# Trouble For Ted Cruz: Here's Why He Doesn't Meet The Natural Born Citizen Requirement



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 20, 2014)

Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress. 

Prior to May 24, 1934 the uniform Rule of Naturalization did not allow a person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they were born outside the U.S. to a citizen mother and a non citizen father; during that time, persons born outside of the U.S. could only acquire citizenship at birth if their father was a citizen of the U.S. but not to a father who had never resided in the United States. 

Ted Cruz was born in Canada after the 1934 date to a U.S. citizen mother and a non U.S. citizen father, he acquired citizenship at birth under the uniform Rule of Naturalization that was in effect at the time of his birth. 

Ted Cruz cannot be a natural born Citizen if a person born prior to May 24, 1934 with the same birth circumstances was not even a citizen of the United States. 

The Constitution gives Congress the Power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, it does not give Congress the Power over who is a "natural born Citizen. A "natural born Citizen" today is the same as who a "natural born Citizen" was when the term was inserted into the Constitution, it can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment. 

Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen"; if he were, then persons born prior to the 1934 date would also of been. Because, Congress does not have Power over who is a "natural born Citizen" they only have the Power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization and the Rule they established prior to the 1934 date only allowed persons born abroad to a U.S. citizen father to acquire citizenship at birth as long as their father had been a resident of the U.S. 

Therefore Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen".


----------



## Missourian (Apr 20, 2014)

> *Defining "natural born"*
> 
> 
> So what is a "natural born" citizen? The Constitution doesn&#8217;t specifically say.
> ...



Ironically,  The Birther movement is the mechanism that laid the groundwork for a Ted Cruz Presidential bid.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 20, 2014)

Missourian said:


> > *Defining "natural born"*
> >
> >
> > So what is a "natural born" citizen? The Constitution doesnt specifically say.
> ...


How so?


----------



## Mojo2 (Apr 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> 
> Prior to May 24, 1934 the uniform Rule of Naturalization did not allow a person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they were born outside the U.S. to a citizen mother and a non citizen father; during that time, persons born outside of the U.S. could only acquire citizenship at birth if their father was a citizen of the U.S. but not to a father who had never resided in the United States.
> 
> ...



I find your conclusions contradict your statements and your thread title.

Which one are you endorsing?

Cruz IS qualified to be POTUS?

Or, Cruz IS NOT qualified to be POTUS?


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 20, 2014)

So suddenly Marx-O-crats are concerned about where anyone was born?

Really?


----------



## Nyvin (Apr 20, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> So suddenly Marx-O-crats are concerned about where anyone was born?
> 
> Really?



Lol...do you even know who the OP is?


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 20, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > So suddenly Marx-O-crats are concerned about where anyone was born?
> ...



Machts nicht.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 20, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> ...



Hes qualified in accordance with the Constitution. 

Hes not qualified as a consequence of his reactionaryism and advocacy of failed conservative fiscal dogma.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 20, 2014)

All this flap when you all know that, elected or not, Hillary is going to be your next president.  Unless Barry decides he wants to stay on so the chillins can grow up in luxury.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 20, 2014)

Better you people just run  Governor Palin


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 20, 2014)

By liberal definition, is not your usage of "*you people*" racist to the extent that you should be forbidden to participate in any public forum for 90-days or so?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 20, 2014)

Cruz is qualified by the Constitution to be president but not by his political philosophy and hatred of America.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 20, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...


No he isn't. Ted Cruz is a statutory citizen. A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 20, 2014)

While its funny to see the birther nonsense hit the idiots in the face, who cares?



> Ted Cruz is not a "natural born Citizen".



He's not even a human being and, like the rest of the Clown Car, he has less chance of getting into the White House than these two -






But hey, let him run ..............................


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 20, 2014)

Since she might be the nominee, wasn't one of Governor Palin's children delivered/born in Canada?


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 20, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Since she might be the nominee, wasn't one of Governor Palin's children delivered/born in Canada?



That could be an issue were the particular child foolish enough to want to pick up the pieces after Hillary's eight year romp.  But there's no stigma to someone giving birth anywhere - if there is stigma (though none seems to currently apply) then it attaches to the child.


----------



## 1751_Texan (Apr 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> 
> Prior to May 24, 1934 the uniform Rule of Naturalization did not allow a person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they were born outside the U.S. to a citizen mother and a non citizen father; during that time, persons born outside of the U.S. could only acquire citizenship at birth if their father was a citizen of the U.S. but not to a father who had never resided in the United States.
> 
> ...





> *A "natural born Citizen" today is the same as who a "natural born Citizen" was when the term was inserted into the Constitution*



This contention is not wholely correct. If your contention were correct, African Americans could never be NBCs. Prior to the 14th, AAs did not even have citizenship let alone NBC status. 

If the meaning of NBC has remained as it had at the signing, then Barack Obama[being an African American] would not have been eligible...even if he were born on the WH lawn.

If the 14th allowed AAs to be considered NBC, then why not the others affirmed as citizens by the 14th?


> *Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



Nonsense. 



> "The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born Citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born 'in' the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements," the CRS's Jack Maskell wrote. So in short: Cruz is a citizen; Cruz is not naturalized; therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and in any case his mother is a citizen.
> 
> Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born in Canada and Still Become President of the U.S. - David A. Graham - The Atlantic


----------



## Mojo2 (Apr 20, 2014)

Wouldn't it be ironic if the long suspected rumor that Obama intends to bring about a breakdown in social serenity and law & order came about as he pulled strings to get Cruz declared ineligible and the resulting nationwide disorder was enough to prompt him to declare martial law and suspend either the 2016 election or the January 2017 inauguration of the next POTUS, i.e. a GOP POTUS??

Yes, it is a conspiracy theory.

But at least Conservatives know when we are dreaming.

Libs believe their fantasies and try to impose them on the rest of us.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 20, 2014)

The only trouble for Cruz is going to be his crazy TPM agenda and Green Eggs and Ham.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 20, 2014)

1751_Texan said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> ...



The 14th Amendment citizens and Article 2 Section 1 natural born citizens are not tied together.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:


" ... 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..."


Cruz's father Rafael owed allegiance to Cuba like Obama's British subject father owed allegiance to the British Crown. They are not natural born Citizens.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 20, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Where is there an ideological test to become president?  Yeah, nowhere.  Cruz espouses the successful policies of Ronald Reagan, not the failed policies of Barack Obama.
As for the OP, it is total bullshit.  Cruz is a native born American citizen.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 20, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...


link?


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 20, 2014)

(sigh)

Liberals always demand that others do their research for them.

So vot's noo, Cholly?


----------



## Howey (Apr 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> 
> Prior to May 24, 1934 the uniform Rule of Naturalization did not allow a person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they were born outside the U.S. to a citizen mother and a non citizen father; during that time, persons born outside of the U.S. could only acquire citizenship at birth if their father was a citizen of the U.S. but not to a father who had never resided in the United States.
> 
> ...




Source?

And why do you hate Cruz? Because he's not a WASP?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



exactly,  if Cruz is not qualified then neither is obama, their situations are identical----------if you believe that obama was born in hawaii, not kenya as his literary agent claimed, and if you believe that he got a Conn SS number while living in indonesia.


----------



## Howey (Apr 20, 2014)

Why Racist Steve didn't post his source.

Listen Live: Rep. Townsend Talks Sheriff Joe Obama ID Fraud Investigation; Tonight - Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 20, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > So suddenly Marx-O-crats are concerned about where anyone was born?
> ...



 [MENTION=45320]Nyvin[/MENTION]

You don't really expect him to actually inform himself before spewing venom, now do you?

He's like a pre-programmed puppet. Pull an arm and he says "Obama-rats"!!!

That is all he is capable of. I have never even once seen him actually lay out a well-founded argument about anything, ever.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



Ted is qualified to run for the presidency.  Steve's crackpot philosophy is not aimed at Cruz, it is aimed at what he considers to be anchor babies.

Put your silliness into court, Steve, and you will not get a single judicial decision for it.


----------



## hunarcy (Apr 20, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> All this flap when you all know that, elected or not, Hillary is going to be your next president.  Unless Barry decides he wants to stay on so the chillins can grow up in luxury.



Hillary will never be President unless she pays Brian Schweitzer to lay off her...or, drives a stake through his heart.  Barring that, he's going to run to her left and beat her to death metaphorically.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 20, 2014)

Ted Cruz is qualified/eligible to run. And he should be the GOP nominee. In fact, I would really, really, really relish him being the GOP nominee.

Please, by all means, GOPers, nominate Ted Cruz.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 20, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> ...



He's not qualified but that's not what the thread is about. 

Its about whether or not he's eligible. 

Big difference.


----------



## whitehall (Apr 20, 2014)

Too bad nobody knows where the hell Obama was born.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 20, 2014)

A citizen by birth at birth.

That's Cruz.

Nothing more need be added to see that he is a natural born citizen.  Racist McGarret is wrong -- again.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 20, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > All this flap when you all know that, elected or not, Hillary is going to be your next president.  Unless Barry decides he wants to stay on so the chillins can grow up in luxury.
> ...



Schweitzer's got nuthin.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 20, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Too bad nobody knows where the hell Obama was born.



Honolulu, Hawaii, August 1961.

Case closed.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 20, 2014)

Rafael is a Canuck plain & simple


----------



## deltex1 (Apr 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Cruz is qualified by the Constitution to be president but not by his political philosophy and hatred of America.



No one hates America more than Obabble...so stick that premise up your Easter ass.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 20, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > All this flap when you all know that, elected or not, Hillary is going to be your next president.  Unless Barry decides he wants to stay on so the chillins can grow up in luxury.
> ...




I'll check with Vince about that should I run into him.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 20, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Too bad nobody knows where the hell Obama was born.



Who knows.....what evil lurks....in da heartz ob mens!

Georgie Soros DOoooo!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 20, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Cruz is qualified by the Constitution to be president but not by his political philosophy and hatred of America.
> ...



 You can have your trollish belief, no one cares.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Ehhhhh.....

Obviously *you* cared enough to let it spoil your idyllic evening!


----------



## dr.d (Apr 20, 2014)

Sigh ...what Cruz does appeal to is that segment of the population that is stuck in early adolescence..that demands freedom without concomitant responsibility..that whines and throws tantrums when it doesn't get it's way..that won't take out the garbage and strive to keep our environment clean  and infrastructure working...yet demands a bigger  allowance via reckless tax cuts...that believes that threats and complaining are all they need to contribute as citizens...
...and he plays those  fools like an orchestra of dysfunction.
Since most of the voting public are actually grown ups...the likes of Cruz will never be elected prez...regardless of his birth status. 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## cutter (Apr 20, 2014)

Obama made it clear that nobody really gives a shit about a Presidents citizenship status any longer.


----------



## hunarcy (Apr 20, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Schweitzer's got nuthin.



"If Schweitzer runs for president and takes the &#8220;populist&#8221; route he often exemplified in Montana, you could expect all sorts of aspects of HRC&#8217;s history and persona to come under direct attack, from her imputed responsibility for the 42d president&#8217;s policies that displeased liberals, to her ties to the financial sector as a Senator from New York, and yes, to her vote for the Iraq War and for &#8220;war on terror&#8221; policies as someone representing the state hit hardest on 9/11. It&#8217;s another matter altogether whether Democrats have an appetite for these kind of questions, and/or will be more focused on preventing the inauguration of President Cruz or President Christie or whoever the GOP nominates."

Schweitzer&#8217;s Wayback Machine by Ed Kilgore | Political Animal | The Washington Monthly


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

If Schewitzer runs and takes on Hillary's history then the contest will quickly become:

*Schewitzer Meets Foster!*

The lady's got "people" to take care of picayune details like those.


----------



## OnePercenter (Apr 21, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> If Schewitzer runs and takes on Hillary's history then the contest will quickly become:
> 
> *Schewitzer Meets Foster!*
> 
> The lady's got "people" to take care of picayune details like those.



Isn't Cruz a Canadian like you?


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 21, 2014)

Even more disturbing is that Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Idiot


----------



## dannyboys (Apr 21, 2014)

Romney/Paul in 16. Print this out and stick it on your fridge door.
Romney/Paul win by twenty.
By the time 16 rolls around the country will be so financially fucked up by Bobo and his Socialist theology the voters will be pleading for a 'bank manager' instead of a social worker to put the country back on it's financial feet.
'Hill's' will have totally forgot Bobo's name AND his Socialist agenda.
Matter of fact there won't be enough room between Romney's and 'Hill's' politics to slide a rolling paper between.
 The back room Progressives have already drafted 'Hill's' speeches to the S. Baptists sprinkled with ebonics promising them that even though she might sound 'pro-business' and pro-Maker' on TV talking to the 'Makers' she really secretly means to make sure "you-all still get your free shit".


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 21, 2014)

dr.d said:


> Sigh ...what Cruz does appeal to is that segment of the population that is stuck in early adolescence..that demands freedom without concomitant responsibility..that whines and throws tantrums when it doesn't get it's way..that won't take out the garbage and strive to keep our environment clean  and infrastructure working...yet demands a bigger  allowance via reckless tax cuts...that believes that threats and complaining are all they need to contribute as citizens...
> ...and he plays those  fools like an orchestra of dysfunction.
> Since most of the voting public are actually grown ups...the likes of Cruz will never be elected prez...regardless of his birth status.
> 
> ...



Except that Cruz has never advocated for freedom WITHOUT responsibility.  Your premise itself is, not surprisingly, false.  Imagine you being dishonest to make a petty liberal pointless.  Why, that kind of  thing hasn't happened since your previous posts.

Indeed, it's the fact that Cruz links the freedom and responsibility that sets you lolberals off.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 21, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> If Schewitzer runs and takes on Hillary's history then the contest will quickly become:
> 
> *Schewitzer Meets Foster!*
> 
> The lady's got "people" to take care of picayune details like those.




So, are you accusing Hillary Clinton of having murdered Vince Foster?

Stop acting like a coward; speak up like a real man and tell us what you really mean.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 21, 2014)

dannyboys said:


> Romney/Paul in 16. Print this out and stick it on your fridge door.
> Romney/Paul win by twenty.
> By the time 16 rolls around the country will be so financially fucked up by Bobo and his Socialist theology the voters will be pleading for a 'bank manager' instead of a social worker to put the country back on it's financial feet.
> 'Hill's' will have totally forgot Bobo's name AND his Socialist agenda.
> ...




Why ebonics?

You are aware that the vast, vast, vast majority of Southern Baptists are WHITE, right?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 21, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> dr.d said:
> 
> 
> > Sigh ...what Cruz does appeal to is that segment of the population that is stuck in early adolescence..that demands freedom without concomitant responsibility..that whines and throws tantrums when it doesn't get it's way..that won't take out the garbage and strive to keep our environment clean  and infrastructure working...yet demands a bigger  allowance via reckless tax cuts...that believes that threats and complaining are all they need to contribute as citizens...
> ...




Oh, Cruz doesn't set me off. I would LOVE to see  him be your nominee. Really, I would.

Please, please, please GOP, nominate Calgary Ted to be your nominee!!!


----------



## Nyvin (Apr 21, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> dr.d said:
> 
> 
> > Sigh ...what Cruz does appeal to is that segment of the population that is stuck in early adolescence..that demands freedom without concomitant responsibility..that whines and throws tantrums when it doesn't get it's way..that won't take out the garbage and strive to keep our environment clean  and infrastructure working...yet demands a bigger  allowance via reckless tax cuts...that believes that threats and complaining are all they need to contribute as citizens...
> ...



Responsibility like shutting down the government and costing tax payers millions for no real reason?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 21, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > dr.d said:
> ...




Not millions. BILLIONS.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > If Schewitzer runs and takes on Hillary's history then the contest will quickly become:
> ...




I'm she has a good alibi for that sad night.

More like what got Thomas Becket.  He of ""*Will* no one *rid me of this turbulent priest*? fame.  Royalty, as you should know, need only to vaguely express a desire and their worshipful followers spin into action.

By they way, how did you like the landscaping in Rock Creek Park?  Or was it too dark to properly enjoy?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 21, 2014)

What's the problem Steve? Ted Cruz's skin just not white enough for ya?


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 21, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> What's the problem Steve? Ted Cruz's skin just not white enough for ya?



Race has nothing to do with upholding the US Constitution. Article 2 Section 1 must not be continued to be subverted like it has with Obama. You see Grampa, if, prior to 1934 naturalization law, Ted Cruz would not have been born a U.S. citizen, how could he possible be a natural born citizen today? PLease answer.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 21, 2014)

Because, Steve, your analysis of the law is wrong: period.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 21, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > dr.d said:
> ...



Bullshit.  (A) the GOP did not shut down the government.  The HOUSE had a bill ready to go.  The lolberal Democrap President and the lolberal Democrap Senate MAJORITY leader shot that down, thereby insuring that the government "shutdown" HAD to take place.  (B) It wan't actually a shutdown anyway.  That's bullshit propaganda.  about 17% of the "government" got temporarily prevented from getting funds.  (C) Shutting down the government would not"cost" taxpayers anything.  It would SAVE shitload billions of dollars.  When the lolberal Democraps are "working" the government spends ever more vast amounts of money none of have or ever will have.

THAT'S what's irresponsible.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 21, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Because, Steve, your analysis of the law is wrong: period.



How so? Explain in precise detail.........or can you?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 21, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough said:
> ...



You still did not answer the question. Are you accusing Hillary Rodham Clinton of having murdered Vince Foster?

