The Most Important Question in Natural Born Citizen Debate

Self | 1/12/16 | Rebuildus

[rebuildus]

The Founding Fathers never explicitly defined the term "Natural Born Citizen." So we are left to use our common sense, and search the phrase's origins.

To take it back as far as it will go requires us to look at the book of Deuteronomy. Israel demanded a king, and God gave them one, but he gave them some parameters:

You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman (Deuteronomy 17:15).

The point is loyalty. Where are the loyalties of the "king"?

In the case of Senator Cruz, knowing that he was born of an American mother, and a father who chose to leave the country of his birth to live in America, it's fair to say that Ted's parents' loyalty was to the United States.

This is the central question, for the core of all law is its spirit, or intent.

The only weak spot I see in this situation is, because both Ted's father and Ted himself came to America from another country, I can certainly see that they would have a soft spot for immigrants, which may cause Ted's immigration policies to be more lenient, than if they had been born in the U.S.

That being said, on the primary question--loyalty--Ted appears rock solid. And I've seen nothing in his life and political career to indicate otherwise.

[xzins]

Actually, I raise them regarding Bienvenido Cruz’s ‘residency’ in the United States. Under the 1790 and 1795 laws, both his behavior and his application for Canadian citizenship say he was not a resident of the United States. His loyalty was not here. Therefore, by those early laws his son, Ted, would not have been eligible for the presidency.

Today Ted is. The law has changed, and with it the ‘legal’ notion of what constitutes fulfilling the ‘NBC requirement’ of the US Constitution.

[xzins]

No. Ted says his dad got a green card. Green card holders were eligible for the draft and deferments could increase the eligible age to as high as 35 years old.

[Cboldt]

Gotcha. Well, I don't see anything in the constitution that gives citizenship to anybody born abroad, and I see plenty in the constitution that finds citizenship to those born in the US. So, if there are residence requirements in some natrualization statute, I see them being met or not met as affecting naturalization only.

And as you point out, the conclusion that Cruz is a citizen is almost certainly true, accurate, etc. All we are left with is a pure question of constitutional law.

[deport]

Thanks. Wasn’t aware of the Green card draft elgibility. But also remember he most
likely wouldnn’t have been drafted as he got married midway thru his UT tenure and had
two childern. So his draft elgibility would have been push further down the scale.

[V K Lee]

And after what was seen of our congress critters the past two prior elections, it is very understandable why our Founding Fathers so decided. Our congress critters have less loyalty to our country than our current sitting POTUS - which is -0

[publius911]

To take it back as far as it will go requires us to look at the book of Deuteronomy...

You lost me here, buddy.
Inject religion into the discussion is a guaranteed thread killer.

If we can't argue secular matters using secular logic and reasoning, we don't deserve to prevail.

I am an industrial-strength "crusader" Christian, but I refuse to use Mass Murdering Muslim (MMM) argument, illogic and primitive emotional arguments to make my case.

[xzins]

Lyndon Johnson ended the marriage deferment in 1965.

[khelus]

Excellent point that I have not seen before !

[P-Marlowe]

You do not have to be eligible to run for President. The citizens of the state’s are not electing either a candidate in the primary or the president in the general. They are giving to one person the right to send delegates to the convention or the electoral college.

In the past a lot of candidates ran as “favorite son” candidates with no intention of serving as president, but instead wishing to sway the election to favor their interests in supporting a nominee who did not get a majority going in.

The election of President does not occur until the electoral college has cast their votes and it is certified by congress. Up until they moment the question of eligibility is irrelevant. It is up to the electors and congress to make that determination. After Congress has certified the election, thereby declaring that the president elect is eligible and the election results are correct, the only way to remove the president is by impeachment. The courts have no standing before the election is certified and no jursdiction after.

[DouglasKC]

The election of President does not occur until the electoral college has cast their votes and it is certified by congress. Up until they moment the question of eligibility is irrelevant. It is up to the electors and congress to make that determination. After Congress has certified the election, thereby declaring that the president elect is eligible and the election results are correct, the only way to remove the president is by impeachment. The courts have no standing before the election is certified and no jursdiction after.

Wow great analysis...here's a question...would the house certify Cruz?

[randita]

Seven U.S. Presidents had one or both parents who were not born here.

http://www.presidentsparents.com/presidents-born-outside-usa.html

[Georgia Girl 2]

Your parents don’t have to be born in the US they just have to be naturalized citizens at the time of your birth.

[randita]

His father also had two daughters from his first marriage.

[Yosemitest]

Take it up with the Supreme Court of the United States and our Founding Fathers.

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Also notice that the Supreme Court has backed up that definition!

See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV)

Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —
as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

But the fact is,
they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —
in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,
who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” —
he was ALSO “natural born.”

If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”
then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.


The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact found
that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.

Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,
Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.

There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
though.

It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means
“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

Note that again:
Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,
which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”


The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

“Plaintiff claims that
President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supports
that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.

So the statement that "natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !

[randita]

Naturalized citizens - no.

Thomas Jefferson was born in 1743 - we were not a country then so he and his parents were both British subjects.

Andrew Jackson - Dittoes - born before we were a country to foreign parents.

James Buchanan born in 1791 to Scottish parents. We don’t know if his parents were naturalized at the time of his birth. The country was only four years old.

Barack Obama - you know his history.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Read the eligibility clause of the Constitution and you will then understand.

[randita]

The Constitution does not define natural born.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerate Congress with the “Rules of Naturalization”.

The scope of those rules are not limited. The rules include who needs to be naturalized and the rules include who does not need to be naturalized.
The current expression of those rules are listed in Title 8 section 1401. Even those citizens who are born in the US are citizens at birth (Naturally born as citizens) are defined by that law.

[deport]

His father also had two daughters from his first marriage.

**********

One of which died back in 2011.

[P-Marlowe]

Not if Pelosi is speaker. She still holds a grudge with Bush v Gore.

Then again no smart congressman would want to set a precedent by refusing to certify an election. That kind of vote can come to bite you.

[EternalVigilance]

Seven U.S. Presidents had one or both parents who were not born here.

A non sequitur.

Whether their parents were born here is not even the question.

The question is whether or not they were citizens, able therefore to transmit citizenship by nature, instead of mere statute.