"Ineligible" - Cruz' former Harvard Law professor

[Dianne]

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/...ble-to-run-for-president-of-the-united-states

Wow, good point.

 

[notsure]

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Not really. Lisa Najeeb Halaby officially renounced her US citizenship in 1978. Prince Hashim wasn't born until 1981 So being born to a mother who possessed only Jordanian citizenship and a father who only possessed Jordanian citizenship makes him Jordanian.

The difference? Tes Cruz's mother never officially renounced he US citizenship.

How do we know this?

 

[Jan2017]

. . . Tes Cruz's mother never officially renounced he US citizenship.

How do we know this?

or even a de facto consideration by the USA which tarnishes how the USA considers her, officially.

It is still a good point about the Prince . . .
Does Cruz have the burden of providing evidence that his Mom was in sufficient standing with the USA to impart that citizenship for Ted's benefit (?),
especially after a plaintiff brings it up first -
with documentation about what she was saying to the Canadian government on any forms she was filling out for Ottawa authorities.

She left to live in Canada with her alien husband 3 years before Ted was born - Prince was born 3 years after his US mom renounced citizenship. *ironic*

 

[Scott_in_PA]

Not really. Lisa Najeeb Halaby officially renounced her US citizenship in 1978. Prince Hashim wasn't born until 1981 So being born to a mother who possessed only Jordanian citizenship and a father who only possessed Jordanian citizenship makes him Jordanian.

The difference? Tes Cruz's mother never officially renounced he US citizenship.

I'd like to see the evidence that "Lisa Najeeb Halaby officially renounced her US citizenship in 1978."

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7tBKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uukMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1039,7210127&hl=en

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Jan,

Neither of Marco Rubios parents were naturalized US Citizens at the time of Marcos birth on US Soil. He is essentially an anchor baby.

Your understanding and interpretation of the basic principles of Natural Born Citizenship, allows for Marcos Natural Born Claim.

My understanding and interpretation of the basic principles of Natural Born Citizenship, disallows Marcos Natural Born Claim.

Our difference is, you give Natural Born Citizenship as a birthright to any human being born on US Soil, and to no human being born off of US Soil.

I give Natural Born Citizenship as a birthright to any human being born to a US Citizen, on or off of US Soil.

The Blessings of Liberty was to be secured "for ourselves and our Posterity". How than could we disclude the Posterity of a US Citizen from those blessings of liberty, simply because they were born on Foreign Soil?

Additionally, there is a question of the Social Contract.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another"

Allow me to tie this together. As Americans, having instituted our Constitution and established our Government "among men" through "the consent of the governed", the United States of America is to secure our Rights with legitimacy. (I know, I know, haha).

So who are these Men having instituted a government? Who have consented to giving the government their just powers? These men are "one people". A group of individuals, but a group united politically. This group, I will call "US Citizens".

We today are still apart of that "one people" yet none of us still living had any part in the formation of our government. So are we then of a different group? Are we not apart of the same "one people" as our Founding Generation? Are we not "US Citizens"?

The Constitution says that the blessings of Liberty were to be secured "for ourselves and our Posterity". So, We the Posterity have consented to the just powers of our government, and the institution of our government through our Founding Generation, and that any government decision made since the Constitution was instituted, not being repealed or expired, is binding. This is how the Constitution is still the law of the land, hundreds of years after it was written. Because the Social Contract of our Ancestors was afforded to the Posterity of our Ancestors.

So, we know that Citizens of the United States are of "one people", who are bound to the political actions taken earlier in time, by the same "one people".

How do we determine Citizenship if not by blood (Natural) or naturalization?

If two individuals, not being of the "one people" (US Citizens), have a child on US Soil, how is that child in any way bound to institution of the US Government? How has he consented to the just powers of such a government?

His parents, not being Natural Born Citizens, nor volunteering to join the "one people" through Naturalization, have not consented to the just powers of the government nor the institution of such a government. (Though the government in which they have citizenship through may recognize the legitimacy of the US Government, in which they must also recognize the legitimacy of the US, but, that is not the same as being of the "one people" consenting or instituting a government).

Non Citizens are not afforded the blessings of Liberty, as they are not "ourselves" (the original Men establishing the government), nor are they "our Posterity" (the future generations of US Citizens, being literally their children and those who become "Naturalized".

Indeed, "all Men are Created Equal" and are born with "unalienable Rights", meaning our government recognizes the Natural Rights of Mankind...which is different than the rest of Mankind being eligible to benefit from the US Constitutions securing of the blessings of Liberty.

So, finally. If your parents are not US Citizens, you cannot be one except through Naturalization. Why? Because it violates the basic premise of the Social Contract. You have not consented to nor have you instituted the US Government. You are bound to another people, and another government, just as you are bound to your parents. You have not inherited the birthright of being a Naturally Born Citizen of the United States of America....because it was not your parents to pass on.

Likewise, the foreign born child of a US Citizen, is a Natural Citizen, being the Posterity that the US Constitution specifically secures itself for in the Preamble. That Posterity is the proper inherititor of the social contract that was instituted, and whose powers were derived by consent of the "one people", of which he was born a member.