A simple yes/no will do.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 21, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> 
> Prior to May 24, 1934 the uniform Rule of Naturalization did not allow a person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they were born outside the U.S. to a citizen mother and a non citizen father; during that time, persons born outside of the U.S. could only acquire citizenship at birth if their father was a citizen of the U.S. but not to a father who had never resided in the United States.
> 
> ...



A citizen AT BIRTH, as the law since at least 1934 defines it, is a natural born citizen, you racist dolt.

Since Cruz was born AFTER 1934, to an American mom, he was a citizen AT BIRTH.

He did not have to get "naturalized" since citizens at birth are already -- well -- you know -- "citizens."

Since he did not have to get "naturalized," he was a natural born citizen.

Why you are having trouble with this incredibly easy notion is difficult to fathom.  But you are a known racist, so that might hold a clue, since there is no such thing as an intelligent racist.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 21, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> ...





Spot-on.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

Libs, ashamed of their failure to vet their candidate, try to turn it against others.

Distraction.

They think they're good at it.

Almost as good as they are at restoring employment.

But not quite.


----------



## jillian (Apr 21, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Libs, ashamed of their failure to vet their candidate, try to turn it against others.
> 
> Distraction.
> 
> ...



what are you blathering about?


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

Please do not blame others for your limited reading comprehension skills.

It just makes you look (more) emotionally crippled.


----------



## whitehall (Apr 21, 2014)

It's not "trouble for Senator Ted Cruz" unless he runs for president. Most people aren't aware that John McCain wasn't born in the USA when he ran for president. He was born in the Canal Zone (Panama Canal) when his father was in the Navy.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 21, 2014)

I bet ice hockey is (secretly) Rafaels favorite sport & he loves his pancakes w/ maple syrup. IOW's he's a foreigner.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 21, 2014)

You gotta love numbskulls on the internet who seem to have seriously convinced themselves that they 'uncovered' some meaningful interpretation of the Constitution that centuries of examination by real scholars has not. Too funny.


----------



## bendog (Apr 21, 2014)

He's Canadian?  I thought he was a Mexican?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> He's Canadian?  I thought he was a Mexican?



Split down the middle.

He's American.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...




Asked and answered.  Please do not waste our time lamenting your lack of reading comprehension skills here. Frankly, we don't give a damn.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 21, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough said:
> ...



No, you didn't. You answered as a coward would, afraid to say what is really on his mind.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> No, you didn't. You answered as a coward would, afraid to say what is really on his mind.




Project much?


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 21, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> No, you didn't. You answered as a coward would, afraid to say what is really on his mind.




But you know what's "really on his mind"? What are you, the Amazing fucking Kreskin?


----------



## birddog (Apr 21, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad nobody knows where the hell Obama was born.
> ...



Not true!  No REAL proof !


----------



## birddog (Apr 21, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> ...



I agree, plus Cruz's mother met the residency requirement at that time, although Obama's mother did not if he was born in Kenya.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Apr 21, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> > Romney/Paul in 16. Print this out and stick it on your fridge door.
> ...



Rather than southern baptists, she was speaking in Ebonics to the United Methodists for which she was roundly criticized and ridiculed.  There are you tube videos of it which will likely be scrubbed before long.


----------



## hjmick (Apr 21, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> 
> Prior to May 24, 1934 the uniform Rule of Naturalization did not allow a person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they were born outside the U.S. to a citizen mother and a non citizen father; during that time, persons born outside of the U.S. could only acquire citizenship at birth if their father was a citizen of the U.S. but not to a father who had never resided in the United States.
> 
> ...




Yeah, we get it. You don't like people who are not White. Fascinating...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 21, 2014)

birddog said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



So much for republicans not saying stupid things.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > No, you didn't. You answered as a coward would, afraid to say what is really on his mind.
> ...




Actually it's unfair of either of us to expect a public school example - or possible public school dropout - to have ever heard of Becket.  

Even more wrong, on the off chance he/she/it had heard rumors of Becket to have any comprehension of the meaning of the tale and how it applies in spades in this particular instance.

T'was my bad in the first place to exceed his/her/its previously demonstrated limitations.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 21, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > No, you didn't. You answered as a coward would, afraid to say what is really on his mind.
> ...




It's simpler than that:

I asked a question, he did not answer. I asked a second time, he did not answer.

Why? because his behavior is cowardly.  Case closed.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 21, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...




I will be "thanking" you for this very soon, buddy. Always appreciate for the good material you provide for which you can be "thanked"!


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

Alas, I am drawn into enabling.  Doing the job public schools failed to accomplish though they may have tried and were rebuffed.

To understand the relation ship between Mrs. Clinton and the death of Vince Foster one must grasp the meaning of the ancient tale of how Becket came to die.  Now that doesn't mean having looked at the cover of a comic book purporting to crib the tale for the language-impaired.  It doesn't call for mere sounding out of the words.

So I guess I have to try where others have failed.

Here's a link to the tale.  

The Murder of Thomas Becket, 1170

Once you have understood what happened to Becket and who bore responsibility you might be positioned to examine the Clinton/Foster discussion from a position other than abject stupidity.

But probably not.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 21, 2014)

I am quite aware of the tale of his demise.

Still doesn't hide your cowardliness.

Still incapable of a YES / NO answer.

You would make an excellent GOP politician, you got the slimy factor just right.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> I will be "thanking" you for this very soon, buddy. Always appreciate for the good material you provide for which you can be "thanked"!




Translation:

_Me and my good buddy will bombard you with neg rep._    Right out of the glory days of CB radio!

NEVER would I ask anyone to do such a thing.  Alas, what IS a bully without at least one toady?  

Cute thing is that all plays back to the Becket discussion and how it relates to who might or might seek the Marx-O-Crat nod for 2016 and how that might actually be won.


----------



## Nyvin (Apr 21, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Libs, ashamed of their failure to vet their candidate, try to turn it against others.
> 
> Distraction.
> 
> ...



libs BLAH BLAH BLAH


----------



## velvtacheeze (Apr 21, 2014)

Finally, a conservative sees the truth about Cruz.

The idea that a man, _born a subject of Queen Elizabeth II_, _within one of her realms_, is a natural born citizen of the USA, is laughable.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 21, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...




Why are you deflecting?  The OP said natural, not native.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 21, 2014)

I don't think he is eligible.

And Obama birthers cannot state that Cruz is eligible unless they want to directly contradict themselves.

Both had non-citizen fathers
Both had American mothers
Obama was born in a U.S. state
Cruz was born in a foreign country


There's no way to claim Cruz is legitimate while Obama is not.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

The business about eligibility is moot.  

Still, Cruz likely won't run.  

I will be very much surprised in there is a clear Republican candidate for another 12-18 months and it will likely be a dark horse not yet even on the radar.  Of course if the horse is female and dark _enough_ then its chances would be enhanced.

Who knows, with all the protections being created for differing gender orientations, it might be possible for an _actual horse_ to run without constitutional challenge.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 21, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Correct. Here is a good chart on the different types of Citizen:


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 21, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> The business about eligibility is moot.
> 
> Still, Cruz likely won't run.
> 
> ...



If they allow a horse's ass, you're a shoo-in.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 21, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




So anchor baby Michelle Malkin is a native born, while Cruz is not on that chart since he was not born in the U.S.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > The business about eligibility is moot.
> ...




Beg as you might, no, I will not consider you for a cabinet position.  A horse's ass as a president twice in a row would be bad enough for the country without an elementary school dropout as Secretary of State.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Apr 21, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Alas, I am drawn into enabling.  Doing the job public schools failed to accomplish though they may have tried and were rebuffed.
> 
> To understand the relation ship between Mrs. Clinton and the death of Vince Foster one must grasp the meaning of the ancient tale of how Becket came to die.  Now that doesn't mean having looked at the cover of a comic book purporting to crib the tale for the language-impaired.  It doesn't call for mere sounding out of the words.
> 
> ...


If I recall correctly, Vincent died because he knew too much.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 21, 2014)

Foster died of another-inflicted act of suicide.

Maybe.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

AvgGuyIA said:


> If I recall correctly, Vincent died because he knew too much.




That was a common point of discussion at the time.  The speculation surrounded how the death could have been a suicide given the weapon and nature of the injury.  Nobody was ever brought to trial.  The parallels to the chilling Becket story allude to the death of the churchman in his own church at the hands of multiple assassins who were NOT hired or directed by the King.  Rather, they heard the King's expressed desire that he be rid of the "turbulent priest" and chose to curry favour with him by doing the killing.  The suspicion falls not on any American Royalty; rather on overzealous _supporters_ of a Royal anxious to gain favour, perhaps political position.  The type of supporter, willing to do anything for their cult leader, without regard for morality or law whether common or constitutional.


_Queen's English spellings used because it so pisses off liberals.  Nothing more should be read into it._


----------



## Mojo2 (Apr 21, 2014)

velvtacheeze said:


> Finally, a conservative sees the truth about Cruz.
> 
> The idea that a man, _born a subject of Queen Elizabeth II_, _within one of her realms_, is a natural born citizen of the USA, is laughable.



Get used to hearing it and saying it, old man.

*President Cruz!*​


----------



## Mojo2 (Apr 21, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> I don't think he is eligible.
> 
> And Obama birthers cannot state that Cruz is eligible unless they want to directly contradict themselves.
> 
> ...



There's no way to claim Obama is legitimate while Cruz is not.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 21, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Foster died of another-inflicted act of suicide.
> 
> Maybe.



Sure is odd that his thumb is on the trigger instead of the normal finger you use to pull a trigger. Nobody I know holds a gun like that and uses a thumb to pull a trigger.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 21, 2014)

photo shop

let's move on


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> photo shop
> 
> let's move on



"*move on*"!

Congratulations, when did you get your membership card and decoder ring?


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 21, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think he is eligible.
> ...



Of course there is: Obama was born in Hawaii, so he's a *native *born citizen - the purest form!


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 21, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Of course there is: Obama was born in Hawaii, so he's a *native *born citizen - the purest form!




Admirable faith!

Of the sort that sends one to The North Pole to visit his uncle Santa.

Of the sort that believes he can eat Easter Bunny eggs for breakfast.

Of the sort that can see a fumbling surfer wannabe as walking on water.

Admirble!  Especially when it's done in a club as an improv act.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



Indeed, the OP is flat-out wrong.  But, no, Cruz is _not_ a native-born citizen of the United States.  

He was born in Canada.  

Until recently, before he renounced his Canadian citizenship, he was a citizen of Canada by birthright.  Nevertheless, from the very moment of his birth, he has also always been a _natural-born_ citizen of the United States.  And his natural-born status is ultimately  anchored in the soil of our nation via the blood of our nation due to the fact that his biological mother, a U.S. citizen, had a duly established claim on the soil of the nation prior to his birth in accordance with the Constitution coupled with the terms of the congressional statute that prevailed at the time of his birth.  As such he is duly qualified to run for the presidency. 

Presumably you meant _natural-born citizen_.  I'm not quibbling over semantics.  I merely clarify the matter for those who don't know or understand the law, and might think the OP is right.  The OP is gibberish.


----------



## oldfart (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



Exactly how do we get a ruling from God on an issue of citizenship in the Constitution?  Is that Article Zero?


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Please provide evidence Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> I don't think he is eligible.
> 
> And Obama birthers cannot state that Cruz is eligible unless they want to directly contradict themselves.
> 
> ...



This is false.  That is to say, you don't rightly understand the matter.  Obama had to be born in the United States in order to be a natural-born citizen.  Period.  His mother did not have the required period of residency in the United States past a certain age at the time of his birth as was required by the law that prevailed at the time of his birth.  That's why she stayed in the United States until after he was born in order to secure his U.S. citizenship at birth.  The birthers are out of their minds.  He was not born abroad.  

Cruz's mother, on the other hand had the required period residency in the United States past a certain age under her belt when he was born abroad.  So he did not have to be born in the United States in order to be a natural-born citizen, he just needed to be tied to the soil of the nature through her.  

The nationality of their fathers, as far as their U.S. citizenship is concerned, is utterly irrelevant.  However, had Obama been conceived just a few months earlier, she could have given birth to him in Nigeria with the required period of residency past a certain age under _her_ belt too, and Obama would have been a Nigerian citizen and a natural-born U.S. citizen at the moment of birth.


----------



## Appeonts48 (Apr 22, 2014)

I do not see why it matters anyway &#8211; is there anyone that would want to see Cruz run for real? I mean we have to think here for a second, just because he is able to run does not mean that it is smart to run. While he may energize the Republican base, the Democrats are capable of making him the &#8216;big bad&#8217; as to why congress shut down. Not a good idea.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think he is eligible.
> ...



Not true on Cruz's part. He is a statutory Citizen but not a natural born Citizen. Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th  Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

" ... 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 (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is*, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."

ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with any natural born citizens who are only American born to two U.S. citizen parents within U.S. jurisdiction ensuring sole allegiance to the United States.


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 22, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Cruz is qualified by the Constitution to be president but not by his political philosophy and hatred of America.



Oh, I don't believe that Ted Cruz hates America.  He just loves his version of America much better than my version.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I read a report that he was in the process of doing so.  Did he not follow through?  I'll look it up tomorrow.  It's late now.  But, you see, I really don't care one way or the other.  His Canadian citizenship has absolutely no legal bearing on the matter.  The concern would be strictly political, though technically no president should have any kind of allegiance whatsoever to any other nation but the United States.  He is a natural-born citizen of the United States.  Period.  He is not now, has never been, or shall he ever be a naturalized citizen of the United States.

Sir, there are only two classes of citizenship under the Constitution:  (1) natural-born citizenship, which is conferred at the moment of one's birth and (2) naturalized citizenship, which is conferred subsequent to the moment of one's birth.  Period.  Cruz has been a U.S. citizen since the very moment of his birth.  Indeed, that is the pertinent constitutional distinction between the two, though natural-born citizenship can only be conferred on those who have a claim on the soil of the nation, either because (1) they were duly born of the blood of the nation (of a person who has a duly established claim on the soil of the nation), or (2) they were duly born on the soil of the nation.  

In the first case, their claim on the soil of the nation is granted them at birth by Congress via _jus sanguinis_ (the law of the blood).  In the second case, I say duly born on the soil of the nation because while the United States indisputably grants birthright citizenship since _Wong Kim Ark_, not all persons born on U.S. soil are citizens of the United States at birth.  Those born on U.S. soil of American citizens, of course, or even common foreigners, whether the latter be here legally or not, are natural-born citizens of the United States by birthright; but those born on U.S. soil of foreigners officially delegated/engaged by their governments to conduct foreign affairs with our government are not.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...


No!


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 22, 2014)

This McGutless character is starting to sound like the nut who keeps insisting the United States Constitution forbids the practice of Islam in America.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



You.  Don't.  Know.  What.  You're.  Talking.  About.  At.  All.  

The phrases _born within the jurisdiction of the United States_ and _not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty_ do not mean what you think they do in this instance at all.  I don't need you to tell me what Rep. John Bingham said.  I know what he said and why.  You don't know anything about the context.  "The jurisdiction of the United States" for constitutional purposes includes the congressional prerogative of _jus sanguinis_, and no citizen of the United States, naturalized or otherwise, who officially declares his allegiance to another country or officially entangles himself as an agent of a foreign country  can retain his citizenship here.  These are acts of renunciation under constitutional, statutory and case law, and only an adult can renounce his U.S. citizenship.  Now, it's not necessarily a crime to do so, unless of course one comes here on behalf of the nation to which he has switched allegiances and engages in espionage.  Also, the United States reserves the right not to revoke his citizenship, for, depending on the circumstances, it may wish to continue to treat him as a citizen who has committed treason.  In any event, duel citizenship is not a problem unless one officially renounces one's citizenship accordingly. 

It is the moment of conferral and the nature of one's claim on the soil of the nation that determine the difference between a natural-born citizen and a naturalized citizen.  There is no other kind of citizen under the Constitution.  Period.  A natural-born citizen of the United States is a person who is conferred U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth _because_ he has either a direct claim on the soil of the nation or an indirect claim on the soil of the nation via the blood of the nation.  Period.  The fact that the citizenship conferred at the moment of birth in the case of the latter via a statutory decree of _jus sanguinis_ is utterly irrelevant.  Whatever other citizenship one may hold as a result of being duly born abroad to a U.S. citizen(s) is utterly irrelevant.  

A naturalized citizen of the United States is a person who is conferred citizenship subsequent to the moment of his birth _because_ he has no prior claim whatsoever on the soil of the nation.  

I am an expert on citizenship and nationality law.  This is not a debate. 

Prufrock's Lair: A Compendium of the Statutory History of Jus Sanguinis

Prufrock's Lair: The Natural-Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution

Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 22, 2014)

Appeonts48 said:


> I do not see why it matters anyway  is there anyone that would want to see Cruz run for real? I mean we have to think here for a second, just because he is able to run does not mean that it is smart to run. While he may energize the Republican base, the Democrats are capable of making him the big bad as to why congress shut down. Not a good idea.



It matters to the extent that it serves as a political barometer, where the partisan climate has gotten to the point where debating facts and evidence as to the merits of a given presidential are thrown out the window and replaced with such idiocy as questioning the citizenship of a potential candidate.


----------



## Nutz (Apr 22, 2014)

Kudos to MD Rawlings, but you are wasting your time with McPussy.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > I will be "thanking" you for this very soon, buddy. Always appreciate for the good material you provide for which you can be "thanked"!
> ...



