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

[Steve_McGarrett]

Bottom line, a statutory Citizen is not a natural born Citizen.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Are US Military bases considered US territory? Are children born on a US military base in Germany considered "natural-born citizens"? Are military personnel considered a type of diplomat?

No
I think so- but not because they were born on a U.S. military base.
No.

Military bases are considered a form of US Territory, US Military law is the law, not the laws of the surrounding country or territory. Military bases fall within the jurisdiction of the US based on SOFA Agreements. They are not territory like American Samoa or Guam are.

They are not territory for the purposes of citizenship.

Which is a good thing really- because there is no reason why the child born to two Pakistani nationals working as janitors at Diego Garcia should be American citizens, but the child born to a U.S. citizen there should be.

Right, they are not territory or considered as US soil for the purpose of children born on them, however children born of diplomats or military personnel are because they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

That isn't what the 14th Amendment says.

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.

Children born to American citizens are born American citizens because of laws passed by Congress. Like Cruz. Like McCain.

Since they are born U.S. Citizens I consider them natural born citizens.

As do millions voting for Cruz.

Now you are denying your very link, namely Rogers v Bellei. Children born to a citizen or citizens outside the jurisdiction may acquire citizenship.

Rogers v Bellei

Section 301 (a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1401 (a), defines those persons who "shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." Paragraph (7) of 301 (a) includes in that definition a person born abroad "of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States" who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301 (b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under 301 (a) (7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years. We quote the statute in the margin. 1 [401 U.S. 815, 817]

The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to bestow citizenship at birth but to take it away upon the person's failure to comply with a post-age-14 and pre-age-28 residential requirement. It is this deprival of citizenship, once bestowed, that is under attack here.​

This is the very same thing as Cruz, it has no bearing on McCain. You can consider him/them to be whatever you want, doesn't change the fact that there is no definitive answer as to whether he/they is/are or not. Cruz's citizenship was conditional, if he failed to meet his requirements (301(a)(7)(b); 8USC1431) then he would have been denied US Citizenship all together. A 'natural-born citizen" can not have their status as "conditional".

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Bottom line, a statutory Citizen is not a natural born Citizen.

Correct, except it is a "conditional" citizen, not statutory.

Rogers v Bellei

7. Neither are we persuaded that a condition subsequent in this area impresses one with "second-class citizenship." That cliche is too handy and too easy, and, like most cliches, can be misleading. That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light [401 U.S. 815, 836] of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not "second-class."​

 

[Syriusly]

Liquid, you can keep repeating mateerial that has not been accepted by SCOTUS to post-14th Amendment births in America.

If you are born of an American parent, you are a citizen eligible to run for president.

Nope

Yep. Show me where with a full cite in the law that is not so.

go back and read the comments. More than I have stated Cruz is not a citizen eligible to run, he is not a "natural-born citizen", he is a "naturalized citizen".

According to you.

Let us know when any authority agrees with you.

 

[Syriusly]

[
This is the very same thing as Cruz, it has no bearing on McCain. You can consider him/them to be whatever you want, doesn't change the fact that there is no definitive answer as to whether he/they is/are or not. Cruz's citizenship was conditional, if he failed to meet his requirements (301(a)(7)(b); 8USC1431) then he would have been denied US Citizenship all together. A 'natural-born citizen" can not have their status as "conditional".

As pointed out- Cruz was a citizen at birth- he didn't fail to meet any requirements- he was- and has been since birth- an American citizen.

 

[Skylar]

The courts have never found this to be true. I was born on an overseas US army base to two active duty parents. And my citizenship is statutory in origin. It doesn't meet the definition of constitutional citizenship. Exactly as Rogers found.

Wrong. I have a daughter born overseas on a US Military base while I was in the military, she is a "natural-born citizen".

Nope. Her citizenship was acquired through statute, just like mine. She doesn't meet the definition of constitutional citizenship. As there is no 'military' exception. Anyone born outside the jurisdiction of the US can only acquire citizenship via naturalization.

Exactly as the Wong Kim Ark court found. Exactly as the State Department found. With Rogers finding that those born outside the US cannot meet the definition of constitutional citizenship.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter in the slightest what you choose to be willfully blind to.

You don't seem to understand the difference between children born to ambassadors/diplomats/ service members overseas verse simply a child born on an overseas installation.

You don't seem to understand that US law makes no differentiation in terms of natural born citizenship. Neither acquire citizenship that meets the constitutional definitions. The only way a child born in US embassy can acquire citizenship is through statute of congress.

Citizenship that per the State department is NOT embodied in the constitution.

(2) 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.

7 FAM 1110 Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By Birth in the United States

We'll just add the State Department to the growing list of sources (including the Supreme Court, twice) that you'll choose to be willful blind to. Your problem, as always, is convincing us to ignore what you do.

