Defining “Natural Born Citizen”

american-flag-2a
821
INTERACTIONS
Share:

The Debate Over Who Qualifies To Run For President

In order to qualify to be President, the US Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  So what defines a “natural born citizen.”  The answer has not been so simple over the years.  The framers left it fairly vague and up to us to interpret throughout our history, and it is an issue that has gone back and forth.

This has all been brought into question as a result of one man whom various media outlets have kept an eye on that he might try to run for President in 2016.  The man in question is freshman Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father.  His parents were working in the oil business there.  (This will be addressed later on.)  Cruz’s father did not become a US citizen until 2005.  So though he has made trips to Iowa and the media seems to be watching him quite closely, does he even meet the qualifications of being a natural born citizen?

145731159_640Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states, “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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This still only leaves a very vague definition for what constitutes a natural born citizen.  So now we look toward Section 5 of the 14th Amendment which states, ” The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  It should also be noted that under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US Constitution, Congress has authority to create law regarding naturalization which includes citizenship.

So now we know that Congress, under the 14th Amendment, can write legislation declaring what constitutes a natural born citizen. And yes, that means that there will be legal challenges and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will have to make sure such legislation does not violate the Constitution in any way… including Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.  In the case Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Court ruled, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

Now though the Constitution is vague in what constitutes a natural born citizen, Congess has stepped in to attempt to fill in the gap.  Under Title 8 of the US Code, Section 1401 defines the following as citizens of the United States upon birth… or natural born citizens:

  • Anyone born inside the United States.  The person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.  (This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.)
  • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
  • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

By the conditions just laid out, it would appear that Senator Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for President as he would not qualify as a natural born citizen since only one of the parents was a citizen of the US.  However, there still exists one more historical clause which will challenge this argument.  The clause states, “a person born before May 24, 1934 of an alien father and a US citizen mother who has lived in the US” is a citizen.  Does this change the argument?  If it is grouped with Section 1401 of Title 8 of the US Code, then it would appear so.

Currently, citizenship in the US is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.  The most recent changes to statutory law was done by Congress in 2001.  So since this most recent debate has circulated around Sen. Cruz, I am going to focus on one particular section… birth abroad to one US citizen.  There are a certain set of rules for those born after November 14, 1986, but I’m focusing on the rules at the time of Cruz’s birth which are the rules that were in effect from December 24, 1952 – November 14, 1986.  A person born abroad between those dates is a US citizen upon birth if all of the following are true:

  1. The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
  2. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
  3. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
  4. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

By these very definitions of the law, it would appear that Sen. Cruz is a natural born citizen and thus meets the qualifications to run for President if he decided to do so.  This also does one more thing, as well.  In regards to President Obama, if the “birther” theory had been proven correct (and I’m not saying that it is) in that he had been born in Kenya (instead of Hawaii) to his US mother and his Kenyan father, he would still qualify as a natural born citizen.

image005As I stated at the beginning, this issue is a complicated mess.  The Framers left it vague when they wrote the Constitution.  Did they do it because they couldn’t foresee our future situations or was it so we could make such a determination as our nation progressed?  One can only really speculate on that.  Regardless, we have done our best to set forth a definition, and one that holds for all Americans… born here and born abroad.  The laws have changed throughout our history, and they will probably change again in our future.  For now, we go by the laws which we have… the laws in which we live by… the laws that govern our society.  They apply to us all equally.  In this confusing mixture, I hope there has been some small sense to the issue and that now we can have a better understanding of it.

The Independent Voter Network is dedicated to providing political analysis, unfiltered news, and rational commentary in an effort to elevate the level of our public discourse.


