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.
Well said. But it's hardly surprising, since most of its advocates support a candidate who worships himself.
Breezed right by the "except as modified by statute" part I see. The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact uniform laws for naturalization. Part of that process has to be defining who must be naturalized and who are natural-born citizens. Cruz is a natural-born citizen.
David Ramsay, America’s first historian, president of the Confederacy of states, and friend to Jefferson, Madison, and Washington. He gives that definition: Born on the soil to US citizens.
My daughter is long past 18, and does have a US Passport, but to get it she had to submit her Canadian birth cert, and her Certificate of Naturalization.
I really hope that Cruz’ parents submitted the proper paperwork to make him a citizen from birth. We never even thought about it, and it was only the debate about Cruz that made me think of it just this morning.
If you cant see it, perhaps you should re-read section 1. It clearly restricts Congress from removing jus soli as was done in the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, it was necessary to return jus soli to the laws (rules) of naturalization. That is why title 8 section 1401 includes in subsection A the right of jus soli.
To avoid confusion, I am going to avoid the use of the word law. The Constitution and it’s amendments establish .... authority. Under that authority, Congress establishes ... rules. The Government has to follow those rules (absent the current administration apparently). Our situation is this. The authority (Constitution) authorized Congress to make rules. The rules that were made did not agree with the People. The People then change the authority (14th amendment) so that going further, Congress had to include in the rules the right of jus soli.
However, that does not limit citizenship to jus soli as the only means of citizenship at birth.
See, #105
So Congress removed a constitutional-level requirement by statute?
I'm missing your point. A lot of people have defined natural-born citizen one way. A lot of people have defined it another way. What makes David Ramsay's the definitive definition?
I'm missing your point. A lot of people have defined natural-born citizen one way. A lot of people have defined it another way. What makes David Ramsay's the definitive definition?
I take back my remark about you being an intelligent person. Well, maybe you are, but if so, you are not honest in argument on this point.
You even quoted me where I said "If you are citizen whose citizenship does not depend on a statute, then you are a natural born citizen." That does not translate, at all, into "everybody's citizenship depends on a statute."
If 1401(a) didn't exist, the 14th amendment makes persons born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US.
Or are you another one, like taxcontrol, who finds the constitution doesn't operate until Congress passes a statute that says what the constitution says?
If I read your remarks right, your position is that the 14th amendment has no effect until Congress passes a statute that says what the 14th amendment says. That is your position in a nutshell.
McCain was born on what was then US territory....and he STILL had it affirmed in the US Senate.
No, all she has is her Canadian birth cert, and her Certificate of Naturalization. I’m guessing that a Consular Report of Citizen Born Abroad has to be initiated by the parents, and we didn’t know about that, and wasn’t told about that, so I’m guessing one wasn’t filed.
Do you know, or does anybody know if Cruz has posted/released his “US” Birth Certificate? I remember seeing his Canadian cert the other day..but he should also possess a US cert. Perhaps it was posted and I missed it..thanks again.
Punch out a baby 400 Feet in Texas and that Kid is a 100% American entitled to all our rights and benefits? . . .
WTF kinda of sense does that make!?
This is beside the point, regarding the status of Cruz. But as I understand it, the common law jus soli or "place of birth" rule on citizenship includes exceptions--ambassadors' kids and invader's kids are not citizens by virtue of birth in a country not their own.
I'm pretty smart. I just love watching you guys chase your tails over and over again.
If 1401(a) didn't exist, the 14th amendment makes persons born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The very law you say means people aren't natural born citizens is what Congress enacted to enforce the 14th Amendment.
I agree totally, “natural born” was a common term used by nearly everyone in one context or another when I was a child, it was even used in comic strips having nothing to do with the question of presidential qualifications. We were taught in school that to be eligible for the presidency a person had to be born in America of TWO parents who were citizens. This was not even questionable as far as our teachers were concerned at that time. Anyone who tried to claim that someone born in Canada of an American citizen mother and a father who was NOT an American citizen would have been laughed at. I am NOT anti-Cruz, this is just the facts.
I hope I don’t get a lot of return comments from all these people on FR who “know” that I am crazy, it just seems that a lot of people “know” a lot about the NBC question that isn’t true. The question is far from being settled to the point that would prevent the left from challenging Ted Cruz if he wins the nomination. The idea that citizen at birth and natural born citizen necessarily mean the exact same thing is wrong but some seem to think that anyone who is a citizen period is a natural born citizen as if someone could be made natural born by naturalization.
The concept of overlapping laws was a challenging idea for some of us in our first year of law school. What folks also don’t seem to realize here is once you open up the discussion to sources outside the constitutional text, vattel etc., you are not talking about binding authority anymore. Citizenship as a function of natural process and natural law does not depend on the authority of the laws or the scholars that try to describe it. By definition, it occurs naturally. Cruz would have been a citizen by inheritance from his mother, with or without a statutory framework. It’s really a no-brainier.
Peace,
SR
I believe that. You use various form of intellectual dishonesty, which tends to create that effect.
Another way to put it is that you don't argue in good faith.
I think the substance of our disagreement on the citizenship subject and necessity/effect of statute has been fully laid out. I have nothing further.
So you believe the totality of the "birther" question with Obama was nonsense since his mother was born in the US? Any mother born in the US has children who are "natural born citizens" and thus eligible to be President of the US? What if an American mom goes to ISIS land and has a child there? That child is eligible?
Was Ted Cruz's first birth certificate, at birth, issued by the US? Don't you see the problem? Obama's eligibility, which should've been more fully challenged, was that he had a US mother and was born in the US. Cruz, logically, isn't even as elibible as Obama is.
Look, I really don't know. But Cruz supporters not willing to seriously consider the questions we have here, because he knows he's elibible, makes a lot of us wondering why they don't want to discuss it or figure out how to get the question resolved in a way that's definitive.
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.