With the exceptions as WKA noted, namely Ambassadors and persons in service of the govt.

Wong never finds this to be true in US law. What you're referring to was for subjects under British Common law. WKA finds NO exceptions in US law when it comes to those born outside the jurisdiction of the United States;

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.

You can imagine that Wong Kim Ark is wrong and you're right. But your imagination is legally irrelevant.

Nothing contradicts me, your inability to comprehend basic English is your downfall. My psuedo-legal non-sense? LMFAO as if you have any legal knowledge at all. SMFH Gotta love armchair attorneys with no back ground what-so-ever in law.

You can pretend that Wong doesn't say that a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized. But neither we nor the law are going to pretend with you.

You can pretend that Roger's court didn't find that the constitutional definition of citizenship obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. We're still not pretending with you.

You can pretend that the State department didn't explicitly cite citizenship through parents as“derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution. But we can still see them doing exactly that.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

[Contumacious]

Repeating yourself does not help you.

Judges often don't read the briefs.

Repeating yourself does not help you.

How is the cause of individual freedom, Constitutional Law, Due process of law advanced if judges don't read the briefs and are immunized?.

Repeating like a parrot is mere trolling. Judges often don't read briefs, their clerks do and the judges read them.

If you think this is wrong, tell us why.

Be specific.

Due process of law includes the right to defend oneself.

In court litigants speak through pleadings and motions. If a judge refuses to read his papers then he has been denied his right to petition for a redress of grievances, his right to access the courts and his right to have a neutral and impartial magistrate adjudicate.

No wonder there are 2.4 million individuals is US prisons.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Liquid, you can keep repeating mateerial that has not been accepted by SCOTUS to post-14th Amendment births in America.

If you are born of an American parent, you are a citizen eligible to run for president.

Nope

Yep. Show me where with a full cite in the law that is not so.

go back and read the comments. More than I have stated Cruz is not a citizen eligible to run, he is not a "natural-born citizen", he is a "naturalized citizen".

According to you.

Let us know when any authority agrees with you.

Read Rogers v Bellei (as cited by Skylar) Cruz is a "conditional citizen", had he failed to enter the US before a certain age and reside here his citizenship status would have been revoked. A "natural-born citizen" can never have their citizenship revoked.

Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

7. Neither are we persuaded that a condition subsequent in this area impresses one with "second-class citizenship." That cliche is too handy and too easy, and, like most cliches, can be misleading. That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light

Page 401 U. S. 836

of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not "second-class."
​

 

[Liquid Reigns]

[
This is the very same thing as Cruz, it has no bearing on McCain. You can consider him/them to be whatever you want, doesn't change the fact that there is no definitive answer as to whether he/they is/are or not. Cruz's citizenship was conditional, if he failed to meet his requirements (301(a)(7)(b); 8USC1431) then he would have been denied US Citizenship all together. A 'natural-born citizen" can not have their status as "conditional".

As pointed out- Cruz was a citizen at birth- he didn't fail to meet any requirements- he was- and has been since birth- an American citizen.

No, his citizenship was conditional on his mother meeting certain requirements (to pass citizenship on) and then he himself meeting certain requirements (to acquire and retain that citizenship). Roger v Bellei and 8USC1431

 

[Syriusly]

[
This is the very same thing as Cruz, it has no bearing on McCain. You can consider him/them to be whatever you want, doesn't change the fact that there is no definitive answer as to whether he/they is/are or not. Cruz's citizenship was conditional, if he failed to meet his requirements (301(a)(7)(b); 8USC1431) then he would have been denied US Citizenship all together. A 'natural-born citizen" can not have their status as "conditional".

As pointed out- Cruz was a citizen at birth- he didn't fail to meet any requirements- he was- and has been since birth- an American citizen.

No, his citizenship was conditional on his mother meeting certain requirements (to pass citizenship on) and then he himself meeting certain requirements (to acquire and retain that citizenship). Roger v Bellei and 8USC1431

As pointed out- Cruz was a citizen at birth- he didn't fail to meet any requirements- he was- and has been since birth- an American citizen

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The courts have never found this to be true. I was born on an overseas US army base to two active duty parents. And my citizenship is statutory in origin. It doesn't meet the definition of constitutional citizenship. Exactly as Rogers found.

Wrong. I have a daughter born overseas on a US Military base while I was in the military, she is a "natural-born citizen".

Nope. Her citizenship was acquired through statute, just like mine. She doesn't meet the definition of constitutional citizenship. As there is no 'military' exception. Anyone born outside the jurisdiction of the US can only acquire citizenship via naturalization.

