Posted on 01/22/2016 7:58:09 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The recent controversy over the eligibility of Ted Cruz for the office of the Presidency is one of those conundrums embedded in the U.S. Constitution. That august document is full of ambiguous words and phrases that challenge even the strictest and most principled interpreters. The phrase "natural born citizen" could mean any number of things. For example, at the time of birth:
1. At least one parent is a U.S. citizen.
2. Both parents are U.S. citizens.
3. The birth occurs in a state of the United States.
4. The birth occurs in a state of the United States or in a territory thereof.
There is truly unanimous agreement that if both 2 and 3 are satisfied, there is no question that the child is a "natural born" citizen. In the early days of the Republic, the parental requirement was interpreted as patrimonial. Of course at that time, citizenship was restricted to "free white persons," but a combination of the Fourteenth Amendment and various statutes have eliminated the gender issue and nowadays. I have never heard anyone try to distinguish between 1 and 2, so let us stipulate that 1 and 3 together are enough. It is nearly universally accepted that 4 is as good as 3.
That leaves us with 1 and 4 together as being sufficient for "natural born" citizenship. Beyond that, if neither parent is a citizen nor does the birth occur inside American territory, nobody would suggest that the person is a "natural born" citizen. I apologize for the preceding rather pedantic discussion, but I want to have absolute clarity on the key question. That question is:
"Does either having one American parent or suitable geographic location by itself qualify?"
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“1) Did Cruz have to specifically perform a LEGAL ACT in order to acquire American Citizenship?
I think the answer is NO.”
I don’t know if he did or not, and neither does any one else. We do know that he had to perform a LEGAL ACT to RENOUNCE his Canadian citizenship.
We do know that IF, and I mean IF, Cruz obtained his US citizenship through his mother while he was a tot, it was due to her going through a act or process by which a person who is born a citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of the parents country.
Since Cruz has not released his CRBA, we do not know if HE applied, his mother applied, or if anyone applied. We do not know for certain IF or WHEN Ted Cruz attained his US citizenship via a legal act or process at the US consulate in Canada.
RE: Nope. Unless he was born before the adoption of the Constitution.
The phrase states “AT THE TIME of the adoption of the constitution.”
Surely you are not saying that the framers intended to DIS-INCLUDE those who are born AFTER the adoption of the constitution?
True but:
Not my rule, it is Article I Section 8 wording, to wit:
“To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
There is no limitation on Congress’ authority to establish the rules of naturalization save Amendment 14 which re-established the right of jus soli as automatic justification for citizenship.
Now I dont like jus soli for automatic citizenship at birth and the reason I dont is that it then grants NBC status. I’d like to change that as well. All it would take is for Congress to pass a law, under it’s authority under Article I Section 8 to define NBC.
However, until Congress makes that determination, the courts are, and have been, very reluctant to rule to deprive anyone of rights, and that includes the rights associated with NBC. Especially ruling against an enumerated power of Congress.
Personally, I would like to do away with jus soli birthright citizenship all together (repeal the 14th section 1) and limit citizenship to those that at or after the age of 18, APPLY for citizenship by passing the citizenship test and proving that they have been resident in the US for a 10 plus years (majority of their 18 years). I would also define NBC as a special class of citizen. One that requires a citizen prove the following to gain the NBC citizen classification:
- someone born to at least 1 US citizen parent and,
- who has spent 14 of the first 18 years raised within the boundaries of America and,
- who can pass the same citizenship test that is given to naturalize aliens and,
- who has completed 2 years of service as either military, government (local, state or federal) employee, or as a first responder.
I would further limit the right to vote in federal elections to all Citizens and include citizenship status on all identification documents such as drivers license. But then I have always supported a meritocracy.
RE: Most people are advancing opinions based on whose ox is being gored.
I can speak for myself.
My ox is being gored here ( because I am a Cruz supporter ), but I’d make the same argument even if it were to apply to say, Trump, Jindal or Rubio.
Something that the Congress does so well and have continued to do for all the years of our Republic. No doubt that they are doing it again on this very day. Sometimes the Courts agree with them, sometimes they don't. In this case they will avoid the whole thing.
True. Did a legal act have to be preformed before he was regarded as a citizen? Yes.
Trying to turn the question around in order to make it appear right seems rather shady.
---
Then in 1940, Congress passed a statute dispensing with the need for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother to naturalize.
Show me
----
taken all together, these laws would cause a textualist to conclude that Ted Cruz, born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother in 1970, is arguably a “natural born Citizen†eligible to be president.
