Sen. Rand Paul yields to “lawyers” on Cruz citizenship question

[notsure]

It's an interesting argument. I think Vattel's original definition and the various same interpretations over several SCOTUS cases is enough to establish precedent. I'm sure there are other forms of history that could establish this as well... the constitutional conventions, the exemption of the first several presidents to the rule out of necessity, and various other common law history in Europe.

I'm curious what prevents the perpetuity of citizenship along the following lines:

A female U.S. citizen marries a foreign citizen and gives birth in a foreign nation. If that child is assumed to be natural-born citizen, then all his children are natural-born and all their children are natural-born. In fact, they could go 10 generations like this and one day come to America and qualify for President? How does this prevent foreign influence or provide an avenue for foreign invasion?

I don't think it's difficult to see why the present argument is wrong and entirely out of the spirit of the framers. If this was the intent, there would have been no necessity to distinguish natural-born from other forms of citizenship.

__

 

[Jan2017]

the exemption of the first several presidents to the rule

I take exception to that there ever was any exemption for Washington born in colonial Virginia or any of the rest of them born in the colonies . . .
they were of course thinking most about England and Scotland and France. in that clause.
They were all born in the colonies and their states of the confederacy voted on the ratification of the constitution including that clause -
the first Presidents were born in those states, not in Britain.

I doubt the founding fathers ever thought that in the 21st Century the Republican Party can't consistently come up with enough qualified candidates
that are actually born in the USA *shrug*

 

[statist slayer]

I think this a political question and one of degrees. I think it's clear that John McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone, and thus the jurisdiction of the United States, and then raised in American states, is natural-born. George Romney, born in Mexico of American parents, and a resident there until age 5, may not have been natural-born. Ted Cruz, even further removed given notsure's argument regarding dual Canadian citizenship prior to 1978 (actually, 1977), may not be natural-born. But according to the Wiki article on Canadian nationality law, "Although Canada restricted dual citizenship between 1947 and 1977, there were some situations where Canadians could nevertheless legally possess another citizenship. For example, migrants becoming Canadian citizens were not asked to formally prove that they had ceased to hold the nationality of their former country. Similarly children born in Canada to non-Canadian parents were not under any obligation to renounce a foreign citizenship they had acquired by descent. Holding a foreign passport did not in itself cause loss of Canadian citizenship."

As dusman pointed out, if one can be natural-born in a foreign country, then what if there's another generation born of two such foreign/natural-born citizens in the foreign country? One surely can't be two steps removed and still be natural-born. But I think that the political system and people of the U.S. would reject that person's candidacy because it is so blatantly contrary to the notion of natural-born. As the purpose of the natural-born clause is to reject foreign influence, I think Congress and the courts should make the judgment call when it comes to ambiguous cases like George Romney and Ted Cruz.

 

[RonPaulMall]

4) Ted Cruz was born a natural born Canadian citizen. Because his mother may have been a US citizen, Ted was given an opportunity, through acts of naturalization, to easily acquire US citizenship. However, like I said, there is no proof that his mother met statutes and was allowed to confer US citizenship to him. If Ted Cruz is a US citizen, he's only a citizen because of statutes written by Congress. Congress can at any time re-write statutes so that such children are not eligible to retain US citizenship. Since he's afforded citizenship through acts of naturalization, he can only claim to be a naturalized US citizen, not a natural born US citizen.

He was not "given the opportunity". There is no choice involved in the statute. His mother was an American citizen of appropriate age that met the statutory requirements to confer citizenship on all children she bore no matter where they were born. Even if she didn't want them to be born American citizens, it makes no difference.

 

[Jan2017]

... the courts should make the judgment call when it comes to ambiguous cases like George Romney and Ted Cruz.

Washington also wanted John Jay to rule on constitutionality, but the first Chief Justice denied those requests because he read his authority as
ruling on cases presented before the Supreme Court, not as counsel to the Executive, even his friend Washington.

Nothing ambiguous at all about Cruz being born in Canada, and also
John McCain was not natural born US citizen even with a US Senate resolution that does not change the constitutional clause.

Further, McCain was actually born off-base where a Navy doctor signed the delivery log, but that wouldn't have mattered anyway.

 

[notsure]

It's an interesting argument. I think Vattel's original definition and the various same interpretations over several SCOTUS cases is enough to establish precedent. I'm sure there are other forms of history that could establish this as well... the constitutional conventions, the exemption of the first several presidents to the rule out of necessity, and various other common law history in Europe.

I'm curious what prevents the perpetuity of citizenship along the following lines:

A female U.S. citizen marries a foreign citizen and gives birth in a foreign nation. If that child is assumed to be natural-born citizen, then all his children are natural-born and all their children are natural-born. In fact, they could go 10 generations like this and one day come to America and qualify for President? How does this prevent foreign influence or provide an avenue for foreign invasion?

I don't think it's difficult to see why the present argument is wrong and entirely out of the spirit of the framers. If this was the intent, there would have been no necessity to distinguish natural-born from other forms of citizenship.

