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.
Pffft. I count you as my enemy. Nice job, jerk.
There are lots of people buzzing around, making a lot of noise.
But there isn’t any honey there, so after a while no one cares.
Aren’t there more important things to discuss—rather than settled law.
When you produce some sort of document showing he was naturalized later after birth, and not provided a US birth certificate, let’s talk again.
From the article, quoting the supreme court (Black dissent) in Rogers v. Bellei:
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.
“Ted probably (almost certainly) has a Consular Record of Birth Abroad (also known as an FS-240), recognizing that his birth fit the circumstances laid out in 8 USC 1401(g). Citizen at birth to a child born abroad of one citizen parent, provided the citizen parent meets US residency conditions before the birth occurred.
As a matter of law, this is a recognition of naturalization, but it doesn’t go by that label. “
We have a winner.
So lets take that quote and apply it by looking at the Naturalization Act of 1790. In the first acts of Congress, the requirement for birth on US soil was REMOVED by statute.
Birther conspiracy sites on the internet, based on this thread.
*******************
Must be really tiring as he only post a thread or two every few months......
Saying that twice isn't responsive to the question.
Plus, I see no limit on rules of naturalization in there.
At any rate, the question, or questions, were, is the 14th amendment a law (or have the effect of law), and, is a person who is born in the US a citizen of the US, even if Congress passes no law to that effect.
You say a law is necessary, and if you say the 14th amendment is a law, then we're cool. OTOH, your posts suggest that your position is that if Congress didn't incorporate the 14th amendment into a statute, then the 14th amendment doesn't operate. I think that's an absurd position to take, but you are entitled to take it if you want. If that's your position, I'd like you take it expressly, not by me putting words in your mouth.
Thanks for sharing.
Even those citizens who are born in the US are citizens at birth (Naturally born as citizens) are defined by that law.
From the Article, quoting the supreme court:
[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
The closest contemporary writing to the ratification of the Constitution on the subject of natural born citizens being of two citizen parents is Thomas Paine's 1791 book The Rights of Man, written just two years after ratification.
From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions. While it doesn't have the authority of the law that Congress passed in 1790, it is a window into it's contemporary understanding.
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. A half-foreigner is still a foreigner. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
-PJ
Bingo! But this concept is way too difficult for the small minded among us to grasp.
So Congress gets to define any term in the Constitution undefined in the Constitution?
Who or what granted Congress that power?
Yes, but I suspect they were born in the Continental States.
One of the presidents of the Confederation of states was born in another country, so I think they saw this then as a problem, but all these men held foreign citizenship and fought in the war, so all were grandfatherd in.
Two Mexicans can sneak across the border, Zero Percent American in any way.
Punch out a baby 400 Feet in Texas and that Kid is a 100% American entitled to all our rights and benefits?
But An American Citizen who is in another country and has a baby, THAT baby isn't an American Citizen? Even if he was born to an American?
WTF kinda of sense does that make!?
Oh Wait it doesn't because Ted Cruz IS an American Citizen through and through.
A CRBA can be requested up to the time the child is 18, but I think that makes the request one that has to come from the parent as well, because the child hasn't reached the age of majority.
The State Department also offers that a passport can serve in lieu of a CRBA, but passports expire and CRBA's don't expire. Particular advice from a Consulate Officer is mixed, some insist on a FS-240 to get a passport, others don't. As a matter of law, either an unexpired passport or a CRBA is conclusive (outside of court) as to citizenship.
Now, back to birther battles!
Natural Born citizen already has a definition, derived from Natural Law, well known to the founding fathers.
DoodleDawg asked:
Which is documented where?
From the article, quoting the supreme court (which is acknowledgement, if not documentation):
[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
“Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week,
and he paid his way through the University of Texas,”
***************
Didn’t Rafael get married while a student at UT and have a couple of daughters?
I suspect it took more than ‘liking to eat’ at that time of his life. I suspect he
was getting other gov’t subsidies to support a wife, two children, etc.
If Cruz doesn’t qualify, then how can that bastard that infested the white hut for almost 7 (LONG) years qualify?
Not by this, no.
If you are citizen whose citizenship does not depend on a statute, then you are a natural born citizen.
The same statute that makes Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen starts out by saying that all people born in the U.S. are citizens at birth. So by your own definition we're all naturalized.
There is plenty of case law dealing with citizenship outside of statute, and in the US, that boils down to jus soli.
Not hardly.
Cruz birtherism is a lot like atheism.
They say he has zero chance of being nominated but will stop at nothing to prevent it.
Seems like a lot of time wasted to prevent the impossible.
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.