Ted Cruz: Birthright citizenship "doesn't make sense" [Watch Video]

CBS News Face the Nation ^ | 08/23/2015 | By REENA FLORES

[SeekAndFind]

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz wants to put an end to birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, proposing an amendment to the Constitution if necessary.

"I think birthright citizenship as a policy matter doesn't make sense," Cruz said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation." "We have right now upwards of 12 million people living here illegally. It doesn't make any sense that our law automatically grants citizenship to their children because what it does is it incentivizes additional illegal immigration."

The issue of nullifying birthright citizenship, while long in the sights of Republican legislators, recently took off in the 2016 policy debates when billionaire Donald Trump proposed to do away with it as part of his comprehensive immigration plan. Trump added last week that he didn't believe "anchor babies" were actually citizens -- and the crowded Republican field rushed to weigh in.

The Supreme Court has long held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees those born on U.S. soil American citizenship. The Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Yet some constitutional scholars, according to Cruz, say that Congress could simply "pass a law defining what the words in the 14th Amendment 'subject to the jurisdiction' means." But in order to assure the repeal of birthright citizenship, the Texas senator also proposed wholly amending the Constitution, saying "we should change the law."

[Starstruck]

Dear leader will just veto a bill like this and then it will fail to get a majority to override the veto - the DEMS will block it and I’m sure we can count on some of the RINOs to vote with them.

So when Trump says the exact same thing about passing a law, he is the greatest thing since sliced bread?

[kabar]

So, anyone who says that its going to be easy to get rid of Birthright Citizenship without a Constitutional Amendment doesn’t know what they are talking about.

You won't know until Congress passes a law so it can be challenged in the courts. No one is saying it will be "easy" but it is not a slam dunk that only a Constitutional amendment can change it. There are some very legitimate arguments as to why only a law by Congress is necessary to define what is meant by citizenship.

If you really want to get informed about birthright citizenship, I suggest the following overview: Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison

[q_an_a]

The problem for conservatives is that every “shiny object” like anchor babies gets talked about until our head explodes while not a damn thing is done to fix illegal alien crime. I care about the “chained family “ laws but they are not raping wives and young girls they are not drunk drivers killing people on the streets. One of those guys finally is going to jail in Dallas but he had been convicted 4 times before he killed a family - in our area. GEEZ folks - not aimed at you catsrus - but when do we focus on a few issues and get action?

[Catsrus]

Don’t forget - there will also be some Congressional seats up for grabs in 2016. I’m hoping that with a R president, this do nothing Congress will get on the ball.

[Nep Nep]

Someone please tell him that a massive expansion of the H1-B program doesn’t make sense either. This is a deal breaker issue for me and a lot of other people whose standard of living is being eroded by import of millions of indentured servants.

Also if he could address the damage done to the IT industry by the national security establishment, that would be good too. American tech workers have been getting crapped on in a big way for a couple of decades now and it would be nice to have someone represent us.

[dschapin]

The Supreme Court has never held a case specifically about the children of illegal immigrants. However, the Supreme Court did have a case where it determined that a child born to a foreign immigrant in the U.S. was a citizen (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)).

In Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese laborer was brought over to help build a western railroad, had a child, and then returned to china. The child later wanted to return to the U.S. claiming that he was a citizen but the U.S. congress had recently passed the Chinese exclusion act and tried to keep him out claiming that he was not a U.S. citizen since he had been born to a foreigner. The Supreme Court ruled based on the 14th Amendment that he was a citizen because (1) He was born in the U.S. and (2) His father had been subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because he had been subject to the laws of the United States while he lived in the United States unlike a diplomat who has diplomatic immunity from U.S. law.

[RideForever]

You didn’t finish the analysis of Elk v. Wilkins. The difference between Native Indians and aliens is that Native Indians were located within the borders of the U.S., and aliens were not. Both were subject to foreign jurisdictions; one from a foreign jurisdiction located with the U.S. borders, the other from a foreign jurisdictions located outside the U.S. borders.

[dschapin]

Chain immigration we can deal with through congressional leglislation. It is not protected by the 14th Amendment and would be a great way to stop the loophole.

[chris37]

Frankly, I saw pass a law that denies this type of citizenship abuse, and pass another law at the same time that removes the jurisdiction of federal courts over the issue.

We don’t need idiot federal judges dictating to us how to run our country.

I don’t need or want their input on the matter.

[dschapin]

You missed the key point of Elk which is that he was born on an Indian Reservation. Indian Reservations were treated as semi sovereign areas which were governed by treaty but not law. Thus he was not born subject to U.S. law which meant that he was not born “subject to the Jurisdiction...” of the United States. It was not decided based on your foreign allegiance idea which was specifically rejected by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.

[usconservative]

Harry Reid saying no sane country would permit birthright citizenship.

[q_an_a]

yea that’s interesting but most folks don’t even know that part of what the “chain” stuff was is that if a person invested in say a motel in a not great neighborhood they could bring in five members of their family. An investment over I think 50K in 1980 = five green cards. How many Indian families or Chinese families do you think got in on this deal? Still chain is one thing CRIME is another. LIB stay on two or three ideas each year like gay marriage, plastic bag bans, women in military till they get one then add another till they get one of those three. Thus they win five or six battles every year. Conservatives are winning one every two years. No focus

[dschapin]

There is an argument that we could try to make that Illegals are not “subject to the Jurisdiction...” of the United States because they entered the country in violation of federal law and are in continual evasion of that law as long as they illegally remain. Then one could try to distinguish Wong Kim Ark on the basis that his father was a legal immigrant. However, most likely we would lose at the Supreme Court.

