Cruz supporters and a repealed Act of 1790

129q30

Over on the Mark Levin’s Fan Club of Intelligent, Thinking Women (and Men) on Facebook,
a poster posted the Naturalization Act of 1790 as justification for Ted Cruz being eligible. I posted the following response.

I decided to reply with an indepth analysis and prove that anyone using the 1790 Naturalization Act to justify Cruz’s eligibilty is in error and is complete nonsense.

Citing a law that was repealed five years later is simply childish and shows that you have no knowledge of the subject.

I will try and keep this simple so you can look up the relevant words and hopefully educate yourself.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was quite clear.

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” It specifies that such children “shall be considered as natural born citizens.

Then five years later the Naturalization Act of 1795 was enacted and omitted the ‘Natural Born’ equation.

The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or “first papers”, which created a two-step naturalization process, and by omitting the term “natural born.” The Act specified that naturalized citizenship was reserved only for “free white person[s].” It also changed the requirement in the 1790 Act of “good character” to read “good moral character.”

That is your first mistake by citing a law that was repealed and then the Naturalization Act of 1795 was again repealed in 1802. But even citing the Naturalization Act proves Ted Cruz is not eligible, as in that act even being born overseas meant you still needed US Citizen parents, plural and not singular. The citizenship of the mother is not even part of the equation and never was till years later. So attempting to say a singular (parent) is not a reality. Doubt it, read on. Also the Act is quite clear and distinct “the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”. Where is the word mother used? It isn’t!

A quick review of the terms “Natural Born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ in the United States Constitution.

The United States Constitution is quite clear on the Constitutional Requirements of the Presidency.

United States Constitution Article. II. Section. 1.

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.

Note the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’

Referring to the Constitutional Requirements of the Senate and Representatives;

United States Constitution Art 1 Sec 2

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Note the Term ‘Citizen’

United States Constitution Article 1 Sec 3       

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Note the term “Citizen’

The terms ‘Citizen’ and ‘Natural Born Citizen’ are not the same and not interchangeable. A Natural Born Citizen is a higher standard.

The ‘first’ time that a woman was able to keep her citizenship was with the Cable Act of 1922.

The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, “Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act”) was a United States federal law that reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage.(It is also known as the Married Women’s Citizenship Act or the Women’s Citizenship Act). Previously, a woman lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to US citizen men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.

Former immigration laws prior to 1922 did not make reference to the alien husband’s race. However, The Cable Act of 1922 guaranteed independent female citizenship only to women who were married to an “alien eligible to naturalization.” At the time of the law’s passage, Asian aliens were not considered to be racially eligible for US citizenship. As such, the Cable Act only partially reversed previous policies and allowed women to retain their US citizenship after marrying a foreigner who was not Asian. Thus, even after the Cable Act become effective, any woman who married an Asian alien lost her US citizenship, just as under the previous law.

The Cable Act also had other limitations: a woman could keep her US citizenship after marrying a non-Asian alien if she stayed within the United States. However, if she married a foreigner and lived on foreign soil for two years, she could still lose her right to US nationality.

ln 1931, an amendment allowed females to retain their citizenship even if they married an Asian. In 1936, the Cable Act was repealed.

So under US Law since the founding of our nation till the Cable Act of 1922, the woman lost her US Citizenship and took the condition of her husband.  Fact, with the exception of the Asian requirement.

Then in 1934,  The Citizenship Act of 1934 was enacted which for the ‘first’ time allowed a mother to transmit any US Citizenship to her children. So citing the Naturalization Act of 1790 or 1795 is in complete error, as it wasn’t till 1922 that the mother was recognized as separate citizenship and then it was 1934 before she could even confer citizenship upon her children.

Here is the The Citizenship Act of 1934

Prior to May 24, 1934, children born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were United States citizens, acquired U.S. citizenship at birth unless the father had never “resided” in the United States prior to the child’s birth. In the absence of a specific definition of “resided”, the Immigration and Naturalization Service took the position that even a temporary sojourn by the U.S. citizen parent was sufficient to comply with this requirement.

Prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the “1934 Statute”) gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.

On or after May 24, 1934, a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother (or both) was a citizen of the United States at the time of the child’s birth, would be considered a United States citizen provided that the U.S. citizen parent had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child. The previous interpretation of “resided” continued to apply under the 1934 Statute.

So claiming that the Naturalization Act of 1790 or even the 1795 act which removed the elevated Natural Born equivalency bestowed any citizenship from the mother is untrue and the above proves it. To that pointy in 2000, in the United states Supreme Court Case of In the Supreme Court Case—Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS—Justice Ginsberg made the following statement

Mr. Kneedler, If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.”

Again, documenting that prior to 1934 the mother’s citizenship was not a determining factor.

Even if when Ted Cruz was born in 1970, Ted Cruz’s mother was required by law to register the birth with the US Consulate and file a CRBA.

There is serious doubt that was ever done and that being the case. Ted Cruz’s condition at birth is a Canadian citizen (documented by his Canadian Birth certificate) and Cuban citizenship from his father. Ted’s father Rafael Cruz was naturalized in 2005.

 

 

 

Scot Sheely – Deeply offensive

TPNBanner3

As readers here will recall, a Tea Party Nation moderator compared Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler in a thread named ‘Dump Trump’

ScotSheelyTrumpHitler

The moderator/poster included several remarks that refered to Donald Trump as Donald Drumpf. The posting was so offensive that the poster Scot Sheely went back and heavily edited it.

ScotSheelyEditedDrumpf

That being now documented and included in another IRS filing. Here is what a InfoWars posting states;

Trump2Hitler

So since Scot Sheely’s ‘deeply offensive’ Donald Drumpf hit piece was exactly what is described above. Shouldn’t Scot Sheely be banned from TPN as well?

TrumpHitler2

LeftTrumpHitler

 

 

Senator Crapo – Stand up or Stand down

Crapo2

 

 

Mr Crapo,

As a United States Citizen I’m hereby asking why you have not instituted a Electoral Commission concerning Ted Cruz’s ineligibility to seek the Office of the United States President. As you will recall you were quite adamant when asked about Barack Obama’s.

You sent out the following letter emphatically stating that since Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, that he was Constitutionally eligible, I was a recipient of your letter.

Your statement follows;

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, “The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. In President Obama’s case, some individuals have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those lawsuits have been dismissed. This includes a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to not review an “application for emergency stay” filed by a New Jersey resident claiming that the President is not a natural born citizen because his father was born in Kenya. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health and the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency. If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the Constitution.”

Since Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz has documented that he was in fact born in a foreign country Canada to a foreign national father and a questionable US citizen mother. A clear violation of the standard that you claimed legitimized Barack Obama. Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz posting his Canadian Birth Certificate clearly documented that he was in fact born outside the United States, and by US statute is a naturalized US citizen, and not a Natural Born Citizen as even you defined in your statement above.
“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…”
~ Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray (1898)

Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913):

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Natural Born Citizen per the United States Congress in 1866
(Born in the United States) (US Citizen Parents, meaning BOTH Dad and Mom)
again, in 1875 The United States Supreme Court
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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Mr Crapo, you can’t have it both ways. Either Barack Obama is illegitimate and you failed in your sworn duty and oath to the United States Constitution, or Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz is illegitimate, and in this case you are guilty of failing again to uphold your oath of office. Which is it?

The responsibility in this matter does not rest with the Courts, Election Boards, or the Secretary of State, it rests solely on Congress and our Congressional representatives, and that includes you.