Learn More About IVN

Leave a Comment
  1. MikeyPalos PeterLettkeman MikeyPalos Speak2Truth As I said before, we always know just what kind of idiot we're dealing with, when they have nothing else but page after page of babbling nonsense.  Its a loons way of deflecting from the fact they have nothing legitimate and  they've been beat out by reality check.  Hahaha, Nitwit.
  2. MikeyPalos PeterLettkeman MikeyPalos Speak2Truth You're correct, your posts are for moronic imbeciles like you and Speak, you do share a brain,  and you have been outed for the troll you are.  Evidenced here by your idiotic reply that is nothing but babble on and on like a magpie or more simply; you're just a stupid person that won't quit,  .  Its because you are of no  education or of good sense.  Nothing hateful just truthful replies. You deniers hate that.
  3. PeterLettkeman MikeyPalos Speak2Truth  I looked back at my profile and I have posted this case a dozen times in response to you. You can post someones opinion but when you do you take a chance that they don't have a clue and will lead you astray on the subject. Below point 1. are the excerpts from the full case and are binding precedent as to whether Ted Cruz like Aldo Bellei was eligible for NATURALIZATION. Because Bellei failed and Ted accomplish the process makes no difference in the facts that they both were subject to the naturalization process. IF Bellei had accomplished his process he to would be a NATURALIZED citizen at birth of the United States just like Ted.  1. Yes, Bellei failed to act on the ability to get his citizenship as could have Ted if he failed to accomplish what was outlined in INA 301(a)(7), and sections (b)(c).  2. What you failed to notice is what I have posted a dozen or more times is that both the opinion of the Court which is the official ruling of the court and the dissenting opinion both state that those born outside the United States are NATURALIZED citizens.  It can be found in section VI Item 6., and 7. when MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.  "6. A contrary holding would convert what is congressional generosity into something unanticipated and obviously undesired by the Congress. Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process. The plaintiff here would force the Congress to choose between unconditional conferment of United States citizenship at birth and deferment of citizenship until a condition precedent is fulfilled. We are not convinced that the Constitution requires so rigid a choice. If it does, the congressional response seems obvious.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 https://www.blogger.com/null 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." and in MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting opinion "Although those Americans who acquire their citizenshiphttps://www.blogger.com/null under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen." furthermore "However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html(1898):"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . 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 merehttps://www.blogger.com/nullfact 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 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."   My posts are obviously not for your education, but the education of others who happen across this incorrect article and your hateful reply's.
  4. MikeyPalos PeterLettkeman Hey stupid, you finally post an actual case and it supports what I've been saying,  you imbecile. LOL.  He didn't satisfy the residency requirements, is why he wasn't upheld as a citizen. You've just shown you have no idea what you've been arguing about.   And you have posted crap after crap about nonsense.  I have cited, although you disregard.  You think it has to be volumes of something copied and pasted to be legitimate?  The trouble is you read a lot of crap and don't understand a word of it.  Again, you deflect to what is on my profile (like I care) A loon like yourself always tries to find someway to deflect or change the subject because you have no evidence of anything.; you do it by pasting pages and volumes of old outdated statutes that are not be practiced today as a matter of REALITY.  Yet you deny..  So a sane person can only conclude you earn the titles of   "DIM", "nit wits", "silly donkey", "loon";  take your pick.  Try comprehending instead of simply parroting, and pasting. I know it takes more gray matter but try.  Anyway that being said and proven you're a dope, and of course I didn't waste my time reading your gibberish. here is a quote someone who thinks cites:   The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Statutes_of_the_United_States, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. And:Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution Quite simply, the Fourteenth Amendment currently is being interpreted to grant automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States of http://www.14thamendment.us/info/illegal_alien.html parents, called anchor babies because of the 1965 immigration Act, . This clearly is contrary to the http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html of Congress and the States in ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment. While it has been the practice to bestow citizenship to children of illegal aliens, this has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court.  So you can ramble, thrash, and stomp your hooves but this is the reality and your cited case is not applicable here; totally difference circumstances.  This goes to your comprehension skills or lack of.
  5. PeterLettkeman MikeyPalos PeterLettkeman Speak2Truth Posted the one case you need to read. Rogers v Bellei. (1971) SCOTUS. It is obvious that you haven't read it. If you had then you would have shut up long ago. You demand we post cases, yet I find it funny that you have posted ZERO cases to support your argument, as a matter of fact of the 47 posts on your profile ALL of them are on this particular page and ZERO have reference to anything other than you calling us names and accusing us of being "DIM", "nit wits", "silly donkey", "loon".  Yep you really supported your arguement. I agree with Speaks in thinking that we may have gotten suckered in by a paid troll. with that here is the one and only case you need to see to support the fact that if the case o whether Ted Cruz was a naturalized Citizen at birth or a natural born Citizen they would refer to this case and rule him in constitutional terms a naturalized Citizen at birth.  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html#F1 I have posted excerpts in small portions so you might get the point but I don't think that worked nor will reading it. I can provide you information, but I can't make you understand it.  BTW I would never pretend to represent myself in any case, but this shit is so simple I thought a fifth grader could understand. Apparently I was mistaken.
  6. MikeyPalos PeterLettkeman MikeyPalos Speak2Truth Don't ever try to defend yourself in court because you have a fool for a client and an idiot for an attorney.  You haven't posted anything but your own opinion. And as you can see only you and your brain-sharing nitwit are the only ones buying your load of crap.  You morons are all alike,  posting volumes of copied and pasted crap, reiterating your lame opinions, none of which shows any cases in reality.  Truly you are stupid people.  Thrash your neck, kick up your hooves,  it won't change that  you don't know what you are talking of.  Try citing some real cases you moron.
  7. PeterLettkeman MikeyPalos PeterLettkeman Speak2Truth Don't ever try to defend yourself in court. That traffic ticket that was 20 bucks will be a felony by the time you are done talking about what you don't know. We post links to verifyable information and  you post your opinion.  Here are the links to a lot of my research. http://petesresearchonnaturalborncitizenship.blogspot.com/ When you are done reading my posts on the subject and all the links referenced then you might have a clue, but then again I think that you will still be just as lost because I can provide you information but I can't make you comprehend it.
  8. MikeyPalos PeterLettkeman Speak2Truth  Sorry, it all means the same.  None are treated any different .  Aww, too bad , its the way it is.  Too bad, too silly.  Needs some sex for sure.
  9. MikeyPalos PeterLettkeman MikeyPalos Speak2Truth Sorry, but poor Ray doesn't know what he is talking about.  Because whatever.  They can still become President.   a DIM is always a DIM.
  10. MikeyPalos PeterLettkeman MikeyPalos Speak2Truth And you are a nitwit Peter, the fact of the matter is, nothing you assert has any validity in the real world...  And to continually assert what isn't so, does not make it so.  So in that vein you're gonna have to realize the earth is not  and has never been flat, even in  LaLa Land, and it doesn't matter what Ray said either.  LOL you troll. The more you babble and ramble on shows your desperation; sorry, but its you and Speak who share the brain, but just you two.  Hahahaha
276 comments
Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