Actually, I forgot that US citizen parents of children born abroad must meet statutory residency requirements in order to confer US citizenship to their foreign born child. So for instance, one born abroad who acquires US citizenship through a parent, must reside in the US for a certain period of time if they intend to confer US citizenship for their born-abroad child. I believe the current residency requirement is 5 years if one parent is an alien. So if the foreign born child who acquired US citizenship through a parent attempted to confer US citizenship to their child who was also born abroad; that parent must have resided in the US for 5 years, with at least 2 of those years being after the age of 14.

 

[notsure]

He was not "given the opportunity". There is no choice involved in the statute. His mother was an American citizen of appropriate age that met the statutory requirements to confer citizenship on all children she bore no matter where they were born. Even if she didn't want them to be born American citizens, it makes no difference.

He was afforded the opportunity to acquire US citizenship because of Congress's Constitutional powers for establishing rules of naturalization. Without such Congressional action, Ted Cruz would have no US citizenship and no claim to it whatsoever. How can you speculate about his mother's eligibility to confer US citizenship, when Ted Cruz or no one else has provided any proof that she was eligible.

On another note, why are you constantly trying to make the case that Cruz is eligible, without providing any form of source for your opinion? Why am I always seeing you defending and promoting Ted Cruz?

 

[statist slayer]

Washington also wanted John Jay to rule on constitutionality, but the first Chief Justice denied those requests because he read his authority as
ruling on cases presented before the Supreme Court, not as counsel to the Executive, even his friend Washington.

Nothing ambiguous at all about Cruz being born in Canada, and also
John McCain was not natural born US citizen even with a US Senate resolution that does not change the constitutional clause.

Of course I mean ruling in a case with standing, not playing an advisory role.

Natural-born is unambiguous to you because you believe it means born on U.S. soil. Natural-born is pretty unambiguous to me because I believe it means born to citizen parent(s) and fulfilling residency requirements for naturalized citizens.

 

[Dr. Dog]

So are you saying there are millions of adults around the world who are obligated to either pay U.S. taxes and/or report international earnings who have never stepped foot in America?

If you are a US citizen you are required to report all earnings to the IRS, regardless of where the income was earned and regardless of where you live.

Do they get penalized if they don't enroll into ACA?

No, US citizens who live abroad are exempt from the tax.

 

[Dr. Dog]

John McCain was not natural born US citizen even with a US Senate resolution that does not change the constitutional clause.

Further, McCain was actually born off-base where a Navy doctor signed the delivery log, but that wouldn't have mattered anyway.

That is untrue. McCain was born within the Panama Canal Zone which was US TERRITORY, to two US parents. He therefore born on US soil to US parents, making him a citizen at birth. Futhermore, Congress passed a law in 1937 declaring those born within the Panama Canal Zone (again, a US Territory) to US parents as natural born citizens.

 

[RonPaulMall]

He was afforded the opportunity to acquire US citizenship because of Congress's Constitutional powers for establishing rules of naturalization. Without such Congressional action, Ted Cruz would have no US citizenship and no claim to it whatsoever.

True enough, so what? That same applies to every single American born prior to the Civil War. Congress set the rules on who could or could not be a citizen. After the whole "birthright citizenship" Congress lost the power to regulate those born on US Soil but retained the power to over everyone else.

How can you speculate about his mother's eligibility to confer US citizenship, when Ted Cruz or no one else has provided any proof that she was eligible.

His mother didn't drop down from the moon. Her life is well documented. This is not "speculation". We know where she was born, how long she lived here, who she married. That information is sufficient for us to say she met the statutory requirement.

On another note, why are you constantly trying to make the case that Cruz is eligible, without providing any form of source for your opinion? Why am I always seeing you defending and promoting Ted Cruz?

I've never argued that he is eligible. The question of whether being born a citizen makes one "natural born" is legitimate. I don't think the Supreme Court or anyone else that matters would entertain it for even half a second (McCain was allowed to run despite not even being born a citizen, to say nothing of being natural born) but I do not think the question is inappropriate. What I have objected to is the argument that Cruz was not born an American. That is simply retarded. The Obama birthers at least had arguments and alleged evidence that supported their theory Obama was not born in the US. The Cruz Birthers, or perhaps I should say birther, since you appear to be the only one I'm aware of, simply assert he wasn't born a citizen without offering even the slightest shred of evidence or proof.

 

[dusman]

Actually, I forgot that US citizen parents of children born abroad must meet statutory residency requirements in order to confer US citizenship to their foreign born child. So for instance, one born abroad who acquires US citizenship through a parent, must reside in the US for a certain period of time if they intend to confer US citizenship for their born-abroad child. I believe the current residency requirement is 5 years if one parent is an alien. So if the foreign born child who acquired US citizenship through a parent attempted to confer US citizenship to their child who was also born abroad; that parent must have resided in the US for 5 years, with at least 2 of those years being after the age of 14.

I think Justice Black's opinion that you posted earlier is the proper way to interpret this. All citizenship acquired via legislation under the power of Congress over naturalization must infer naturalized citizenship, otherwise "natural-born citizenship" means absolutely nothing and could be manipulated by Congress by fluctuating statutory residency requirements down to 1 day or up to 50 years.

