz never will be president of the USA. Take that to the bank, dummy.

            The spawn of a Cuban scumbag — his scumbag dad lived in the USA for decades and cared not to become a U.S. citizen — will only ever be a naturalized citizen. For dummies like you, that means Ted became a citizen by the force of law.

            No one who becomes a citizen by force of law whether at birth or later in life ever can be considered natural-born in the country where such a citizen has been naturalized.

            Better luck next time, dummy.

          • barque

            “Ted Cruz never will be president of the USA.”

            I agree. And I’m probably happier about that than you are. And again, to keep posting that comment toward me when I’ve made it clear that Cruz is as unacceptable to me politically as he is to you, is to just be dishonest.

            But that’s simply not the point. If your opinion about whether or not he is a natural born citizen is affected or driven by your distaste for him politically, you are an imbecile.

            Naturalization is a process, a legal process which must take place in the U.S. and which requires an application by an adult who was born an alien. So, no, citizenship at birth, even by “force of law,” is citizenship at birth. You can try to argue all day long about whether or not that equates to natural born citizenship, but don’t look like a total fool trying to say it is “naturalization at birth.” There is no such thing.

            As to the question of whether or not someone born outside the country who is a citizen at birth by law, is a “natural born” citizen, it all boils down to the common law and statutes of England through history. In England, a person born in the country (even to two aliens) was a natural born subject. AND, a person who was born a subject outside England according to the laws passed by Parliament, was, specifically, a “natural born subject.” In other words EVERY person born a subject, no matter the circumstances, was a “natural born” subject.

            The U.S. adopted the laws and the common law, and never changed or abrogated those practices.

            We KNOW from this that the term “natural born” citizen in the constitution is based on the idea that anyone who is a citizen at birth, by birth, is a natural born citizen. The only other way to be a citizen is to be naturalized. Again, naturalization is a legal process with a few absolutes: It has to be by application by an adult alien. It has to occur inside the U.S. Congress sets conditions such as number of years one needs to live inside the U.S. before he or she can naturalize. ALL of these conditions make it utterly impossible to call a person born outside the country a “naturalized at birth” citizen. It is absurd.

            To keep saying it, and to provide links to opinion blogs making false statements about the 1952 nationality code, etc., just makes you look incredibly daft.

            To simply SAY that a person made a citizen by law at birth can’t be a natural born citizen is to complete ignore history and the common law.

            Now, finally, I have to say this: You made a claim that the “McCarron-Walter Act required Ted to assert his citizenship-by-law upon reaching the age of 18.” This claim is wrong and was pretty easy to refute. And yet, after I posted the relevant text showing that Ted Cruz was indeed indisputably a citizen at birth, you refused to acknowledge you were wrong, refused to address the quote or the law, and just moved on with more name-calling. Which is fine, because you don’t have an argument and you definitely don’t even have a basic understanding of the issue.

            BUT know that to keep on with the same claims after being refuted, is not just a matter of being ignorant. It is a matter of being dishonest. So I’ll stop suggesting you’re simply stupid and instead just refer to you as a liar. You’re intentionally trying to confuse and mislead. Unless you’re even more idiotic than I originally estimated.

            Good day.

          • http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

            You seem to need learning strengthening.

            If someone becomes a citizen by force of law or is decreed a citizen by law, that one can not be natural born.

            Only those persons who have natural allegiance to law givers by the accident of their birth are natural born.

            The accident of Ted Cruz’s birth — having been born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to civilians not in the employ of a foreign government, made Ted Cruz a natural-born Canada.

            Eight years after Ted’s immigration into the USA, Ted became a U.S. citizen by force of law specifically because the sitting Congress repealed a section of law that otherwise required Ted to claim his naturalization citizenship after reaching the age of majority.

            Better luck next time dummy.

          • barque

            “If someone becomes a citizen by force of law or is decreed a citizen by law, that one can not be natural born.”

            That’s an opinion not supported by any history or facts. This is the problem with loons like you who keep trying to make this argument. It sounds right to you so you state it as if it is an accepted fact. The actual fact is this: Throughout the history of the common law and the statutes of England, every single person born a subject of England, meaning every single person who was a subject upon their birth by virtue of that birth – NO MATTER whether it was on English soil to subjects or aliens, or outside England to parents as prescribed by statute – every one of them was called, specifically, a “natural born” subject. Simple uncomplicated version: Every person ever born a subject was a “natural born” subject. “Natural born” means “born.” Pretty damn simple. That’s what it meant for hundreds of years leading up to its being inserted into the Constitution of the United States. The founders all were intimately familiar with what it meant. So your simply saying it’s not so – along with your hocus pocus about how being born a citizen by “force of law” makes someone a citizen born but not a “natural born citizen” – is a joke. It’s absurd. You are a fool. There has never been such a thing as a “born” citizen who was not a “natural born” citizen.