The article falsely asserts that to be born a Citizen is to be a Natural Born Citizen.


Nowhere is the difference between the two more clearly expressed than in the crafting of the US Constitution.


Alexander Hamilton first proposed that to qualify for the Presidency, one need only be born a Citizen of the United States:


"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

But, the Founders REJECTED this as a qualification. Instead, they applied a DIFFERENT qualification, which is that the person must be a  Natural Born Citizen. Obviously, the two do not mean the same thing or they could have stuck with Hamilton's proposal.

And we know EXACTLY what Natural Born Citizen means because we can look at the same reference book the Founders used while writing the Constitution...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations
 

hopkinstom12
hopkinstom12

The U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v Happersett in 1875 established Binding Precedent that natural born Citizens are born in the country to citizen parents. This is the law of the land concerning this definition. There are a few other Supreme Court cases that support this exact definition that have already been posted.  


The reality is that Obama  is an  illegal president  and due to his forged birth documents is not even a U.S. citizen. He should be arrested NOW and tried for a host of crimes. The MSM and Congress are in the tank leaving we the people in the cold.

Obama and his minions don't give a hoot about law. 


hopkinstom12
hopkinstom12

to Mikey Palos


The Supreme Court ruled in 1875: "natural born Citizens are born in the country (U.S.) TO (U.S.) citizen parents". 

Nothing trumps the Supreme Court. Cruz, Rubio, Mccain, Jindal, Santorum and anyone not born in the U.S. to citizen parents is not natural born. That is what the law says in Supreme court case of 88 U.S. 162, 1875, The National Patriot.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@hopkinstom12 

Well, the Constitution trumps the Supreme Court - but point taken.


I think the argument for McCain was that he was born under US Jurisdiction, which the Panama Canal Zone was until the Torrijos-Carter treaty of 1977, therefore was born 'within' the nation. I'm not saying I agree with that.

Rubio, Cruz and Obama had a foreign Father to disqualify them.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@hopkinstom12 Doesn't have to be to citizens.  Many slaves were born to parents who were brought here and never citizens.  Sorry.  Reality check.

GlennPChickering
GlennPChickering

@Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12 In theory the constitution trumps the Supreme court. However the Supreme court has defined the constitution  and has eroded your rights and only two ways to get around the Supreme court  one a constitutional amendment second have the Supreme court revisit the question which history has shown it does rarely

PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

@MikeyPalos @hopkinstom12 Reference for your statement. The definition of the term has never changed since 1758. The Congress only has the power to create an Uniform Rules of Naturalization. The only way to remove the natural born Citizen requirement is to amend the Constitution and actually with the 12th Amendment they strengthened it by making the VP meet the same requirements. The 14th Amendment was a civil war amendment and The primary framer of this Amendment Rep. John Bingham, on more than one occasion, on the floor of the House of Representatives stated what the definition of what a Natural Born Citizen was. On page 2791[1] of “The Congressional Globe, Volume 66” part 4 you will find these words: “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” The date of this was 25 April 1872, a little more than eighty-five years after the adoption of the Constitution.

[1]http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=wk0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2791&dq=%22State+Department%22+%2B%22natural-born+citizen%22&hl=en&ei=EQpxTeupEI32gAePqsRD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22State%20Department%22%20%20%22natural-born%20citizen%22&f=false

It just made a declaratory statement as to who are citizens. It is also referenced in Rogers v Bellei. 

PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

@GlennPChickering @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12 See my comment below this one. And others that I posted today to include this. 

Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship

Page 401 U. S. 840

under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress. It provided in part:

"And 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."

