U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: The law frequently cited by Ted Cruz to prove he’s Constitutionally eligible to be president actually proves he is NOT!
Source:
https://www.facebook.com/JesseTMims
URL Source: https://www.facebook.com/notes/jess ... eligible-to-b/1021823951199155
Published: May 8, 2016
Author: Jesse T Mims
Post Date: 2016-06-05 18:48:55 by packrat1145
Keywords: Ted Cruz, Eligible, Constitution
Views: 1817
Comments: 9
By now, everyone SHOULD be aware that the US Supreme Court defined the term "natural born citizen" as "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens." See https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/ When paraphrased specifically to the USA, that definition becomes, "one born on US soil of two US citizens." Since Ted Cruz was not born in the USA of two US citizens, he cannot possibly meet the criteria required to be a natural born citizen. SCOTUS has cited that same definition in the process of deciding at least four cases. Furthermore, that court has never once cited any OTHER definition of that term; which, means, it has never once cited ANY definition of that term which would include Ted Cruz as BEING a natural born citizen. I would also point out that the Naturalization Act of 1790; which, Cruz frequently uses to justify his false claim of being a natural born citizen, was totally repealed a mere five years later with the passing of the Naturalization Act of 1795. So, the law Cruz claims makes him a natural born citizen has not been in effect for some 220 years! I trust that everyone DOES know that once a law is repealed, it is no longer legally binding and has zero bearing on anything in the future. Also important to note however, is how the wording of the NAof1795 was different from that of the NAof1790. The 1790 law said... "...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..." The 1795 law said... "...the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and 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 to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States..." See the complete text of both Acts here: www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H...8/naturalization1790.html The children spoken of in those portions of both acts are the same class of people; and, as can be seen from the wording of each act, the former said that class of people were to "be considered as natural born citizens;" whereas, the latter said they were to "be considered as citizens." It is also duly noted that the term "natural born citizen" was never written into any law legislated by Congress again; so, obviously, if Congress ever thought making that class of people natural born citizens was a good idea, that thinking was quickly abandoned and never returned. Many scholars believe the wording was changed in the 1795 law because Congress realized it had made an error in the 1790 law which made it APPEAR that children born outside the limits of the USA to US citizens were natural born citizens. Regardless of the reason, however, there is no denying that once the 1790 law was repealed, it was no longer in effect and is certainly not in effect today. That fact alone makes Cruz’s attempt to use the NAof1790 to justify his claim of being eligible to become president disingenuous at best. Indeed, there should now be no doubt that Cruz can neither legally nor logically depend on the NAof1790 to support his claim of being a natural born citizen TODAY. Still, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that even DURING the approximately five years that law WAS in effect, it would not have made Cruz a natural born citizen. Rather, it actually PROVES HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN a natural born citizen even DURING that short period. Here is why... Please note the words, "Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." The words BEFORE that provision make it clear that the "persons" to which it refers are children of naturalized US citizen fathers. So, what it means is that if the father of children described therein had not resided in the USA for at least five years after becoming a naturalized US citizen, that child was NOT to be considered as a natural born citizen. In other words, a child would NOT be considered to be a natural born citizen if it were born BEFORE the father became a naturalized US citizen OR before the passing of five years AFTER the father's naturalization process was completed. Since Cruz senior did not become a naturalized US citizen until 2005, he was not a US citizen AT ALL at the time his son Ted was born. Therefore, even if the NAof1790 WERE still in effect today, it would actually EXCLUDE Ted from being a natural born citizen.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: packrat1145 (#0)
And you're still beating this horse why?
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. 8 U.S.C. 1401, as in effect when Ted Cruz was born. CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCHAPTER III--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION Part I--Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: [...] (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States; [...] http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=66&page=235 As it appeared in the Nationality and Naturalization of 1952. Ted Cruz was born in 1970.
I'm well aware that Cruz is a US citizen. In fact, I have done everything I possibly can to educate people on that issue in reference to their claims that he's not even eligible to be a US Senator for the reason that he is not a US citizen. He was automatically granted naturalized US citizenship at birth; and, nothing has occurred to change that. However, he is not now a natural born citizen, never was, and never can be.
Ther is no such thing.
To be clear... Are you claiming there is no US naturalization law granting automatic naturalized US citizenship?
