Posted on 02/05/2016 8:22:26 PM PST by kathsua
Those who think Sen. Ted Cruz can be elected to a job he isn’t eligible for are ignoring the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. If Republicans make the mistake of nominating Cruz for President of the United States, Democrats in California and other states will challenge his eligibility. There’s at least a 90% probability the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco would rule him ineligible because he is a naturalized citizen rather than a “natural born citizen†as required by the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at my.telegraph.co.uk ...
Natural born citizen requires both
He is, for constitutional purposes, a naturalized citizen. That is true for all citizens born abroad, because the only way those persons obtain US citizenship is by operation of an Act of Congress. They are citizens, yes.
-- It seems to me that you are arguing that unless one is born under only those conditions mentioned in the Constitution, as pertaining to qualification of eligibility for holding office of presidency of the United States (parents who are citizens, and born within boundaries of the United States) then one can in no way shape or form be considered to be "natural born citizen". --
It's not just my argument. That is the position of SCOTUS in numerous cases. Born abroad, if they are citizens, their citizenship depends solely on an Act of Congress. Those citizens are naturalized citizens.
See Rogers v. Bellei. Bellei was born in Italy of an Italian father and US citizen mother. SCOTUS found him to be a naturalized citizen under the predecessor to the 1952 Naturalization act that covers Cruz. SCOTUS upheld taking Bellei's naturalized citizenship away, because Bellei did not comply with the conditions subsequent to birth, 5 years US residency before the age of 21. Bellei was a naturalized US citizen from birth until the age of 21.
That fallacies that you are determined to maintain, for whatever reasons, are that citizen at birth cannot be naturalized, and that SCOTUS didn't (and doesn't, to this day) say all citizens born abroad (even those where the statute makes them a citizen at birth) are naturalized citizens.
The question isn't who can Congress naturalize. It can naturalize all the people in the world if it wants to. It has that power.
One question, for Cruz's case, is whether or not he is a citizen under the constitution. He is not. His citizenship depends on being naturalized.
Another question, for Cruz's case (as it was for Bellei), is whether or not he is a citizen. The answer to that is certainly yes, for Bellei (we have the record), and probably yes for Cruz (he is reported to have traveled on a US passport).
The naturalization process for those granted citizenship at birth is to present themselves to a competent tribunal, for example, a Consular Officer, and have the claim to US citizenship adjudicated. That process does not include an oath of allegiance, but it is a process. Only after the adjudicator has evidence that the statutory requirements have been met does the adjudicator issue a finding of citizenship.
Your point is well taken.
I was born in Brooklyn NY to a father and mother, both of them also born in Brooklyn, with four US born parents (my grandparents).
No affirmative act by Congress was or is necessary to establish my citizenship. When I applied for a passport, my proof of citizenship was my birth certificate.
I am, undoubtedly, a natural born citizen.
9th Circus, the most often overturned circuit court in the land.
You forgot your < /sarc > tag; you'll confuse the newbies!
The same thing happens to me every time I try to post on the forums using one of my Android devices. Someday I am going to spend a few minutes and figure out how to turn the auto-fill off or install some sort of fix.
ðŸ˜
I know... There were probably a few who thought that I was serious. Usually I end up forgetting the " < I > " tags when I am quoting others or the spell check here takes them out.
I agree.
It is the way you have been applying the surrounding framework of what it means for Congress to "naturalize" is where there is solid ground for disagreement as to what it means for Congress to naturalize (an active verb there) a citizen, by statute.
Congress does not "naturalize" anyone who is otherwise born a citizen, even if clearly enough citizen under laws written of just who (just how and why) a person either is, or is not considered a citizen at time of birth.
There is no workable distinction between "born a citizen", and being a natural born citizen.
You may wish to look up the meaning of the word “precedent” (and review the capitalization rules as well).
That begs the question. Who is otherwise a citizen? Where do you look to figure out who is otherwise a citizen, if we don't look to Congress?
-- There is no workable distinction between "born a citizen", and being a natural born citizen. --
Tell that to SCOTUS. They use a different framework, the legal one.
Congress is empowered by the Constitution to 'establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,' Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.
“Cruz might not have gone through the naturalization process. . .”
Bingo! He didn’t but he is an American citizen. By the constitution there is only one other type of citizenship - natural.
That does not prevent other countries from bestowing citizenship. However, the U.S. will not recognize dual citizenship.
