[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
-- Title: my posting on Sen Angus Kings page Angus, In light of the following points, I as a Resident of Maine and a constituent of yours, want you to call for a full and open investigation into the legitimacy of Senator ted Cruz ® TX. Cruz, was born in Canada in 1970, his parents were then a Cuban citizen father, and an American citizen mother. Canada recognizes that being born in Canada make one a Canadian citizen by birth in that country. Rafael (Ted) Cruz also has, (or had), dual Canadian citizenship with Cuba, until May 14, 2014 when he formally reported he had renounce his Canadian citizenship, since his father was a Cuban citizen at the time of Rafael’s birth he still retains his Cuban citizenship. Did he ever have a CRBA? Citizenship follows that of the father’s, not the mother’s, and his Canadian citizenship was a gift from Canada for being born there. So how do these events of Rafael's birth, in Canada, make him a Natural Born US citizen by birth? It doesn’t look that way. Looking further into that question and do the research and consider the following we see he had the opportunity to become a US citizen upon his birth, but not an Natural Born Citizen, had his mother followed required US protocol below: A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain ‘statutory’ requirements are met. “The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. Citizen. Furthermore; If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, an Embassy or Consulate officer will approve the CRBA application and the US Department of State will issue a CRBA also called a Form FS- 240, in the child’s name.” (The above is what we were taught in the US military before were stationed or traveled overseas) The question then is did Rafael’s mother take the necessary steps to do this? If so, where are the documents verifying this took place? They should still be on file at the US State Department since Form FS-240 was issued by them. Also was this accomplished, if required? Since Rafael returned to the USA at age 4 who’s passport did he travel back to the US on? Or did his parents simply schlep him across the Canadian border? I am not the lawyer, you are, but there are SCOTUS rulings to look at: In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling: Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it… Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”: Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett: 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. On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.” CONCLUSION Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally. Angus there is another, Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875). I would appreciate an answer concerning this constituent request as soon as possible, within the enxt week if possible. Rev. Robert M. Celeste Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest I'm sure Angus will get right on this.
#2. To: TooConservative (#1)
I am just as sure he will ignore it, but, knowing the brotherhood of the us senate, Cruz will know it's out there. And aides will be chatting it up. one more thing for him to fend off, and he can't. Eli, Eli, nai erchomai Kurios Iesous. #3. To: All (#2) (Edited) still no answer. Eli, Eli, nai erchomai Kurios Iesous. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|