1 Stat. 103, 104. This provision is the earliest form of the statute under which Bellei acquired his citizenship. Its enactment as part of a "Rule of Naturalization" shows, I think, that the First Congress conceived of this and most likely all other purely statutory grants of citizenship as forms or varieties of naturalization. However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U. S. 649(1898):

"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . 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

Page 401 U. S. 841

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 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."

GlennPChickering
GlennPChickering

@PeterLettkeman @GlennPChickering @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12

Peter i was not arguing  about citizenship I was saying in direct reply  to Speak 2 truth that  supreme court  defines the constitution and the laws of the land . Congress can pass laws but in the end if the law is challenged then Supreme court has the last say. I have read many court cases on citizenship and I do not agree with all the cases but that is the law. A woman who is a citizen and has a child can  easily prove citizens ship however a man  who has a child outside this country has to jump through  hoops and it must be done before child hits 18  I would get the case  for you it happened in late 20th century however I am tired  and go back to my original post of a few months ago  

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@PeterLettkeman @GlennPChickering @Speak2Truth @hopkinstom12 

It's an interesting read, on how one becomes a Citizen either by birth or naturalization.  Neither of those is sufficient to qualify for the Presidency.

The original proposed requirement for the office of President stated:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

But the Convention rejected this, since a person born a Citizen can also be a dual Citizen, for example a person born on US soil to a British Father. Or, a person born under foreign jurisdiction to American parents.

The Founders instead heeded John Jay's warning, limiting the office of President to only a Natural Born Citizen, which is not someone merely born a Citizen but a much more restricted class:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

GlennPChickering
GlennPChickering

@Speak2Truth @PeterLettkeman @GlennPChickering @hopkinstom12 I agree a person can not hols dual citizenship however the supreme court determined that congress sets statue on citizen and class of citizen, However till the supreme court hears a case on the subject we are spinning our wheels Constitutional scholars argue  on natural born citizen and english common law was used at one time we call this case law however statute trumps  case law and the statute is what needs to be clarified . Some day we shall have the answer right or wrong and it will be the law of the land unless changed. Now federlist will argue we have the answer. the constitutionalist will argue we need a supreme court ruling and liberals will say we are all wrong

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@GlennPChickering @Speak2Truth @PeterLettkeman @hopkinstom12 

 I agree it would be of great benefit for the Supreme Court to take on a case of Presidential eligibility, to further solidify this issue. It's a real shame they declined to use Obama as a test case, since he would never pass as a Natural Born Citizen according to the definition in the reference book used by the Founders.


Why have so many Judges refused to even take the case?


FEAR


The Left have a nasty habit of organizing riots when it suits their agenda and you can be sure that after their 'historic opportunity' to put a black, Muslim Socialist into the White House, the threat of violence they hold over this nation, should he be removed, is serious.



PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

@GlennPChickering @Speak2Truth @PeterLettkeman @hopkinstom12 Is Arnold the Governator eligible to be President as a naturalized Citizen? Ted is a naturalized Citizen just as Arnold is. The only difference is that Ted had a hand up because he was born to a U.S. Citizen. They both had to accomplish a naturalization process. See the photo below. 

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @GlennPChickering @Speak2Truth @PeterLettkeman @hopkinstom12 

Glenn? You mean Beck? Heck, even he thinks Cruz is eligible. He made the mistake of hiring Democrats into his staff of researchers, so they make a point of NOT finding the clear definition that is in the reference book used by the Founders...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

hopkinstom12
hopkinstom12

The only lawful definition comes from 88 U.S. 162, 1875: born in the country (U.S.) to (U.S. ) citizen parents. According to u.s. law, applying any other interpretation is unlawful because unconstitutional.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

By the conditions just laid out, it would appear that Senator Ted Cruz IS  eligible to run for President as he would  qualify as a natural born citizen since only one of the parents was a citizen of the US..  It clearly states above:

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national.

This makes him eligible by the articles own citing s.  DUH

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@PeterLettkeman @MikeyPalos I don't know now, it seems his father was a US national, maybe that has something to do.  Cuz you've got your Obama, and his mother was the only.  Oh well. 

PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth Speaks, you are right Cass has trained them well. I as you have posted links to verifiable information yet he just sits in the corner like a five year old screaming " I am right, you are wrong." Mike show me some verifiable case law information that says that Ted is not naturalized. Not someones opinion, not someone's blog and vague and unidentifiable references to "Constitutional scholars".  Further more you are saying that the children of a foreign King would be eligible to be President of the United States. I have read the Congressional record on both the Acts of 1790, and 1795 and the Federalist papers concerning foreign influence. If you haven't you should, because you are out of your mind to think the founding fathers would be okay with that. That is exactly what they wanted to avoid. 

You are a pigeon Mike. Look up pigeon on a chess board for more understanding of the insinuation. 

Speaks I am done with him. He does not have a clue as what he thinks he is talking about. SCOTUS says Ted is a naturalized. He is afforded that at "congressional generosity" and it is fully deniable. 

