Posted on 01/11/2016 4:52:40 AM PST by Joachim
The question of who qualifies as a "natural born citizen" may be close in some cases, but the case of Ted Cruz is easy. Constitutionally speaking, Cruz is a naturalized citizen, not "natural born."
Regarding citizenship, the Constitution grants Congress power over a uniform rule of naturalization, not over citizenship generally. Any citizen whose citizenship is derived from an act of Congress is thus a naturalized citizen, constitutionally speaking, and thus not "natural born." The basic principle is stated in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-3 (1898):
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. . . . Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. 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, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
(Emphasis added.) That this principle still holds was recognized in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)— implicitly in the majority opinion of Blackmun, in which Chief Justice Burger, and Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White joined:
[O]ur law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute [and] the [Supreme] Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent.
(pp. 828-30) and explicitly in the dissent of Brennan, joined by Douglas:
Concededly, petitioner [Bellei] was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute. In the light of the complete lack of rational basis for distinguishing among citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas . . . .
(p. 845, emphasis added) as well as in the dissent of Black, with Douglass and Marshall joining:
Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.
(p. 840, Emphasis added).
The argument that Cruz is "natural born" because he was never naturalized is based on the false premise that Cruz was never naturalized. Cruz was naturalized (presumably at birth) by statute under Congress' power to make a uniform rule of naturalization. And since he (apparently) has no other claim to U.S. citizenship, he cannot be considered a "natural born" citizen.
It would be a kick-in-the-ass if we got two front runners, Cruz and Mrs. Bill and both of them get disqualified after, say, Super Tuesday, one by being indicted and arrested, the other by the Court for not being a Natural Born.
Great post!
What do you farm, Farmer John?
Wow, must’ve scored real well in logic class.
Bump for later read
I hope you are prepared to be blasted by Cruz supporters.
Joachim or Mark Levin? Who should I trust?
Wait a second here. Since the Constitution never actually defines the term "natural born citizen," and thus is falls to Congress to define that term, isn't its doing so by statute in effect (per the argument made in this post) making EVERYONE a "naturalized" citizen?
Those who come to the opposite conclusion, finding Cruz to be NBC, must resort to the framework of a citizen being either naturalized (meaning going through some procedure) or not, and if they don't have to go through a procedure (if the statutory citizenship attaches automatically by circumstances of birth), then they are a natural born citizen. This framework sidesteps the distinction of citizen by operation of statute, and citizenship without resort to statute.
Don’t you mean Farmer John and not Joachim? Joachim posted an article and instead of attacking the article, you are attacking the poster.
Not Mark Levin. That schmuck goes crazy at you just for posting stories on Donald Trump that aren’t negative. Just ask Breitbart.
All this Cruz birther nonsense is a complete and utter embarrassment for Free Republic. You Trumpets ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
I question Mark Levin’s impartiality. Or his sexuality. Or something.
I question Mark Levin’s impartiality. Or his sexuality. Or something.
Natural Born citizen already has a definition, derived from Natural Law, well known to the founding fathers. That is why they provided no definition for it in the constitutional text itself. It's meaning was common knowledge.
Since everyone who was a citizen at the time of adoption is dead we can remove the grandfather clause wording. We are left with “No Person except a natural born Citizen [...] shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
Why does the Constitution speak of “citizens” and separately of “natural born citizens”? Why is the word “natural” inserted? It is a matter of allegiance.
A person can be a “citizen” if they were citizens or subjects in some other country first but have come here and met the naturalization requirements. Also, if one is the offspring of a citizen and a non-citizen, then one is a US citizen. However, in both these cases it can be argued that the person might choose allegiance to their former country or to the country of the foreign-born parent or at least the allegiance might be considered divided. That is, there is no natural allegiance of the offspring to one or the other parent’s country. It is this divided or alienated allegiance that the Constitutional provision is designed to prohibit.
If, however, both of one’s parents are themselves US citizens, then one is a “citizen” as well as a “natural born citizen”. The “natural born citizen” is one who at birth has no natural allegiance to any other country and the Framers felt could be trusted to be loyal to the US and not act as a foreign agent. [footnote: Also, in their time, the rules of royal succession held sway throught much of the world and the Founders wished to forstall any potential claims by the crowned heads of Europe or their scions to sovereignty in the US.]
Note that native born is not the same as natural born. Native born simply refers to the place of one’s birth, i.e., one’s nativity. The term does not speak to the legal circumstances of a birth, merely to its location.
Neither. Study the authorities and arguments, and make up your own mind.
I’m a natural born citizen, having been born to US citizens in the state of MN. My daughter was born in Toronto Canada, and has a Canadian birth certificate, and is eligible for Canadian citizenship. My wife was not a US citizen at that time. When my wife became a naturalized US citizen in 1973, the INS issued her a Certificate of Naturalization, at the same time, my daughter was also given a Certificate of Naturalization (she was 4 at the time).
My bet is that when Cruz’ father became naturalized, they also issued Ted a Certificate of Naturalization.
So, I’m not quite sure whether Cruz is eligible to run for president. He definitely needs to get this cleared up in a court.
Farmer John. Oh, that’s who I should trust.
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.