Ted Cruz was a U.S. Citizen at Birth, Will A Court Decide He Is A Natural Born Citizen?

Washington Examiner ^ | 1/7/2016 | Byron York

[WhiskeyX]

U.S. citizenship has two broad classes:

1. U.S. Citizen

2. U.S. National

Only U.S. citizens may exercise certain rights in the U.S. Government, whereas U.S. Nationals are restricted to exercising rights within their own territory.

U.S. citizens may be:

1. native born

2. foreign born with U.S. parent/s

3. naturalized foreign born with alien parent/s

Native born U.S. citizens may be:

1. native born in the United States with one or both alien parents

2. natural born in the United States with only U.S. Citizen parents

Natural born U. S. Citizens are:

1. Native born in the United States with only U.S. Citizen parents

[sourcery]

Are you saying the Constitution isn't "law"?

No! I'm saying it is law, and therefore can't make anyone naturally be a citizen.

There's a reason the Constitution only grants Congress the power to make rules regarding who may become a citizen by Act Of Congress ("naturalization,") but pointedly denies Congress any power to define who is a natural born citizen. If Congress had that power, then it could do to us whatever it wanted simply by passing laws that declare that whoever is a member of group X are not citizens, regardless of where they were born, or who were their parents.

Congress is not granted the power to define who is naturally a citizen. That's why the Naturalization Act of 1790 was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795: The 1790 Act was Unconstitutional, because Congress was not granted any power to define who is or is not a "natural born citizen." The Act of 1795 corrected that problem.

[semimojo]

No! I'm saying it is law, and therefore can't make anyone naturally be a citizen.

OK, so back to my question. Where is the definition of "native born" which you're equating to "natural born".

It sounds like you're just kicking the can down the road by substituting terms.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Congress does have the inherent power to define who is naturally a citizen when such an individual is not explicitly covered by the 14th Amendment. In the SCOTUS citzenship case of Rogers v. Bellei, the Court cited Justice Gray's stipulation in Wong Kim Ark:

"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

In doing so the Court said in Rogers v. Bellei:

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

The Court has recognized the existence of this power. It has observed, "No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with . . . ." (snip) And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent.

In establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, Congress defines who requires naturalization and who does not because (s)he is already a citizen.

[CommerceComet]

There's a reason the Constitution only grants Congress the power to make rules regarding who may become a citizen by Act Of Congress ("naturalization,") but pointedly denies Congress any power to define who is a natural born citizen. If Congress had that power, then it could do to us whatever it wanted simply by passing laws that declare that whoever is a member of group X are not citizens, regardless of where they were born, or who were their parents.

Where exactly does the Constitution "pointedly denies" Congress the power to write statutes concerning what constitutes a natural born citizen? It is the role of the courts to reign in a Congress that exceeds its authority (or the executive branch who refuses to enforce the law).

[coldflamingo]

Is that like a Liberal destroying a statue or a flag to change...Did the Canadian Government then erase the hospital record showing Cruz Birth Date and Place of birth and, and, and......

[coldflamingo]

SORRY< did not catch left out word... Is that like a Liberal destroying a statue or a flag to change history...Did the Canadian Government then erase the hospital record showing Cruz Birth Date and Place of birth and, and, and......

[conservativejoy]

Cruz’s place of birth is irrelevant. His mother’s citizenship confers his NBC status.

[sourcery]

Where exactly does the Constitution "pointedly denies" Congress the power to write statutes concerning what constitutes a natural born citizen?

In the same place where it denies every other power to Congress: By not explicitly granting it. And in the same place it denies the President the power to write law: By explicitly granting that power to Congress, and saying no such thing with respect to the President.

[sourcery]

Where is the definition of "native born" which you're equating to "natural born".

In 1789 (the year after the Constitution was ratified,) Dr. David Ramsay (<=click on link to see who that is) published an essay entitled "A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen," a very important and influential essay on defining a "natural born Citizen." In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the "original citizens" were and then defined the "natural born citizens" as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, "[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens..." Id. at 6. He added that "citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring..." Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship "as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776..." Id. at 6.

[sourcery]

In establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, Congress defines who requires naturalization and who does not because (s)he is already a citizen.

Utterly false.

In Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to determine who is a naturalized citizen, and what steps (if any) must be taken in order to become such:

The Congress shall have Power...

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...