Your translator doesn't work right. Never mentioned a buddy about anything, ever. Poor thing, your paranoia is fun to watch.  So, not only are youi eternally butthurt, you are paranoid to the nth degree. FUN!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > The business about eligibility is moot.
> ...




Yepp, I have the feeling he's running. HenryB - elephant's ass part of the party and such.


But just as a broken clock is right at least two times a day, his statement about a possible dark-horse candidate (that would be the first time since 1940) is not far off - in fact, I've mentioned it at least 5 times in the last two months. He probably stole it from me, since the poor thing is so filled with hate and rage, he barely has time to think for himself.

And then when people call him out for his assholism, he gets all umbraged up and thinks a gang is going to neg him. Delish!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

AvgGuyIA said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Alas, I am drawn into enabling.  Doing the job public schools failed to accomplish though they may have tried and were rebuffed.
> ...




And your FACTS to back up this claim? Where are they?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think he is eligible.
> ...




You know, we already went through this in 1967, when the Nixon campaign was considering doing this to George Romney, who was born in Mexico in 1907, but because both of his parents were Americans, the Nixon team decided to not go the crazy route. And we all know how batshit crazy Nixon was - and even he was not willing to go there.

This tells us how far off the cliff the Right has fallen since 1967.

Obama is eligible. And so is Cruz.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think he is eligible.
> ...



Yes.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Hey, Steve, I threw you a riddle in the above concerning the phrase _not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty_.

Have you figured it out yet?

*Hints:*
Cruz was born in Canada, yet he has been a U.S. citizen since his birth, right?

Cruz's U.S. citizenship at birth was predicated on his mother's citizenshipone parent right?

Cruz has had dual citizenship since birth, yet that does not constitute an act of renunciation, right?

A child cannot renounce his U.S. citizenship, right?  Only an adult can do that, right?

The 14th Amendment and Rep. John Bingham refer to one born _at the very least_ within the *territorial* jurisdiction of the United States, right?

*(Though make no mistake about, the jurisdiction of the United States for constitutional purposes of citizenship/nationality includes the congressional prerogative of jus sanguinus as attached to the blood of the soil!) * 

Finally, the congressional law of _jus sanguinis_ in force when Rep. John Bingham made that statement in 1866:



> Revised Statutes Act of 1855, Section 1:
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...



One parent, the father, not two, right?
___________________________________________

So nothing you're saying makes any sense, does it?  Nothing jives.  Everything's incongruent.  Confused.  Doesn't add up.  A mess.  Right?

Why?

What kind of baby would be born of parents (plural) on American soil and, therefore, within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, yet, just like his parents, would not owe _his_ allegiance to the United States at birth either?  Remember this was before _Wong Kim Ark_.

Think.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 22, 2014)

All this considered, when Obama capitulates and returns Alaska to Russia, should people born in Alaska be ineligible to run for president in Russia?  Assuming, of course Russia were operating under the same once-upon-a-time constitution as The U.S.

Purely hypothetical, of course, well except for the potential of having a wimpish "leader" commit such an act of treason on a moment's notice.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> All this considered, when Obama capitulates and returns Alaska to Russia, should people born in Alaska be ineligible to run for president in Russia?  Assuming, of course Russia were operating under the same once-upon-a-time constitution as The U.S.
> 
> Purely hypothetical, of course, well except for the potential of having a wimpish "leader" commit such an act of treason on a moment's notice.





Ahhh, the fresh smell of RW-Hough butthurt during the noon hour!!!

Quick, run for your lives, directly to the FEMA death camps!!!


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Ahhh, the fresh smell of RW-Hough butthurt during the noon hour!!!
> 
> Quick, run for your lives, directly to the FEMA death camps!!!




Thank you for your sage advice Commandant Klink.  No, wait, that uniform seems a little snug.  Is that you, Sgt. Schultz, putting on airs?


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think he is eligible.
> ...



What are you talking about?  His mother was an American born in America.  No need for residency periods.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there is: Obama was born in Hawaii, so he's a *native *born citizen - the purest form!
> ...



Prufrock's Lair: Who Are the Real Conspirators?

Prufrock's Lair: A House of Cards: the Case Against the Birther Movement


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 22, 2014)

Thing is, most who question where Our Kenyan President was conceived, hatched or even born ferchrissake, don't give a rat's ass.  The continued questioning comes simply from the joy of observing the feeding frenzy it produces.  Kind of like throwing chum in the water to watch the sharks wear themselves out.

The term "Our Kenyan President" seems to run a close second.  Maybe we need a poll as to which works best?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Another who doesn't know the law.  But Cruz was not born in America!  Dude.

This was the prevailing congressional statutory decree of _jus sanguinus_ at the time of Cruz's birth:

*The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, reconstituted Section 201 as Section 301, which slightly altered the respective residency requirements again:*

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

. . . (7) 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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.*

(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(s) 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.
________________________________________

Anymore questions?  I got all the answers right here:  Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

Psst, *Statistikhengst*.  Do you want to take that _thank you_ you gave *Synthaholic* away now or later?  If you take it away now, I'll strike this question from my post, and no one else will have to know.  It will be our little secrete.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Thing is, most who question where Our Kenyan President was conceived, hatched or even born ferchrissake, don't give a rat's ass.  The continued questioning comes simply from the joy of observing the feeding frenzy it produces.  Kind of like throwing chum in the water to watch the sharks wear themselves out.
> 
> The term "Our Kenyan President" seems to run a close second.  Maybe we need a poll as to which works best?



LOL!  Okay.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



More nonsense. There is but two kinds of citizens and only two kinds of citizens under the Constitution:  natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens.  Period. 

Nice chart.  Too bad it's all wrong.  Do the bithers have their own centralized graphic and print department know?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > What's the problem Steve? Ted Cruz's skin just not white enough for ya?
> ...



Why would he have not been born a citizen prior to 1934?

Is John McCain a natural-born citizen?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...




Birthers: the gift that just keeps giving.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Wong Kim Ark was affirmed a  citizen via 14th Amendment, not Article 2 Section 1, the only Constitutional clause where the term is specifically mentioned. He is not a natural born Citizen. Statutory Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are not the same thing. The 14th Amendment does not address the "natural born citizen" issue, only citizenship.  Citizenship and eligibility are two distinct and separate issues. 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". *The requirement for a "natural born citizen" was to prevent anyone with a reason to have divided loyalties from being President*.  Listen real good to this Constitutional scholar explain natural born Citizen is in 6 minutes. He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools.  Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals. 

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Part 1.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8]Natural Born Citizen? - YouTube[/ame] 

Part 2.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ]Natural Born Citizen? Part II - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...




You are deflecting, and doing it badly.

You stated that Obama's mother didn't meet residency requirements.

Please explain why an American woman who was born in Wichita, Kansas would need to be concerned with residency requirements.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Wrong.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...


Don't be a dumbass:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


It is the way the law was set up back then. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 had residency requirements:

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

. . . (7) 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 ten years, *at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.*


Obama was allegedly born on August 4, 1961. Stanley Ann Dunham was born on November 29, 1942. She was 3 months and 27 days shy of her 19th birthday on August 4, 1961 to meet the residency requirement for Obama to get citizenship despite her being born in Kansas.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



You really are that stupid, now aren't you.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



What about the law that I posted is wrong?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve, that is not how the law is interpreted.

Obama and Cruz are both qualified under American law to run for president.

Sit down Stats and he will guide you through it.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Steve, that is not how the law is interpreted.
> 
> Obama and Cruz are both qualified under American law to run for president.
> 
> Sit down Stats and he will guide you through it.



He will never understand it, because he does not want to understand it. As was the case with the Grinch, birther brains shrunk three sizes too small on that day....

Ann Dunham was born on American soil. She is an American. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, on American soil, to a full fledged American mother. He is an American and he is a natural born citizen. The birther/racist scum are still looking for something, anything to make him seem illegitimate (he is not, he's legit) because they hate seeing a Black man in the White House.

The nationality of Obama's father is irrelevant, since one parent was a US citizen and he was born on US soil.

Case closed.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Apr 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Steve, that is not how the law is interpreted.
> ...



I applaud your patience and your diligence. But some people just prefer to be stupid. I fear you are dealing with one.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Apr 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Sometimes stupidity is a choice.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Steve, that is not how the law is interpreted.
> ...



No the case is not closed. Obama is a statutory dual Citizen like Cruz. A natural born Citizen can't be a dual Citizen at birth. There is a reason the founders inserted the natural born Citizen clause as the good Constitutional scholar stated in the video's I posted, to prevent dual allegiances.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...





He was never a dual citizen, ever. He never had a british passport or a british birth certificate. You are living in an utter fantasy land.

Maybe one day your brain will grow back three times, to make up for what you lost. You poor racist sob, you.  Tsk, tsk.

You know you are like kryptonite when even hard-core Righties are avoiding you or laughing at you.

I personally pity you.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



LIAR! 

It was confirmed during the 08 campaign and the media never reported it to the masses. Here is what his own campaign website  'Fight The Smears' had to say:

Obama's dual citizenship status is described:


"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom&#8217;s dwindling empire.  As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  *That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.&#8216;s children.*"

Again,  Obama is not a "natural born" citizen because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject, as was Obama, "at birth."  The Obama Campaign describes Barack Obama Sr. as, "a British subject whose citizenship status *was governed *by *The British Nationality Act of 1948*.  *That same act governed the status *of Obama Sr.&#8216;s children."


----------



## guno (Apr 22, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Thing is, most who question where Our Kenyan President was conceived, hatched or even born ferchrissake, don't give a rat's ass.  The continued questioning comes simply from the joy of observing the feeding frenzy it produces.  Kind of like throwing chum in the water to watch the sharks wear themselves out.
> 
> The term "Our Kenyan President" seems to run a close second.  Maybe we need a poll as to which works best?



The white christian clown posse party is still smarting from your better winning both elections, as Bill Clinton said.. I  feel your pain


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 22, 2014)

Frankly, I think he and others like him, such as former Gov. Schwarzenegger, can serve as more effective leaders with greater impact in other govt positions besides President. 

See Freedombecki's thread on a solution to illegal immigrant status by setting up residency in specified cities or states to represent the Mexican national population otherwise here illegally.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...5-sure-fire-cure-for-illegal-immigration.html

That is one example where leaders like Cruz and Schwarzenegger could serve on a local state capacity in coordination with federal and international government.  We need more leaders like that, especially if the arguments are to push for state rights and to reduce the burden on federal government. We would need stronger leaders in greater numbers on the state level to handle the demands if we are going to shift this from federal to local mgmt. 



Steve_McGarrett said:


> Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> 
> Prior to May 24, 1934 the uniform Rule of Naturalization did not allow a person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they were born outside the U.S. to a citizen mother and a non citizen father; during that time, persons born outside of the U.S. could only acquire citizenship at birth if their father was a citizen of the U.S. but not to a father who had never resided in the United States.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



That can't be determined  since Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office investigated and found the birth document Obama released to the public at the White House on April 27, 2011 to be a 100% forgery. That was backed by a professional  Hawaii court recognized handwriting and computer-generated forensic document expert named Reed Hayes, a man with impeccable credentials in the field of attestations. He submitted a 40 page report to the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office investigation team pinpointing the mistakes on the document that the forger made. Getting back to the passport, we've never seen what Passport Obama traveled under to Pakistan in 1981. Was it Indonesian or British?............we just don't know.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Frankly, I think he and others like him, such as former Gov. Schwarzenegger, can serve as more effective leaders with greater impact in other govt positions besides President.
> 
> See Freedombecki's thread on a solution to illegal immigrant status by setting up residency in specified cities or states to represent the Mexican national population otherwise here illegally.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...5-sure-fire-cure-for-illegal-immigration.html
> ...


Now I agree with that!


----------



## nodoginnafight (Apr 22, 2014)

gotta love the birthers and all the conspiracy theorists - doesn't matter how many times the facts and evidence beat their theory all to hell. They just make up new ones and blame the evidence on a conspiracy. What a great racket - you never have to be right.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> That can't be determined since Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse investigated and found the birth document Obama released to the public at the White House on April 27, 2011 to be a 100% forgery. That was backed by a professional  Hawaii court recognized handwriting and computer-generated forensic document expert named Reed Hayes, a man with impeccable credentials in the field of attestations. He submitted a 40 page report to the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office investigation team pinpointing the mistakes on the document.



1. I thought that even though documents posted online were doctored for convenience, it was generally accepted that Obama was born in Hawaii and nothing was definitively proven otherwise. So the argument boils down to whether 
a. we assume this is true, unless proven otherwise,
b. or if we require that Obama prove definitively before we agree on his qualification.
Both sides claim the other is biased in pushing their way until proven otherwise.

2. As for "natural citizen" I thought people were going with the interpretation that regardless where Obama was born, they counted his mother's citizenship as qualifying Obama as a citizen. And the issue of natural citizen or "naturalized" was not contested.

I think this is a valid argument, but if people do not agree, then we are back to 1a and 1b above: WHICH side are we going to count as "the default" until proven otherwise?
We do not agree, but most people are interpreting Obama as valid as President.

This can be arguably "faith-based" as the people contesting it have seen "no proof" to counteract their beliefs; so I believe this is a valid argument that it is "open to interpretation" and not Constitutional to impose beliefs that are not proven to all people.

3. What I do believe we can prove is that Obama's interpretation and enforcement of laws is unconstitutional by imposing biases by political belief that do not represent the nation, but exclude half the public.

We do not have to agree or disagree with his beliefs to prove there is a bias and conflict.

So that alone can be used to invalidate the decisions made by him or Congress that do not meet Constitutional standards on principles and ethics. 

The problem here is that the people objecting also have violated the same.
So it would take a combination of people who agree or disagree in order to make these arguments have credibility with public authority, and not come across as the SAME political conflicts of interest that are being protested.

We have grown to ignore objections, and assume they are invalid,
if we sense there is political conflicts of interest or bias behind them.

If we assess the conflicts for what they are, impositions of one party's beliefs over another, it does not matter which side we align with or not, these are still unconstitutional to impose.

But if we are not objective and equal in enforcing Constitutional equality and inclusion,
that is why people dismiss those arguments as purely political and without valid content.

We undermine our own credibility and Constitution because of the adverse political environment and tradition of rejecting any belief we disagree with, instead of defending beliefs of people equally and objectively, whether we agree or not.

If we act the same way Obama does, what authority do we have to hold him or other govt leaders to consistent Constitutional standards or ethics? this is the crisis we face in America. He is more representative of that conflict, than of Constitutional law and duty.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Deflecting?!  Doing it badly?!

Dude!

I just gave you the law verbatim.  She would have to be concerned about those requirements if she were pregnant and planning to leave the country.  Are you suggesting that it's not important for one to make sure that one passes one's citizenship onto one's offspring born abroad?  What?  You would have your child to be born a foreign citizen that would then have to be naturalized later?  What's wrong with you?  

Read!



> The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, reconstituted Section 201 as Section 301, which slightly altered the respective residency requirements again.
> 
> 
> (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> ...



This is the law that prevailed at the time of Obama's birth as well.  Obama's mother was *only 19 years old* when he was born, *nearly four months shy of 5 years of U.S. residency past year fourteenth birthday*.  Do the math.  She could not have left the country and passed her citizenship down to him.  That's why she remained behind in the U.S. until after he was born!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



But she didn't leave the country, ergo, it is moot.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Actually, he was born with dual citizenship under American and British law:  an American citizen at birth by the soil and the blood of the nation and a British citizen via the law of the blood through his father under British law.  Kenya gained it's independence in 1963.  That's another reason why the birther nonsense about Obama, born in 1961, ever being a Kenyan citizen is so silly.  Also, he was apparently an Indonesian citizen after being adopted by his Indonesian stepfather.

But none of that has any bearing whatsoever on the status of his U.S. citizenship.  None!  The United States does not recognize dual citizenship in any event.  Period! And a minor cannot lose or renounce his U.S. citizenship.

It's just more irrelevant silliness from the birthers.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...




You can call it de facto dual citizenship, but he never had a british passport, a british ID card of a british BC.  That alone makes the argument moot.

And yes, birthers are batshit crazy. And the sun is hot and there is no air in space.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...


Another lie. The U.S. does recognize dual citizenship. Stop obfuscating!

Is Dual Citizenship Allowed in the United States? 
Is Dual Citizenship Allowed in the United States? | Legal Language Services

Dual Citizenship in the United States

Dual citizenship had previously been banned in the United States, but the US Supreme Court struck down most laws forbidding dual citizenship in 1967.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



I never said she did.  Unlike Cruz's mother, I said she didn't have the necessary period of residency under her belt to have birthed him abroad and passed her citizenship down to him, as you very well know.  It was pertinent to the original point.  

YOU asked me what I was talking about as if I didn't know what I was talking about, isn't that right?

YOU asked why she would have been concerned about that as if I didn't know what I was talking about, isn't that right?

So I told you why.  Caught with you pants down around your ankles, looking like a damn fool and trying to deflect:   "Deflecting," you stupidly replied.  

Now you say it's moot.

So why did you challenge my observation in the first place, jackass?

You're moot.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...




Uh, I am the last person you quoted and I never said you were deflecting. Go look again. I think you meant Synthaholic.

Now, whose pants are around his ankles, again?



