Breaking: NJ Judge Admits He Never Read Briefs That Ted Cruz Was Not A Natural Born Citizen

[Liquid Reigns]

No- he was always a U.S. citizen- the United States just didn't know it yet.

Hilarious. The US Didn't recognize his citizenship until he entered the US at age 4 and began to reside here.

What were the statutory requirements?
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

Might I suggest the 1952 INA https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...sg=AFQjCNEySKU5N__oVmbsdoj2M1fddtht0w&cad=rja
Specifically Section 301(a)(7) and 301(a)(7)(b)

(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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service
in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent
may be included in computing the physical presence requirements
of this paragraph.
(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States
at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality
and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to
attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following
any such coming be continuously physically present in the United
State for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence
follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the
age of twenty-eight years.
​

So had Cruz failed to enter the US prior to age 23 and live here for continuous 5 years, he would have lost his US Citizenship. If he were truly a "natural-born citizen" his citizenship could never have been lost.

 

[Syriusly]

No- he was always a U.S. citizen- the United States just didn't know it yet.

Hilarious. The US Didn't recognize his citizenship until he entered the US at age 4 and began to reside here.
.

Regardless- as the law says- he was a citizen at birth- even if the United States was not aware of this until he was 4 years old.

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Wong Kim Ark

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. 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 [p703] 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.

The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. "A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall,

becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.​

Does not mean a thing when applied to Curz, or McCain, or Obama.

They all had American parents. End of story.

McCain was born to 2 American Citizen parents in US Territory in the Military.
Obama was born in Hawaii, a US State to a US Citizen mother and Legal Immigrant father.
Cruz was born to an American Citizen mother in Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the US.

As I stated earlier, you know nothing of US Law. You can't even read a SCOTUS Opinion defining citizenship.

If according to Wong Kim Ark, Cruz is not eligible- then McCain would not have been eligible either.

For the exact same reason.

Wrong. Both of McCain's parents were in the Military, they would have held ligeance to the King.

No it wouldn't. Parentage doesn't establish 'ligeance to the king'. Place of birth does. The standards followed by the founders in English common law defined natural born status as being born under King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Even if both your parents were aliens.

The Panama Canal Zone was, however, an unincorporated territory of the United States. All the territories of the US are part of the United States per Longborough v. Blake.

Military service provided ligeance to the King. Both of McCains parents were in the Military at his birth.

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.​

 

[Liquid Reigns]

No- he was always a U.S. citizen- the United States just didn't know it yet.

Hilarious. The US Didn't recognize his citizenship until he entered the US at age 4 and began to reside here.
.

Regardless- as the law says- he was a citizen at birth- even if the United States was not aware of this until he was 4 years old.

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

From your prior link United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309) - Chapter 3, Part H, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS

In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:

•The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and

•The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision. [2] ​

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I don't get it. I have dual. As does my husband. But here is the tricky part. Canada did not recognize dual citizenship until 1977. And I'm no birther but they better have their shit wired tight in the Cruz camp because up here Cruz was only ever recognized as Canadian by birth.

How and when was his American citizenship granted to him? No one has come forth with this information.

Cruz's citizenship was granted to him when he entered the US on his mothers US Passport at the age of 4. Had his mother registered his birth with the US Consul in Canada he would have had a US Birth certificate. He acquired his citizenship via statute, the 1952 INA. Birth Abroad.

Cruz acquired his citizenship at birth- regardless of when the United States officially recognized his birth.

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

Note- the 'at birth'. Note also the word 'should'
The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad

That is not a statutory requirement.

What were the statutory requirements?
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

So lets refer to Section 301(g)

INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH | USCIS
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

Citizens at Birth.

Cruz meets the requirements of Sec 301 G- so he was a U.S. citizen at birth- regardless of when the United States recognized his citizenship.