Jan, either you are incorrect, or the Philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and the Written Word of the Constitution is wrong.

I know you will read this with an open mind, allowing your views fluidity when presented with a perspective that is self-evident and Constitutional.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/...ble-to-run-for-president-of-the-united-states

Yes, he is ineligible. First, his mother did not have citizenship at the time of his birth. Second, he adopted a title of nobility, which is specifically forbade by the Constitution.

 

[Danke]

Yes, he is ineligible. First, his mother did not have citizenship at the time of his birth. Second, he adopted a title of nobility, which is specifically forbade by the Constitution.

Many Esquires have been presidents.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Many Esquires have been presidents.

Noted. Danke, what do you think of my super long post where I give the case for Natural Citizenship via Blood?

 

[Jan2017]

...
Neither of Marco Rubios parents were naturalized US Citizens at the time of Marcos birth on US Soil. He is essentially an anchor baby.

Your understanding and interpretation of the basic principles of Natural Born Citizenship, allows for Marcos Natural Born Claim.

Our difference is, you give Natural Born Citizenship as a birthright to any human being born on US Soil, and to no human being born off of US Soil.

... either you are incorrect, or the Philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and the Written Word of the Constitution is wrong.

Nope . . . I am only going by the original intent of the constitution, the exact meaning of what was put into the constitution - it is not my opinion.
It is the philosophy of the Constitution and the President Eligibility Clause - no Foreigners, only native born,
and if you are an "anchor baby" (Madison of course didn't call it that in 1789) Madison explains how the new nation should regard
that in his eloquent language.

Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were the authors of the Federalist Papers, their's are among the very best explanations as to what
the Written Word of the Constitution is saying - they were explaining it to the state legislatures for ratification.

---------------
The Prince is of course NOT eligible . . . the good point about it is that it shows it is a question of fact about the Mom's citizenship as it would be for all derivative citizenship cases.
Ted Cruz in a court hearing would have to show or provide some exculpatory evidence that
his mother did not become too estranged from the USA in every damn effin' thing, like she seems to have done.
Taxes, claiming dependent to Canada, voter registration etc. - the more I find, the more I need to see
some evidence from Cruz - he seems to say nothing about this ever that is very convincing - let him have his day in court.

 

[idiom]

We are all aware that at the time of Cruz' birth Canada didn't allow for dual-citizenship right?

 

[Dianne]

The more I analyze the campaign, I am of firm resolve that Cruz is a Hillary placeholder, on behalf of Goldman Sachs. He is No. 3 behind Jeb, Hillary in Wall Street contributions. His wife is an exec at Goldman Sachs, power player in Council of Foreign Relations. I have no doubt, Cruz is falling on his sword to take down any feasible resistance to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Cruz is a liar, a low life, and a maggot.

 

[Jan2017]

We are all aware that at the time of Cruz' birth Canada didn't allow for dual-citizenship right?

Awe shit Cruz . . . if that is true . . . you are so . . . dead meat

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

We are all aware that at the time of Cruz' birth Canada didn't allow for dual-citizenship right?

I just checked this out, 15 February 1977 is when the Citizenship Act was passed, allowing for Multiple Citizenship.

Ted was born well before that date, meaning he, by Canadian Law, was not a Dual Citizen, but a Canadian Citizen.

Since his mother had also adopted Canadian Citizenship, it means that she legally was not a American Citizen...which means even my "blood" interpretation of Natural Born is blown out of the water.

He was born to a Canadian Mother and a Cuban Father in Canada.

The only sticky point I see is, what if America recognized both the Mothers Citizenship and Ted's Dual Citizenship, even while Canada did not?

Regardless, I do not think that the Courts can find in good faith, that Raphael Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Jan, I found this in another thread...what do you think?

A "Natural born citizen" - the most crucial concept of the moment in America - is confusing (and deliberately confused). This concept is used in the Constitution of the US (Article II, Section 1, #4) as a precondition for presidency - and only for presidency, being clearly distinguished from ordinary citizenship. It has not been defined in the Constitution nor in any later statutes, because it had been self evident in the time when the Constitution was written, codified in the then contemporary encyclopedia "The Law of Nations" (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source "Law of Nations" is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular - against piracies and felonies on high seas).

According to Chapter 19, §212 of "Law of Nations", the concept "Natural born citizen" is a twofold criterion meaning that:

Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after.

In other words, a natural born citizen means at least a second generation citizen of the country. Vattel's own note on the margin of his book refers to the Roman law: NEMO PLUS JURIS TRANSFERRE POTEST, QUAM IPSE HABET, meaning "No one can give more rights than he himself has" (by Dr. A. Altec).

Another indication to the meaning of the term may be found in the Supreme Court's definition of "natural born citizen" as "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 1875).

Often "Natural born citizenship" is confused with §1401 of the US Code "Nationals and citizens of United States at birth". Although the words sound similar, §1401 defines only ordinary citizenship including such shallow one as that of anchor babies (i.e. born to legal guests of the country, §1401(a), never mind illegal residents).