I graciously accept your concession for this little fuck-up of yours. It's ok, we're all human. It's all good.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 22, 2014)

*So long as bringing up either:*

1. Obama's place of birth (conception, hatching, whatever)
2. Anything concerning the Palin family (other than Michael)

is to incite spasms of hate from the left then threads like this will proliferate.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> *So long as bringing up either:*
> 
> 1. Obama's place of birth (conception, hatching, whatever)
> 2. Anything concerning the Palin family (other than Michael)
> ...




That was some wonderful butthurt you just displayed. Excellent, most excellent. I think your shock therapy is beginning to bear some fruit. Progress!!!


----------



## Pogo (Apr 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough said:
> ...



And he still has yet to explain where he sources the quotes in his sig lie.  Oh sorry, sig line.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > *So long as bringing up either:*
> ...




Oh, I really *do* believe either of the above can set off liberal rage bordering on clinical insanity and I do appreciate your rapid confirmation.

Meanwhile, I met a kindergarten teacher today who is in need.  The primary bully in her class has been removed for therapy leaving two young toadies sore in need of a leader.  They may be along shortly to seek your assistance.  I took the liberty of giving them a link out of kindness rather than out a sense of enabling.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough said:
> ...





Ahhh, Henry. A hero in his own mind.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 22, 2014)

I am distressed that Pogo forgot to thank you for taking him for his walk and especially letting him off the leash for a few minutes:


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> I am distressed that Pogo forgot to thank you for taking him for his walk and especially letting him off the leash for a few minutes:




Thank you for the additional material to "thank" at a later date.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > I am distressed that Pogo forgot to thank you for taking him for his walk and especially letting him off the leash for a few minutes:
> ...



Always nice to have affection returned, albeit a bit slowly.  And a special pat on the head for having overcome the obsession for the use of gutter language!  Now we shall hope the effect is not just temporary.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 22, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough said:
> ...



Delighted to oblige. It's all part of your shock therapy.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Okay, but just same, even if he had all those things, it wouldn't have mattered.  It didn't matter before 1967 because he was a minor.  A minor cannot do anything whatsoever to lose his citizenship, and the United States does not officially recognize dual citizenship.  And since 1967, as long as an adult does not officially renounce his U.S. citizenship, he can have those things now too without damaging the status of his American citizenship.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...


M.D. Rawlings, stop your continous lies that the U.S. does not officially recognize dual citizenship. It does and here is confirmation of it:

US Dual Citizenship

http://travel.state.gov/content/tra...ip-and-dual-nationality/dual-nationality.html

Dual Citizenship: *The U.S. government allows dual citizenship. United States law recognizes U.S. Dual Citizenship*, but the U.S. government does not encourage it is as a matter of policy due to the problems that may arise from it. It is important to understand that a foreign citizen does NOT lose his or her citizenship when becoming a U.S. citizen. An individual that becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization may keep his or her original citizenship. However, as some countries do not recognize dual citizenship, it is important to consider it carefully before applying for U.S. citizenship


----------



## Pogo (Apr 22, 2014)

(all but the relevant part snipped)

I keep clicking on your stuff in hopes that you've finally found a link for those quotes in your sig line that I asked you for a source on, like a week ago.

Don't tease me bro...


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 22, 2014)

(sigh)   Long ago I learned to eschew enabling.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

*McGarrett Talks Ignorant Smack Again*



Steve_McGarrett said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



I've been nice to you.  you're way out of line.

Don't call me a liar again.

I said that the United States does not *recognize* dual citizenship; I didn't say anything about the United States formally _*forbidding*_ it . . . as long as one does not renounce one's citizenship in the process of acquiring another aboard . . . as some countries require.   Snap out of it.  The United States has no control over what other nations might do in terms of citizenship and nationality, and minors cannot lose or renounce their U.S. citizenship. 

And these are just the kind of legal subtleties that are lost on those with just enough knowledge to make them dangerous, and this is especially true of birthers who argue that there are more than two kinds of citizenship under constitutional law, persons who don't grasp the fact that it is _they_ who would undermined the purpose of the Natural Born Citizen Clause if they had their way.    

The Supreme Court's rulings are of no consequence whatsoever with regard to what matters . . . or did you not pick that up in that very same article you cited?  We're you asleep?



> However, the US government remained disdainful of dual citizenship for some time. To this day, candidates for US citizenship through naturalization are forced to renounce their previous citizenship at the United States naturalization ceremony.
> 
> The renouncing of one's previous citizenship is part of the oath that new US citizens must take, and failing to honor that oath could result in the loss of citizenship in the United States.
> 
> . . . People who have held dual citizenship since birth or childhood  or who became citizens of another country after becoming a US citizen and were not asked to renounce their previous citizenship  can remain dual citizens in the United States.



Congress has the prerogative to demand that one renounce previous allegiances before one becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States, and currently it does demand that.  But it doesn't have to.  

The Supreme Court has never so much as laid a glove on that prerogative, though it has come close due to the attempts of a handful of leftist lunatics on the Bench.  Should it ever do such a thing, Congress would tell the Court to go to hell.  You don't have an inkling as to how serious a breach of the separation of powers such a judicial action would be, do you?  The ramifications relative to the peoples' national sovereignty . . . staggering!   The Court already did more than enough damage in that respect in_ Wong Kim Ark_ (By the way, you don't understand what happened there either.) and tried to do even more damage during the leftist Warren years, but sanity prevailed.

The only thing that Congress no longer demands of U.S. citizens who acquire citizenship from other countries abroad, as a result of case law, is that they upon return renounce it.  That's  all your talking about.  That's all this article adds up to:  legal subtleties that elude you.

Naturalized citizens are required to renounce any former allegiances to this very day before they become U.S. citizens, and *neither Congress nor the State department officially recognizes any citizenship conferred by foreign countries on U.S. citizens abroad* . . . unless, once again, one renounces one's U.S. citizenship in the process of acquiring another.  Make no mistake about it:  renounce your citizenship abroad and Customs, at the direction of the State Department in accordance with the statutory commands of Congress, will require you to get a visa.   *Otherwise, such conferrals have absolutely no legally binding impact on U.S. citizenship.  None!  Zip!  As far as Congress is concerned, an American citizen, natural-born or naturalized, is not a citizen of any other country in the world*.

*Cruz, for example, is not a citizen of Canada as far as Congress is concerned.  He is a citizen of the United States.  Period.  End of story.*  And if and when he runs for the presidency, make no mistake about, birther, he will do so as a natural-born citizen backed by the Constitution, by Congress and by the State Department . . . in that order, just like George Romney (born in Mexico), Lowell Weicker (born in France) and John McCain (born in Panama) ran for the presidency and were backed by the same.  All, except McCain, technically, were duly born abroad of U.S. citizens, citizens at the moment of birth by statute, that is to say, constitutionally natural-born citizens.  

(By the way, the Panama Canal Zone was never a territorial possession of the United States for constitutional purposes!  I know that many of you labor under that misunderstanding of things.  It was never anything more than an unincorporated territory perpetually leased by the United States from Panama at the discretion of the United States.  It was and has always been Panamanian soil, residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United for constitutional purposes.  The only jurisdiction that the United States ever exerted over the Zone was administrative.  Anyone born there of U.S. citizens had to be covered under the congressional decree of _jus sanguinus_ in order to be a citizen at birth (a natural-born citizen), just like anyone else born abroad of U.S. citizens anywhere else in the world.

Technically, McCain, at the time of his birth, was not covered.

Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

Prufrock's Lair: Was Senator John McCain a U.S. Citizen at Birth?)  

There, now you have more to scream about it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...




*Claptrap!  Ignorance!  Bull!  Trash talk!  Gibberish!  Nonsense!*


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...


Yet another lie by M.D. Rawlings. Yes, a minor can do something to renounce their citizenship. A avenue is there authorized by the U.S. State Department. Here is confirmation from the State Departments website:

Renunciation of U.S. Nationality

*Renunciation of U.S. Nationality*

F. *RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN*/INCOMPETENTS

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


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Read it again......................*The U.S. government allows dual citizenship. United States law recognizes U.S. Dual Citizenship*


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *McGarrett Talks Ignorant Smack Again*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*U.S. citizens don't have birth certificates from a foreign sovereignty unlike Ted Cruz who does. He was not born in any jurisdiction of the U.S..






*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 23, 2014)

*More Stupidity in the face of the Obvious*



Steve_McGarrett said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



You.  Don't.  Know.  What.  You're.  Talking.  About.

Your entire edifice is predicated on the lame-brained notion that citizenship and nationality are universally synonymous in terms of allegiance.  Hence, you argue that persons duly born abroad of U.S. citizens cannot be natural-born citizens (even though U.S. citizenship is conferred upon them at the moment of birth ) _because_ such persons are necessarily born into a state of citizenship that entails a duality of national allegiance . . . according to U.S. constitutional and statutory law.

False.  Ignorance.  Gibberish.  Idiocy.  Nonsense.  Utter stupidity.

The edifice of constitutional citizenship and nationality rests on the philosophical construct of territorial-hereditary allegiance as derived from Roman and British common law (though slightly modified originally, i.e., before the Court in _Wong Kim Ark_ subverted it). 

Congress does not recognize dual citizenship in the sense that you think the author of this article is talking about at all.

Does Congress officially recognize the realities of international law concerning dual citizenship, including the obvious fact that foreign nations may confer citizenship on U.S. citizens at the moment of their births or subsequent to the moment of their births abroad?

Of course it does.  Duh.

Does Congress officially recognize the citizenship conferred upon U.S. citizens by foreign countries abroad in terms of national allegiance?

No!

Of course it doesn't.  Duh. 

It never has, particularly in the case of natural-born citizens by _jus soli_ (the law of the soil) or by _jus sanquinus_ (the law of the bloodline) . . . unless, of course, they voluntarily renounce their U.S. citizenship and thereby declare their allegiance to another country, though no minor can lose or renounce his U.S. citizenship. 

In a world where dual citizenship is as common as your intellectual dishonesty and rabid stupidity, in what other sense of recognition would I be talking about citizenship relative to the imperatives of the Natural Born Citizen Clause?

In what other sense of recognition would the author of the article you cited be talking about citizenship, given that she correctly points out the fact that the United States requires one to renounce all former allegiances before one may become a U.S. citizen?

*crickets chirping*

All one has to do in order to recognize the fact that you obviously do not grasp the realities of international citizenship and nationality relative to the construct of allegiance under U.S. constitutional and statutory law is to note the fact that George Romney (born in Mexico), Lowell Weicker (born in France) and John McCain (born in Panama) were all certified to be natural-born citizens by Congress and by the State Department.

The only one you're fooling is yourself.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 23, 2014)

Pogo said:


> (all but the relevant part snipped)
> 
> I keep clicking on your stuff in hopes that you've finally found a link for those quotes in your sig line that I asked you for a source on, like a week ago.
> 
> Don't tease me bro...


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 23, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> though no minor can lose or renounce his U.S. citizenship.
> 
> .



Yes, the state department has a avenue for minors who want to renounce their citizenship. Stop obfucscating.

http://travel.state.gov/content/tra...aws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

Renunciation of U.S. Nationality

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS

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


----------



## hunarcy (Apr 23, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > dr.d said:
> ...



ALL the Government shut downs would have been avoided if Congress had passed a budget.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 23, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > though no minor can lose or renounce his U.S. citizenship.
> ...



*Take your accusations of dishonesty and shove 'em.*

Unlike you, if I'm shown to be wrong about something, I have absolutely no problem with being improved . . . but the fact of the matter is that I merely misremembered that pertinent detail.  There are many such details in statutory and case law, as there are many circumstances under which a minor cannot lose his citizenship, but an adult can.

*By the way, the matter is correctly stated in the works on my blog written some years ago. * I know because I checked to make sure.  In other words, I knew that, but had forgotten about that exception.

The issues of citizenship and nationality law are circumstantially numerous and complex, as well as being subject to change.  Prior to historically recent changes in the code, a minor could _not_ renounce his citizenship, and of course a minor's citizenship cannot be directly lost or revoked based on any action of a minor's parent(s) or guardian(s).

Fine.  

Unlike you, I _do_ care if I'm saying something that's incorrect.  But talking about minors, that is a minor detail of no significance to the points being made.  

On the other hand, while you incessantly call others liars, we have you making false claims virtually every time you open your trap on this thread, beginning with your stupid thesis, of course, and including your latest attempt to jam that absurdity into an article that on two major points you clearly do not correctly understand at all!

We have you stupidly confusing the distinction between what Congress _*allows*, _ mostly as a matter of silence, by the way, and what it officially _*recognizes*_ in terms of nationality; and we have you stupidity *(1)* confusing citizenship in terms of international law and *(2)* citizenship in terms of allegiance under constitutional and statutory law.

*But have you acknowledge these obvious errors in your reading of that article?  Hell no!*

*Have I made any major errors, let alone any other errors whatsoever aside from this bit of minutia?  Hell no!*

We're still waiting for you to acknowledge the fact that Congress and the State Department have certified the natural-born status of three presidential candidates who were indisputably born abroad and conferred citizenship at birth via congressional _jus sanguinus_ (the law of the bloodline)!  You know, that which you claim to be a constitutionally third kind of citizenship, i.e., "statutory citizenship," which of course is technically true in terms of methodology. . . .

*But if what you say is true about its essence, in the face of the biographical facts regarding the life and times of these three persons, how could this be?*

And what about that nonsense of yours in which you tried jam your absurd thesis into Rep. John Bingham's astute observation about the Fourteenth Amendment relative to the construct of natural-born citizenship?  You never answered my post.  

Recall: 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...t-the-natural-born-citizen-requirement-9.html


The answer to your questions and mine, Einstein:  The parents (plural) he was alluding  to _include_ the blood of the nation relative to the prevailing law of _jus sanguinus_ in 1866, not to any iteration of that principle in terms of plural parentage anywhere in the Constitution, let alone in the Natural Born Citizen Clause.  Since 1934 the blood of nation has been predicated on parent/parents!  Further, the only persons at that time (i.e., before _Wong Kim Ark_) that would have been born on U.S. soil, yet, nevertheless, would have emerged from the womb outside the territorial jurisdiction or the jurisdictional allegiance of the United States for constitutional purposes would have been the offspring of native Indians, foreign residents of America, and diplomats/attachés officially assigned to America by foreign powers.  

Why?

Because such persons carried their foreign nationality and allegiance within them.  They were not of the blood or of the soil of the nation, and the United States did not confer birthright citizenship before _Wong Kim Ark_.

Dingbats like you who count yourselves to be conservatives would do the same thing that leftist judges tried to do during the 60's and 70's:  reckon the citizenship of persons born on U.S. soil of foreigners&#8212;both legal and _illegal_, for crying out loud!&#8212;to be of greater value than that conferred on persons duly born abroad of the blood of the nation&#8212;parent(s) with a duly established claim on the soil of the nation!

Yeah.  That's the ticket!  That makes sense!  Bonehead. 

There are _not_ and has never been three categories of citizenship under constitutional law.  There are only two:  *(1)* natural-born citizenship and *(2)* naturalized citizenship, and persons duly born abroad of U.S. citizens ain't the latter. 

I've got some more lessons to tech you concerning your misunderstandings on this post with which you graced us too:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-born-citizen-requirement-10.html#post8976170

Just like you didn't rightly grasp what the author in the above article is telling you, you didn't rightly grasp what the good professor in the videos you embedded is telling you.

You're a complete disaster.  Once again, the only one you're fooling is yourself.

But you'll have to be patient.  I'm currently engaged in two other heavy discussions on this board.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 23, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...


Where is your proof that Congress and the State Department *certified *the NBC status of the other two candidates unlike McCain who was presumed a NBC by non-binding Senate Resolution 511 being born to two U.S. Citizen parents (plural) in U.S. jurisdiction?

As for why Cruz, Jindal, Rubio and Obama are not eligible for Article 2 Section 1, Here is a respected Constitutional scholar/attorney with outstanding credentials that describes what a true natural born Citizen is that the founders had in mind to meet the requirements of Article 2 Section 1, the presidential clause. He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Pay close attention and listen to both parts of what he has to say M.D. Rawlings. You might learn something. Both parts combined are just 6 minutes.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 23, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > *McGarrett Talks Ignorant Smack Again*
> ...


*

Enough! Your thesis is predicated on citizenship in terms of national allegiance.  I'm not arguing against citizenship in terms of international law proper, but in terms of constitutional law with regard to the construct of the Natural Born Citizen Clause and statutory law with regard to citizenship by jus sanguinis, you poor soul.  

Are you or are you not arguing your thesis from the premise of national allegiance?

Never mind.  That's a rhetorical question.  Of course you are . . . except when you aren't; i.e., when that doesn't work, you, without warning, shift to the premise of citizenship in terms of international law proper. 

But of course that only gets you into more trouble, causes you to contradict yourself further.  You've already acknowledge the fact of citizenship at birth conferred on those born abroad of U.S. citizens . . . what you call "statutory citizenship" in essence as a third kind of citizenship.  Remember?

So saying that "U.S. citizens don't have birth certificates from a foreign sovereignty unlike Ted Cruz who does", as you do, is not only factually wrong, but contradictory.  Right?  Canada grants birthright citizenship.  Right?




			He was not born in any jurisdiction of the U.S..
		
Click to expand...


Prove it against the facts I've put up against your tripe.  Prove it against the fact that U.S. citizens carry their national allegiance within them wherever they go in the world and pass it on to their offspring at birth under Congress' international jurisdiction of jus sanguinis.*


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 23, 2014)

The case file for the existence of sock puppets is thickening!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 23, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Wrong again.