In effect, whatever citizenship status Cruz may have is solely by statutory means. I think with that in mind, it is quite clear Cruz is a naturalized citizen.

Again, I think Vattel's precise definition is the obvious intent as it explains it clear as day and honestly might already establish legal precedent or an obligation of the SCOTUS to recognize it as defined in Law of Nations. So much of our established Constitutional interpretation rests on Vattel. It would be odd if an argument was made that interpretation should be selective.

The best way to ensure loyalty from a legal standpoint is to require BOTH parents to be U.S. citizens, either naturalized or natural-born. Again, if it were any other way... the King of England might have simply married an American woman and had a baby who both could hold the presidency and also the throne. There is no way, with the paranoia of the framers of usurpation by the Crown, that such thing would be overlooked... and it wasn't as explicitly indicated in the Constitution.

 

[Jan2017]

That is untrue. McCain was born within the Panama Canal Zone which was US TERRITORY, to two US parents. He therefore born on US soil to US parents, making him a citizen at birth. Futhermore, Congress passed a law in 1937 declaring those born within the Panama Canal Zone (again, a US Territory) to US parents as natural born citizens.

Yeah, been through this enough about McCain - born in the Coco Bolo (or whatever it is) Commiunity Hospital - which was replaced by a condo development in the 50's -
it's not there but there are birth records. McCain was a US citizen at birth, but would be exactly the type of traitor born outside the United States they wanted to avoid the nation executive post.

Hardly matters at all now, even if if the element of ambiguity worked in McCain's favor a bit.
NH ruled that Cruz's eligibility challenge was not in their jurisdiction and Rand says he doesn't know - leave it to the courts.

 

[Jan2017]

That is untrue. McCain was born within the Panama Canal Zone which was US TERRITORY, to two US parents. He therefore born on US soil to US parents, making him a citizen at birth. Futhermore, Congress passed a law in 1937 declaring those born within the Panama Canal Zone (again, a US Territory) to US parents as natural born citizens.

negative rep to me for McCain's birth in Coco Bolo, Panama - yeah, ok

 

[Dr. Dog]

Yeah, been through this enough about McCain - born in the Coco Bolo (or whatever it is) Commiunity Hospital - which was replaced by a condo development in the 50's -
it's not there but there are birth records. McCain was a US citizen at birth, but would be exactly the type of traitor born outside the United States they wanted to avoid the nation executive post.

Hardly matters at all now, even if if the element of ambiguity worked in McCain's favor a bit.
NH ruled that Cruz's eligibility challenge was not in their jurisdiction and Rand says he doesn't know - leave it to the courts.

He was not born outside the United States. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which until 1979 was a US territory. It was a part of the United States.

 

[Jan2017]

He was not born outside the United States. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which until 1979 was a US territory. It was a part of the United States.

No hospital in the canal zone - mommy took him to the community hospital in Panama

 

[dusman]

Yeah, been through this enough about McCain - born in the Coco Bolo (or whatever it is) Commiunity Hospital - which was replaced by a condo development in the 50's -
it's not there but there are birth records. McCain was a US citizen at birth, but would be exactly the type of traitor born outside the United States they wanted to avoid the nation executive post.

Hardly matters at all now, even if if the element of ambiguity worked in McCain's favor a bit.
NH ruled that Cruz's eligibility challenge was not in their jurisdiction and Rand says he doesn't know - leave it to the courts.

It's a good point that you are making on what NH actually did.. they didn't rule that Cruz was eligible as a natural-born citizen. They deferred on making that determination.

 

[Dr. Dog]

No hospital in the canal zone - mommy took him to the community hospital in Panama

Again, that is not true and absolutely absurd. Of course there were hospitals within the Canal Zone. There were many, in fact. Here's one example:

(notice the American flag waving in front of the hospital buildings?)

McCain was born at the naval hospital located within Coco Solo Naval Air Station, which was built on US soil.

 

[Dr. Dog]

negative rep to me for McCain's birth in Coco Bolo, Panama - yeah, ok

He was born in Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Panama Canal Zone, United States.

 

[Jan2017]

He was born in Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Panama Canal Zone, United States.

not in that infirmary on base, there is no naval hospital on that side of Panama (at that time 1930's), (certainly no maternity suite facilities there)
but much more suitable accommodations for the Admiral's son in the community hospital off base built before there was a canal zone probably,
with a Navy doctor who signed the log at the hospital - a fact, even if ya' got lied to by McCain.

Developers building the condos over the old hospital site in the 50's were not putting up condos on base or US territory either.

and fwiw, and like I said it would not even matter if he was born at the Naval Station in the Canal Zone . . .

In 1901 the US Supreme Court had ruled in Downes v. Bidwell that unincorporated territories are not the United States. On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated, "While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country." Accordingly, the Supreme Court held in 1905 in Rasmussen v. United States that the full Constitution only applies for incorporated territories of the United States.

... from wikipedia