Exactly as the Wong Kim Ark court found. Exactly as the State Department found. With Rogers finding that those born outside the US cannot meet the definition of constitutional citizenship.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter in the slightest what you choose to be willfully blind to.

You don't seem to understand the difference between children born to ambassadors/diplomats/ service members overseas verse simply a child born on an overseas installation.

You don't seem to understand that US law makes no differentiation in terms of natural born citizenship. Neither acquire citizenship that meets the constitutional definitions. The only way a child born in US embassy can acquire citizenship is through statute of congress.

Citizenship that per the State department is NOT embodied in the constitution.

(2) 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.

7 FAM 1110 Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By Birth in the United States

We'll just add the State Department to the growing list of sources (including the Supreme Court, twice) that you'll choose to be willful blind to. Your problem, as always, is convincing us to ignore what you do.

With the exceptions as WKA noted, namely Ambassadors and persons in service of the govt.

Wong never finds this to be true in US law. What you're referring to was for subjects under British Common law. WKA finds NO exceptions in US law when it comes to those born outside the jurisdiction of the United States;

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.

You can imagine that Wong Kim Ark is wrong and you're right. But your imagination is legally irrelevant.

Nothing contradicts me, your inability to comprehend basic English is your downfall. My psuedo-legal non-sense? LMFAO as if you have any legal knowledge at all. SMFH Gotta love armchair attorneys with no back ground what-so-ever in law.

You can pretend that Wong doesn't say that a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized. But neither we nor the law are going to pretend with you.

You can pretend that Roger's court didn't find that the constitutional definition of citizenship obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. We're still not pretending with you.

You can pretend that the State department didn't explicitly cite citizenship through parents as“derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution. But we can still see them doing exactly that.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter in the slightest.

:yawn: You can pretend you have the ability to comprehend SCOTUS opinion, however the reality is you have shown you fail to be able to do so.

WKA explains there are exceptions to the common law in regards to persons in service to their govt, it has been cited, you can deny it all you want.

How about from Blackstone, whom the SCOTUS cites quite frequently: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 (Citizenship): William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361--62

When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador.
​

Therefor McCain was born a "natural-born citizen".

 

[Liquid Reigns]

[
This is the very same thing as Cruz, it has no bearing on McCain. You can consider him/them to be whatever you want, doesn't change the fact that there is no definitive answer as to whether he/they is/are or not. Cruz's citizenship was conditional, if he failed to meet his requirements (301(a)(7)(b); 8USC1431) then he would have been denied US Citizenship all together. A 'natural-born citizen" can not have their status as "conditional".

As pointed out- Cruz was a citizen at birth- he didn't fail to meet any requirements- he was- and has been since birth- an American citizen.

No, his citizenship was conditional on his mother meeting certain requirements (to pass citizenship on) and then he himself meeting certain requirements (to acquire and retain that citizenship). Roger v Bellei and 8USC1431

As pointed out- Cruz was a citizen at birth- he didn't fail to meet any requirements- he was- and has been since birth- an American citizen

No he wasn't, he acquired his citizenship once he met the requirements of him living in the US. Read Roger v Bellei, Cruz is the exact same situated as Bellei, the only difference was that Cruz entered the US at age 4, where as Bellei failed to ever enter the US.

You are either demonstrating utter ignorance or you are claiming that SCOTUS opinion is incorrect and Rogers v Bellei got it wrong.

 

[Contumacious]

[
This is the very same thing as Cruz, it has no bearing on McCain. You can consider him/them to be whatever you want, doesn't change the fact that there is no definitive answer as to whether he/they is/are or not. Cruz's citizenship was conditional, if he failed to meet his requirements (301(a)(7)(b); 8USC1431) then he would have been denied US Citizenship all together. A 'natural-born citizen" can not have their status as "conditional".

As pointed out- Cruz was a citizen at birth- he didn't fail to meet any requirements- he was- and has been since birth- an American citizen.

No, his citizenship was conditional on his mother meeting certain requirements (to pass citizenship on) and then he himself meeting certain requirements (to acquire and retain that citizenship). Roger v Bellei and 8USC1431

As pointed out- Cruz was a citizen at birth- he didn't fail to meet any requirements- he was- and has been since birth- an American citizen

Concur.


.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

[
This is the very same thing as Cruz, it has no bearing on McCain. You can consider him/them to be whatever you want, doesn't change the fact that there is no definitive answer as to whether he/they is/are or not. Cruz's citizenship was conditional, if he failed to meet his requirements (301(a)(7)(b); 8USC1431) then he would have been denied US Citizenship all together. A 'natural-born citizen" can not have their status as "conditional".

As pointed out- Cruz was a citizen at birth- he didn't fail to meet any requirements- he was- and has been since birth- an American citizen.