Well, that would be nice if it were in compliance the way it was written when Cruz was born. To know that you need to read the 1952 INA Section 301(a)(7) and (a)(7)(b), which then complies with 8USC1431. 301 has been changed numerous times since 1952, the first in 1977, after Cruz was born. So to know the laws in effect when Cruz was born you MUST goto the 1952 INA.

 

[Syriusly]

Does not mean a thing when applied to Curz, or McCain, or Obama.

They all had American parents. End of story.

McCain was born to 2 American Citizen parents in US Territory in the Military.
Obama was born in Hawaii, a US State to a US Citizen mother and Legal Immigrant father.
Cruz was born to an American Citizen mother in Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the US.

As I stated earlier, you know nothing of US Law. You can't even read a SCOTUS Opinion defining citizenship.

If according to Wong Kim Ark, Cruz is not eligible- then McCain would not have been eligible either.

For the exact same reason.

Canada was not an unincorporated territory of the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was.

The Panama Canal Zone was no more a part of the United States for the purposes of the 14th Amendment than was Guam- and less so than Puerto Rico is.

It was a territory of the United States, under the jurisdiction of our laws. As Longborough v. Blake makes clear, the United States consists of the States and Territories.

The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories.

Thus, any territory of the United States is the United States.

I am not familiar with Longborough v. Blake but American citizenship law is pretty clear that being born in a U.S. territory does not automatically make one a U.S. citizen.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/og98005.pdf

People born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the
CNMI, or the Virgin Islands are American citizens; those born in American Samoa are American
nationals.

The residents of all five of the larger insular areas enjoy many
of the rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens in the 50 states. But some rights
which, under the Constitution, are reserved for citizens residing in the
states have not been extended to residents of the insular areas.

 

[Syriusly]

No- he was always a U.S. citizen- the United States just didn't know it yet.

Hilarious. The US Didn't recognize his citizenship until he entered the US at age 4 and began to reside here.
.

Regardless- as the law says- he was a citizen at birth- even if the United States was not aware of this until he was 4 years old.

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

From your prior link United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309) - Chapter 3, Part H, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS

In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:

•The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and

•The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision. [2] ​

So you are conceding that Cruz was a citizen at birth.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Does not mean a thing when applied to Curz, or McCain, or Obama.

They all had American parents. End of story.

McCain was born to 2 American Citizen parents in US Territory in the Military.
Obama was born in Hawaii, a US State to a US Citizen mother and Legal Immigrant father.
Cruz was born to an American Citizen mother in Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the US.

As I stated earlier, you know nothing of US Law. You can't even read a SCOTUS Opinion defining citizenship.

If according to Wong Kim Ark, Cruz is not eligible- then McCain would not have been eligible either.

For the exact same reason.

Canada was not an unincorporated territory of the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was.

The Panama Canal Zone was no more a part of the United States for the purposes of the 14th Amendment than was Guam- and less so than Puerto Rico is.

It was a territory of the United States, under the jurisdiction of our laws. As Longborough v. Blake makes clear, the United States consists of the States and Territories.

The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories.

Thus, any territory of the United States is the United States.

That's not being denied, and if you read my prior comments in this thread I point that very fact out.

 

[easyt65]

Funny how the term 'birther' was one of scorn and mockery accordind to liberals in the past but now they embrace it proudly.

 

[Skylar]

Does not mean a thing when applied to Curz, or McCain, or Obama.

They all had American parents. End of story.

McCain was born to 2 American Citizen parents in US Territory in the Military.
Obama was born in Hawaii, a US State to a US Citizen mother and Legal Immigrant father.
Cruz was born to an American Citizen mother in Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the US.

As I stated earlier, you know nothing of US Law. You can't even read a SCOTUS Opinion defining citizenship.

If according to Wong Kim Ark, Cruz is not eligible- then McCain would not have been eligible either.

For the exact same reason.

Wrong. Both of McCain's parents were in the Military, they would have held ligeance to the King.