The Panama Canal Zone by statute and case law was never within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States for constitutional purposes, and Congress asserted no such thing in its Resolution.  The Zone was an unincorporated territory, strictly Panamanian soil under the United States administrative jurisdiction only via the terms of a lease.  Persons born of U.S. citizens in the Zone had to be covered under the congressional prerogative of _jus sanguinis_, just like anyone else born abroad of U.S. citizens anywhere else in the world.  

*You don't know the difference between incorporated and unincorporated territories, do you?*

Congress skirted the issue of constitutional jurisdiction in that Resolution _because_  the fact of the matter is that McCain was not actually covered by any extant decree of _jus sanguinis_ at the time of his birth.  That Resolution was sheer political theater.

The State Department at the direction of Congress asserts citizenship at birth for those duly born abroad of U.S. citizens in its Foreign Affairs Manuel.  Their certification is a standing order.  They don't need a resolution, just like McCain wouldn't have needed a resolution had his eligibility not been challenged by academia and the press due to a certain glitch in the law at the time of his birth.  

*But you don't know what that glitch was, do you?* 

In any event, what Congress did do in that Resolution, even though it was non-binding, is assert it's constitutional prerogative to confer natural-born citizenship via _jus sanguinis_, just as the First Congress of the United States did so in 1790 when it established the precedent.  

Now, also understand this, a later law retroactively conferred citizenship at birth on those, like McCain, who were born in the Zone of U.S. citizens during the years of the void.

But, technically, natural-born citizenship can only be conferred at the moment of birth, not retroactively, as any retroactive conferral had been historically regarded as an act of naturalization after the fact of birth.  The fact of the matter is that McCain was not a citizen of the United States at birth, but was at best a Panamanian national and at worst a non-declared citizen of the world.  The matter is complex and historically unique, but it all pivots on the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories and the absence of an extant decree of _jus sanguinis_ covering the Zone at the time of his birth.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 24, 2014)

You need to pay attention to what this man says. As for why Cruz, Jindal, Rubio and Obama are not eligible for Article 2 Section 1, here is a respected Constitutional scholar/attorney with outstanding credentials that describes what a true natural born Citizen is that the founders had in mind to meet the requirements of Article 2 Section 1, the presidential clause. He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Again, pay close attention and listen to both parts of what he has to say M.D. Rawlings. You might learn something. Both parts combined are just 6 minutes. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8]Natural Born Citizen? - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ]Natural Born Citizen? Part II - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 24, 2014)




----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 24, 2014)

Pete7469 said:


>




He's one of yours. Enjoy him.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 24, 2014)

*Here's what I learned from, more at about, the Good Professor:  the cheese has slid his cracker!*



Steve_McGarrett said:


> You need to pay attention to what this man says. As for why Cruz, Jindal, Rubio and Obama are not eligible for Article 2 Section 1, here is a respected Constitutional scholar/attorney with outstanding credentials that describes what a true natural born Citizen is that the founders had in mind to meet the requirements of Article 2 Section 1, the presidential clause. He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.
> 
> He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.
> 
> Again, pay close attention and listen to both parts of what he has to say M.D. Rawlings. You might learn something. Both parts combined are just 6 minutes.



First of all, what _you_ need to do is stop listening to crackpots and listen to _me_.  I take back what I said in the above.  I assumed, given the Good Professor's credentials, that it had to be _you_ who had misunderstood _him_, just as you misunderstood the author in the article that you cited in the above.  Bad assumption.  

Stop trying to impress me with his credentials.  *I refuted Professor of Law Gabriel J. Chin on the faculty of the James E. Roberts College of Law at the University of Arizona* on a point of law concerning the original intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause (NBCC) and the Court's treatment of it via the Fourteenth Amendment in _Wong Kim Ark_ ("A Critique of the Chin Argument").  While Chin's central thesis regarding the actual status of McCain's nationality at birth is correct (_Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship_), his assumption regarding the veracity of the majority's historical narrative for its _ratio decidendi_ in _Wong Kim Ark_ is the sheer political naivete of a liberal civil rights attorney operating outside his immediate area of expertise.  

On the other hand, what we have here with the Good Professor in your videos is a man who is operating outside his friggin' mind!

However, before you read my critique of Chin's paper, you should read my piece here first:  "Was Senator John McCain a U.S. Citizen at Birth?".  In this piece, I discuss the actualities of Resolution 511 ATS (110th Congress, 2nd Session; April 10, 2008) which declared McCain's eligibility.  This piece will give you the background you need in order to follow my critique.  Then read my critique, and after that read my piece here:   "_Wong Kim Ark_ Meet _Rogers_".

Should you still have any doubts about the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories after that, then read my piece here, which is pertinent to the issue that Chin and I discuss:   "The Straight Dope on U.S. Territories".

By the way, that article will also teach you the difference between *(1)* national allegiance and *(2)* the allegiance of citizenry.  The latter entails national allegiance _and_ the full slate of the Constitution's political rights and protections, as they automatically obtain to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment and the construct of the NBCC. The former does not necessarily entail all of those privileges, unless specifically stipulated otherwise by Congress. There are distinct divisions of allegiance relative to constitutional, territorial and international law.  If you do not understand the various applications of allegiance relative to their respective contexts, you might be reading things into articles, like the one you cited in the above, that aren't there.

As for the Good Professor's delusions, read my pieces here:
 "Citizenship and Nationality: Historical Foundation and Framework" 
 "The Natural-Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution" 
  "A Compendium of the Statutory History of _Jus Sanguinis"_

Everything in the above is pertinent to debunking the Good Professor's bluster and disabusing you of his influence should you wish to be set free of it.  Once you've read this material, the observations in my following three posts will be manifestly self-evident.  If you don't wish to get into the McCain drama, just read the three significantly shorter pieces directly above and move on, though it's a good idea to know the difference between the varying kinds of territories held by the United States and the particulars of the citizenship/nationality in terms of allegiance thereof.  That will help you understand how the Fourteenth Amendment and the NBCC obtain within the territorial/administrative jurisdictions of the United States and to its international jurisdiction via the congressional prerogative of _jus sanguinis_ (the law of the bloodline). 
_____________________________

Main Link:  _Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles_.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 24, 2014)

Let's review what the Good Professor gets right.  

*(1)* The natural-born citizen is distinguished from the naturalized citizen by the fact of his natural geography and the fact of his natural descendancy.  That is to say, a natural-born citizen is by definition a person who is born of both the soil and the blood of the nation. 

*(2)* The Fourteenth Amendment did not change one damn thing about the understanding and the application of the Natural Born Citizen Clause (NBCC)!   

If you would just be still for a moment, *Steve*, and give ear to this staunch defender of original intent, if you would stop calling this staunch defender with a solid, scholarly background in citizenship and nationality law who is talking to you in good faith a liar:  you might come to understand why your thesis actually undermines the construct of natural born citizenship, aids and abets the machinations of leftist judges who would undermine Congressional authority over national sovereignty and allegiance as they would transfer that authority to the judiciary practically beyond the peoples' reach.

Let that sink in.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 24, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Let's review what the Good Professor gets right.
> 
> *(1)* The natural-born citizen is distinguished from the naturalized citizen by the fact of his natural geography and the fact of his natural descendancy.  That is to say, a natural-born citizen is by definition a person who is born of both the soil and the blood of the nation.
> 
> ...


I just saw your two posts. Before I read them over tommorow and the weekend, I want to ask you one thing. For you to call the good Constitutional scholar and lawyer delusional and a crackpot, what are your credentials in the legal field when it comes constitutional law compared to his credentials?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 26, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Let's review what the Good Professor gets right.
> ...



My credentials are right here:  Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.  If you're looking for something else, you put stock in the wrong things.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 26, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



No sir, those are not credentials. Please post your professional credentials in the legal field and Constitutional law.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 27, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



And from whom did you the learn the truth about the jurisdictional status of the Panama Canal Zone?  From the Good Professor or from me?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 27, 2014)

This just in:

Ted Cruz STILL a natural born citizen.

Thank you.  We now return you to your normal USMB thread browsing activity.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 27, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> This just in:
> 
> Ted Cruz STILL a natural born citizen.
> 
> Thank you.  We now return you to your normal USMB thread browsing activity.




Thank you, [MENTION=42714]IlarMeilyr[/MENTION] - a voice of reason from the Right.

Ted Cruz is just as good to go in terms of eligibility as any of the other prospective GOPers.

It's not his citizenship status that is going to sink his ship.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 27, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> No sir, those are not credentials. Please post your professional credentials in the legal field and Constitutional law.



-- says the assclown who declines for _two weeks_ now to source the bogus quotes in his own sigline...


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > This just in:
> ...



I don't know who this "Ilay" feller is, but if Ted Cruz runs and then sinks, his failure will not be based on the non-issue of his Constitutional eligibility.  

Obumbler should never have been elected (much less re-elected), but his "disputed" Constitutional eligibility didn't get in his way, after all.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 27, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...




Sorry, dude, I corrected the misspelling. Oops.

I respect your opinon.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 27, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> This just in:
> 
> Ted Cruz STILL a natural born citizen.
> 
> Thank you.  We now return you to your normal USMB thread browsing activity.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 27, 2014)

It's time to bring Resident Racist McGarrett back to his room, the one with the nice rubber walls and the cool toys, none with sharp corners.....


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 27, 2014)

McGarret is far too stupid to perceive the fact that he's a complete fucking imbecile.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 27, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Direct answer:  I'm not a lawyer; I'm a political analyst who can read, knows the history of ideas and events, can do research, and has a brain that works.  Additionally, I was briefly a military attaché abroad who at one time contemplated a career in the State Department and began reading citizenship and nationality lawthe pertinent constitutional, statutory and case law, as well as the pertinent State Department regulationsdecades before you were still imagining the Panama Canal Zone to be a U.S. possession residing within the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment for constitutional purposes.

As for any more questions regarding my credentials, you may direct them here:  .  

I don't care how many academic degrees or accolades the Good Professor has.  Bottom line:  the only things that matter are the facts.  I know what they are, and he, constitutional lawyer or not, is talking out of that orifice attached to his ass.

In any event, here are the facts, starting here. . . .
_________________________________________  

Once again:

*Let's review what the Good Professor gets right. * 

*(1)* The natural-born citizen is distinguished from the naturalized citizen by the fact of his natural geography _and_ the fact of his natural descendancy.  That is to say, a natural-born citizen is by definition a person who is born of both the soil and the blood of the nation . . . that is, until _Wong Kim Ark_.

*(2)* The Fourteenth Amendment did not change one damn thing about the understanding and the application of the Natural Born Citizen Clause (NBCC)!   

If you would just be still for a moment, *Steve*, and give ear to this staunch defender of original intent, if you would stop calling this staunch defender with a solid, scholarly background in citizenship and nationality law who is talking to you in good faith a liar:  you might come to understand why your thesis actually undermines the construct of natural born citizenship, aids and abets the machinations of leftist judges who would undermine Congressional authority over national sovereignty and allegiance as they would transfer that authority to the judiciary practically beyond the peoples' reach.

Let that sink in.
*_____________________________

Main Link:  Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 27, 2014)

*Setting the Record Straight:  Let there be no more misunderstandings*

It should be clear to you by now just how wrong you were to call me a liar or accuse me of obfuscating in the above when I told you that Congress does not officially recognize dual citizenship.  

Obviously, the context of this OP&#8212;your OP, for crying out loud!&#8212;goes to the formalities of citizenship in terms of  national allegiance relative to constitutional and statutory law, _not_ to the existence of or to the mundane conventions of dual citizenship relative to international law proper.

Steve!  

Of course Congress recognizes the latter.  America is not on Mars, after all, and dual citizenship is as common as the common cold.  In fact, Congress has always necessarily tolerated dual citizenship in the case of those born abroad of U.S. citizens upon whom it confers citizenship at birth.  Obviously, the United States is not the only country in the world that offers birthright citizenship, and the United States has absolutely no control over the other means by which other nations might bestow citizenship, including conferrals of citizenship on American citizens born on U.S. soil!

What is does _not_ and has _never_ recognized is the allegiance attached to any conferral of citizenship by a foreign country on a U.S. citizen.  As far as Congress is concerned, no U.S. citizen owes his allegiance to any country in the world, but the United States.  Hence, for example, while Cruz is a citizen of Canada and the United States by birth, Congress puts absolutely no stock in his Canadian citizenship with regard to his civil rights/liberties or to his obligations to the United States.  He's _not_ a citizen of Canada under constitutional or statutory law in any sense that matters.  

The fact of the matter is that while Congress _de jure_ recognizes and "allows" dual citizenship as a result of case law and in terms of the realities of international law proper in a slightly broader sense than it did prior to the antics of a renegade Court, it does so begrudgingly and mostly as a matter of silence.  

But if you still have any doubt about the context in which I made that declaration in the above, which yea of little knowledge misinterpreted, or about my expertise regarding the facts of citizenship/nationality in terms of allegiance from the perspective of constitutional and statutory law:  read my piece "_Wong Kim Ark_ Meet _Rogers_", which traces the judicial line of _decidendi_, the bastard child of _Wong Kim Ark_, that led to the compromises of absolute allegiance previously enforced by Congress.  The pertinent cases that further undermined the integrity of the Natural Born Citizen Clause (NBCC) and the congressional prerogatives of statutory citizenship and expatriation  are _Schneider v. Rusk_ (1964) and _Afroyim v. Rusk_ (1967).

The congressional prerogative of _jus sanguinis_, an historically integral component of the construct of natural-born citizenship, does not conflict with or undermine the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment or that of the NBCC in any way, shape or form.  On the contrary, it epitomizes the imperative of predicating citizenship and allegiance on the soil and on the blood of the nation.  The real problem is the jurisprudence of collectivistic egalitarianism sported by a certain stain of ideologues since _Wong Kim Ark_, especially.
*_____________________________

Main Link:  Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 27, 2014)

*"A Compendium of the Statutory History of Jus Sanguinis"*



*Chapter III, Section 1, Statute II of Session II (pg. 103 - 104) of the Naturalization Act of 1790 of the First Congress*: 



> 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*: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose *fathers have never been resident in the United States*.



Once Congress established natural-born citizenship via _jus sanguinis_ in statute, the words "natural born citizen" do not appear in statute ever again. From 1790 on, persons born abroad of U.S. citizens are alternately referred to as "citizens of the United States" or simply "citizens thereof" at the moment of birth. It is understood in statute from the context, as opposed to the context applied to naturalized citizenship, that natural-born citizenship is the status conferred at the moment of birth. Hence, *Section 3 of the Naturalization Act of 1795 which superseded the Act of 1790 reads*:



> [A]nd the children of *citizens* of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose *fathers have never been resident of the United States*.



Note that Congress initially required that both the mother and the father of one born abroad be citizens of the United States and also required one's father to have been a resident of the United States at some time or another before one's birth in order for one to be a citizen _at birth_, i.e., a natural-born citizen.  Throughout the history of natural-born citizenship via the congressional prerogative of _jus sanguinis_, one had to be born of both the blood and the soil of the nation.



*Revised Statutes Act of 1855, Section 1*:



> 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.



Note that unlike previous statute, only the father (singular), not "citizens" (plural), had to be a U.S. citizen in order for one born abroad of the blood of the nation to be a citizen at birth.



*The Revised Statutes, Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes Act of 1934 amending the 1855 version*:



> Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. . . .



Note that since 1934 the parent (singular) of one duly born abroad of the blood of the nation can be either the mother or the father in order for one to be a citizen at birth.
*_____________________________

Main Link:  Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 27, 2014)

*I.  The unification of common law, birthright citizenship and the constitutional construct of natural-born citizenship

Pertinent Links:
"Wong Kim Ark Meet Rogers".
"The Straight Dope on U.S. Territories".
"A Critique of the Chin Argument".*

Prior to _Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), one had to be born of both the soil and the blood of the nation in order to be a natural-born citizen.  The government of the United States did not grant birthright citizenship before the Court imposed this construct of common law on the Constitution via a "historical" argument created out of whole cloth.  While the Fourteenth Amendment did not change the understanding or the application of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause (NBCC) in any way, shape or form, the Court in this case subverted the intent of the former and thereby perverted the fact of the latter.  

In fact, the Court's judicial activism in _Wong Kim Ark_ wreaked havoc on the prevailing uniform code of naturalization with regard to the United State's various territorial possessions abroad.  If the United States, as the Court argued, had always granted birthright citizenship under the Constitution, somebody forgot to tell Congress . . . until 111 years after the ratification of the Constitution.  

The claim, of course, is absurd.

The Court in the _Insular Cases_, starting in 1901, had to fix the problem it created; in other words, the Court had to go back and say: "Oops, wait a minute, we didn't mean that birthright citizenship applied to all of those territories."  Incidentally, the root of the problem that created the complex and historically unique situation that technically left McCain out in the cold when he was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 is _Wong Kim Ark_:  another piece of evidence evincing the fact of the Court's judicial duplicity.

While the Court resolved the territorial repercussions it failed to anticipate, the fact remains that as a result of _Wong Kim Ark_, foreigners, including illegal aliens, can drop kids on U.S. soil, and those kids are natural-born citizens by constitutional case law via the adoption of common-law, birthright citizenship.  

Did the Court in a lawless fashion subvert the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes.

Did the Court undermine the purpose of the NBCC?

Yes.

Is the common law construct of birthright citizenship incompatible with the original constitutional construct of natural-born citizenship?