The term naturalization has a precise legal meaning:

Naturalization, the act of investing an alien with the status of a national in a given state; it may be accomplished as the result of voluntary application, special legislative direction, marriage to a citizen, or parental action. Naturalization may also occur when one's home territory is annexed by a foreign power, to which one transfers one's citizenship.

Therefore, the power to naturalize (or to define rules of naturalization) is absolutely not the power to make someone who is naturally a citizen be no longer a citizen, nor the power to make someone who is not a native citizen be a native citizen. Interpreting the power to naturalize someone as the same as the power to make some a natural born citizen would make the Constitutional requirement that the President must be a "natural born citizen" (as opposed to simply being a citizen) meaningless (because then anyone made a citizen by the power of Congress would be eligible to be President, which the history of the Constitutional Convention makes quite clear was not at all the intent) --and interpreting the Constitution in such a way as to make terms, clauses or phrases meaningless, ineffectual or of no effect is Constitutionally impermissible, per Marbury vs. Madison: "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it."

[BuckeyeTexan]

In Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to determine who is a naturalized citizen, and what steps (if any) must be taken in order to become such:

Yes. Congress has the authority to determine who must be naturalized. Inherent in that power is the act of determining whether or not naturalization is required in the first place. When naturalization is required, the process must be uniform. When is the naturalization process not required? When someone is a 14A citizen according to the Constitution and when Congress grants citizenship at birth.

[BuckeyeTexan]

The Encyclopedia Britannica is not an authority on the legal definition of the term naturalization.

Black’s Law Dictionary is though. It says:

“The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the privileges of citizenship.”

The act of naturalization is not required when the Constitution or Congress says that someone is already entitled to the privileges of citizenship because (s)he was born a citizen of the United States.

[semimojo]

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the "original citizens" were and then defined the "natural born citizens"...

So a historian in 1789 gives us the definitive explanation of who is a "natural born citizen" but our elected representatives are forbidden to do so. Got it.

I think you're missing Buckeye's point. I agree that the power to naturalize doesn't mean the power to revoke the citizenship of native citizens, but I've yet to hear anyone argue that it does so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Congress's authority to grant citizenship to non-citizens in no way threatens existing citizens, but it does help to define who the "naturally born" ones are - those who don't fall under the naturalization statutes.

[sourcery]

The Encyclopedia Britannica absolutely is an authority on that and many other topics. Its articles are written by people who are in themselves authorities, or is based on and cite the writings of such authorities.

But regardless of that, what Black's Law Dictionary says in no way contradicts the much more detailed definition of the term provided by the highly authoritative Encyclopedia Britannica. And that greater detail in the Britannica is the only difference between the two. The difference in detail also shows the greater thoroughness, depth and breadth of the research and scholarship that goes into the articles published as Britannica entries versus those in any dictionary.

[SaraJohnson]

So you see both the cases regarding Obama and Cruz equivalently? If so, why?

---

Stop demanding that people do your research for you. If you don’t understand something, look it up yourself. There are volumes written on the natural born issue around Obama’s case.

[jpsb]

Natural Law is different than government law.

A natural born citizen is so because of Natural Law not government laws. Some one born on soil with two citizen parents is a natural born citizen because no other sovereign but the sovereign of the soil he was born on has any claim to his elegance.

This is not rocket science.

[sourcery]

Inherent in that power is the act of determining whether or not naturalization is required in the first place.

Utterly false. A person who disputed an Act of Congress which claimed they were not citizens absolutely would not be told by a court that Congress has sole discretion regarding whether or not they are a citizen. A court could, and would, decide that for itself based on the normative meanings of words. The same as it would for any other issue brought before which requires the meaning of one or more words or phrases which occur in the Constitution be adjudicated.

[CommerceComet]

In the same place where it denies every other power to Congress: By not explicitly granting it.

Based on what BuckeyeTexan posted in #44, the USSC disagrees with your interpretation and in its judgment, Congress does have that authority.

[BlueLancer]

You know, BlueStatesRightist may just be asking you to present your case for what you're advocating, not so much as "research" but trying to see what it is that you see as the best evidence for your argument.

In another thread, another Freeper and I were having a good back and forth on some subject but we just kept going round and round. Finally, I asked him what I thought was a basic question and his response was something that I hadn't even considered, that his interpretation of what I thought was a basic part of the evidence was so completely different than the way that I was visualizing it that it gave me a "whoa" moment.

I'm not saying that he necessarily convinced me of his position, but at least I was able to see what his thought process was and could, at least, see the seriousness of his argument.