Speculation about what Trump might be planning. Re: Citizenship

[Motown_Johnny]

*DISCLAIMER* I don't agree with any of the arguments I think Trump will use, I am just trying to anticipate what the crazy bastard may be up to.

He has been going after Cruz about being a natural born citizen. On it's face this seems pretty straight forward. Cruz is what the birthers falsely claimed Obama is, someone born out of the country to a mother who was an American citizen and a father who was not.

Once they dig into this the birthers need to admit that Obama was/is eligible to be President, even if the lies about him were true, or neither he nor Cruz are eligible to be President (assuming they believe the lies).

This much seemed obvious and I didn't think much about it, until the Immigration issue crossed my mind. Trump has been claiming that he has talked to "experts" who claim that children born to immigrants within the United States might not be natural born citizens. We all know that sounds crazy but because that term has never been legally defined it is an arguable point.


I think what might happen (especially if Cruz wins and he comes in second) is that Trump will file a lawsuit charging that Cruz is not a natural born citizen. Then his lawyer's arguments will include that at least two of three criteria need to be met in order to be a natural born citizen:

a) a mother who is a citizen
b) a father who is a citizen
c) born within the United States


You see, Cruz only meets one of these. Immigrant children also only meet one. He can attack on two fronts with one lawsuit. (John McCain, George Romney, Barry Goldwater and Lowell Weicker all had 2 parents who were citizens so they would meet 2 of those critera even though they were not born in the United States, except Goldwater was born in a territory which should count.)

One more argument I think he will use. If only one parent needs to be a citizen to grant citizenship, then we may have hundreds or even thousands of citizens overseas who are not recognized as such. Men who served overseas have fathered children while out of the country. These people must be considered natural born citizens if only one of the three criteria listed above is needed. Furthermore, the rights of these citizens have been denied because they have not been recognized and granted the rights and privileges that are guaranteed under the Constitution. If he can prove that just one child of an American citizen was denied citizenship, then he would have legal precedent to base that argument upon.

I think this is possible based on a tiny little bit of research I did. (Please correct me if I am wrong. I admit I know very little about this.)


http://military.findlaw.com/family-employment-housing/military-children-born-abroad.html

^snip^

If the parents are not married to each other, the child is a U.S. citizen if:

The mother is a U.S. citizen, and spent at least one year in the U.S. prior to the child's birth; or

Only the father is a U.S. citizen, and the father lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child's birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen (time spent in the military counts for this purpose). The child's paternity must be established according to the laws of the resident country or through the father's written acknowledgment. DNA testing may be required. In addition, the father must agree in writing that he will financially support the child. Citizenship must be applied for before the child reaches 18.


As you can see, there are a lot of hoops to jump through if you are were fathered by a military man serving overseas. If the father does not agree in writing that he will financially support his child then citizenship is denied (WTF!!!!!). I think this could be the basis for an argument that at least 2 of the 3 criteria listed above be met.


One other little problem is that "s" after the word "parent", although this is only consensus opinion and not legally binding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

^snip^

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth".





Go ahead, shoot holes in my speculation (not enough evidence to call it a theory). As I said earlier, I am just trying to anticipate what the crazy bastard might be up to. I don't agree with the arguments presented.