Ray said...

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. - United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Mr. Cruz is a naturalized citizen who acquired citizenship at birth. The citizenship granted was temporary, to retain his citizenship Mr. Cruz was required to take affirmative action by a date certain. The retention requirements where modified in 1972 and repealed in 1978. His citizenship is entirely a creature of positive law and granted by Congress. 

“Citizen at birth” includes naturalized citizens, therefor “citizen at birth” does not equal “natural born citizen”. "Citizen at birth" encompasses both naturalized citizens and "natural born citizens"

PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Ray, 

Excellent summary. 

Again, a fortiori from the face of the clause itself and from its definition, all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. This means that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens. This means that being a born citizen does not prove that one is a natural born citizen. In order to prove that one is a natural born citizen, one still has to satisfy the one and only common law definition used by the Framers when they drafted and adopted the Constitution which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the child's birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). 

Jack Maskell, the Obots, and all those of like mind, who contend that all born citizens, regardless of how they acquired their status, are natural born citizens, are wrong. Notice how the Obots and their supporters push that Senator Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen (can you imagine, they support Ted Cruz). They do so only to provide cover for Barack Obama, who is at best (if he was born in the United States) like Cruz, a born citizen. Obama was presumably born in the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. Obama was naturalized at birth by the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) (grant the status of “citizen” of the United States “at birth” only to those born in the United States) and Cruz by a naturalization Act of Congress, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g) (applies to children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents). They are both born citizens by virtue of the grace bestowed upon them by these subsequently adopted positive laws, but not natural born citizens by virtue of the only applicable and binding constitutional common law which was in force at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. 

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@PeterLettkeman @MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth

And you are a nitwit Peter, the fact of the matter is, nothing you assert has any validity in the real world...  And to continually assert what isn't so, does not make it so.  So in that vein you're gonna have to realize the earth is not  and has never been flat, even in  LaLa Land, and it doesn't matter what Ray said either.  LOL you troll. The more you babble and ramble on shows your desperation; sorry, but its you and Speak who share the brain, but just you two.  Hahahaha

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@PeterLettkeman @Speak2Truth  Sorry, it all means the same.  None are treated any different .  Aww, too bad , its the way it is.  Too bad, too silly.  Needs some sex for sure.

PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

@MikeyPalos @PeterLettkeman @Speak2Truth Don't ever try to defend yourself in court. That traffic ticket that was 20 bucks will be a felony by the time you are done talking about what you don't know.

We post links to verifiable information and  you post your opinion. 
Here are the links to a lot of my research. http://petesresearchonnaturalborncitizenship.blogspot.com/

When you are done reading my posts on the subject and all the links referenced then you might have a clue, but then again I think that you will still be just as lost because I can provide you information but I can't make you comprehend it. 

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@PeterLettkeman @MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth Don't ever try to defend yourself in court because you have a fool for a client and an idiot for an attorney.  You haven't posted anything but your own opinion. And as you can see only you and your brain-sharing nitwit are the only ones buying your load of crap.  You morons are all alike,  posting volumes of copied and pasted crap, reiterating your lame opinions, none of which shows any cases in reality.  Truly you are stupid people.  Thrash your neck, kick up your hooves,  it won't change that  you don't know what you are talking of.  Try citing some real cases you moron.  

PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

@MikeyPalos @PeterLettkeman @Speak2Truth Posted the one case you need to read. Rogers v Bellei. (1971) SCOTUS. It is obvious that you haven't read it. If you had then you would have shut up long ago. You demand we post cases, yet I find it funny that you have posted ZERO cases to support your argument, as a matter of fact of the 47 posts on your profile ALL of them are on this particular page and ZERO have reference to anything other than you calling us names and accusing us of being "DIM", "nit wits", "silly donkey", "loon".  Yep you really supported your arguement. I agree with Speaks in thinking that we may have gotten suckered in by a paid troll. with that here is the one and only case you need to see to support the fact that if the case o whether Ted Cruz was a naturalized Citizen at birth or a natural born Citizen they would refer to this case and rule him in constitutional terms a naturalized Citizen at birth. 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html#F1

I have posted excerpts in small portions so you might get the point but I don't think that worked nor will reading it. I can provide you information, but I can't make you understand it. 

BTW I would never pretend to represent myself in any case, but this shit is so simple I thought a fifth grader could understand. Apparently I was mistaken. 


MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@PeterLettkeman Hey stupid, you finally post an actual case and it supports what I've been saying,  you imbecile. LOL.  He didn't satisfy the residency requirements, is why he wasn't upheld as a citizen. You've just shown you have no idea what you've been arguing about.   And you have posted crap after crap about nonsense.  I have cited, although you disregard.  You think it has to be volumes of something copied and pasted to be legitimate?  The trouble is you read a lot of crap and don't understand a word of it.  Again, you deflect to what is on my profile (like I care) A loon like yourself always tries to find someway to deflect or change the subject because you have no evidence of anything.; you do it by pasting pages and volumes of old outdated statutes that are not be practiced today as a matter of REALITY.  Yet you deny..  So a sane person can only conclude you earn the titles of   "DIM", "nit wits", "silly donkey", "loon";  take your pick.  Try comprehending instead of simply parroting, and pasting. I know it takes more gray matter but try.  Anyway that being said and proven you're a dope, and of course I didn't waste my time reading your gibberish. here is a quote someone who thinks cites:  

The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship.

And:

Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

Quite simply, the Fourteenth Amendment currently is being interpreted to grant automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States of illegal alien parents, called anchor babies because of the 1965 immigration Act, . This clearly is contrary to the original intent of Congress and the States in ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment.

While it has been the practice to bestow citizenship to children of illegal aliens, this has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court. 


So you can ramble, thrash, and stomp your hooves but this is the reality and your cited case is not applicable here; totally difference circumstances.  This goes to your comprehension skills or lack of. 

PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 
I looked back at my profile and I have posted this case a dozen times in response to you. You can post someones opinion but when you do you take a chance that they don't have a clue and will lead you astray on the subject. Below point 1. are the excerpts from the full case and are binding precedent as to whether Ted Cruz like Aldo Bellei was eligible for NATURALIZATION. Because Bellei failed and Ted accomplish the process makes no difference in the facts that they both were subject to the naturalization process. IF Bellei had accomplished his process he to would be a NATURALIZED citizen at birth of the United States just like Ted. 

1. Yes, Bellei failed to act on the ability to get his citizenship as could have Ted if he failed to accomplish what was outlined in INA 301(a)(7), and sections (b)(c). 

2. What you failed to notice is what I have posted a dozen or more times is that both the opinion of the Court which is the official ruling of the court and the dissenting opinion both state that those born outside the United States are NATURALIZED citizens.

 It can be found in section VI Item 6., and 7. when MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. 


"6. A contrary holding would convert what is congressional generosity into something unanticipated and obviously undesired by the Congress. Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process. The plaintiff here would force the Congress to choose between unconditional conferment of United States citizenship at birth and deferment of citizenship until a condition precedent is fulfilled. We are not convinced that the Constitution requires so rigid a choice. If it does, the congressional response seems obvious.

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."



and in MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting opinion "Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship

Page 401 U. S. 840 under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen."

furthermore
"However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U. S. 649(1898):"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . 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 merePage 401 U. S. 841fact 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 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."

  My posts are obviously not for your education, but the education of others who happen across this incorrect article and your hateful reply's. 

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@PeterLettkeman @MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth You're correct, your posts are for moronic imbeciles like you and Speak, you do share a brain,  and you have been outed for the troll you are.  Evidenced here by your idiotic reply that is nothing but babble on and on like a magpie or more simply; you're just a stupid person that won't quit,  .  Its because you are of no  education or of good sense.  Nothing hateful just truthful replies. You deniers hate that. 

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@PeterLettkeman @MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth As I said before, we always know just what kind of idiot we're dealing with, when they have nothing else but page after page of babbling nonsense.  Its a loons way of deflecting from the fact they have nothing legitimate and  they've been beat out by reality check.  Hahaha, Nitwit.  

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos 

Alexander Hamilton had originally proposed that mere birth as a Citizen should qualify for that office:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."


But, thanks to Chief Justice John Jay's warning, the Founders rejected Hamilton's proposal and settled on the much more restrictive requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.

 The meaning of that term is easily found in the reference book the Founders used while writing the Constitution...


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations



MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Speak2Truth @MikeyPalos "of parents who are citizens." That should absolutely be the case again today.  The reason that was dropped was for the black children of those parents brought here from Africa.

PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

@MikeyPalos Those citations do not override SCOTUS ruling that those born outside the United States are NATURALIZED citizens and if Ted is eligible any person that has ever come to the United States and submitted to the naturalization process are eligible. With that said if that is the case then our own congress doesn't understand that, because they attempted 8 times prior to President Obama getting elected to allow for Naturalized Citizens and other combinations of citizens to be eligible for the job. You can find all this information documented at http://petesresearchonnaturalborncitizenship.blogspot.com

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@PeterLettkeman @MikeyPalos Not so, Ted's mother was a citizen working in Canada, and she lived in the US for more than a year. That makes Ted a natural, same as John McCain's mother.

PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

@MikeyPalos @PeterLettkeman Read Rogers v Bellei and you will find that Ted is a naturalized citizen per the Supreme Court of the United States. Have you read the case? If not then you can't tell me not so and you should

 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html#F1

Was Ted born in a foreign country?

Was Ted born to a foreign citizen father?

Was Ted born to a U.S. citizen mother?



All three questions above are answered as Yes.

