Rogers v Bellei 1971
Posted on 01/08/2016 6:52:06 PM PST by Uncle Sham
For a five year period of time, the term “Natural Born Citizen†had a definition which differed from the “two-citizen parents, born under United States jurisdiction†description generally accepted for most of this nation’s existence. The Nationality Act of 1790 referred to those born to citizens beyond Sea or out of the limits of the United States as being “natural born citizensâ€. Because of the term “citizens†as it pertains to parentage, there is an argument to be made that this requires two citizen parents for this to be allowed. Below is a quote from the 1790 Act. Since this act would have been enforced on a case by case basis, the term “children†could just as easily be “childâ€.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization†(March 26, 1790).
â€And 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.â€
This Act was repealed in 1795 and the term “natural born citizens†was changed to read “citizensâ€. What this did was tell us that a location of birth WAS PART of being a “natural born citizenâ€, and in fact, the location was someplace OTHER THAN “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United Statesâ€. This also told us exactly what someone was who was born to citizens of the United States outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, a â€citizen†Once again, even in this case, there appears to be a need for two citizen parents.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject†(January 29, 1795).
â€SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of CITIZENS of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.â€
The combination of these two Acts, passed when they were, in the order that they were passed, by many who helped form this nation, gives us a clear understanding of what they thought constituted a “natural born citizenâ€. The term did not disappear from the Constitution, nor has it ever been defined since this time so the category of “natural born citizen†still exists. Since it does still exist, it IS’NT someone born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States. That leaves only one location that is acceptable and it has to be within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States. It also seems that there is a requirement for two citizen parents.
Kenya, Canada. Neither one of them meet the standard.
Rogers v Bellei 1971
Despite all the bickering, I hope we get this settled(Cruz gets this settled) and it then becomes a non-issue.
You are exactly right, and well stated. Ted needs to step up and settle this..now. If not settled soon, you are exactly right, the dems, (and the MSM) will herald the issue at the last minute. The media blitz against Cruz would be breathtaking,.. and could sway the election...
.
Because citizen is natural born
There was no reason to amend the constitution.
.
It is settled.
Congress settled it over two centuries ago.
It is settled.
Congress settled it over two centuries ago.
And what did the congress say?....
LOL...is the Cuban BC your own creation?
Anyone born to an adult citizen is a citizen regardless of where they are born
Natural Born is Natural. Naturalized is not Natural.
A so-called third category does not exist. It has been created as a result of people grasping at straws over the questionable allegiance of Barack Obama.
Natural or Natural Born arose in connection with John Jay advising General George Washington to press for a requirement to ensure allegiance and loyalty to the United States. In other words, a naturalized citizen was not permitted to be President because of the risk that past allegiances would influence loyalties.
However, the new nation had to deal with the first generation who were transitioning from subjects of the Crown to citizens of the United States. And the Constitution accounts for that transition.
Today’s confusion stems in part from the fallout of the 19th Amendment. Today’s American woman is every bit as equal to an American man in terms of citizenship. Thus, Ted Cruz’ mother had the right to confer natural born, not naturalized citizenship to her children, as did Barack Obama’s mother (if indeed his mother was his actual mother and not an adopting mother).
What Donald Trump has done, and I was somewhat angry with him but now see that he was right, is to draw attention to Ted’s uncertain eligibility as an attack point for the democrats (and Ted’s GOP enemies) to approach. And we see it happening. Donald’s point is that Ted will face road blocks and attacks over his father’s non-citizenship status when he was born and also his mother’s residency in Canada at the time of his birth. Along this line it is important to draw a legal distinction between residence and domicile.
The average citizen voter will be influenced and sustained by the press that Ted’s eligibility is questionable even as legal and constitutional experts weigh in to support Ted’s status as eligible. The average voter may not see the nuances of eligibility nor comprehend the history. Thus, Donald is saying Ted is a target of misinformation. Unfortunately he is right.
Wow, we made it all the way to 60 posts on a birther thread before somebody brought up Vattel.
Any anti- abortion posts yet? No thread is *complete* without one.
Immigration law has been a little more complex than that, in the past. At the time of Cruz’s birth, his mother met all the requirements to make her son a citizen without an naturalization process. Because of the age of Obama’s mother when she gave birth, had Obama been born outside the U.S. there would have to be some math done to figure out his status.
It is a non-issue .....it’s simply being used as a political issue.....and it won’t matter if Trump uses it or not...the Demorats had tabs on using it before Trump was even in the game and they will in the General election too.....just like they did with McCain.
Look...they all know it’s a non-issue......but it does exactly what they are using it for....to create doubt in the voters. You yourself said this needs to be settled......(but it already is regarding Cruz or he would not have made it to register even in NH...which some tried to make it an issue for him at that time with suits....they lost...of course.
It’s being used to tie up Cruz from speaking about the real issues.....to put him on the defensive....and that’s exactly why Trump brought it up so close to the Iowa vote,....
Absolutely true.
It also makes the issue of Ted Cruz's eligibility moot.
It's been made a non starter (unless you're a democrat, in which case: file under "hanging chad & other crap").
That is so ridiculous.
Let's call it the Dictionary of the United States if it is there to self referentially define itself.
Wrong.
One can be a citizen and not be a natural born citizen, just as Ted Cruz is
Right, you can bed a naturalized citizen. Which Ted Cruz is not.
This argument that Cruz is not eligible is sheer idiocy. There is not a court in America that would rule otherwise.
Get over it.
Really? You gonna stick by that?
Tell us, what is the functional difference between being deemed Natural Born and being considered as natural Born?
One says the location itself makes one Natural Born and the other says that the conditions/situation make them the same as Natural Born - functionally, they are treated the same.
If you don't like Cruz, donate to another candidate - and maybe FR while you're at it (unless already doing so and being shy about it).
Now for a short public service announcement to all on FR:
We need to ensure we don't get another Obama-like America Hater as the next President.
The best way to ensure that is to actively support a candidate as the next President.
I prefer Cruz and my money goes to his campaign, hence the Cruz link. If you like someone else, donate to him/her (find your own link to do it) and if you use FR and don't donate, then please don't complain about the welfare leeches or those who have Obama Phones because, functionally, you are no different than any other who enjoys the fruits of others' work for your own benefit.
PS - If you are one of those who cannot afford even a small donation to FR or a candidate, God Bless and happy FReeping!.....
GO CRUZ!! Keep it up Trump!!
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I say again natural law supersedes government law and natural law is what gave us the right to be our own nation. Government law said the founders were traitors, natural law said they were patriots. Government law says two men can get married Natural Law says marriage is between a man and a woman. Only a Natural (law) Born Citizen may constitutionally serve a President of the United States.
There are three types of citizenship
* Natural Born Citizen, two citizen parents born on soil (exceptions for foreign born if parents are abroad in service to country)
* Citizen by birth, foreign born to citizen parent(s)
* Naturalized citizen, a person made a citizen by statute.
I note on the following
The authors cite to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and ignore the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795, with the lead of then-Rep. James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, repealed it and specifically changed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."
James Madison the "father of the Constitution" changed the wording from "natural born citizen" to "citizen". Madison was no dope and the change was to prevent a foreign born from becoming Commander in Chief. But this also serves to illustrate that "citizen at birth" does not mean "natural born citizen".
See more at
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/harvard-law-review/
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.
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.