Yes.   

Nevertheless, did the Court make birthright citizenship and natural-born citizenship synonymous and, thereby, a constitutional fact of law?

Yes.

The Good Professor is right about what natural-born citizenship is or should be, but that's academic at this point.  The birthright citizenship of _Wong Kim Ark_ is establish case law and, therefore, established constitutional law.  As far as the law is concerned, persons born on U.S. soil of foreigners not officially engaged by foreigner powers are natural-born citizens of the United States.  Period.  And certainly anyone born on U.S. soil of a U.S. citizen or duly born abroad of a U.S. citizen is a natural-born citizen&#8212;under the terms of current statute _and_ under the _original_ terms of the NBCC.  Period.

The real insult of the Good Professor's obstinence in the face of these realities is that his nonsense would have persons born on U.S. soil of foreigners, including those born of illegal aliens, conferred a status of citizenship of a greater value than that conferred on persons born abroad of U.S. citizens with a duly established claim on the soil of the nation.  Persons born of both the blood and the soil of the nation!  In fact, that's precisely what the majority in _Wong Kim Ark_, albeit, in a _obiter dictum_, averred in defiance of the congressional precedent of 1790 that emphatically declared persons born abroad of U.S. citizens to be natural-born. 

And why didn't the majority assert that in its _ratio decidendi_?  

Because the majority was cognizant of the fact that the centuries-old prerogative of _jus sanguinis_ was an integral component of the construct of natural-born citizenship, and it knew that the common-law construct of birthright citizenship was _not_ compatible with the Framers' historically unique rendering of the prerogative in the Constitution.  

While the majority failed to anticipate the territorial repercussions of its opinion, it did appreciate the constitutional crises that would have ensued between the legislative and judicial branches had it the temerity to have bindingly asserted that.  It's _dictum_ regarding statutory citizenship at birth was political shoeshine merely intended to lend a semblance of logical consistency to the absurdity of its binding justification.      

The conferral of citizenship in a democratic republic predicated on the natural law of classical liberalism, whether conferred at birth or subsequent to birth, does not entail the principle of perpetual allegiance.  Unlike that of emperorial/royal decree, the government of the people, with regard to the imperatives of national sovereignty, reserves the right of free-association to peacefully expatriate persons who spurn the conditions of national allegiance or elect to renounce their citizenship.  In other words, respectively, the people are not obliged to suffer those who formally entangle themselves with the political affairs of foreign powers, and the state does not own any human being. 

The construct of natural-born citizenship with its inherent prerogative of _jus sanguinis_ did not originate with the Framers of the Constitution.  It derives from Roman law, was asserted by the British Crown, was litigated in the common law of the Royal Bench and was amended by the Anglo-American traditional of natural law.  Finally, in the form of the latter, it was adopted by the Framers of the Constitution, sans any entanglements with the invariably usurpative degradations of birthright citizenship and perpetual allegiance. 

Though a few bills have been proposed in Congress over the years to right this wrong, i.e., the conferral of birthright citizenship on anchor babies by default due to the Court's and Congress' silence on the matter:  none of these have gotten anywhere.  

One way to get rid of this unification of birthright citizenship and natural-born citizenship would be a constitutional amendment, as the Court is not going to reverse itself.  The other way is simpler, though politically difficult:  Congress could vacate _Wong Kim Ark_ for all future persons by formally reasserting natural-born citizenship on the basis of both the soil and the blood of the nation, as it simultaneously curtailed the Court's jurisdiction over the determination of citizenship at birth.

By the way, though ultimately tied to the soil of the conferring nation _de jure_, throughout most of Western history and to this very day throughout most of the world, _jus sanguinis_ (_of the blood_ or _the law of the bloodline_) is the principal means by which nationality has been determined, not _jus soli_ (_of the soil_ or _the law of the soil_).
*_____________________________

Main Link:  Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 27, 2014)

*II.  The Good Professor's argument with regard to the blood of the nation amounts to quibbling over the amount of blood required. 

Pertinent Links:
"Citizenship and Nationality: Historical Foundation and Framework".
"The Natural-Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution".
"A Compendium of the Statutory History of Jus Sanguinis".*

Again, the essence of the historical construct of natural-born citizenship goes to both the soil and the blood of the nation, and there are only two kinds of U.S. citizenship:  *(1)* natural-born citizenship and *(2)* naturalized citizenship, that which is conferred at the moment of birth and that which is conferred subsequent to birth, respectively.

There is no other kind of citizenship conferred by the government of the United States of America!

Of course, since _Wong Kim Ark_, natural-born citizenship may be predicated on just the soil of the nation by the _jus soli_ rule, while the claim on the soil is imputed _de jure_ by _jus sanguinis_ to persons duly born abroad of U.S. citizens.  (But, then, that has always been the case for the latter.  In that regard, neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor _Wong Kim Ark_ changed anything.)  In other words at birth&#8212;akin to a native-born citizen of the nation's blood, as opposed to an anchor baby&#8212;such persons are of both the blood and the soil of the nation based on their biological connection and on their parent(s)'s prior, duly established claim on the soil.

Either way, natural-born citizenship is ultimately bottomed on the soil of the nation, either directly or indirectly.

Now laying the birthright citizenship of _Wong Kim Ark_ aside for the moment, the Good Professor's argument is silly.  

The Natural Born Citizen Clause (NBCC) of the Constitution does not stipulate that both parents have to be of the blood of the nation.  In fact, the construct of natural-born citizenship is not defined in the Constitution because it's essence was already well-established and defined in history, and its essence has nothing whatsoever to do with the number *2*.  That number is strictly a matter of political discretion and nothing more.  The essence of the construct is that the person upon whom the honor is bestowed be directly tied to the blood of the nation that he may be directly or indirectly tied to the soil of the nation at the moment of birth.  

Could the Framers have stipulated in the NBCC that both parents had to be U.S. citizens?  Sure.  But they didn't.  They wisely left that to Congress' discretion.  The other thing they left to Congress' discretion is the invocation of the prerogative of _jus sanguinis_, the historically inherent property of the construct.

Hence, from 1790 to 1802, Congress stipulated that in order for persons born abroad to be U.S. citizens at birth, both their parents had to be U.S. citizens.  From 1802 to 1855, Congress withheld the grant of citizenship at birth by _jus sanguinis_ for those born abroad.  During those years, one had to be born on U.S. soil of at least one U.S. citizen parent in order to be a citizen at birth.  From 1855 to 1934, only the father of a child born abroad had to be a U.S. citizen in order for his child to be a U.S. citizen at birth.  Since 1934, a person born abroad is a U.S. citizen at birth as long as at least one of his parents is a U.S. citizen, mother or father.  Discretion.

What is the one constant?

Answer:  the blood of the person conferred citizenship at birth is of the blood of the nation and is tied, directly or indirectly, to the soil of the nation at the moment of birth.

Hence, the Good Professor's contention that only a person born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States of U.S. citizen parents (plural) can be a natural-born citizen is absurd.

There has never been a time in U.S. history when a person duly born abroad of U.S. citizen(s)&#8212;i.e., while under the aegis of a prevailing decree of _jus sanguinis_&#8212;was not a natural-born citizen.

George Romney (born in Mexico), Lowell Weicker (born in France) and John McCain (born in Panama):  all of these presidential candidates were natural-born citizens, though, technically, McCain was not due to a legal oversight.***  Should Cruz (born in Canada) run for the presidency, he too will have Congress' and the State Department's blessings.

The Good Professor's contention that a person born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States of only _one_ U.S. citizen (the other parent a foreigner, for example, President Chester Arthur and President Barack Obama) is doubly absurd.  

There has never been a time when a person born of at lease one U.S. citizen, mother or father, within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States for constitutional purposes was not a natural-born citizen.    

*Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio:*
Prior to _Wong Kim Ark_, neither Jindal nor Rubio would have been a natural-born citizen of the United States . . . _because_ neither one of their respective sets of parents were U.S. citizens at the time of their births on U.S. soil.  Instead, they would have been citizens of India and Cuba, respectively, just like their parents.  But since they were born after that decision of 1898 in which the Court declared that the United States had, at least since the moment of the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification, conferred birthright citizenship:  both Jindal and Rubio were citizens _at birth_, i.e., natural-born citizens.

The Internet is rife with opinions proffered by know-nothings who cite this or that historically prominent authority on the NBCC, including Madison who died decades before _Wong Kim Ark_, and conclude that persons granted citizenship at the moment of birth, albeit, born of only one U.S. citizen or born abroad of U.S. citizen(s), cannot be natural-born . . . as if there were any other kind of formal category of citizenship besides that which is conferred subsequent to birth (naturalized citizenship) in constitutional, case or statutory law.

These are the same know-nothings who go on about how the Constitution doesn't define what a natural-born citizen is . . . as if it had to.

These are the same know-nothings who foolishly clamor for the Court to define natural-born citizenship . . . as if the matter were beyond the ken or mere mortals.

There is no mystery about it and never has been.  What?  The Framers intentionally instituted an esoteric riddle as a prank?  There has only been the confusion of ignorance in the minds of those who don't know the law, though it be as simple as this:  one is either a citizen at birth by the soil and/or by the blood of the nation (natural-born) or is a citizen subsequent to birth (naturalized).  

In this country, there never was any significant confusion over what a natural-born citizen was . . . until _Wong Kim Ark_ muddied the waters.  It is only because so many do not know the history of citizenship and nationality, or grasp the various constructs thereof that there is any confusion over what a natural-born citizen is today.  The only thing historically new to or different from the original intent of the NBCC is birthright citizenship.

The rest is the political agenda of demagogues.

One doesn't need a law degree to understand the matter.  One just needs a brain that works.
*_____________________________

*Pertinent Links:
"The Straight Dope on U.S. Territories".
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs - "7 FAM 1130, Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parent":  See "7 FAM 1131.6-3, Not Citizens by 'Naturalization' "  and  "7 FAM 1131.9, Birth in Panama; Special Provisions".*

Because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone under the terms of the Naturalization Act of 1795 (albeit, under the aegis of the Revised Statutes Act of 1934, Section 1993) _after_ the Court in the pertinent _Insular Cases_ (1901 - 1905) made territories like the Zone unorganized-unincorporated and _before_ the passage of the Panama Canal Zone Citizenship Act of 1937 (currently codified, 8 U.S.C., Section 1403.a) that fixed the discrepancy ultimately due to the idiocy of _Wong Kim Ark_:  McCain was at best, due to a technically _ne plus ultra_ (_in the extreme_), a Panamanian citizen and at worst an undeclared citizen of the world . . . as far as Congress was concerned.  It was the Court, not Congress, that _de jure_ rendered the Zone a statutory no-man's land and _de facto_ imputed U.S. nationality . . . in regard to a leased, not formally owned, piece of real estate!  In other words, as a result of the Court's redefinition of the Zone's jurisdictional status in case law, persons born in the Zone according to prevailing statute were neither citizens nor nationals of the United States.

So who was right?  The Court or Congress?  

Constitutionally, statutorily, factually and logically&#8212;Congress was right!  For the Zone, being a leased territory, initially resided only within the United States' martial-judicial jurisdiction, just like Guantomino Bay, Cuba; therefore, it was not and rationally could not be a national or federal outlying possession of allegiance, let alone be a part of the United States proper under the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Incidentally, Congress later responded by formally placing the Zone and Guantomino Bay outside the national and federal jurisdiction of allegiance, effectively, _again_ in 1937 in defiance of case law . . . and rightly so!

In any event, even if one grants the validity of the Court unilaterally and by default conferring nationality on persons born in the Zone, like McCain, between the years of 1904 and 1937, a U.S. national is not a U.S. citizen, let alone a natural-born citizen of the United States.

As I said before, the territorial repercussions of _Wong Kim Ark_ and the Court's not so perfect fixes in the _Insular Cases_ wreaked havoc on the United States' uniform code of naturalization.  
*_____________________________ 

Main Link:  Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.*


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 27, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> 
> Prior to May 24, 1934 the uniform Rule of Naturalization did not allow a person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they were born outside the U.S. to a citizen mother and a non citizen father; during that time, persons born outside of the U.S. could only acquire citizenship at birth if their father was a citizen of the U.S. but not to a father who had never resided in the United States.
> 
> ...



Neither is Obama, neither is McCain....


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 27, 2014)

What is it about Cruz the Marxists find so frightening that they spend hours looking for ways to keep from running?


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 27, 2014)

Canadians running for President? Now I've heard it all. He was born there.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 27, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Canadians running for President? Now I've heard it all. He was born there.



So what?  *When* he was born in Canuckistan, his mother was an American citizen.

Ergo, so is Senator Cruz.

Thank me.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 27, 2014)

Againsheila said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> ...



Well, you're right about McCain, technically, but why isn't Cruz or Obama natural born?  Was President Arthur natural born?
*_____________________________ 

Main Link:  Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.*


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 28, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *"A Compendium of the Statutory History of Jus Sanguinis"*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, citizen and natural born citizen are not the same thing. A person can be a "citizen" under the following circumstances:
1)  Person was born of one citizen parent (Obama), or
2)  Person was born in the US mainland ("anchor babies"), or
3)  Person was naturalized (like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who most know is not eligible for President).

To be a "natural born citizen" the person MUST be born in the US mainland of two US citizen parents. (plural)


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 28, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



No.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 28, 2014)

All this flap over an election that will never take place.

Is it not clear already that there are two possible scenarios?

1.  The New Messiah decides some crisis is at hand that will suspend all frivolous activity of that sort.

2.  Obama issues an Executive Order proclaiming Hillary the next president and then flies off to a palatial estate in Kenya.







_Rage on libs, rage on!_


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 28, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> To be a "natural born citizen" the person MUST be born in the US mainland of two US citizen parents. (plural)



If what you say is true, then you shouldn't have any problem whatsoever quoting the passage asserting that very thing for all time in the Constitution, in the statutory record or in case law. 

Where is this assertion found in the law?  Why haven't you produced it?

Let's have it! 

*crickets chirping* 

Are you claiming that it wouldn't have to be in the law?

Is it written in the stars?

Is it riding on the winds?

Is it the writing on your wall?

Are you claiming your assertion in the above to be the official citation?

Is it a mystery?

Is it a riddle?

Is it a secret?

Just how stupid and morally corrupt are you?


----------



## Nutz (Apr 28, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > To be a "natural born citizen" the person MUST be born in the US mainland of two US citizen parents. (plural)
> ...



LOL...he will come up with an article from a hate site to prove his assertion!


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 29, 2014)

Username McGarrett uses racist images to convey who and what it is.

Then it posts some bullshit which, frankly, is not only self-contradictory but also generally wrong, which is ok since McGarrett doesn't have the capacity to comprehend any part of it in any event.  

Then people "engage" it and seem mystified to find out that it is just a blithering simpleton.


----------



## JohnA (Apr 29, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> All this flap when you all know that, elected or not, Hillary is going to be your next president.  Unless Barry decides he wants to stay on so the chillins can grow up in luxury.


 nonboma has served his time( 2 terms )  under the constitution  sonnerr he is gone the better


----------



## Nutz (Apr 29, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Username McGarrett uses racist images to convey who and what it is.
> 
> Then it posts some bullshit which, frankly, is not only self-contradictory but also generally wrong, which is ok since McGarrett doesn't have the capacity to comprehend any part of it in any event.
> 
> Then people "engage" it and seem mystified to find out that it is just a blithering simpleton.



Exactly, him and the other members of the Pussy Brigade spend countless hours spewing their nonsense on this forum.  They are doing a good job of outing those who are ashamed to admit they are racist, but the negative consequence is that this forum has become nothing more than a stormfront style website in disguise.


----------



## NewEnglander (Jun 28, 2014)

The provision wherein a person born outside the US of US parents was natural born in the naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795. That provision may well have been unconstitutional, c.f., the unpublished brief by Honorable Pinckney McElwee which was read by Rep. John Dowdy on the House floor June 14, 1967. Indeed it was james madison who was primarily responsible for removing the erroneous natural born citizen clause from the Act. Indeed, the USSC in US v. Ark noted that between 1802 and 1855 persons born beyond the limits of the US were aliens, nether natural born nor naturalized. US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649,674, 18 S.Ct. 456,466 (1898) (&#8220;It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802.&#8221


----------



## Just_Me (Apr 25, 2016)

Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
The definition was removed but not changed.

The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands. No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.

The intent of the law still stands.

The Term Natural Born Citizen is still a requirement. One is not allowed by law to redefine its meaning simply because the definition was removed in error.(or even intentionally)
You may NOT read into it any way you please. When looking for the founding fathers defination you only need to know their defination. Clearly it can be found in the Public acts of the first congress 2nd session chapter III March 26, 1790. 

The definition is legal untill the Constitution is ammended and a new defination is installed. If that ever happens.


----------



## Silhouette (Apr 25, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> *The intent of the law still stands.*
> 
> The Term Natural Born Citizen is still a requirement. One is not allowed by law to redefine its meaning simply because the definition was removed in error.(or even intentionally)
> You may NOT read into it any way you please.
> .



And that is what the USSC will weigh the case on this September or October (if Cruz gets the nod).  The intent is to minimize loyalties to foreign countries in the one Office that has the most unilateral power granted to any one man.  If someone gets out of line in Congress, there are hundreds to check his momentum.  Not so with POTUS.  And so, "natural born" is natural born.  No exceptions.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 25, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
> The definition was removed but not changed.
> 
> The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands. No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.
> ...