No, his citizenship was conditional on his mother meeting certain requirements (to pass citizenship on) and then he himself meeting certain requirements (to acquire and retain that citizenship). Roger v Bellei and 8USC1431

As pointed out- Cruz was a citizen at birth- he didn't fail to meet any requirements- he was- and has been since birth- an American citizen

He is a "conditional citizen" who met his requirements to retain his citizenship; he is not a "natural-born citizen" and he is not eligible to hold the Office of the President.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

According to you.

Let us know when any authority agrees with you.

Rogers v Bellei

Cruz is a "conditional citizen" who if he had failed to have met the requirements of the 1952 INA section 301(a)(7)(b) would have lost his citizenship. No "natural-born citizen" could ever have his citizenship revoked.

 

[Syriusly]

According to you.

Let us know when any authority agrees with you.

Rogers v Bellei

Cruz is a "conditional citizen" who if he had failed to have met the requirements of the 1952 INA section 301(a)(7)(b) would have lost his citizenship. No "natural-born citizen" could ever have his citizenship revoked.

Meanwhile- Cruz was born a U.S. Citizen- despite your numerous claims to the contrary- and remains a U.S. citizen and is considered to be a natural born citizen by the only authorities who have reviewed the issue.

Let me know when any authority agrees with you.

 

[Silhouette]

Meanwhile- Cruz was born a U.S. Citizen- despite your numerous claims to the contrary- and remains a U.S. citizen and is considered to be a natural born citizen by the only authorities who have reviewed the issue.

Let me know when any authority agrees with you.

Well there you go. Expert internet troll from the far left (here curiously pitching hard for Cruz) named "Syriusly" has spoken. The laws will have to be changed to reflect her reality. You know how the LGBT works. If reality doesn't fit the Agenda, reality has to change and not the other way around..

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Meanwhile- Cruz was born a U.S. Citizen- despite your numerous claims to the contrary- and remains a U.S. citizen and is considered to be a natural born citizen by the only authorities who have reviewed the issue.

Let me know when any authority agrees with you.

No authorities have reviewed it, the 2 cases you are referring to, Penn and NJ don't hold any legal weight, are not binding, are not precedent, and are not holding.

Rogers v Bellei is the precedent and infers Cruz is nothing more than a "conditional citizen" who met the requirements of the 1952 INA, he is not a "natural-born citizen".

 

[Syriusly]

[
This is the very same thing as Cruz, it has no bearing on McCain. You can consider him/them to be whatever you want, doesn't change the fact that there is no definitive answer as to whether he/they is/are or not. Cruz's citizenship was conditional, if he failed to meet his requirements (301(a)(7)(b); 8USC1431) then he would have been denied US Citizenship all together. A 'natural-born citizen" can not have their status as "conditional".

As pointed out- Cruz was a citizen at birth- he didn't fail to meet any requirements- he was- and has been since birth- an American citizen.

No, his citizenship was conditional on his mother meeting certain requirements (to pass citizenship on) and then he himself meeting certain requirements (to acquire and retain that citizenship). Roger v Bellei and 8USC1431

As pointed out- Cruz was a citizen at birth- he didn't fail to meet any requirements- he was- and has been since birth- an American citizen

No he wasn't, he acquired his citizenship once he met the requirements of him living in the US. Read Roger v Bellei, Cruz is the exact same situated as Bellei, the only difference was that Cruz entered the US at age 4, where as Bellei failed to ever enter the US..

Bellei was a U.S. citizen until he failed to secure his citizenship.

Roger v. Bellei notes numerous times that Bellei was born a U.S. citizen- but not according to the 14th Amendment.

Section 301(b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301(a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years. We quote the statute in the margin.

It is this deprival of citizenship, once bestowed, that is under attack here.

On the first two occasions, when the plaintiff was a boy of eight and 11, he entered the country with his mother on her United States passport. On the next two occasions, when he was 15 and just under 23, he entered on his own United States passport, and was admitted as a citizen of this country

Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement,

Born a citizen- even had a legitimate U.S. passport- until he failed to meet the requirements to keep his citizenship.

 

[Syriusly]

Meanwhile- Cruz was born a U.S. Citizen- despite your numerous claims to the contrary- and remains a U.S. citizen and is considered to be a natural born citizen by the only authorities who have reviewed the issue.

Let me know when any authority agrees with you.

Well there you go. Expert internet troll from the far left (here curiously pitching hard for Cruz) named "Syriusly" has spoken. The laws will have to be changed to reflect her reality. You know how the LGBT works. If reality doesn't fit the Agenda, reality has to change and not the other way around..

LOL....

meanwhile in reality, Cruz is still on the ballot, still unlikely to be the nominee.

And Silhouette is still on her hateful anti-gay war path.