Ted Cruz is a Naturalized Citizen, not "Natural Born"

Farmer John

[Joachim]

Ted Cruz is a Naturalized Citizen, not "Natural Born"

by Farmer John

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.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

NBC=Any person possessed of properly forged documents may become President. And these docs may not be questioned, they must be believed and that is why every Congress critter “believes the current POTUS was born in Hawaii.” I think that is where we are on NBC at the moment.

[Yosemitest]

Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
And you ARE refusing the definition of "natural born citizen" CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !

Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

“Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.
... The U.S. Constitution allows only a “natural born” American citizen to serve as president.
Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz.

The only definition that matters is the one GIVEN BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS.

They addressed children of citizens,
where one parent who was a citizen,
and one parent who was an immigrant who had resident in the United States for a period of time,
and the child's RIGHT to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,
EVEN IF "born beyond Sea, or OUT of the limits of the United States, SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS NATURAL BORN CITIZENS :
Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have NEVER been RESIDENT IN the United States:"

The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
Provided, that
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

[randita]

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?

Bingo! But this concept is way too difficult for the small minded among us to grasp.

[Cboldt]

This issue sets the stage for greasing a constitutional amendment through, making all citizens eligible for the office. There has been a persistent but low-level effort to do so, with Congressional resolutions to that effect. see H.J.Res. 104 in the 108th Congress for an example.

Without a "face," the people would likely oppose such an amendment. With Cruz as the face, the people would accept it.

[DoodleDawg]

Natural Born citizen already has a definition, derived from Natural Law, well known to the founding fathers.

Which is documented where?

[Happy Rain]

Trumpkins have given Trump a bad name.

No wonder Cruz is gaining.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution enumerate Congress with the “Rules of Naturalization”.

Rules of naturalization have nothing to do with rules governing natural born citizens, which is defined by the standards of natural law. For example, from the book "Laws of Nations" written in 1758:

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

From the point of view of the founding fathers, Ted Cruz would be Canadian, because he was born in Canada to a father of Canadian citizenship. He would not be a "natural born citizen."

[DoodleDawg]

My bet is that when Cruz’ father became naturalized, they also issued Ted a Certificate of Naturalization.

Cruz's father became a U.S. citizen in 2005 when Ted Cruz was 35 so I highly doubt it.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Which is documented where?

You could start with Vattel's Laws of Nations. And then proceed to Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

[Cboldt]

-- Even those citizens who are born in the US are citizens at birth (Naturally born as citizens) are defined by that law. --

If you took out that particular section of law, those persons would still be citizens under the constitution. Their citizenship doesn't depend on the statute. Cruz's citizenship depends on the statute.

Congress certainly has the power to define who is a citizen, that comes with the power to make rules for naturalization.

The SCOTUS cases cited above say that citizenship that depends on a statute is naturalized citizenship. That's what they say. You may disagree with that conclusion, but it's the conclusion of SCOTUS.

[loucon]

Hmmm...

I wonder if Trump has accidentally stumbled onto something here?

Or if he has some advisers who clued in on this?

If you google TED CRUZ NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and set the time tool for articles published between Jan 1, 2012 and Dec 31, 2012 you get several articles questioning Ted Cruz NBC status. This is nothing new.

[DoodleDawg]

I wonder if Trump has accidentally stumbled onto something here?

Trump was talking about this back in March, before his current comments but after he said is wasn't an issue. But Trump has been a birther for years.

Or if he has some advisers who clued in on this?

I would suspect his advisors, if he has any, are wishing he didn't go down this rabbit hole.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

You can start with the works of Emmerich de Vattel on the Law of Nations, referenced frequently by the founding fathers, and in whose work the phrase “natural born citizen” is actually found.

https://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/vattels-law-of-nations-and-the-founding-fathers/

[DoodleDawg]

If it doesn't come out now, the dems will use it, for sure to disqualify Cruz.

A) how will the Dems accomplish that?
B) why should the Dems raise this when Trump and the Republicans are doing it for them?

[Yosemitest]

Substance over symbolism, a great quote from a man of millions of admirers!

[PJBankard]

I don’t see how FR should be embarrassed. This site promotes the defense of the Constitution and the discussion of the eligibility of a candidate for POTUS which is defined in the Constitution is a more than valid topic.

[Cboldt]

There is another form too, called a Certification of Citizenship. That form is used by the Immigration and Naturalization service when a person born abroad is a citizen at birth, but did not obtain a Consular Record of Birth Abroad before they reached the age of 18.

All of those forms are evidence of citizenship. The argument is over whether any of them can be taken as a "Certificate of Natural Born Citizenship" (no such document exists, just using that phrase to describe what many find to be the legal effect when citizenship attaches at birth, without a naturalization procedure).

[Pravious]

Mark Levin, just like Rush, makes his living as a fire-breathing, right-wing talk show host. If he wins, Trump makes these people less relevant, since America will no longer need to listen to “truth tellers” on the radio once we have one in the White House.

[Cboldt]

A polite request to please don't post your wall of text to me. You and I have an irreconcilable difference on this subject, and I can see your same post and analysis elsewhere because you post it about 40 times a day.

The reason I prefer to not have it posted to me is that it massively clutters up my posting history, and I use my posting history to retrieve references.

Not that I think you'll honor my polite request, because that's just how you roll.

[PJBankard]

I’m not telling you to trust anyone. I stated that you should aim your argumenets at the author of the article, not the poster of the article.