No it wouldn't. Parentage doesn't establish 'ligeance to the king'. Place of birth does. The standards followed by the founders in English common law defined natural born status as being born under King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Even if both your parents were aliens.

The Panama Canal Zone was, however, an unincorporated territory of the United States. All the territories of the US are part of the United States per Longborough v. Blake.

Military service provided ligeance to the King. Both of McCains parents were in the Military at his birth.

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.​

You're confused. What you're citing is a description of how you wouldn't be granted natural born status. Not how you would.

Being born in the ligeance of the king requires two components:

1) Geographically being born within the territory of the king
2) Being under the the King's law when this happens.

As the WKA court makes ludicriously clear:

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.

McCain meets both criteria of natural born status as the Panama Canal zone was an unincorporated US territory and was under US jurisdiction.

No where does it indicate natural born status by way of parentage to foreign born children of US citizen....under any circumstance. WKA explicitly indicate that the ONLY way for a foreign born child to US parents can acquire citizenship....is through naturalization:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] 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 are not exceptions given there. It doesn't say 'unless your parents were in the military'. It says, clear as a bell:

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized"

There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't get it. I have dual. As does my husband. But here is the tricky part. Canada did not recognize dual citizenship until 1977. And I'm no birther but they better have their shit wired tight in the Cruz camp because up here Cruz was only ever recognized as Canadian by birth.

How and when was his American citizenship granted to him? No one has come forth with this information.

Cruz's citizenship was granted to him when he entered the US on his mothers US Passport at the age of 4. Had his mother registered his birth with the US Consul in Canada he would have had a US Birth certificate. He acquired his citizenship via statute, the 1952 INA. Birth Abroad.

Cruz acquired his citizenship at birth- regardless of when the United States officially recognized his birth.

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

Note- the 'at birth'. Note also the word 'should'
The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad

That is not a statutory requirement.

What were the statutory requirements?
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

So lets refer to Section 301(g)

INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH | USCIS
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

Citizens at Birth.

Cruz meets the requirements of Sec 301 G- so he was a U.S. citizen at birth- regardless of when the United States recognized his citizenship.

Well, that would be nice if it were in compliance the way it was written when Cruz was born. To know that you need to read the 1952 INA Section 301(a)(7) and (a)(7)(b), which then complies with 8USC1431. 301 has been changed numerous times since 1952, the first in 1977, after Cruz was born. So to know the laws in effect when Cruz was born you MUST goto the 1952 INA.

Or I could refer to the INS guidelines which spell out the requirements in effect when he was born

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship

Oh wait- I already did that.

And you ignored it that time too.

Cruz is a citizen at birth.

I think he is a natural born citizen- so does the GOP, and the two courts to review it.

Eligible- just not qualified.

 

[Syriusly]

Funny how the term 'birther' was one of scorn and mockery accordind to liberals in the past but now they embrace it proudly.

Funny how you are always an idiot.

Birthers is always a term of scorn and mockery- and Trump is the chief Birther.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Wong Kim Ark

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. 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 [p703] 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.

The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. "A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall,

becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.​

Does not mean a thing when applied to Curz, or McCain, or Obama.

They all had American parents. End of story.

McCain was born to 2 American Citizen parents in US Territory in the Military.
Obama was born in Hawaii, a US State to a US Citizen mother and Legal Immigrant father.
Cruz was born to an American Citizen mother in Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the US.

As I stated earlier, you know nothing of US Law. You can't even read a SCOTUS Opinion defining citizenship.

If according to Wong Kim Ark, Cruz is not eligible- then McCain would not have been eligible either.

For the exact same reason.

Wrong. Both of McCain's parents were in the Military, they would have held ligeance to the King.

We don't have a king.

John McCain was not born in the United States, and would not have been a U.S. citizen because of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution- which is what Wong Kim Ark stipulated.

He was a citizen because of Congressional action- which interestingly made him a citizen retroactively.

