Ted Cruz Drops Bombshell: Admits He's Not Constitutionally Eligible To Be President

You are talking to a brick wall, neither she nor rahl grasp anything that is being stated. Rogers vs Bellei pretty much spells it out, and yet they completely deny it and continue to exclaim that "citizen at birth" = "natural-born" even when shown that SCOTUS says BS. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html

 

Some have a hard time grasping that retro-active granting of "citizen at birth" does not equate to "citizen by birth" that also establishes citizenship at birth. The granting citizenship "at birth" to a child born to US citizens in a foreign country is retro-active as it is not established at the moment of birth. Leeland Davidson had his US citizenship granted "at birth" under our naturalization laws that were retro-active addressing the 95 years when he was not a US citizen. A natural born citizen, where their citizenship is established by birth, is a citizen "from birth" from the instant they're born and it is not retro-actively established under the law.

There are numerous provisions in the naturalization laws related to US citizenship. For example the fact that both parents are US citizens does not establish that the child is. If nether of the parents, both of which are US citizens, have a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person then the child is not a US citizen. Simply being the child of US citizen parents does not grant US citizenship to the child.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

Born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, always establishes (natural born) citizenship regardless of anything related to the parents because it is the "inalienable right of citizenship" of the child.

 

They were US citizens at birth in the oil camps of Arabia..

 

Non sequitur, obviously, since 14A is utterly silent as to the citizenship of the foreign born children of US citizens - which means authoritative determination of their citizenship at birth remains the exclusive province of the state(s) in which the parent(s) maintained a domicile or domiciles.

 

That status was retro-actively granted to them under statutory law.

Once again, if the following provisions were not in U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part I › § 1401 > (c) would they have been US citizens?

"(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."

If that clause did not exist in our statutory laws of naturalization you're brothers would not be US citizens today, even though both of your parents are US citizens, because they were not born in the United States.

Even if neither of your parents met the condition of having a prior residence in the US or one of it's outlying possession your brothers would not have been US citizens. They became "Naturalized" US citizens retro-actively "at birth" when your parents declared them to the State Department in seeking a passport and not before.

 

"(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."

Well.. the boys were two weeks old when they were registered at the US Consulate...... just like a thousand other American kids. (c) says it all.........

 

The 14th Amendment addressed "natural born citizenship" in establishing that "born in the United States... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" established natural born citizenship (that was being denied under statutory laws prior to enumeration). This issue was extensively covered in the case of the United States v Kim Wong Ark that even referred to the precendent in common law from England related to "subjects" (England doesn't have citizens but instead has subjects) that was the foundation for the use of "natural born citizen" in Article II of the Constitution.

Either a person is a "naturalized" US citizen or they are a "Natural Born Citizen based upon being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" according the the 14th Amendment.

Of note even the granting of citizenship to a person born in a territorial possession of the United States is based upon our statutory naturalization laws because they're not born in one of the States. If that territory later becomes an actual state, such as Hawaii in 1959, then the person becomes a US citizen because they're a citizen of Hawaii based upon their birth.

The state only exercises juridiction over those in the state and a child born outside of the state is not under the legal jurisdiction of the state.

 

Then for two weeks they were not US citizens. The granting of citizenship was retro-active which is exactly what I said. Even if the birth was recorded 1 second after the birth citizenship would be retro-active.

A natural born citizen is a US citizen from the very moment of birth regardless of when it's reported or even if it's never reported at all.

 

You didn't understand a word I said.

 

No. All citizenship is granted via statute or law. Natural born or naturalized are are legal concepts enforced by laws.

Cruz was a citizen upon his birth by virtue of his mothers citizenship passing to him.

 

And if the constitution didn't exist nobody would be natural born US citizens even if they are born on this land.

All citizenship is statutory by definition.

 

"Cultural Marxism" is a leftist tactic to further a political agenda.

 

LOLOL.. its the language of silly twerps....