False. The 1790 Act was repealed with the term 'natural born Citizen' replaced with just 'Citizen' in the 1795 Naturalization Act.


----------



## easyt65 (Apr 25, 2016)

Birther Alert, Birther Alert...the liberals who attacked orhers for being birthers are suddenly birthers. This is too funny.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 25, 2016)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> 
> Prior to May 24, 1934 the uniform Rule of Naturalization did not allow a person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they were born outside the U.S. to a citizen mother and a non citizen father; during that time, persons born outside of the U.S. could only acquire citizenship at birth if their father was a citizen of the U.S. but not to a father who had never resided in the United States.
> 
> ...



Cruz was born under the 1952 Naturalization Act which superseded the 1934 act. Making your claims irrelevant.


----------



## Just_Me (Apr 25, 2016)

Irrelevant!

The requirements for president are still in the constitution. Listed in the requirements are Natural Born Status. And the forfathers definition still stands.


----------



## easyt65 (Apr 25, 2016)

Birther...


----------



## easyt65 (Apr 25, 2016)

Since when do liberals give a flying crap about the Constitution / Rule of Law?


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 25, 2016)

easyt65 said:


> Birther Alert, Birther Alert...the liberals who attacked orhers for being birthers are suddenly birthers. This is too funny.



I could care a little bit about Cruz.  He and Trump are the biggest jokes to ever seek the White House.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 25, 2016)

easyt65 said:


> Birther Alert, Birther Alert...the liberals who attacked orhers for being birthers are suddenly birthers. This is too funny.



So you are calling Trump a Liberal?

Or just a Birther?


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 25, 2016)

easyt65 said:


> Since when do liberals give a flying crap about the Constitution / Rule of Law?



Since when do Conservatives care about anything but corporate profits?


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Here is why Ted doesn't meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for President. Cruz did not inherit citizenship from his mother, he is a U.S. citizen because at birth he fulfilled the requirements established by Congress.
> ...


Yes, it made Cruz a naturalized citizen at birth.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 25, 2016)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



It supersedes the 1934 law.....which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Apr 25, 2016)

werent the Clintons from Mars? just look at their cousin with that bald head and glasses,,,,james carville?


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 25, 2016)

Is the dumbass OP still prattling on about this?


----------



## Just_Me (Apr 25, 2016)

The biggest joke to ever seek the Whitehouse is not funny anymore and hes still IN the Whitehouse. Yes, yes I am a "birther" and very proud to defend the Constitution. But I have learned that no one will listen because of so many personal and political ajendas. So many people don't understand and there is way to little time. So I am a birther...yes. 

Suck it up buttercup.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 25, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> The biggest joke to ever seek the Whitehouse is not funny anymore and hes still IN the Whitehouse. Yes, ues I am a "birther" and very proud to defend the Constitution. But I learned that no one will listen because of so many personal and political ajendas. So many people don't understand and there is way to little time.So I am a birther...yes. Suck it up buttercup.



I'd be happy to shred your misconceptions regarding Obama and constitutional eligibility if you're interested. You'll find that its not 'agendas' that render birthers a national laughing stock. But the evidence.


----------



## Just_Me (Apr 25, 2016)

You have no legitimate proof of anything. The Constitution is very clear.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 25, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> The biggest joke to ever seek the Whitehouse is not funny anymore and hes still IN the Whitehouse. Yes, yes I am a "birther" and very proud to defend the Constitution. But I have learned that no one will listen because of so many personal and political ajendas. So many people don't understand and there is way to little time. So I am a birther...yes.
> 
> Suck it up buttercup.



Proud to be a Birther. 

Just as you are proud to have flunked Middle School.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 25, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> You have not legitimate proof of anything. The Constitution is very clear.



Then quote the constitutions 'very clear' definition of natural born citizenship. You know, the 'legitimate' one.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 25, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> You have not legitimate proof of anything. The Constitution is very clear.



Yet you were unable to actually find that quote. The Constitution is very clear:

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.

President Obama meets every eligibility requirement

Natural born- since he was born in Hawaii- which contrary to Birther beliefs is part of the United States
35 years of age or older
14 years a resident.


----------



## Just_Me (Apr 25, 2016)

His father was never resident in the USA. And no you can't use his step father.
Who's the middle school drop out now...

His communist father never left Kenya.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 25, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> His father was never resident in the USA. And no you can't use his step father.
> Who's the middle school drop out now...
> 
> His communist father never left Kenya.



Yeah, that's not the constitution. That's just you talking shit. Show us the 'very clear' definition of 'natural born citizenship' in the Constitution. 

And yes, Obama's father did leave Kenya. He was an student in the US, specifically Hawaii. 

I'm starting to get the impression that you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Just_Me (Apr 25, 2016)

Just because you read it on the internet dosn't make it true. All of those web pages were manufactured after the fact. I was watching this BEFORE those pages were manufactured. You must really think everyone you meet is stupid...


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 25, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> Just because you read it on the internet dosn't make it true. All of those web pages were manufactured after the fact. I was watching this BEFORE those pages were manufactured. You must really think everyone you meet is stupid...



No- but I do think you are a particular form of stupid.

Where are you getting your information from- since you don't believe the 'internet'? Is it broadcast directly into your brain?


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Just_Me said:
> 
> 
> > His father was never resident in the USA. And no you can't use his step father.
> ...



I.E. a true Birther.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...





Skylar said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


If it takes a 1952 Naturalization statute to make you a Citizen, you're not natural born, you're naturalized.


----------



## Just_Me (Apr 25, 2016)

I got my information before it became a political hot potato. And before the left started flooding us with misinformation. My information was unaccosted by political demogogary. So you go ahead and believe what you want. But I had the truth before you knew it was a question.


----------



## Just_Me (Apr 25, 2016)

Naturalised and Natural Born are 2 seperate and distinct forms of citizenship.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 25, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> Just because you read it on the internet dosn't make it true. All of those web pages were manufactured after the fact. I was watching this BEFORE those pages were manufactured. You must really think everyone you meet is stupid...



Obviously. I remember some hapless soul on the internet blustering about how the constitution was 'very clear'. Yet when I ask him to cite the constitution's definition of 'natural born citizen'......he's got jack shit. 

So much for the bluster. 

So far you've demonstrated no command of this topic whatsoever.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 25, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> I got my information before it became a political hot potato. And before the left started flooding us with misinformation. My information was unaccosted by political demogogary. So you go ahead and believe what you want. But I had the truth before you knew it was a question.



And yet when we ask you to back your claims up, to show us the evidence......you fail. You've got nothing but you telling us how much you know.

You citing you, telling us how knowledgable you are.....isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it. Show us the evidence that Obama isn't eligible to be president.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 25, 2016)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



If your babble about the 1934 law was accurate, you wouldn't have had to abandon any mention of it. And start attacking the 1952 law.

You knew the 1952 law superceded the 1934 law. You just really hoped we didn't.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


My previous post is accurate.


----------



## Just_Me (Apr 25, 2016)

Skyler you don't understand. I don't bother because it would make no difference whatsoever to you. You would simply bury it in demogogary. Many of the articles of the past have already been sterilized by the political parties. As for the Constitutional issues all you have to do is pick up a copy of the Constitution and read it. Make an effort to understand it. Not an effort to make it say what you want it to. Read it as it was written dont try to interpret it into what you want it to be. I carry a copy in my pocket at all times.

I'm not a politican therfor I wont argue with you. Believe whatever you want but I have given you the truth. You can dismiss the truth and spew out migro agressions like "birther" if you like. It dosent hurt my feelings at all though. Your hate is for you to deal with.

I will still require concrete proof that Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen to vote for him. No proof...no vote.

The people are the last line of defense for the Constitution.

There is no amendment changing our forefathers definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Furthermore you can not change the definition with lower laws


----------



## Skylar (Apr 25, 2016)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Your previous post was a rout. An abandonment of all your '1934' gibberish. 

You ran.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 25, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> Skyler you don't understand.



I understand that I've asked you to show me the constitution's definition of 'natural born citizenship' 3 times now. And each time you awkwardly try to change the topic.

I understand that you have yet to show us a scintilla of actual evidence that Obama is constitutionally unqualified to be president. Oh, you'll gladly babble about 'demagoguery', 'agendas', how much you know, etc.

But evidence? Not a shred to back up any claim you've made regarding Obama's eligibility.

And that is why you fail. _On the evidence. _



> As for the Constitutional issues all you have to do is pick up a copy of the Constitution and read it. Make an effort to understand it'



And yet when I ask you to simply show us the definition of natural born citizenship provided by the constitution, you run like my question had a butcher knife. And refuse to even discuss the topic. Giving excuse after excuse why you can't back up a single thing you've said.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to run.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Rubbish my Fogbow loving anti-American enemy.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 25, 2016)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Stephen, I've simply done more research on these topics than you have. You are a regurgitator. You repeat what someone else has told you to think. You don't actually research anything.

Me, I read. I research. I look at the actual law, the actual court rulings, the actual debates by the founders. 

Which is why you consider me your enemy. I'm informed. And you require an ignorant audience.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Right LC!


----------



## Just_Me (Apr 25, 2016)

In all honesty I tried to post a picture of some articles but the image was rejected as too large. Since I really don't know you it seams like too much effort to type all that out on a phone. I just have no interest in doing your research for you honestly. At this point in time it makes no difference. To do all that back research over again just for you seems like a fruitless effort when I already know you will summarily dismiss it because it does not fall in with your beliefs. You've already made your decision. You are really not open to an intellectual discussion. I could tell right away by the micro agressions that that this thread really dosn't want truth. They are only here to make sure the truth is not told. I'll be leaving now no offense but I am in the wrong board for my type of discussions.
I don't need this type of discussion at all. Nice to meet you. Perhaps in another type of forum.
BTW just a follow up note. You won't find the definition of Natural Born Citizen in a current copy of the Constitution. Only references to the status. Pick up an older copy you'll find it. It will be suddenly very clear what happened. Do not disregard the emotions involved during when the slavery issues were being resolved. They did not fully realise what they did. But it would only matter when someone tried to do an end run around it.
;-)
GN


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 26, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> I got my information before it became a political hot potato. And before the left started flooding us with misinformation. My information was unaccosted by political demogogary. So you go ahead and believe what you want. But I had the truth before you knew it was a question.



I.e. you got your information beamed directly into your mind by your Venusian overlord.

LOL

I will continue to believe the facts- you can believe whatever wierd ass birther fantasies you believe.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 26, 2016)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



LOL....funny stuff from our racist, anti-semite resident Birther(why does it turn out so many racists and anti-semites also happen to be Birthers?)


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 26, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> BTW just a follow up note. You won't find the definition of Natural Born Citizen in a current copy of the Constitution. Only references to the status. Pick up an older copy you'll find it. It will be suddenly very clear what happened



If you want to see an 'older copy' of the Constitution, the National Archives has one- and I have seen it.

Oddly enough it has the same wording as the ones available on line.

Of course the online ones usually have the Amendments included- but they distinguish between them.

There is no 'definition' of Natural born citizen in the Constitution- not on any of our Constitution's- but perhaps your super sekrit Birther Constitution is different. Maybe invisible ink on the back?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 26, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> In all honesty I tried to post a picture of some articles but the image was rejected as too large. Since I really don't know you it seams like too much effort to type all that out on a phone. I just have no interest in doing your research for you honestly.



The research I've done. What I'm asking you to do is back your argument with evidence.

And like you always do, you give me yet another sniveling excuse why you can't.

Shocker.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 27, 2016)

Just_Me said:


> Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
> The definition was removed but not changed.
> 
> The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands. No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.
> ...



Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean.  The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.  

Congress was granted that sole authority.  “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable.  And in reality neither is the  inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have _become_ a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization."  Ted Cruz did _*not *_have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth. 

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option:  he was a citizen *at birth*.  Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen.  Like it or not, that's the end of that story.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2016)




----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Just_Me said:
> 
> 
> > Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
> ...


The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens _*at birth*_, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

To be "naturalized" doesn't infer you must go through a process to gain citizenship.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Just_Me said:
> ...



So are Puerto Ricans naturalized citizens?


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


They are statutory Citizens, but not Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizens. That's why they can't run for president.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Just_Me said:
> ...



They are explicitly 'naturalized at birth' per the law. The only group, per US law. 



> Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.



Justice Gray did not such thing. Gray reviewed what British Common Law regardin natural born subjects. He explicitly stated that the only way for those born outside the US to become a citizen is through naturalization.

*Gray found no exceptions.* You're not citing Gray's findiings on US law. You're citing yourself.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


I'm citing common law. Justice Grey is citing Lord Chief Justice Cockburn: 

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.​
What about Section II. of the opinion:

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim _protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem_ -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.​
How about when he cites Dicey:

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such  *[p658]*  person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

And he adds:

The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.

Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.​
How about Greys actual conclusion of Section II.:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject *unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.*​
Knowing your response already, you will claim that isn't in the WKA decision, when it is directly quoted from it. 

So lets keep going, Section III.: 

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to _Calvin's Case,_ Blackstone's Commentaries, and _Doe v. Jones,_ above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, _de facto._ There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be  *[p660]*  subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​
How about where he cites Kent:

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while  *[p665]*  abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects _de facto,_ their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term _citizen_ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, _subjects,_ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

2 Kent Com. 258, note.​
Really, I could keep going, but the issue is clearly pointed out, there are few exceptions that are noted.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, *had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.* _Calvin's Case,_ 7 Rep. 1, 18_b;_ Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; _Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor,_ 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

SMFH​


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


Look to the 1917 Jones–Shafroth Act and the court case of _Balzac v. Puerto Rico_


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



So they don't say- and you don't know.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Not one of your citations is offered by Justice Grey as US law.  Grey cites British Common Law as as it relates to British Subjects. And as a historic review of how what the founders may have meant with 'natural born' citizen'. 

As for his findings in US law, this is what Justice Grey has to say:



> 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.



Justice Gray makes no exceptions. You've imagined them. Nor does Gray ever recognize such exceptions as being recognized under US law. Nor is any such exception recognized in any court ruling;



> 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.
> 
> Roger v. Bellie (1971)



Constitutional citizenship requires being born inside the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it found that NO foreign born child could meet these standards. Even those born to US parents. But instead became citizens by congressional action. Not the constitution.

With the Roger court making it clear that congresssionally granted citizenship was fully deniable, could be revoked without the consent of the citizen, and was subject to congressional regulation. While constitutional citizenship could not be denied and was beyond the authority of congress to regulate.

Natural born citizenship is not deniable nor can it be revoked without the consent of the citizen. Meaning that by default, foreign born children to US citizens cannot be natural born. As their citizenship most definitely is deniable.

And again, note the complete lack of 'unless their parents were in the military' exceptions that you invented. They do not exist.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Puerto Ricans are granted US Citizenship at birth via the 1917 Act, yet they are not "natural-born citizens". Puerto Rico is a Territory we are its protectorates, even though they are granted US Citizenship _*at birth*_, they are not eligible to hold the office of the Presidency.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Because they are specifically and uniquely designated as 'naturalized at birth' under US law. The only group to be so designated in all the world. 

Which I strongly suspect you already know.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


JFC Military members are US Diplomats in service of their government. Military personnel have their residency still in the US even though they are stationed overseas, same as US Ambassador's and other US Diplomats.

Your whole issue is the phrase that I stated: 'unless their parents were in the military'? SMFH Children born to military members overseas are "natural-born citizens", children born to citizens overseas not in service of their government are "conditional citizens" and are not "natural-born citizens".


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Yet they are not born citizens per the 14th Amendment. 

They are born U.S. citizens though. Because of Congressional actions- not because of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Because they are specifically and uniquely designated as 'naturalized at birth' under US law. The only group to be so designated in all the world.
> 
> Which I strongly suspect you already know.


Puerto Rico Herald: UNDERSTANDING CITIZENSHIP ISSUES

Persons born in Puerto Rico acquire U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. 1402, which is part of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. This is statutory citizenship rather than citizenship arising from birth or naturalization in a state of the union under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The fact that one or both parents of a person born in Puerto Rico may have been born in a state is not controlling. This is because the citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico arises from the place of birth rather than relationship to U.S. citizen parents.​


----------



## Skylar (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



There are no exceptions given in either WKA or Roger under the constitution. Not for diplomats, those born to US soldiers, no one.  Both rulings recognize that those kids born outside US jurisdiction have to be naturalized. With birth in the US being a prerequisite for constitutional citizenship. 

Not a single citation you've offered is recognized as US law by the USSC. Nor cited as US law. But instead, British common law.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


They, children born to members of the military stationed overseas are "natural-born citizens" per common law, not Congressional action.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> There are no exceptions given in either WKA or Roger under the constitution. Not for diplomats, those born to US soldiers, no one.  Both rulings recognize that those kids born outside US jurisdiction have to be naturalized. With birth in the US being a prerequisite for constitutional citizenship.
> 
> Not a single citation you've offered is recognized as US law by the USSC. Nor cited as US law. But instead, British common law.


JFC do you not comprehend the WKA opinion? There are exception, 3 right off the bat that Gray states: Ambassadors, Invading armies, International waters. This is common knowledge.

Every citation I stated is in the WKA OPINION!!!! How is it not recognized as US Law by the SCOTUS, when they are the ones quoting it????? Do you not understand what common law is????


----------



## Skylar (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Per the findings of Gray, their only path to citizenship under our constitution is naturalization. As they are born outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

Remember, not one passage you've cited out of WKA is US law, nor offered by Gray as US law. But a historical review of British law.