Although much of the above is quite right, I do not believe, am not persuaded that it is entirely, fully correct.
You have introduced element of jus soli (right of the soil) as unequivocally necessary in order to establish applicable definition of just how "natural born" citizen in all historic instances was applied, yet did not include considerations towards how at the time of adoption of the Constitution, exceptions to that element of jus solis were, under particular conditions considered and included both in practice and application.
Those exceptions later became, after a fashion, enshrined in law of the land under INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH.
As long as a birth was after adoption of that Act, which Act was obviously enough intended as clarification towards definition of the parameters for qualification of conveyance of citizenship (either from parent to child, or by jus soli alone, and/or various combinations or parentage with & without element of jus soli) at time of birth, then an individual born under those assembled delineated conditions, is born a citizen, thus naturally born a citizen, if you will.
The jus soli aspect, as for that alone being enough to establish irrevocable citizenship, I personally would like to see changed as price of any contemplation towards "comprehensive immigration reform" if that included aspects which smack of amnesty for those who have broken this nation's laws by having entered illegally. But I digress.
Historical working understanding of the concept "natural born" does indeed include that citizenship cannot be taken away through say, Acts of Congress, as you mentioned (and so my own desire to have changes of the law cannot be retroactively applied, which is ok with me, in fact is preferable in my own opinion) yet you've arbitrarily excluded Acts of Congress also be included within definition/conceptual understanding of the phrase natural born though perhaps without realizing that, yourself possibly echoing that part of the various arguments which had been raised (barring any other considerations than those discussed here) against Obama's technically qualifying to be seated as acting POTUS.
The concepts delineated in NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH I do believe are inclusive of being born a citizen under the laws of the land as those were at the time of one's birth.
Meaning that if, and when in those instances which ARE delineated by law to convey U.S. citizenship when a person is born to an American citizen (father, or mother, or of course both) one is born considered to be a citizen at THAT time, it following then that one is in that manner, a "natural born" citizen.
It seems to be bullshit and contrary to everything I knew growing up. up is down now and a Canadian can be president.
you didn’t correct anything- I pointed you to a post that refuted your claim- You may disagree with me but calling me a contemptible liar for not agreeing with your OPINION on the issue is childish-
You kept pointing to 1409 and it had nothing to do with the FACT that the Supreme court finds an equivalence between a mother having a child on soil and off soil- There was a federal court case that ALSO supported the finding of the SC which you conveniently ignored-
You OPINION is that anything doen by statute is an act of naturalization and is the equivalent of going through a naturalization process- the case brought up and the other federal case I nthe CRS report I pointed you to show that this is not the case-
[[The statutory distinction relevant in this case, then, is that S:1409(a)(4) requires one of three affirmative steps to be taken if the citizen parent is the father, but not if the citizen parent is the mother: ]]
I don’t mind discussing the issue with you but I’d appreciate it IF you would stop acting like a child and refrain from calling me a liar based on the fact that I don’t agree with your OPINION on the matter- Several people in this thread have laid out exactly what I’ve been trying to state- better than I can-
what are you, the designated schoolmarm? get lost.
You use your words to convey your position, unaware that they don’t mean what you believe them to mean, and it’s my fault for pointing it out. How liberal of you.
If I do get lost, I’ll be sure to keep an eye out for you, to help you find your way.
as blue dragon mentioned there is solid grounds for disagreement here- and we ‘should’ be able to agree to disagree on this issue without you getting all huffy when someone doesn’t agree with your position- to call someone a contemptible liar for not agreeing with your position is uncalled for and does nothing to help your case-
I call you a liar because you are one. Pretty simple, actually. That label isn't being attached to you by a child, but by a thoughtful, reasoning adult. My posts have demonstrated the falsehood in your contentions, yet you persist is setting forth falsehood as though it was truth. That is a liar, and you are doing so deliberately. And., as far as I'm concerned, your remarks to me have the same quality, that is, you are calling me a liar too.
I have ignored ZERO of the contentions you have advanced.
-- the FACT that the Supreme court finds an equivalence between a mother having a child on soil and off soil --
You are stupid, evil, or both to keep this up. It has been pointed out to you, using the exact words from the Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS decision, that this so-called equivalence depends on the statute for existence. You omit that part, deliberately so as to mislead your readers. That is despicable on your part. There are fewer that ten people on this board that I despise, and you are in the top five.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.