            “Only those persons who have natural allegiance to law givers by the accident of their birth are natural born.”

            Two things wrong with this sentence. One, “to law givers” is not to whom allegiance is owed. Not in all of history. It is allegiance to one’s society. Again, this concept that people are “under the jurisdiction of Congress is a fabrication of your imagination. The phrase doesn’t make sense. The other thing wrong with your sentence is the word “Only.” This again is opinion on your part. It’s a philosophical discussion you insist on having when the fact of what “natural born” meant throughout history is quite clear. Not “only” were those born in, and subject to, the jurisdiction of their country considered “natural born,” but also those born outside the jurisdiction of the their country under circumstances as described by statute.

            Again, you can SAY this isn’t true. But all of our history says otherwise.

            “The accident of Ted Cruz’s birth — having been born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to civilians not in the employ of a foreign government, made Ted Cruz a natural-born Canada.”

            Well, this is true. Ted Cruz was a natural born Canadian. And also a natural born U.S. citizen. Your assumption (or hope) that a person can’t be both, or more, at the same time, is wrong.

            “Eight years after Ted’s immigration into the USA, Ted became a U.S. citizen by force of law specifically because the sitting Congress repealed a section of law that otherwise required Ted to claim his naturalization citizenship after reaching the age of majority.”

            Why do you keep repeating this? Do you know how to read? What you think you know of McCarran-Walter, is false. McCarran-Walter does not require anyone to “claim” or “affirm” their citizenship. It required someone born a citizen outside the country to come live in the country by a certain age and for a certain number of years, or risk being stripped of the citizenship they ACQUIRED AT BIRTH. Read the effing law, moron. Ted Cruz came to live in the U.S. at least a decade before the necessary age according to the law. Dude, you are seriously lacking brain cells. As I said before, to keep repeating something which is clearly being shown false in the lines above, is a lie.

          • http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

            Oh dummy. You are such a dummy. There is a long case history in Anglo-American law that holds that to be accepted.

            Dummy, here we are again. You are wrong still, dummy. Worse, nothing that you write will sway me dummy.

            Ted Cruz will be forever a natural-born Canadian. Never can Cruz be a natural-born American. It is impossible to be natural-born under two sovereign rules.

            No citizen made citizen by law can swear the oath of office of the presidency. Ted Cruz was made a citizen by law precisely because he was not natural-born. And to top it off, Cruz was made a citizen eight years after his birth, dummy.

            Better luck next time dummy.

          • barque

            “learning strengthening”? lol

          • http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

            That is what dummies like you need.

            My words are your strings. And you, you are my little marionette dummy. When I pull your strings, you dance. Look at you dance!

            Keep dancing my dummy marionette.

          • barque

            lol, i see. you are misunderstanding the reasons for my comments. While you might think my comments are meant for you specifically, and are meant to clear things up just for you, or to convince you… my comments are directed to the other readers who will make their way to this forum over the years. I am correcting your lunatic ravings and clarifying the meaning of the law, for the benefit of others. Not you. So what seems to you like a dance is just the orderly business of putting the proper information here for those who want to know the truth rather than hang on to kooky fringe theories. I am glad you are entertained by your own intellectual bludgeoning.

          • http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

            Someone here has misunderstood everything, but that one is not me.

            Keep dancing my dummy marionette.

          • http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/ SmackMacDougal

            You are deluded if you believe anyone will find this comment exchange four years from now. Your delusional stance calls into question the state of your mind.

            That said, for anyone who stumbles upon this comment exchange and follows it from the beginning, that one will read how I predicted your coming. Further, that one will see how wrong you have been in every step of the exchange.

            As well, that one will see how crushed you have been by the weight of argument against you. When Congress naturalized Ted by decreeing Ted a citizen by the force of law, that revealed it to be impossible for Ted to be natural-born.

            Ted’s citizenship hinges on law. That makes Ted naturalized and not natural-born.

            Congress can not decree anyone natural-born. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to do so. The Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to naturalize individuals into citizens by law created by Congress.

            Only those who are citizens irrespective of law are natural-born.