The findings of Gray are as follows:



			
				US v Wong Kim Ark said:
			
		

> *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.



A finding reaffirmed by the Roger court.



> 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.
> 
> Roger v. Bellie (1971)



If you're not born in the US, you're not a citizen under the constitution. But under statute.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > There are no exceptions given in either WKA or Roger under the constitution. Not for diplomats, those born to US soldiers, no one.  Both rulings recognize that those kids born outside US jurisdiction have to be naturalized. With birth in the US being a prerequisite for constitutional citizenship.
> ...



Not one citation you've offered of the WKA opinion is in reference to US law. Nor is it offered as US law by Gray. Nor is it a finding of the WKA court. Related to citizenship, this is:



			
				US v. Wong Kim Ark said:
			
		

> *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.



What you've cited is a_ historic review of British common law related to British subjects_. What Gray finds in the above citation regards US law, under our constitution.

You've imagined your exceptions under US law. You've imagined your exceptions under our constitution. As Roger affirms. As those born outside the US do not have constitutional citizenship.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Per the findings of Gray, their only path to citizenship under our constitution is naturalization. As they are born outside the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Remember, not one passage you've cited out of WKA is US law, nor offered by Gray as US law. But a historical review of British law.
> 
> ...


Look, if your only issue is children born to military members are not considered to be natural born citizens by you, that is your choice. Both cites you quote refer specifically to citizens living abroad, neither refers to military personnel stationed abroad and in service of their government. You either accept it or you don't, frankly I could care less.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Per the findings of Gray, their only path to citizenship under our constitution is naturalization. As they are born outside the jurisdiction of the United States.
> ...



That's not a' choice'. The court is quite explicit that those not born in the US do not hold constitutional citizenship. But are instead naturalized.

You can show us no finding of any court that says otherwise. As WKA comes to the same finding: those born outside US jurisdiction can only become citizens by naturalization. And nothing you've cited is recognized by the court as US law. Nor presented as US law.

But instead, as a historic review of British Common Law as it relates to British subjects.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



If that were the case, Congress would not have had to pass a law making the children born to U.S. military personnel in Panama citizens.

Which Congress did. 

And before Congress did- those children were not born U.S. citizens.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> ...
> 
> If you're not born in the US, you're not a citizen under the constitution. But under statute.





No.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 27, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > If you're not born in the US, you're not a citizen under the constitution. But under statute.
> ...



The Supreme Court says otherwise.


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.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)​
As does the State Department:


Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called *“citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”*, *is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. *As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf​
Why would anyone ignore both the Supreme Court and the State Department....and instead believe you?


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


What I cited from WKA was British Common Law that was carried over to the US from the colonies up to and after the USC, thus making it Common Law. If you don't comprehend the WKA decision have someone else explain it to you, since you refuse to accept what is known as common knowledge.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> If that were the case, Congress would not have had to pass a law making the children born to U.S. military personnel in Panama citizens.
> 
> Which Congress did.
> 
> And before Congress did- those children were not born U.S. citizens.


The law Congress Passed conferred citizenship onto those that were born in the canal zone to one US citizen parent or members born in the Republic of Panama employed by the US Govt or the Panama Railway Company, it had no effect on those born to Military members in service to their govt.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, _*it must be interpreted in the light of the common law*_, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. _Minor v. Happersett,_ 21 Wall. 162; _Ex parte Wilson,_ 114 U.S. 417, 422; _Boyd v. United States,_ 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; _Smith v. Alabama,_ 124 U.S. 465. *The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.* Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in _Moore v. United States,_ 91 U.S. 270, 274.​
I gave you the holding in the WKA opinion stating otherwise, so here it is again:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.​


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > If that were the case, Congress would not have had to pass a law making the children born to U.S. military personnel in Panama citizens.
> ...



Sigh. No. 

_(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._


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You evade.  If one is a U.S. citizen, then One is either a person who is a citizen because he or she got naturalized OR he or she is a person who was a citizen from the instant of birth.

Ted Cruz was BORN a United States citizen and NEVER had to go through naturalization.  A natural born U.S. citizen.

There is no way around it.  All you born again birfers are full of shit.  End of story.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


It doesn't pertain to military personnel. It in no way changes what I posted or stated, it only confirms what I posted.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Without that bill, John McCain would not have been a citizen.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...


Cruz was born a "conditional citizen" he is not a "natural-born citizen". Both he and his parent(s) had to meet certain requirements in order to qualify and retain his citizenship. He is therefor ineligible to hold the office of the President of the US.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Despite absolutely no court ever coming to that conclusion.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Bull, he was born to Military Personnel (other Diplomatic agent), thus he was born to parents in service of their govt. Again from the WKA opinion:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject *unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation* of the place where the child was born.​


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 27, 2016)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Racist scumbag dumb fuck Steve McGarrettt is too stupid top breathe.

And by the way, Ted was a citizen AT birth because his mom was a U.S. citizen at the time.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


Really? So Rogers v Bellei never came to that conclusion? LMFAO How about the simple fact that the 1952 INA Section 301(a)(7) and (a)(7)(b) state otherwise? You can keep denying reality all you want, but to straight out deny facts is rather hilarious.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Nope. There is no federal common law. What WKA cites is the British common law that INFLUENCED the meaning of constitutional terms. What you've cited was a historical review of those possible influences. Which you've erroneously and laughably cited AS the law of the United States. Which they aren't. Nor does Gray ever present them as such. 

When Gray eventually does come to findings *regarding US law*, he explodes your entire theory:



			
				Wong Kim Ark v. US said:
			
		

> *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.



There's a reason you keep cutting this citation out of your replies to my posts. This isn't a historical review of British common law. *This is a finding of USSC regarding US law and the US constitution. *

And it contradicts you, acknowledging none of the 'exceptions' you've imagined. Nor does any case after it. 



> 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.
> 
> Roger v. Bellie (1971)



Someone born outside the United States does not have constitutional citizenship. But is a citizen of statute. 

You can ignore both WKA and Roger. But you can't make us ignore them. No matter how many times you delete references to either in your reply.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


He "may acquire" citizenship provided he and his parent(s) meet certain requirements. Citizenship *at birth* doesn't denote "natural-born citizenship".


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


JFC SMFH. Both cites you exclaim are either directed at citizens living abroad or foreigners simply becoming naturalized, neither have anything to do with Military personnel, otherwise known as "other Diplomatic agents". Go ahead, claim it isn't in the WKA opinion as usual, when it was cited directly from there. SMFH

WKA

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, *unknown to the common law*), the two classes of cases -- *children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State* --* both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.* _Calvin's Case,_ 7 Rep. 1, 18_b;_ Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; _Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor,_ 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court.  *[p683]*​


----------



## Skylar (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...




Nothing you've cited is a finding of the court in the WKA decision. But a historical review of British common law that may have influenced constitutional terms. Which you ludicriously cite AS US law and the US constitution.

They are neither.

Gray finds, unquestioningly, that those born outside US jurisdiction must be naturalized to have citizenship. 



			
				Wong Kim Ark v. US said:
			
		

> *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.



Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter. Being born in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US are required to be a citizen under the constitution. As Roger affirms....and you again ignore and pretend doesn't exist. 



> 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.
> 
> Roger v. Bellie (1971)



Even the State department is the same page, recognizing that those born outside the US do not have citizenship embodied in the constitution. 



> Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called *“citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”*, *is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. *As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
> 
> http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf



So you ignore the State Department too. Hell, even the Congress joined the fray, contradicting you:


(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.

8 U.S. Code § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904​
Congress explicitly extended citizenship to those you insisted already had it. Your narrative makes no sense at all. And is contradicted by Gray, the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Roger Court, and the State Department. 

And laughably, you ignore them all and replace it all with fantasies that you've made up. Feel free. You fantasies are legally and constitutionally irrelevant.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


This alone makes you and your claims look ignorant:

WKA

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, *unknown to the common law*), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation *and* _children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State_ -- *both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.* _Calvin's Case,_ 7 Rep. 1, 18_b;_ Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; _Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor,_ 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

*The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court.* *[p683]*​


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Soldiers are not ambassadors or diplomats- and WKA was saying that children born in England who are born to Ambassadors or diplomats are not English subjects.

It doesn't say that children born outside England to Ambassadors or invading armies in hostile occupation are English subjects.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation *and* _children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State_ -- *both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.*

*Showing that children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation of the United States are not American citizens- nor are children born in the United States of diplomatic representatives of a foreign states American citizens.*

*It doesn't say anything about American citizenship of Americans born outside the United States. *


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Soldiers are diplomats, they are in service to their government and are stationed by their government. Are you going to tell me all those years that my CO told us we were diplomats in a foreign nation and to watch how we act was all a lie? 

WKA was stating what is known common law, _beginning before the settlement of this country *and continuing to the present day*_ you do understand that means up to the time of the case (1898) and beyond, right?


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


It is common law and knowledge to include international law that children born to Ambassadors and Diplomats in service of their government are natural born of that nation. These are recognized exceptions:

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to _Calvin's Case,_ Blackstone's Commentaries, and _Doe v. Jones,_ above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, _de facto._ *There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine*. *Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be  [p660]  subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.*​


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



a) I have no idea what your CO told you- you may well be lying.
b) Your CO might well have been as wrong as you are.

Soldiers are not diplomats. 

Never have been considered diplomats- still aren't. 

Which is why the children of foreign diplomats born in the United States are not born U.S. citizens- because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Children born to foreign soldiers stationed here not as part of a diplomatic mission- they are born U.S. citizens.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I rather doubt my CO would lie, and I rather doubt he would be wrong. Military personnel are diplomats. Children born within the US of foreign Diplomats are not born US Citizens, neither are children born to foreign soldiers, as there are NO foreign soldiers stationed inside the US. The only way a foreign soldier would be in the US would either be in a diplomatic fashion (child not born a US Citizen) or simply on vacation (child born a US Citizen).

* So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.*​


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Justice Story's opinion- cited in WKA- is the opinion of one justice- and is contradicted by Rogers and Bellei- and WKA

"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."*

*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.*

Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Your CO could well be lying to you- or he could have just been ignorant.

There are foreign troops assigned to the United States on a regular basis- attending American military training.
German Military Presence in the United States: The Case of Holloman Air Force Base

They are not considered diplomats. Diplomats are extended specific protection by the State Department- which maintains a list of persons in the United States who have full or limited diplomatic immunity.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 27, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Did you read what you even posted? These are children that would NOT receive citizenship if born in this country.

The exact opposite of your claims. Try again. This time reading for comprehension.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Rogers v Bellei doesn't contradict Justice Story's citation in the WKA Opinion. SMFH Rogers v Bellei simply doesn't fall under one of the known exceptions.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Try understanding this is common law and that it effects more then just "inside" the US. US Ambassadors/Diplomats giving birth in foreign nations are not "conditional" or "statute" citizens, they are "natural-born" citizens. US Citizens simply living abroad giving birth in foreign nations, their children are "conditional" or "statute" citizens.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Those foreign military members are here for training, which is for a very short period of time, they are not in any way stationed here.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 28, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



And if while they are here- they have children?

Those children are born American citizens.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 28, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Justice Story's opinion- cited in WKA- is the opinion of one justice- and is contradicted by Rogers and Bellei- and WKA

"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."*

*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.*

Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 28, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


1) A foreign nation will not be sending a pregnant woman soldier here for training. Since training is a short period, a woman more than 3 months along wouldn't be coming here. In most situations, once a female soldier is determined to be pregnant she is placed on light duty, which means no training and no traveling. There are NO foreign soldiers stationed in the US. Training is not being assigned nor stationed here.
2) If, and that would be a very big if - like one in a billion chance, a child is born here to a female foreign soldier during training here, it would be considered a US Citizen, it would also be a Citizen of said nation of the mother/parent(s). The likeliness of the child ever returning back to the US would be very, very low.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 28, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


And again, Bellei refers to nothing more then civilians who move abroad (it also explains why "Ted" Cruz is not eligible to hold the office of the President), it has no bearing on military personnel. Why you keep repeating this only shows utter ignorance. Bellei does not contradict Justice Story in any way what-so-ever.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 30, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



He did not have to go through naturalization.  He was born of an American parent.  EVEN if his citizenship was somehow conditional at that time, provided that he resided here in the U.S. before five years of being born, he continued his American citizenship.  Ted moved here at the age of 4.

He was born a U.S. citizen.  He is a natural born U.S. citizen.  To the extent it might have been conditional (which is itself debatable) he met the condition so he was never subject to the slightest risk of losing the citizenship he acquired AT birth.

Spin it all you want.  It's ok with me.  But I doubt any court will ever determine that this claimed "dispute" is even  justiciable.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 30, 2016)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


Rogers v Bellei spells it out, no spin needed, had Cruz failed to enter the US prior to age 24 and remain here for 5 years (per the 1952 INA Section 301(a)(7)(b)), he would have lost his conditional citizenship. No natural-born citizen can ever have there citizenship revoked.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 30, 2016)

Liquid Reigns said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Liquid Reigns said:
> ...



Your miscomprehension of that case law notwithstanding, even IF Cruz might have lost his citizenship by not living here by the age of 5, that never happened.  He DID live here from  the age of 4.  Ergo, he was born a citizen and it was never subject to even the slightest chance of revocation.

And it is also true that no case challenging his citizenship will be entertained by any court long enough to cast into doubt that he is and was a natural born citizen.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 30, 2016)

"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 .... "

Perhaps some of you will recognize that provision of law.  8 U.S.C.A. § 1401(g)


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 30, 2016)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


The only "miscomprehension" here is your utter stupidity in thinking you know anything in regards to actual case law. watafuknmoron

From his mother he "may acquire" citizenship (INA301) provided that both she and he meet certain requirements. Those requirements from the 1952 INA are from Section 301(a)(7)  for the mother and 301(a)(7)(b) for "Ted". To later be changed and to now become 1401(g) of 8USC

We don't have to worry about it, he's not going to be the nominee, SCOTUS won't have to decide, nor will any challengers who could claim he isn't eligible, all because he will LOSE as he already is.


----------



## Liquid Reigns (Apr 30, 2016)

IlarMeilyr said:


> "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 .... "
> 
> Perhaps some of you will recognize that provision of law.  8 U.S.C.A. § 1401(g)


That would be great if 1401(g) as seen today was the reality of 1970 when "Ted" was born. Do you not know how to read the "notes" section to realize the 1401(g) has been changed numerous times over the years and what was law in 1970 when Ted was born was the 1952 INA.

1972—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 92–584, § 1, substituted provisions that nationals and citizens of the United States under subsec. (a)(7), lose such status unless they are present continuously in the United States for two years between the ages of fourteen and twenty eight years, or the alien parent is naturalized while the child is under the age of eighteen years and the child begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years, and that absence from the United States of less than sixty days will not break the continuity of presence, *for provisions  that such status would be lost unless the nationals and citizens come to the United States prior to attaining twenty three years and be present continuously in the United States for five years, and that such presence should be between the age of fourteen and twenty eight years.*

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 92–584, § 3, added subsec. (d).

1966—Subsec. (a)(7). Pub. L. 89–770 authorized periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization by the citizen parent, or any periods during which the citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization, to be included in order to satisfy the physical presence requirement, and permitted the proviso to be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952.​
Or how about in 1978 or again in 1986, or again in 2000 when it changed again? You see, NO natural-born citizen could ever have their citizenship and nationality revoked for failing to meet a requirement. Cruz is nothing more than a naturalized citizen from the US Constitution Article 1 Section 8:

Now as for 8USC1401 it is refered to as follows: Annotation 36 - Article I - FindLaw

*Categories of Citizens: Birth and Naturalization *

The first sentence of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization. 1143  This contemplation is given statutory expression in Sec. 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 1144  which itemizes those categories of persons who are citizens of the United States at birth; all other persons in order to become citizens must pass through the naturalization process. The first category merely tracks the language of the first sentence of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment in declaring that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens by birth. 1145  But there are six other categories of citizens by birth. They are: (2) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe, (3) a person born outside the United States of citizen parents one of whom has been resident in the United States, (4) a person born outside the United States of one citizen parent who has been continuously resident in the United States for one year prior to the birth and of a parent who is a national but not a citizen, (5) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of one citizen parent who has been continuously resident in the United States or an outlying possession for one year prior to the birth, (6) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five unless prior to his twenty-first birthday he is shown not to have been born in the United States, and *(7) a person born outside the United States of an alien parent and a citizen parent who has been resident in the United States for a period of ten years, provided the person is to lose his citizenship unless he resides continuously in the United States for a period of five years between his fourteenth and twenty-eighth birthdays.*



*Subsection (7) citizens must satisfy the condition subsequent of five years continuous residence within the United States between the ages of fourteen and twenty-eight, a requirement held to be constitutional,* 1146  which means in effect that for constitutional purposes, according to the prevailing interpretation, there is a difference between persons born or naturalized in, that is, within, the United States and *persons born outside the confines of the United States who are statutorily made citizens*. 1147  The principal difference is that the former persons may not be involuntarily expatriated *whereas the latter may be, subject only to due process protections*. 1148 ​
Cruz is a Section 7 citizen and had to satisfy the conditions imposed upon him by the 1952 INA, Cruz was statutorily made a citizen, his citizenship was "conditional" on meeting specific requirements, and that he could by way of due process, have his US citizenship status revoked and be expatriated right back to Canuckastan.


----------

