Natural Born Citizens and the Presidency: Is a citizen at birth considered natural born?

American Thinker ^ | 01/22/2016 | Mike Razar

[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?"

[moehoward]

It really shouldn’t surprise anyone Cruz and his supporters want to obfuscate citizenship/NBC. Cruz likewise muddies amnesty/legalization.

[Cboldt]

Yes, the courts can act very quickly, if there is a need. There is no urgency to this case.

Cruz knows he is not qualified. What he doesn't know is whether or not the "system" will let him slip through, as it allowed for Obama. It could, except he's toast at the ballot box, so the question is moot - except for any charges for falsifying certifications.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

The sentence after the OR “ a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” is significant.

we are hundreds of years past the adoption of the constitution. If Cruz was a citizen of the United States AT BIRTH ( i.e., he did not have to go through the naturalization process to obtain his passport), does he not meet the OR clause after “natural born”?

[centurion316]

2 & 3 are naturalized citizens.p> Most jurists would say that 1&2 are natural born citizens, and I would agree with their view. My brother was born in the 130th Station Hospital in Heidelberg, Germany (where Patton died) and was never naturalized. His status was defined by statute.

And since the court does not want to deal with this argument, they will let the definition laid down in 8 USC 1401 stand. These discussions are for entertainment value only.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: It really shouldn’t surprise anyone Cruz and his supporters want to obfuscate citizenship/NBC

Where are we (I am a Cruz supporter ) trying to obfuscate the issue?

The fact is — this issue is NOT SETTLED. The fact that it is being debated shows this.

[centurion316]

Candidates have standing to sue each other - but courts can find other ways to dodge the issue.

I certainly agree with this and the courts are going to do their very best to continue the dodging.

[Ray76]

An inhabitant of a place is one who is domiciled in that place. Domicile is the principal home. If a case is brought contesting a persons domicile a court would make that determination.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Yes, just not natural born ones....which means they’re naturalized

Let’s look at the dictionary definition of NATURALIZATION.

Naturalization (or naturalisation) is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual, or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities.

1) Did Cruz have to specifically perform a LEGAL ACT in order to acquire American Citizenship?

I think the answer is NO.

Next:

2) It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual

This is the issue being debated.

The Constitution states thusly:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”

NOTE the “OR” clause of the above article.

Specifically: “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

If Cruz meets that OR clause, then he is eligible.

In a textualist view of the Constitution, historical context is also important because “natural born Citizen” has no modern plain meaning and the words don’t appear anywhere else in the Constitution. Textualists, by contrast to originalists, favor written statutes in mining historical context. In this case, two American laws enacted in 1784 and 1790 are applicable, along with older English statutes which use the similar words “natural born subject.”

In 1784, the Maryland Legislature extended “all the Immunities, Rights and Privileges of natural born Citizen” to the Marquis de Lafayette “and his heirs Male forever.” And, in 1790, Congress passed a law stating that “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.” It didn’t specify which parent, mother or father or both, but the background principle of jus sanguinis leads to the conclusion that it referred to American fathers.

The 1790 statute, however, was not intended to address presidential eligibility. Rather, like earlier English statutes that referred to “natural born subjects,” it exempted children born abroad from the need to follow any other procedures (”to naturalize”) in order to be considered citizens. Then in 1940, Congress passed a statute dispensing with the need for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother to naturalize.

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.

[Ray76]

Naturalization does not require a process or proceeding. This seems to be a popular misconception.

[biff]

There are too many arguments on both sides of the fence by folks more educated in law than you or me. I kinda think the SC will virtually be backed into the corner and have to deal with it. The pressure for them to act will be enormous and it will be coming from all directions. We shall see I guess.

[Ladysforest]

I know. I have a tendency to be too abbreviated when I comment, LOL. I meant the words of Jefferson to be there for all here who think the Constitution has “evolved” to include the meaning of Naturalization laws (re Cruz eligibilty). They should realize that those laws have not amended Art.II, but they just don’t want to believe it.

They want to interpret the Constitution.

[centurion316]

Popular within the courts and the halls of government for sure. They expect you to produce a naturalization document.

[Ray76]

Calgary, Alberta adopted the U.S. Constitution? Who knew?

Cruz was born in 1787? Wow!

[Ray76]

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.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Highly respected Constitutional law professor Mary Brigid McManamon has just stated, "Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President." Big problem

I take it that you mean there are no other highly respected Constitutional law professors who DISAGREE with Mary McManamon and she gets the last word on the issue?

What abot the CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Study on the issue that concludes:

The constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars, and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that is, not children of diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a "natural born Citizen" eligible to be President under the qualifications clause of the Constitution, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one's parents. The legal issues regarding "natural born" citizenship and birth within the United States, without regard to lineage or ancestral bloodline, have been well settled in this country for more than a century, and such concepts date back to, and even pre-date, the founding of the nation.

The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicates that the term "natural born citizen" would most likely include, as well as native born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country

[Lower55]

“does he not meet the OR clause after “natural born”?”

Nope. Unless he was born before the adoption of the Constitution.

[Cboldt]

I have a decent legal education. I've studied the case law (on naturalization at birth), I understand the case law (ask those who have argued against me), the constitution, and even some international law, such as Canada's, Cuba's and the UK.

If SCOTUS deals with it, it has to choose between following 200+ years of its own precedent, or amending the constitution by fiat.

Right now, the NBC clause is dead. Nobody enforces it.

It's not like it's the only part of the constitution that is a dead letter.

[MamaTexan]

I have a tendency to be too abbreviated when I comment, LOL.

Phew!

You had me worried there for a minute, Lady. :-)

[moehoward]

You’re correct that it’s not settled, but it’s for the simple reason there is no question the constitution makes a clear distinction between the two, and Cuz is not NBC.

If you’ve missed the many posts from Cboldt on the subject. I’d urge you to avail yourself to the free education.

[centurion316]

Your arguments are much more authoritative when punctuated with all caps. It doesn’t mean that they are right.

I’ll present my opinion, you can do the same. It won’t be resolved, because the courts don’t care about the argument and don’t want to get in the middle of the political fight. Most people are advancing opinions based on whose ox is being gored.