            Good luck. You are going to need much luck to survive into old age. The stupid usually do not.

            There are thousands of Darwin Award winners daily. At least you will have won something in your life.

          • barque

            SmackMacDougal “You Ted Cruz morons are all alike. You are too stupid to understand jurisprudence.”

            LOL

          • barque

            Smack: “Being born to foreign nationals in the USA or the incorporated territories of Congress fails to make anyone natural born, e.g., Rubio.”

            First of all, the contiguous states, before they were states, were incorporated territories. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was an incorporated territory. Persons in the incorporated territories are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and are citizens by birth in those territories. Parentage irrelevant. This is why Goldwater was eligible.

    • i think therefore i am ii

      “… born in Kenya (which he wasn’t)..” typical liberal lol.

      And there are definitions. You are not very bright. Use Google or Bing, or read a book.

    • Ophelia5338

      Considering our founders were predominantly British subjects if we look to British law…where the term was used…it says that children of subjects born outside of the King’s territory are natural born subjects of the King provided their parents weren’t in exile at the time.
      There are other examples in British law.

    • Sandra J Gasker

      yes there is a natural born citizen is one born to 2 united states citizens parents it is in any one want to check things out go to THE LAW OF NATIONS OR THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW (1758 ) EMMERICH DE VATTEL BOOK 1 CHAPTER 19

    • KnittingNana

      John McCain was born in Panama, his father was stationed at a US Naval base, and US Military bases are technically US Soil. So he was a Natural Born Citizen, since he was born on soil held by the U.S.

      • barque

        “US Military bases are technically US Soil”

        All of you keep saying this. It’s wrong. U.S. bases on foreign soil, are foreign soil. They have NEVER been considered U.S. soil, not technically and not practically. U.S. military bases and U.S. embassies are NOT U.S. soil, they never have been, and they are not “considered” so for any reason. Just look it up. Ask the state department. Get acquainted with history.

        • Jan123456

          Barque, The US State Dept confirms your point in

          7 FAM 1113 (c) 1

        • KnittingNana

          Sorry, I was wrong, but the Panama Canal Zone was explicitly included (by a US Law passed by Congress) to be “sovereign US soil”. Also, American Embassies are considered American Soil, but not Consulates.

          • barque

            Yeah sorry but you are still terribly wrong. I am not sure what it is that causes a person who has been corrected to continue just guessing instead of looking up the facts. No, there is no law passed by Congress which ever explicitly said the Panama Canal Zone was “sovereign U.S. soil.” Honestly KnittingNana, I already suggested you check with the state department if you’re interested in learning the truth. The Panama Canal Zone was unincorporated U.S. territory, much like, for instance, the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled more than once that uncorportated U.S. territories are NOT U.S. Soil. Plain as day. Specifically, NOT U.S. soil. The only way a person born in Panama is a U.S. citizen at birth is by having one or two U.S. parents according the U.S. code, same as a person born in any other foreign territory in the world. In other words, no, no one born in Panama was born “on U.S. soil.” Please don’t keep repeating that falsehood.

            Now, to your next big mistake, which is just as confounding as the Panama one: No, NO American Embassies are EVER considered U.S. soil. They NEVER HAVE. Where are you purporting to get this information. It is egregiously wrong. Again, ASK the state department if you really think you are right. But stop just making stuff up that sounds right to you.

          • KnittingNana

            8 U.S. Code § 1403 – Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
            (a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
            (b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
            (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 303, 66 Stat. 236)

          • barque

            Knitting, I am sorry but you appear to have lost your mind. Where in 8 U.S. Code § 1403 does it say the Panama Canal Zone is “sovereign U.S. soil.” The answer is “Nowhere.” Come on, now, this is getting tedious. That law says that statutorily persons with one or two U.S. parents born in the Canal zone are citizen at birth. It does NOT in any way shape or form contend that the zone is “sovereign U.S. soil.”

          • KnittingNana

            In reguards to the Citizenship through embassies, look up Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA, or Form FS-240). To long to post here.

          • barque

            I know what a CRBA is, my friend. It is a report of birth abroad. It gets filed through the embassy and is to report the birth of a person born on foreign soil to U.S. parents. It doesn’t say, in any way shape or form, that U.S. embassies are U.S. soil. Again, I think you’ve lost your mind. We’re not talking about “Citizenship through embassies” whatever that’s supposed to mean. The question at hand is whether or not U.S. embassies are U.S. soil. A CRBA has nothing to say about whether U.S. embassies or consulates are considered U.S. soil or not.