McCains parents were in ligeance to our Govt, as both were in the Military at the time of his birth.

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, 18b; 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]

Funny how the term 'birther' was one of scorn and mockery accordind to liberals in the past but now they embrace it proudly.

Every point we're discussing is already stipulated.

Birthers were mocked because they made up hallucinatory nonsense based on nothing, imagined elaborate conspiracies involving faked birth certificates, State compliance, secret flights to Kenya, hidden documents and other sundry batshit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

easyt, you have the focus of a gnat.

I doubt Steve_McGarret or Liquid are liberals.

Cruz is eligible regardless of all the yammering of the McGarretts and the Liquids.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I don't get it. I have dual. As does my husband. But here is the tricky part. Canada did not recognize dual citizenship until 1977. And I'm no birther but they better have their shit wired tight in the Cruz camp because up here Cruz was only ever recognized as Canadian by birth.

How and when was his American citizenship granted to him? No one has come forth with this information.

Cruz's citizenship was granted to him when he entered the US on his mothers US Passport at the age of 4. Had his mother registered his birth with the US Consul in Canada he would have had a US Birth certificate. He acquired his citizenship via statute, the 1952 INA. Birth Abroad.

Cruz acquired his citizenship at birth- regardless of when the United States officially recognized his birth.

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

Note- the 'at birth'. Note also the word 'should'
The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad

That is not a statutory requirement.

What were the statutory requirements?
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

So lets refer to Section 301(g)

INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH | USCIS
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

Citizens at Birth.

Cruz meets the requirements of Sec 301 G- so he was a U.S. citizen at birth- regardless of when the United States recognized his citizenship.

Well, that would be nice if it were in compliance the way it was written when Cruz was born. To know that you need to read the 1952 INA Section 301(a)(7) and (a)(7)(b), which then complies with 8USC1431. 301 has been changed numerous times since 1952, the first in 1977, after Cruz was born. So to know the laws in effect when Cruz was born you MUST goto the 1952 INA.

Or I could refer to the INS guidelines which spell out the requirements in effect when he was born

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship

Oh wait- I already did that.

And you ignored it that time too.

Cruz is a citizen at birth.

I think he is a natural born citizen- so does the GOP, and the two courts to review it.

Eligible- just not qualified.

I ignored that? Hell I gave you the actual 1952 INA link and portion. SMFH
You can think he is the second coming of Jesus Fucking Christ for all it matters. The GOP has yet to make that claim.
Neither of the 2 "judges" conclusions (Penn's was a Memorandum; and the NJ was by a Admin Judge: ALJs have almost no power; their decisions are accorded practically no deference and become, in effect, recommendations) are neither binding, precedent, or holding. Their conclusions are good for nothing more than for the state to allow him on their ballot.

 

[Syriusly]

Does not mean a thing when applied to Curz, or McCain, or Obama.

They all had American parents. End of story.

McCain was born to 2 American Citizen parents in US Territory in the Military.
Obama was born in Hawaii, a US State to a US Citizen mother and Legal Immigrant father.
Cruz was born to an American Citizen mother in Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the US.

As I stated earlier, you know nothing of US Law. You can't even read a SCOTUS Opinion defining citizenship.

If according to Wong Kim Ark, Cruz is not eligible- then McCain would not have been eligible either.

For the exact same reason.

Wrong. Both of McCain's parents were in the Military, they would have held ligeance to the King.

We don't have a king.

John McCain was not born in the United States, and would not have been a U.S. citizen because of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution- which is what Wong Kim Ark stipulated.

He was a citizen because of Congressional action- which interestingly made him a citizen retroactively.

McCains parents were in ligeance to our Govt, as both were in the Military at the time of his birth.

