Posted on 03/09/2016 6:42:13 AM PST by CodeJockey
I was born on a USAF base (Pepperrell AFB St. John's NFLD Canada) and of course my father was a US citizen at the time. He was actually born in Kentucky. We moved to Myrtle Beach AFB when I was around six months old.
I barely remember when I was very young, maybe around five or six having to perform some kind of ritual declaring my allegiance to the US. I have some form declaring my citizenship at that date. I had to get it out a few weeks ago when my son joined the NC National Guard to verify I was a US citizen.
So how come I was not a US citizen until I took the oath even though I was born of a US citizen on a US AFB in Canada, but Ted Cruz was one immediately at the time of his birth.
If I had know I was eligible to be President of the Unites States, I would have perhaps became a lawyer or maybe a community organizer. .
Nope.
The citations, in each case AFFIRM a known concept. For example: The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.. Of course that sentence is correct. But it does NOT define natural-born.
Now I agree we can disagree on that interpretation. So allow me to share this.
From the Harvard Law Review: Written March 2015
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.
As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.
These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.”
The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries, a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.
The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
“Nothing against Ted, just why the double standard? “
Because his supporters say so!
I will never vote for anyone NOT born on US soil or an anchor baby.
NEVER
“If your mother was also a US citizen, you are certainly a natural born citizen of the US... regardless of birthplace.”
The U.S. Supreme Court said you are wrong, and centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence says you are wrong for the same reason: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
“The form was required to document your birth overseas AS a US citizen.”
Only as a naturalized U.S. citizen.
“If both your parents were US citizens, then this form that was filed did not “naturalize” you as a US citizen, but rather established your status as “natural born”.
Wrong. The Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) and comparable documents are used to document the authority to pass across the U.S. border and into the United States as a naturalized U.S. citizen, and not as a natural born U.S. citizen. From the repeal of the Naturalization Act of 1795 to the late 19th Century, a child born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents acquired no U.S. citizenship at all. Such a child had to be naturalized in exactly the same way as any child born abroad or in the United States with two foreign citizen parents. The only means by which these children born abroad could acquire citizenship was by automatic naturalization due to having one or both U.S. citizen parents in accordance with the newer U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Acts providing the authority for automatically naturalizing such children retroactively at birth.
“If either of your parents were not US citizens, then the paperwork would have served to ‘naturalize’ you as a US citizen born overseas.”
All children born abroad acquire U.S. citizenship only by naturalization: United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
“Natural born status is based upon inheritance, not birthplace. Birthplace brakes the tie when parents are not citizens of the same country.”
Wrong, because Anglo-American jurisprudence since before the 13th Century has required jus soli, jus sanguine, and exclusive allegiance to the sovereign to be a natural born citizen.
“Also... a US military base IS considered US soil.”
Wrong, that is a myth and total nonsense.
“Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen of the US. He is wrong in saying that he is.”
Correct, Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen by the authority of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952.
“Cruz is a natural born citizen of Canada.”
Incorrect, because Ted Cruz was naturalized as what the Canadians designate as a natural born subject, although a natural born subject is in reality a person who is naturalized and to be considered as a natural born subject. The English simply got in the habit of omitting the “considered as” part of the phrasing, so now people got the wrong idea of the original and still true meaning.
Only one of them will be a vital record kept by a legally-recognized entity. Probably the provincial government, which is the entity that can issue a "certified copy."
Ted was born a U.S. citizen, just not a natural born citizen.
Too many people blur the lines on this.
Actually McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, an unincorporated US Territory at the time of his birth. Thank You Jimmy Carter for screwing that pooch.
First, Congress can amend the Constitution.
Second, defining a term used in the Constitution is well within the powers of Congress. This was part of what the Founders planned. Requiring an amendment for any Congressional action is not required by the Constitution.
Third, using the common law understanding of NBC a person born to a US citizen gains US citizenship by birthright.
Yes she was. No disagreement with you that she didn't go through the "first papers, residency, second papers, oath" regimen, but that is not the only form of naturalization. He US citizenship depends solely on an Act of Congress.
SCOTUS case law has precedence over State Department and "legal scholar" attempts to summarize the case law.