            Repeat: They are not. They NEVER have been.

            I think you have greatly missed the point of this discussion and are displaying an astounding level of ignorance and confusion.

            A person born on foreign soil is a U.S. citizen via U.S. law based on the circumstances of parentage. The child, even though a CRBA is filed at a U.S. embassy, isn’t a citizen by being born “on U.S. soil” but rather, by being born to one or two U.S. parents on foreign soil.

          • KnittingNana

            I am speaking of being a US citizen by birth.

          • barque

            yes, I know. John McCain is a U.S. citizen by birth, because he was born to U.S. citizens abroad, under the rules in U.S. statute regarding such births.

            However, your comment makes it appear you believe that an embassy is “U.S. soil” and it is by the process of obtaining the citizenship through the embassy, John McCain is a natural born U.S. citizen. But he didn’t get his citizenship through the military base, nor the U.S. embassy, he acquired U.S. citizenship at his birth by virtue of his birth to U.S. citizen parents. Neither the embassy nor the military base had anything to do with it.

            With all of that said, I was engaging with you about your statement that embassies and military bases are U.S. soil. Again, they are not. If you are trying to connect getting a CRBA filed at an embassy with this inaccurate concept that the embassy is “U.S. soil,” you are confused.

          • Jan123456

            “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and
            does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

            7 FAM 1113 (c) 1

        • KnittingNana

          I am very acquainted with history, and have posted several responses, but for some reason they have disappeared.

          • barque

            I have seen your responses. You have no idea what you are talking about. The bottom line, indisputably, is that U.S. embassies and U.S military bases are not, and have never been, “U.S. soil.” When I say you need to acquaint yourself with history I mean to say that if you had a passing understanding of both U.S. history and the law you would know this.

            You said that there was a U.S. law which specifically called the Panama Canal Zone “sovereign U.S. soil.” This is untrue, and when called on this, you cited 8 U.S. Code § 1403, which does NOT in any way say the Panama Canal Zone is “sovereign U.S. soil.” LOL Rather, that law simply states that persons born to one or two U.S. citizens within the zone are statutorily U.S. citizens at birth. That’s statutorily. That is not birth on U.S. soil and there isn’t even the slightest hint that the law pretends that the zone was U.S. soil. This is, simply, complete ignorance on your part of the meaning of the law, and of history.

            Another of your responses somehow equated and CRBA form filed through an embassy with “citizenship through U.S. embassies” which I guess somehow in your mind means an embassy is U.S. soil. Again, with just a near-simpleton’s understanding of the law, you would notice that the citizenship acquired by a child born to U.S. parents on foreign soil is acquired by force of U.S. statute, not because they child was magically born on U.S. because the CRBA was filed in an embassy. LOL again.

            thanks for the entertainment.

          • KnittingNana

            Birth of U.S. Citizens Abroad

            A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.

            According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.

            The child’s parents may choose to apply for a U.S. passport for the child at the same time that they apply for a CRBA. Parents may also choose to apply only for a U.S. passport for the child. Like a CRBA, a full validity, unexpired U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship.

            Parents of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen or citizens should apply for a CRBA and/or a U.S. passport for the child as soon as possible. Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the child’s U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, including entry into the United States. By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.

            Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA, or Form FS-240)
            If you are a U.S. citizen and have a child overseas, you should report his or her birth as soon as possible so that a Consular Report of Birth Abroad can be issued as an official record of the child’s claim to U.S. citizenship. Report the birth of your child abroad at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. Check the American Citizens Services portion of the webpage for the nearest Embassy or Consulate in the country where your child was born for further instructions about how to apply for a CRBA. Please note:

            A Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. citizen is only issued to a child who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and who is generally under the age of 18 at the time of the application.
            The U.S. embassy or consulate will provide one original copy of an eligible child’s Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen.
            A more secure Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen was introduced in January 2011. This new CRBA has been updated with a variety of state of the art security features, and is printed centrally in the United States. U.S. embassies and consulates no longer print CRBAs locally, but you still must apply there. The central production was initiated to ensure uniform quality and reduce vulnerability to fraud. The previous version of the CRBA continues to be valid proof of U.S. citizenship.
            You may replace, amend or request multiple copies of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen at any time.
            Persons who acquired U.S. citizenship or U.S. nationality at birth in one of the following current or former territories or outlying possessions of the United States during relevant time periods are not eligible for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen because such persons are not considered to have been born abroad. Individuals born in these locations during the relevant times may establish acquisition of U.S. citizenship or non-citizen nationality, based upon the applicable agreement or statute, by producing their birth certificate issued from the local Vital Records Office along with any other evidence required to establish acquisition:
            Puerto Rico
            U.S. Virgin Islands American Samoa
            Guam
            Swains Island
            The Panama Canal Zone before October 1, 1979
            The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands after January 8, 1978 (8PM EST)
            The Philippines before July 4, 1946

      • Jan123456

        “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military
        installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not
        part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child
        born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and
        does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

        7 FAM 1113 (c) 1

    • Behind every blade of glass!