The Constitution clearly and explicitly excludes ordinary citizenship for presidency: ordinary citizenship was reserved only for the presidential candidates - contemporaries of the Framers (referred as the grandfather clause). Definitely the "Natural born citizenship" is not the same as ordinary citizenship, but something stronger. By not explicitly quoting Vattel's definition, the Constitution therefore leaves some room for confusion. (Many such confusions resulted of deliberate efforts of "progressives" to erode the basic constitutional concepts inconvenient for them).

Fortunately there exists (at least) one original US document directly defining the "Natural born citizenship" according to Emerich de Vattel. This document (which does have legal binding) is the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790.

Other arguments in favor of the definition of Vattel are the following. The Framers (in their correspondence) explicitly wished to exclude dual loyalty, and explicitly required that the US citizenship of the president be deeper than ordinary citizenship (such as that of their contemporaries). After all, any one can acquire an ordinary US citizenship in some point of one's life, so the Framers clearly excluded this kind of citizenship. On the contrary, the Natural Born Citizenship cannot be acquired: it may be only inherited.

After the Framers, all the presidential contenders (up to Sen. McCain in 2008 but not Obama) did officially satisfy this definition, demonstrating continuity of the meaning "Natural born citizenship" consistent with that of Vattel . (In the past only one President Chester Arthur 1881-1885 violated it, hiding and destroying the traces of the British citizenship of his father, discovered only after his death. The carefully hidden violation of Chester Arthur in fact is an additional argument that the Vattel's definition was valid and he was aware of it).

Consult the same source that the founders consulted to understand their intent:

The Law of Nations: Or, Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns - Emer De Vattel

Chapter 19, Section 212 - Citizens and Natives (p.101)

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence to what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the father is therefore that of the children."

Justice Marshall's opinion reiterates this definition. Only an amendment would alter this, which has been repeatedly attempted but so far has failed.

Fact: The US Constitution requires the president to be a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN

Fact: John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington suggesting the requirement be made.

Fact: The description of natural-born citizen was derived from Vattel's work, Law of Nations § 212

Fact: In the SCOTUS decision, The Venus, 1814, Justice Marshall defines 'natural-born citizen' using Vattel's work, but in his own words saying, (#123) 'Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, 'the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'

http://openjurist.org/12/us/253/the-venus-rae-master

Fact: During the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, Mr. Bingham defined 'natural-born citizen' on the House floor and none disputed his definition:

"The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words "natural-born citizen of the United States" occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth - natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in the Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion say more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of the laws and a compliance with the provisions becomes naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens."

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor37


It is clear - a natural born citizen is a child born of TWO parents of the same citizenship. This is 'jus sanguinis' not 'jus soli'.

It is our duty to know our laws so that nobody perverts them, and to defend and protect against those who wish to see the Constitution dead.

____

Taken from various sources.
____

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

To simplify, he says that if we are to combine our definitions of Natural Born to require:

- Born on US Soil

- Born to two US Citizens

Personally, I could get behind that definition. It satisfies the philosophical issues I had with the location based definition, and it should solve the original intent based issues that you had with the blood definition.

 

[idiom]

When he was born he either had to reject US citizenship or reject Canadian.

If he rejected Canadian then he has a consular birth abroad cert somewhere.

If not then his parents rejected US citizenship for him.

To simplify, he says that if we are to combine our definitions of Natural Born to require:

- Born on US Soil

- Born to two US Citizens

Personally, I could get behind that definition. It satisfies the philosophical issues I had with the location based definition, and it should solve the original intent based issues that you had with the blood definition.

No problem with being born abroad if the consulate signs you up as an American right away and your parents decline native born citizenship of the country you were born in.

 

[Jan2017]

. . .
No problem with being born abroad if the consulate signs you up as an American right away and your parents decline native born citizenship of the country you were born in.

Until the age of 18 there is a form that the child or mom must have submitted to the USA (I'll edit the alien born US citizen form in shortly)
. . . when did Cruz apply for his US passport ?

 

[Philhelm]

Setting aside the Natural Born question regarding presidential eligibility, under U.S. immigration law, Cruz would have never needed to go through a naturalization process. If a child is born abroad to a U.S. citizen, that child is a U.S. citizen at birth (although there is a process to prove that). Even if the U.S. citizen parent were to take up foreign citizenship, there is a presumption that U.S. citizenship has not been renounced; a U.S. citizen needs to explicitly renounce U.S. citizenship.

When Cruz was born, his mother could have applied for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and/or a U.S. passport through the U.S. embassy. She would have needed to provide evidence of her U.S. citizenship status (birth certificate or U.S. passport), and evidence that she has resided in the U.S. for a certain time.

As an aside there are other paths to U.S. citizenship other than naturalization, such as applying for a Certificate of Citizenship. Usually, this will be for eligible, minor children with a naturalized parent, in which case the citizenship would not be considered to have been present at birth.

My birth is similar to John McCain's. I was born on a U.S. Air Force base in England to two U.S. citizen parents. There was no naturalization requirement. I have a UK birth certificate and a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, which is my proof of U.S. citizenship at birth.