There is no such thing as naturalized citizenship at birth. A person who is a citizen at birth cannot be naturalized. The only people eligible for naturalization are aliens who are lawfulling present in the United States. Also, the minimum age is 18 years old. Also, one must be a permanent resident not less than 3 years. Not to mention that an infant at birth would have a problem taking the oath. For more see:
Again... Are you claiming there is no US naturalization law granting automatic naturalized US citizenship? That's a "Yes" or "No" question...
If you know of one, cite it or quote it. Cruz was in Canada when he was born. Eligibility for naturalization requires one to be lawfully in the United States. Cruz was zero years old when he was born. Neither he nor anyone else can meet the age requirement for naturalization when he was born. Cruz had not been a permanent resident of the U.S. for three years when he was born and could not have met the least possible residency requirement. Your claim and question are legal gibberish. Nobody has ever been naturalized at birth. There is no such thing as a U.S. citizen naturalized at birth.
The US Constitution gives Congress no authorization to make law creating US citizens other than by naturalization. See Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 4. Therefore, both Title 8 of U.S.C. 1401 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 are naturalization acts exclusively; ergo, every person made a US citizen BY those or any other act passed by Congress IS a naturalized US citizen. Furthermore, BOTH Title 8 of U.S.C 1401 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 does exactly what you claim no US law does. Specifically... "TITLE III—NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION SEC. 301. (a) of that portion of that act explicitly states, "The following SHALL BE nationals and CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH:" (Emphasis added) Subsections (3) and (4) of SEC. 301. (a) grant naturalized US citizenship AT BIRTH to persons "born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions" who meet certain other criteria. Subsection (5) does the same for persons "born in an outlying possession of the United States;" as does subsection (7) for persons "born outside the geographical limits of the United sates and its outlying possessions." Since that act is exclusively a naturalization act; and, since it explicitly states that certain persons are citizens AT BIRTH, it is clear that at least in SOME cases, children ARE IN FACT granted naturalized US citizenship AT BIRTH. By the same tokens, it is also clear that in cases wherein persons are granted naturalized US citizenship AT BIRTH, it is not correct to say "Eligibility for naturalization requires one to be lawfully in the United States." As for Ted Cruz, he was granted naturalized US citizenship via the aforementioned subsection (7); which, provides that a person is a naturalized US citizen if he/she is, "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." Cruz is included in that provision because... 1. he was born in Canada; which, is "outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions;" 2. one of his parents, his father, was an alien at the time Ted was born (he only became a US citizen in 2005, 35 years AFTER Ted was born). 3. his other parent, his mother, was a US citizen at the time he was born and who met the residency requirements. That means Ted Cruz was in fact a naturalized US citizen AT BIRTH; and, since naturalized citizens cannot also be natural born citizens, he is not eligible to ever become president of the USA. The reason the portion of Title 8 of the US Code you cited earlier as applying to Cruz does NOT apply to him is because Cruz's father was NEVER a US national and did not become a naturalized US citizen himself until 2005; which again, was 35 years after Ted was born. He was ALWAYS an alien until 2005. If you want to look to Title 8 for US law that applies to Cruz, the place to look is at SEC. (g) here https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401; which, reads as follows... "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:" It's duly noted that that is an updated version with residency requirements that were not in effect when Ted was born in 1970 and still under the 1952 law. However, his mother would still meet the updated residency requirements.
#2. To: packrat1145 (#0)
TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
#3. To: nolu chan (#2)
#4. To: packrat1145 (#3)
He was automatically granted naturalized US citizenship at birth;
#5. To: nolu chan (#4)
He was automatically granted naturalized US citizenship at birth;
Ther is no such thing.
#6. To: packrat1145 (#5)
To be clear... Are you claiming there is no US naturalization law granting automatic naturalized US citizenship?
#7. To: nolu chan (#6)
There is no such thing as naturalized citizenship at birth. A person who is a citizen at birth cannot be naturalized.
#8. To: packrat1145 (#7)
Again... Are you claiming there is no US naturalization law granting automatic naturalized US citizenship?
#9. To: nolu chan (#8)
(Edited)
Nobody has ever been naturalized at birth. There is no such thing as a U.S. citizen naturalized at birth.
CHAPTER 1—NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]