      Oh PLEASE Joanne please, show us “PROOF” that your Obaaama is legal! We’ve been waiting for a very long time – for somebody like you to come along to give us “ALL THE FACT’S” which I’m sure will be supported as admissible evidence!
      While you’re at it … you might want to explain why he’s using a dead man SSN and “let us all in” on why he spent so much money to hide his past, concealed all of his documents, etc.!
      YOUR SO SMART …

    • barque

      You are right that “traditionally it has been though to mean being born in the U.S.” to any parentage. That’s because in the common law, that is exactly what natural born means. But in the common law and statutes of England, “natural born” ALSO referred to anyone born abroad of English citizens. This was by statute, meaning it was by whatever rules Parliament felt like institution, like whether it was to one subject parent or two, whether that parent had to spend much time or no time in England before the child was born etc. I say this because, EXACTLY like in the common law, the U.S. put into the Congress’s hands the authority to say who born abroad is a citizen at birth, and in what circumstances. So, like in England, that child, if born a citizen, is a natural born citizen.

      McCain was declared a natural born citizen because it was correct and met all the criteria, plus some. It was only a problem because of birther nuts. Just like, Ted Cruz’s situation is only a problem because of birther nuts.

      It’s a particularly funny problem because the Obama resistance was pushed by birthers to the point where, now, with a candidate in their camp breaking the rules as they see it, they have to attack him too. Their thinking with Obama was incorrect, and their thinking with Cruz is incorrect; so as a matter of consistency they have to go on with the birtherism over Cruz or look like hypocrits.

      Cruz doesn’t technically have a problem. He is a natural born citizen. However, from a pubic perception angle, he does.

    • David

      We need to get this cleared up one way or the other, or else nominate someone else. And Cruz is doing nothing to help us get a SCOTUS ruling, which is what we need.

    • Pk Mitchell

      thats a big myth that was spread around to cover obamas ineligibility, in reality the supreme court has defined it on 4 different occasions.

      The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
      “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

      The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

      Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
      “…for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.”

      Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
      “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

      United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
      “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

      ———————————————————

      Vattel’s “Law of the 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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

      “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

    • Jason Swartout

      So you would be for excluding every child born to military parents on foreign lands? Dems run afoul if they make that an issue. Its not the same as Obama. No hidden documents or secrecy here. Its out there for the world to judge.

    • yogiman

      Read pages 103-104 of the 1st session of congress in 1790. It defines a natural born citizen as one whose [parents] (not just the mother) are citizens.

      It takes 2 to tango and a child who is a dual-citizen is not a natural born citizen of either nation of their parents.

    • Talman

      The term “natural born citizen” as used in the Constitution comes from Vatell’s Law of Nations law book translated in 1760. It was used as a source document by the writers of the Constitution. Ben Franklin refers to it in his private letters.

      Senate Resolution 511, Apr 2008 gives the US SENATE definition of “natural born citizen.” Two of the signatories on it are Hillary and Obama. A natural born citizen is one born in the country of parents (plural) who were citizens at the time of birth. McCain was born on a Navy base in Panama of parents who were citizens at the time of his birth. The Navy base is considered US territory like our embassies. In the Cruz case, his parent were working in Canada at the time of his birth. They were not on a military installation or one of our embassies.The Resolution also gave legitimacy to McCain’s campaign. Like it or not the definition is in the Congressional record for ever.

      Sanders, Cruz and Rubio are not eligible to be running for president and should not be on the stage.

      You cannot be a natural born citizen if your parents came here from another country. You cannot be a natural born citizen if you were born in another country. You cannot be a natural born citizen if your parents gained citizenship thru the US Naturalization process.

      • barque

        “The Navy base is considered US territory like our embassies”

        LOL, do a little research. U.S. military bases on foreign soil have NEVER been considered U.S. soil. They are always foreign soil. Same wit