 

Just what is “Political Correctness?” “Political Correctness” is in fact cultural
Marxism – Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The effort to translate
Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the
1960s. It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist
Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted
to making the translation, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt
School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the
question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilization?” The Frankfurt School gained
profound influence in American universities after many of its leading lights fled to the
United States in the 1930s to escape National Socialism in Germany.

The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences (some
Fascist as well as Marxist) added linguistics to create “Critical Theory” and
“deconstruction.” These in turn greatly influenced education theory, and through
institutions of higher education gave birth to what we now call “Political Correctness.”
The lineage is clear, and it is traceable right back to Karl Marx.

The parallels between cultural Marxism and classical, economic Marxism are
evident. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, shares with classical Marxism the
vision of a “classless society” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal
condition. Since that vision contradicts human nature – because people are different, they
end up unequal, regardless of the starting point – society will not accord with it unless
forced. So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced.

This is the first major parallel between classical and cultural Marxism: both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness can be seen on campuses where “PC” has taken over the
college: freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.

The second major parallel is that both cultural Marxism and classical, economic
Marxism have single-factor explanations of history. Classical Marxism argues that all of
history was determined by ownership of the means of production. Cultural Marxism says
that history is wholly explained by which groups – defined by sex, race and sexual
normality or abnormality – have power over which other groups.

The third parallel is that both varieties of Marxism declare certain groups
virtuous and others evil a priori, that is, without regard for the actual behavior of
individuals. Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the
bourgeoisie (the middle class) and other owners of capital as evil. Political Correctness
defines blacks, Hispanics, Feminist women, homosexuals and some additional minority
groups as virtuous and white men as evil. (Political Correctness does not recognize the
existence of non-Feminist women and defines blacks who reject Political Correctness as
whites).

The fourth parallel is in means: expropriation. Economic Marxists, where they
obtained power, expropriated the property of the bourgeoisie and handed it to the state, as
the “representative” of the workers and the peasants. Cultural Marxists, when they gain
power (including through our own government), lay penalties on white men and others
who disagree with them and give privileges to the groups they favor. Affirmative action
is an example.
Finally, both varieties of Marxists employ a method of analysis designed to show
the correctness of their ideology in every situation. For classical Marxists, the analysis is
economic. For cultural Marxists, the analysis is linguistic: deconstruction. Deconstruction
“proves” that any “text,” past or present, illustrates the oppression of blacks, women,
homosexuals, etc. by reading that meaning into words of the text (regardless of their
actual meaning). Both methods are, of course, phony analyses that twist the evidence to
fit preordained conclusions, but they lend a “scientific” air to the ideology.
These parallels are neither remarkable nor coincidental. They exist because
Political Correctness is directly derived from classical Marxism, and is in fact merely a
variant of Marxism. Through most of the history of Marxism, cultural Marxists were
“read out” of the movement by classical, economic Marxists. Today, with economic
Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the
message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the
state.
Political Correctness now looms over American society like a colossus...

continue -> http://www.observations.net/marxism/B_Intro_and_chapter_one.pdf

 

They would be British Subjects

 

Natural-born is recognized by being born upon the soil to the govt of the local, it is not via statute or law. The 14th is merely declaratory of what was already in existence. Naturalized is a legal concept wherein status can be recognized by application into a society, or the govt recognizing more than birth on the soil. Jus sanguinas is a recognized govt construct and is not natural.

Her citizenship status has no bearing upon the child, it is the govt's recognition of allowing jus sanguinas that then allows for Ted to acquire US citizenship through his mother, provided he meets the mandated requirements set forth by the govt. If he were to fail those requirements, he would not be or become a US citizen. He was not a citizen by birth, he became a citizen after he met the requirements of the 1952 INA, such child is residing in the US pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of naturalization or thereafter and begins to reside permanently in the US while under the age of 16. 1952INASec.320(b) http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/66 stat 163.pdf

 

To understand and to be able to interpretate the intent of the Constitution, one must have read and studied the "Federalist Papers" and Vattel's "Law of Nations."