The same as Aldo Bellei who...

Was born in a foreign country. 

Was born to a foreign citizen father. 

Was born to a U.S. citizen mother.


The Supreme Court of the United States in Roger V Bellei, stated that citizenship granted by statute to those born outside the United States are granted that ability at "congressional generosity", and that citizenship is fully deniable if the child or U.S. Citizen parent did not comply with the requirements outlined in the INA. In the dissenting opinion the SCOTUS affirmed that those born outside the United States although not a popular thought are naturalized Citizens. Ted Cruz like Aldo Bellei was eligible for citizenship at birth and they acquire that proof of citizenship thru a naturalization process. They are therefore naturalized Citizens and ineligible to be the President or VP of the United States.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html#F1

http://petesresearchonnaturalborncitizenship.blogspot.com/

PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

@MikeyPalos @PeterLettkeman Teds father was a Canadian citizen before Ted was born. His words not mine. Teds father was not a U.S. Citizen till 2005 when he renounced his Canadian citizenship. read my page at the petesresearch.. above. I put it in simple terms that anyone should be able to understand. 

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

But it was never dropped, for birth as a Natural Born Citizen.

I think you're talking about a person being born as a Citizen or being naturalized, which is a different matter and is defined by various laws that have changed over the years.

But the Natural Born Citizen status was only extended once, in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was repealed in 1795. That extension, allowing those born abroad to parents who are Citizens to be "considered as" natural born citizens, was made because some of the Founders, like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, were spending years abroad as ambassadors. They expected to have their families with them. They did not want to deny their own children, born during their ambassadorial duties, the opportunity to become President.

But, this extension did not last. Wisely, Congress repealed it because such a child, born in France or Germany or wherever, would also be a citizen of that country, giving that country undue influence over a child who might become President.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

Well, no. A person born on US soil is only a Citizen, by birth.

To be a Natural Born Citizen is a bit different. It requires birth in the country to parents who are Citizens, so that no foreign Citizenship or allegiance is passed down to the child.

The Constitution recognizes only two classes of citizens, just as Law of Nations does.

There are Citizens (whether by birth or naturalization) and there are Natural Born Citizens.

"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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

 

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Speak2Truth @MikeyPalos One would think, but that is not the case.  They came about this way of thinking because of the slaves and native Indian;  so now you just need to be born here, doesn't matter status of parents. 

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Speak2Truth @MikeyPalos And as I've said a few times before.  It is not.  But it is still the practice; DUH, ever heard of anchor babies or are you from some planet far away. 

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

Oh, okay. You're only talking about someone who is considered a "citizen" by birth in the US, not a Natural Born Citizen.

So, that has nothing to do with the question of Presidential eligibility.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Speak2Truth @MikeyPalos Evidently the Constitution isn't as clear as you and I see it.  But the fact remains, if you are born here you are "Natural Born Citizen"; anchors away....

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Speak2Truth @MikeyPalos No,no,no.... it has nothing to do with whether their birth was natural or caesarian, or induced.  Makes no difference. 

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

Nope, just a Citizen.

The Founders considered the possibility of merely being born a Citizen.

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

  "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."


It was rejected, due to John Jay's warning, and limited to a much more restricted class: Natural Born Citizens. That is, those who are born without a foreign parent or foreign jurisdiction to pass down foreign allegiance or nationality.


The literal definition is:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Speak2Truth @MikeyPalos Quote whatever you want, but reality is, if they are born here they are a natural born citizen and eligible to vote at 18 and can be President once turned 35.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Speak2Truth @MikeyPalos You forget there was millions of blacks here that were not citizens, they were property.  They effectively became people fractionally; 3/5, then 1.  So what has become defacto-law is not what is written.  I'm sorry, and I agree it should revert to as written, since that situation no longer exists.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

I still don't know what this has to do with slaves. The Natural Born Citizen requirement for the Office of President is not about slaves becoming Citizens. That's an entirely different subject.


To be a "Citizen", even by birth, does not qualify a person for the Presidency. The Founders rejected that when Hamilton proposed it.

 

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Speak2Truth @MikeyPalos This is not my claim, it happens to be the practice in reality,  which is evidential backing. maybe after Emancipation Proclamation something was written.  Regardless, somewhere  it became the law today. 

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

But it's not the law. It's an unlawful practice. What you're saying is that the Federal Government violated the law by allowing Barack Obama to take office.

Obama's lawyers fought hard to prevent his legal qualification for office from being confirmed. It never was. Even the Supreme Court refused to take the case, likely out of fear of consequences if the law was upheld and Obama was forcefully removed from office.


What we see is called "law-breaking" or criminal behavior. That does not change the law, any more than Al Capone could by getting away with murder.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Speak2Truth @MikeyPalos Quite simply, the Fourteenth Amendment currently is being interpreted to grant automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States of illegal alien parents (called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency). This clearly is contrary to the original intent of Congress and the States in ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

I fully agree with your post.  A lot of people are being made into Citizens who should not be.