So Puerto Rico, a US Territory, isn’t US Soil. Yet anyone born there is a US citizen and can vote in the Presidential Elections.
You will find common law cuts the other way, or at best, is mixed and muddled. This is from WKA, discussing the history of citizenship laws ...
IV. It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.Case law in the US is crystal clear. Born abroad, even of two citizen parents, becomes a US citizen solely by operation of Act of Congress, and SCOTUS views this a naturalization.But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, "citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France," and
mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;
and children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by "a favor, a sort of fiction," ...
Soooo . . . I looked that up. Hmmmm . . . pretty ambigious for me, but OK, I can see how you write that. After reading the story, I get that Senator McCaskill would have put that ammendment forward regardless where McCain was born, and she would have been correct. A child of a military family HAS to be born on base to be elgible? Not particularly fair as she says.
The account of the story I am reading is from the New York Times. They write:
When questions arose in 2008 about whether Senator John McCain was a “natural born citizen” qualified to be president because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father was stationed, his Senate colleagues were outraged. They bristled at the very thought that there could be any doubt whatsoever that the respected Republican lawmaker and war hero from Arizona was eligible under the Constitution.
Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, was so worked up at the idea that on the day The New York Times published the article examining the issue, she arrived at the Capitol with corrective legislation written in longhand on a yellow legal pad.
“In America, so many parents say to their young children, ‘If you work hard and you play by the rules, in America someday you can be president of the United States,’ ” Ms. McCaskill said at the time. “Our brave and respected military should never have to spend a minute worrying whether or not that saying is true for their child.”
The Senate passed a nonbinding resolution declaring that “John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States.”
Whether that bipartisan resolution would have carried the day legally was never tested, and Mr. McCain lost the presidency to Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who was a co-sponsor of the McCain resolution.
Those with one citizen parent are covered in the same section of the law, separate sub-paragraph, under the heading "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:".
The form was required to document your birth overseas AS a US citizen. If both your parents were US citizens, then this form that was filed did not “naturalize” you as a US citizen, but rather established your status as “natural born”. If either of your parents were not US citizens, then the paperwork would have served to ‘naturalize’ you as a US citizen born overseas.
Not true. As long as the citizen parent has met the residency requirements (10 years total including 5 years after the age of 14) then they are eligible for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA)(FS-240). The process is the same (no naturalization), the form is the same, and the only difference is documentation is required to prove residency requirements were met.
Natural born status is based upon inheritance, not birthplace. Birthplace brakes the tie when parents are not citizens of the same country.
There's nothing to support your tiebreaker theory. The real question is whether citizen at birth equals natural born citizen, because they are definitely citizens at birth when one parent is a US citizen and has met the residency requirements.
Also... a US military base IS considered US soil.
That's a myth. Military parents stationed overseas have to apply for the CRBA, even when the children are born on base.
Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen of the US. He is wrong in saying that he is. Cruz is a natural born citizen of Canada.
One does not preclude the other. I don't know if Canadian law even uses the term. Canadian law has no impact on U.S. law. There has been speculation, but I haven't seen real evidence that either of his parents were ever Canadian citizens. His mother was a U.S. citizen. his father was Cuban.
We really need the "Not this **** again" guy for this post, because these questions have been debated to death here.
I would add that Puerto Rico has no representation on Congress, and no presence in the elctoral college. The political parties gives the territories say in primaries, but that’s a party function, not a government function.
A person can be a NBC of at most one country. This is axiomatic. It is possible to be not a NBC of any country, and it is also possible to be stateless, not a plain old citizen of any country.
Since the courts are almost certain to punt on the issue and call it a political question, and the Senate counts Electoral College votes, the Senate was signalling how it would decide the issue.
I'm assuming mom was not a U.S. citizen, which means dad had to be a citizen and meet the residency requirements to pass on the citizenship (10 years in the U.S./5 years after he turned 14.) That was why Obama had to be born in Hawaii, because his mother was only 18 and could not have met the residency requirement to make him a citizen at birth.
McCain's claim was even more tenuous because he was retroactively declared a citizen at birth by a law change that took place after he was born. He did have two citizen parents, however.
You were a U.S. citizen from birth. If someone said otherwise, they made a mistake.
Um no, not even a good try.
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.