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, 18b; 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 addressed this better than I am able to do so- his parents being in the military legally is immaterial to the 14th Amendment- Skylar argues that the PCZ was considered part of the United States- I disagree- Congress would not have needed to pass a law making the children born there citizens if that was the case- nor would Congress have needed to pass laws regarding the citizenship of Americans born in other territories of the United States- if the persons born in American Samoa were subject to the 14th Amendments citizenship clause.

 

[Syriusly]

Cruz's citizenship was granted to him when he entered the US on his mothers US Passport at the age of 4. Had his mother registered his birth with the US Consul in Canada he would have had a US Birth certificate. He acquired his citizenship via statute, the 1952 INA. Birth Abroad.

Cruz acquired his citizenship at birth- regardless of when the United States officially recognized his birth.

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

Note- the 'at birth'. Note also the word 'should'
The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad

That is not a statutory requirement.

What were the statutory requirements?
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

So lets refer to Section 301(g)

INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH | USCIS
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

Citizens at Birth.

Cruz meets the requirements of Sec 301 G- so he was a U.S. citizen at birth- regardless of when the United States recognized his citizenship.

Well, that would be nice if it were in compliance the way it was written when Cruz was born. To know that you need to read the 1952 INA Section 301(a)(7) and (a)(7)(b), which then complies with 8USC1431. 301 has been changed numerous times since 1952, the first in 1977, after Cruz was born. So to know the laws in effect when Cruz was born you MUST goto the 1952 INA.

Or I could refer to the INS guidelines which spell out the requirements in effect when he was born

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship

Oh wait- I already did that.

And you ignored it that time too.

Cruz is a citizen at birth.

I think he is a natural born citizen- so does the GOP, and the two courts to review it.

Eligible- just not qualified.

I ignored that? Hell I gave you the actual 1952 INA link and portion. SMFH
You can think he is the second coming of Jesus Fucking Christ for all it matters. The GOP has yet to make that claim.
Neither of the 2 "judges" conclusions (Penn's was a Memorandum; and the NJ was by a Admin Judge: ALJs have almost no power; their decisions are accorded practically no deference and become, in effect, recommendations) are neither binding, precedent, or holding. Their conclusions are good for nothing more than for the state to allow him on their ballot.

As opposed to your conclusion- which has no effect at all- their conclusions actually have an effect.

The GOP has them on their ballot as a candidate- now maybe you are correct- maybe the GOP would put a candidate on their primary ballot without believing he or she was eligible- you probably know more the GOP than I do.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I am not familiar with Longborough v. Blake but American citizenship law is pretty clear that being born in a U.S. territory does not automatically make one a U.S. citizen.

Right, it doesn't, but McCains parents being in the Military and being in US Territory does.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

McCain was born to 2 American Citizen parents in US Territory in the Military.
Obama was born in Hawaii, a US State to a US Citizen mother and Legal Immigrant father.
Cruz was born to an American Citizen mother in Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the US.

As I stated earlier, you know nothing of US Law. You can't even read a SCOTUS Opinion defining citizenship.

If according to Wong Kim Ark, Cruz is not eligible- then McCain would not have been eligible either.

For the exact same reason.

Wrong. Both of McCain's parents were in the Military, they would have held ligeance to the King.

We don't have a king.

John McCain was not born in the United States, and would not have been a U.S. citizen because of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution- which is what Wong Kim Ark stipulated.

He was a citizen because of Congressional action- which interestingly made him a citizen retroactively.

McCains parents were in ligeance to our Govt, as both were in the Military at the time of his birth.

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, 18b; 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 addressed this better than I am able to do so- his parents being in the military legally is immaterial to the 14th Amendment- Skylar argues that the PCZ was considered part of the United States- I disagree- Congress would not have needed to pass a law making the children born there citizens if that was the case- nor would Congress have needed to pass laws regarding the citizenship of Americans born in other territories of the United States- if the persons born in American Samoa were subject to the 14th Amendments citizenship clause.

I Agree with you, Territories by themselves are as you state, but because McCains parents were military when he was born that does change it for McCain.