But this is a matter completely separate from the Natural Born Citizen clause, which is the topic of this IVN article.


Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen because of his foreign Father as well as birth under foreign jurisdiction.


Barack Obama is disqualified by birth to his foreign Father.


Ditto for Marco Rubio.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Speak2Truth @MikeyPalos No... the article is about who can become President.  Obama born in Hawaii is natural born, nothing to do with his father, Ted Cruz , not born in US by a 'visiting' mother to Canada; will still be treated the same due to the current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. 

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

But Obama, born to a British Subject, is not a Natural Born Citizen. He was a dual (or triple) citizen at birth.

That's why his lawyers have spent all these years fighting to prevent any court from getting its hands on his legal birth document. With that evidence in hand, they could rule according to the legal definition of Natural Born  Citizen that the Founders had in their hands:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

That's what the term means as used in the Constitution.

So, he has prevented legal resolution of the matter and was allowed to take office without first qualifying for it. The 20th Amendment was violated.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Speak2Truth @MikeyPalos Regardless, he was born on US soil, to a US mother.  He is Natural Born,and there is no more debate.  I wish it wasn't so, but....

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

But what you're saying is that he can't qualify. What disqualifies him is his father, a British subject and Citizen of Kenya.

He does not meet both conditions to be a Natural Born Citizen, which makes no allowance for a foreign parent who passes down foreign citizenship.

In fact, the Founders outright rejected the notion of a person being born a Citizen as sufficient to qualify. It was proposed, by Hamilton, and rejected.

PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth Also how are the citizenship statuses of any of the individuals: Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, or Marco Rubio any better than the potential citizenship of heirs to the throne of Jordan listed below?

Prince Hamzah (born 29 March 1980), Crown Prince from 1999 to 2004,

Prince Hashim (born 10 June 1981), who has three daughters

Princess Iman (born 24 April 1983)

Princess Raiyah (born 9 February 1986)

Ted and the gang are citizens at birth, but they are not a Natural Born Citizen. If they are eligible then the children of Queen Noor and King Hussein of Jordan would have been eligible in two more years if she had not renounced her American citizenship at the time of her marriage. They would have been born to a U.S. Citizen parent and a foreign national in a foreign country. 


Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

Okay, Mikey, that's how a person can be a US Citizen.

But it still does not make them a Natural Born Citizen or eligible to be President.

To qualify as President, one must be a Natural Born Citizen...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations


Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@PeterLettkeman @MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

Peter - I'm wondering whether you have seen this particular pattern.

In just about every comment section relating to Obama's eligibility, Global Warming and a couple of other issues dear to the Left, there is always one troll who just keeps on repeating the Party line over and over. No matter how many times you show them the factual information, they'll just keep on repeating the Democrat Party line

One must wonder whether Cass Sunstein's goons really have been put on the job.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@PeterLettkeman Nice try dolt, but sorry you are wrong again and still; all qualify to be President.  too bad. 

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Speak2Truth @PeterLettkeman @MikeyPalos No.  you're just a nut, that would like his own reality to apply.  It doesn't matter what you two think about anything.  Because what you think just isn't so.  You're right,  there is always a troll that will not acknowledge reality, and you've been given that name earlier on, remember troll ?  We can always pick up on an idiot that does nothing but copy and pasted volumes of nonsense try to convince thinking beings of their stupidity. You're idiots and there is nothing more to say about you.  BTW stupid, I'm a card carrying TP you idiots.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Speak2Truth @PeterLettkeman your entire post has been talking about what isn't so.  Whenever I'm talking with utterly and profoundly stupid people. It becomes necessary to repeat, it takes them longer to understand the reality of what I am schooling them on. 

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@PeterLettkeman @Speak2Truth You're nothing more than a troll, who knows a whole bunch of what isn't so.  I should read this commentary?  You're a babbling moron with nothing going on upstairs or anywhere. 

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

You have made this claim a few times. Please show where this is spelled out in law. It's an honest request, because all I have been able to find is that a person is a "Citizen" by birth on US soil, which is not a "Natural Born Citizen".

The Constitution is clear on the fact that the two are not the same. Only one of them gets to be President or VP.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

The Constitution ensures all Citizens, whether by birth or naturalization, share the same Rights and privileges.

But, it sets aside one privilege, qualifying for the office of President or Vice President, for a much more limited class: Natural Born Citizens.

All your joking aside, the definition is clearly spelled out:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@MikeyPalos @Speak2Truth 

You keep saying that. Can you show the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen to support your claim?

I've only found one definition of the term that the Founders had available to them, in "Law of Nations", which they used as a reference book while writing the Constitution.

I'm interested in your claim. It just needs some sort of evidential backing.