This is why I think that Sen. Cruz is right to say that we should try to change the law and modify the Amendment because there are serious legal arguments on both sides of this issue. It just bugs me when people quote Levin, assume this is a slam dunk for our side, and then criticize Cruz for being a good lawyer and recognizing that most likely the courts would rule against us.

[kabar]

There is an argument that we could try to make that Illegals are not “subject to the Jurisdiction...” of the United States because they entered the country in violation of federal law and are in continual evasion of that law as long as they illegally remain. Then one could try to distinguish Wong Kim Ark on the basis that his father was a legal immigrant. However, most likely we would lose at the Supreme Court.

Media Ignores Constitutional Experts Debunking Birthright Citizenship

Myths about birthright citizenship—promoted by liberals, embraced by establishment Republicans, and repeated by mainstream media pundits without critical examination—have been debunked by experts spanning the political spectrum. But none of those people are being given A-list treatment by major media outlets to respond.

Among modern scholars who can shed light on this issue, Professor John Eastman—the former dean of Chapman University’s law school and a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas—thoroughly discusses the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause in From Feudalism to Consent. He explores the congressional speeches of two of the clause’s primary authors, Senators Lyman Trumbull and Jacob Howard, and how they made it clear that this part of the amendment only applied to children born to parents who were not citizens of another country. Yet Eastman—who is also an experienced media commentator—has not been featured on major shows this week to inform the public discussion.

Another scholarly source is Professor Lino Graglia’s article in the Texas Review of Law & Politics. In it, the professor explores in greater detail the point in our first report in this series, that the 39th Congress—which in 1865 voted for the Thirteenth Amendment and in 1866 voted for the first Civil Rights Act—later in 1866 repackaged the Civil Rights Act’s definition of citizenship in the new Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Civil Rights Act’s original language explicitly excluded citizens of foreign countries.

Graglia also notes that instant citizenship is an incredibly strong magnet that temps foreigners to break our laws. “It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducements to illegal entry.”

Others on the media’s general go-to list for legal issues who have spoken out this past week to affirm that the Fourteenth Amendment does not include birthright citizens—like the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky and National Review’s Andrew McCarthy—have also been notably absent from major interviews.

This is why I think that Sen. Cruz is right to say that we should try to change the law and modify the Amendment because there are serious legal arguments on both sides of this issue. It just bugs me when people quote Levin, assume this is a slam dunk for our side, and then criticize Cruz for being a good lawyer and recognizing that most likely the courts would rule against us.

We must pass the law in Congress first to see if it passes Constitutional muster. Every year for more than a decade, bills have been introduced in Congress to eliminate birthright citizenship. This could be done quickly if the Reps controlled Congress and the WH.

Instead of quotes by Levin, why don't you listen to what he says unfiltered by anyone? Then you can make a decision on how you think we should proceed on eliminating birthright citizenship.

[South Dakota]

Superseded by ingils and hppersett v minor

[Theoria]

Those cases did not change the definition of 'natural born' at all, in relation to being born overseas to parents who were ‘citizens’.

[InterceptPoint]

It doesn’t have to go to the Supreme Court - it is in the hands of Congress.

Very true. Hard to do with Mr. Obama in office. But in 2017 it should be a piece of cake.

But, in any case, I'm assuming that given the very high financial and political stakes involved that the law would be immediately challenged in court. The Dems have a lot to lose. So does the GOPe. And I just don't trust The Supremes. We might end up with a very short lived law and a permanent precedent.

But, once again, we have to try. Maybe even with Obama just to make it big 2016 issue.

[Catsrus]

The current Congress won’t try - they are too busy cozying up to the DEMS and patting themselves on the back for all the legislature they have gotten through. The trouble is - everything they have done has benefited the DEMS. They are a sorry bunch of losers.

[GOPJ]

Reena Flores - - check out the math.

(Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

[Yosemitest]

It makes PERFECT SENSE.
I repost PROOF for those you have intentionally confused.

FACT: Cruz’s father’s Cuban nationality at the time of Cruz’s birth, is irrelevant, according to the law at that time,
just so long as he was a LEGAL Immigrant at the time of Ted Cruz's birth,
AND both of Ted Cruz's parents were legally married to each other.

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

The 14th Amendment IS a part of the U.S. Constitution and states in SECTION 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So, under that power to legislate, Congress legislated and the President signed into law:
When ONE parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national,
the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child,
with five of the years after the age of 14.

... While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,
amendments since 1952 HAVE ELIMINATED THESE REQUIREMENTS.

When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK".

They married, moved to Calgary, Alberta, and in late 1970 had their first and only child, Rafael Edward Cruz.
Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz.

Cruz's mother was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent.
Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School (1952) in the U.S., as well as Rice University (1956),
so clearly she meets the residency requirements.

Source

In 1957, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.
Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.

"Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father, "and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."

Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born.
His father went there after having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out.
He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen.
The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.

"I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."

The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 —
48 years after leaving Cuba.
Why did he take so long to do it?
"I don't know. I guess laziness, or — I don't know," he says.


So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
AND HOW 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.