First, I'm not a 'textualist', but a Constitutionalist, and secondly, no - if his mother had been naturalized under the act in 1790 you might have a winner of an argument, but trying to make it extend to 1970 means the Founders would not have bothered with the at the time of the adoption of this Constitution language at all
They would have just said a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States.
Re-established? Art IV Sec. 2 isn't in the constitution?
Again, your rule is that Congress can create a statute that says "all persons born abroad shall be considered to have been born in the US." Voila, nobody is naturalized, the whole world is NBC of the US.
I don;t have any problem with your view toward restricting citizenship. I think universal suffrage is also a death sentence for a nation.
Still, something in the nature of national "citizenship" attaches to everybody the day they are born. Obviously, the privilege of voting isn't attached at that moment.
I would reject your "NBC test," being applied to an adult. It can be gamed. If you want to allow naturalized citizens to take the presidency, then argue that, and get 3/4th of the states to agree with it.
If you can't substantiate your position, that's your problem.
OK, I will take your word for it but I was hoping it would add some more crazy world to this election year. Both parties in a mess with open convention high jink possibilities for both. The show “House of Cards” has nothing on this election.
RE: First, I’m not a ‘textualist’, but a Constitutionalist,
Well, the text MEANS something. The point is What does the text MEAN?
RE: if his mother had been naturalized under the act in 1790 you might have a winner of an argument, but trying to make it extend to 1970 means the Founders would not have bothered with the at the time of the adoption of this Constitution language at all
But what did the “at the time of the adoption” language mean?
It is unclear. Did it mean only to apply to the PASS, or is the intention also to include FUTURE acts of Congress?
Isn’t the constitution intended not merely for 1790 but for 1970 as well?
I find it hard to believe that the framers would favor ONLY those who were naturalized in 1790 and then revoke the same favor to those who meet the same requirement AFTER the constitution was ratified.
It would be like saying — hey, this particular clause is only intended ONCE and won’t apply EVER AGAIN.
Constitutions are not intended to be a one shot deal. So no, I remain unconvinced.
citizen at the time of adoption
natural born citizen afterwards
RE: citizen at the time of adoption
natural born citizen afterwards
__________________________________
As it applies to Cruz, either location or one American parent is enough to grant to a baby American citizenship from birth on.
The entire controversy boils down to whether “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” mean two different things.
I can only say that I have heard no principled argument based in the Constitution for that distinction.
Absent such an argument, anyone conceived by an American parent or who is born on American soil is a natural born citizen. Is it really plausible that the founders really meant to create three categories of citizenship, natural born, citizen from birth but not natural, and non-citizen at birth but acquired later in life via “naturalization”? Yet they did not actually say so?
The only principled conclusion I have tentatively is this -— “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are SYNONYMOUS.
I would see it less as “would welcome” (in theory any U.S. person would be welcomed by any number of countries depending on their circumstances and the particular immigration requirements of those countries) but more as “has a claim on”.
RE: SeekAndFind and I have had extended debate on this, I’d say about a week ago. She disagrees with my conclusions.
I have not followed the path of Bruce Jenner FYI :)
> “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” mean two different things.
They assuredly do.
Naturalization acts can, do, and have, conferred citizenship at birth. Such citizenship is by statute, citizenship at birth by statute.
A natural born citizen does not require any statute. Such citizenship is by birth, by birth alone.
Hostage: “Natural Born pertained to citizenship at birth. Citizenship pertained to rights. Both Natural Born (now known as Citizen at Birth) and Naturalized citizens (not a Citizen at Birth)”.
So since Congress has the power to define who is a citizen and how to become a citizen, are you willing to abide by any change in law passed by Congress to dictate who is NBC? Without any changes or amendments to the Constitution? What if congress passed a law of citizenship that retroactively said that all persons born on foreign soil were not Citizens. Would you be OK with that affecting the definition of NBC?
BOTH NOT
Enjoy. I am not having an argument, just stating a position.
RE: They assuredly do.
I am NOT ASSURED by the above statement.
RE: Naturalization acts can, do, and have, conferred citizenship at birth. Such citizenship is by statute, citizenship at birth by statute.
If a Statute has already been passed that confers citizenship at birth and it applies from thereon — why is the understanding of the term “natural born” not SUBSUMED by that statute?
After all, the old understanding of the term “natural born” is -— “having a position by birth.”.
If a baby, BY THE ACT OF LEGISLATION IN THE PAST is a citizen AT BIRTH, then he has that position at birth.
If there was ever a sure bet, that is it.
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.