English Common Law can be ignored since America fought a war to distance itself from a monarchy.

 

Right. Citizenship is entirely a legal construct.

 

You understand a government is the embodiment of law right?

Nope. Natural born citizen is conveyed by jus soli, jus sanguinas, or both.

Of course Her status has bearing.

Correct.

Of course he was.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither have any legal weight.

English common law is the basis for US law.

 

It's not entirely, only to those that do not fall under natural born, i.e. those that have citizenship conferred upon them.

 

Govt is not the embodiment of law.

Nope, it's not, only by jus soli as has been demonstrated to you over and over and over, by many in here, and by actual SCOTUS opinion.

Only as far as the US govt acknowledges it, otherwise it does not.

Which he then falls under the rules of Naturalization and is not natural-born. There are only 2 sources for US citizenship (WKA) 1) Born within the US; 2) Naturalized within the US. Cruz became naturalized the minute his 5 years were recorded prior to the age of 16. Now that you finally agree and stated I am correct, the rest of your claims are inane.

No, it took the 5 year requirement to make him a citizen, without it he never would have become one.

The Federalist Papers do have legal weight, they are referenced/cited by SCOTUS pretty often in SCOTUS opinion.

 

Lol, no. It's entirely a legal construct.

 

Of course it is.

Uh, no. Nothing you have cited says ONLY jus soli applies. Sorry.

Yes, it does.

He wasn't naturalized. He was a citizen upon his birth.
[QUOGE]There are only 2 sources for US citizenship (WKA) 1) Born within the US; 2) Naturalized within the US. Cruz became naturalized the minute his 5 years were recorded prior to the age of 16. Now that you finally agree and stated I am correct, the rest of your claims are inane.[/QUOTE]
Why be dishonest? There are not 2 sources of citizenship. There are 2 TYPES of citizenship.

No, he was a citizen upon his birth.

So was the bible. Neither have any legal weight.

 

Then it could possibly be because what you said really made no sense but I will try to address it again. Your statement:

The state, if that's specifically what you refer to, does not make any determinations related to the citizenship of children born abroad that are outside the jurisdiction of the state although many states (maybe all) do authorize the issuance of birth certificates for those children at the request of the parent. On those birth certificates the place of origin of the birth is recorded and documented.

If the child is born within the state that child is a US citizen based upon the criteria established in the 14th Amendment (i.e. born in the United States... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) and that is documented by the state on the birth certificate. For those born outside of the state it becomes a matter of statutory naturalization for citizenship to be granted under the provisions of Article I Section 8 that delegates the responsibility to "create uniform laws of naturalization" to the United States Congress.

In point of fact the states do not have any jurisdiction over citizenship and merely apply the provisions of the 14th Amendment as citizenship is under federal, not state, authority based upon the US Constitution including the criteria established by the 14th Amendment.

 

Excluding political agendas there is what I believe to be a fundamental problem with this issue. Some seem to believe that "natural born citizenship" is superior to "naturalized citizenship" when in fact it is not. They're being "elitists" in thinking that if they're natural born citizen that they are somehow superior to the immigrant that becomes a naturalized citizen but history and logic both argue against this elitism.

As a natural born American citizen I look at the immigrant naturalized citizen as being, in some respects, superior to me. They choose to become an American while my citizenship is merely an accident of birth.

I was watching a show recently on "anchor births" where Chinese women will spend $40,000-$50,000 typically to come to the United States so that, when born, their child we become a US citizen. Many look at this practice disparagingly but I'm in awe of someone that's willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars so that their child will have the freedom and liberty that my parents obtained for me at no cost whatsoever. What they're doing not only shows a love for their child but also a deep love for America and I can find fault in neither. How anyone can look negatively at this makes no sense to me at all.