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 ...
RE: but if he gets approval/clearance on NBC, that could open the door to someone who doesn’t have our best interests at heart.
Heck, I know tons of natural born Americans ( people with BOTH parents who are Americans and born here on US soil ) who HATE America.
Many of them Communists and Muslims.
Well.....
The concern about Ted Cruz’s citizenship would be amusing if we didn’t have a natural born Kenyan squatting in the White House.
No one attacking Cruz seems to be concerned that Barack Obama has no valid birth certificate, no US citizen passport, no college transcripts and no other valid identification.
In fact there is no valid documentation in the public record to show that his real name is Barack Obama or that he is an American citizen, natural born or naturalized.
But Barack does have 9 different social security numbers and uses number 042-68-4425 that was actually issued in Connecticut to a man named Harry Bounel, who was born in 1890.
The courts would apply precedents that Katyal and Clement did not present to their readers.
And that act was repealed and replaced by other acts of Congress till we get to the current law expressed in Title 8 Section 1401 which defines citizens at birth. Subsection G of that law allows for citizenship at birth if one of the parents meets the citizenship requirements.
And all of those acts were under the Constitutional authority of Congress as specified in Article I section 8 of the Constitution.
“It is in fact doubted that only one U.S. citizen parent could be sufficient.”
No its not. Not by Harvard and Cornell law schools or the US State Dept.
“Dual citizenship is the very definition of divided loyalties.”
So if a country decided to give citizenship of their country to every American citizen would that cause a problem?
Because you’re saying what another country does determines whether an American citizen is loyal.
And it behooves him to have a ruling rendered long before the convention.
Because if one is not rendered the GOPe party leadership can and will strip him of his delegates and assign those delegates where they please.
Hello candidate Yeb!.
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words "natural-born citizen of the United States" occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth -- natural-born citizens. There is not such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians. The reason why that exception was made in the Constitution is apparent to everybody. The several Indian tribes were recognized at the organization of this Government as independent sovereignties. They were treated with as such; and they have been dealt with by the Government ever since as separate sovereignties. Therefore, they were excluded from the general rule.
Hon. John A. Bingham
The Congressional Globe April 11th, 1862, page 1639
I agree with that.
> “Is a citizen at birth considered natural born?”
Yes, they are the same. Why?
Early on the term “Natural Born” was used to differentiate from “Naturalized”.
The difference was brought by John Jay to General Washington. A person who is naturalized may be captured and forced against their will to obey the previous allegiance. This has happened.
A naturalized citizen is one that was born into a different allegiance rather than one to the United States.
A ‘natural’ citizen has no other allegiances at birth. They are a citizen at birth.
John Jay was warning General Washington that as Commanders-In-Chief, future presidents would be capable of using the Army to establish a dictatorship. A President with prior allegiances may be compromised.
The term “Natural Born” means not naturalized. The word “natural” in Natural Born became difficult to deal with as American history experienced the Civil War and the elevation of equal rights for women. What does it mean “natural born”? Isn’t everyone born ‘naturally’?
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) are afforded the same rights except in a capacity to run for President because naturalized citizens are those that had prior allegiances, they are not permitted to run for President.
It has happened where naturalized Americans were visiting their birthplace when war broke out and were detained and forced to spy on Americans. The basis for such detention was the originating country not agreeing to the naturalization and claiming the detainee as its own citizen.
Today the government uses “Citizen At Birth” instead of “Natural Born”.
That is not how the Constitution is amended.
Maybe natural born means you weren’t delivered by c-section.
“citizen at birth” is not the qualifier used in Art. II.
Unfortunately we will probably never know which view is correct. I believe that unless Cruz wins a state primary and fails to be certified by that state, the courts will never agree to review the question. Of course, Cruz would have to file a suit.
Do not conflate “citizen at birth” with “citizen by birth”
How many have actually been filed? Has the one in Houston by the disbarred attorney been filed yet? I do know the one against Rubio in Florida has been filed and has had at least one hearing.
Yes, just not natural born ones....which means they're naturalized
---
Subsection G of that law allows for citizenship at birth if one of the parents meets the citizenship requirements.
Citizenship, when given by statute is not Natural born
---
And all of those acts were under the Constitutional authority of Congress as specified in Article I section 8 of the Constitution.
That's right - under their authority of making a uniform rule of naturalization.
-----
4 Supreme Court Cases Define Natural-born Citizen
----
People born outside the jurisdiction of the United States can only be naturalized.
All persons born or naturalized In the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. A person born in a foreign country out of the Jurisdiction of the United States whose father is not a citizen of the United States can only become a citizen by naturalization.
North Noonday Min Co T Orient M Co US l Fed 522 527, The Federal Reporter, page 527
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
Wong Kim Ark
Article I Section 8 grants to Congress the authority over ALL rules of naturalization without limitation. That includes the rules for who is a citizen, who is not a citizen, and who is naturally born a citizen.
Are you saying that a natural-born American (both parents U.S. citizens; born in the U.S.) could lose that status by acquiring a further nationality?
On the basis of what statutory regulations or legal precedents would you make that claim?
Regards,
P.S.: My opinion is that a natural-born citizen is one who has had citizenship since birth, naturally - i.e., without benefit of that bureaucratic process known as naturalization, without it being conferred upon him by official act.
A person who is a citizen at birth is NOT naturalized.
RTFA. He discusses how the Constitution says that this provision will be enforced. His point is that the only provision is Congress’ power to certify and count the votes of the Electors that were chosen during the General Election. So, essentially, natural born citizen means what the Congress says it means.
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.