Posted on 01/16/2016 5:15:49 PM PST by John Valentine
Well, I think the issue here is what the Constitution means by “natural born citizen.”
The proper way to interpret the Constitution is reading the text as is but if there is a reasonable question about the original meaning of the text, then you look to original understanding and intent.
Certainly there are questions about the meaning of “natural born citizen.” As I see it the argument boils down to whether “natural born citizen” in the Constitution meant at least one parent is a U.S. citizen and the child is born 1) on U.S. soil OR 2) on either U.S. or foreign soil.
From what I can tell, it has been very difficult to find the original understanding and intent of “natural born” to mean he must be born on U.S. soil.
If you can’t get there by a good-faith effort to find original understanding and intent, then you have to look to history to see how it has been interpreted over time.
I guess what makes sense to me is the example of a child of a U.S ambassador to a foreign country who is born in that foreign county. I would think that child would be considered a “natural born citizen.”
Here’s a term that has not been said much if any. What you describe it is called - “Collective Naturalization”.
Now define “naturalized.”
In a similar vein, it is ludicrous to say that a child is a natural born citizen just because its foreign national mother snuck in and dropped it here, but someone born of a US citizen mother in a foreign country is not.
An anchor baby is a natural born citizen.
Huh?
Very few countries allow citizenship only from birth in their country.
Although that question might be wrapped up in another suit.
Bellei, born in Italy, claimed to be native-born in the US. His Italian BC forced to abandon his claim that he was born in the US.
There are only two kinds of citizens: natural born citizens and naturalized citizens, the latter being those made citizens by statute, not nature.
That is not the relevant distinction. The relevant distinction is that the first are citizens by virtue of the circumstances of their birth and are citizens from the moment of birth, and the second become citizens later in life through their own intentional act.
Mr. Cruz falls into the latter category, having been granted citizenship solely based on the provisions of the 1952 Immigration and NATURALIZATION Act.
Senator Cruz falls into the first category because he was a citizen of the United States from the moment he drew breath. The fact that a statute confirms this citizenship status is not relevant. In our Country, the enactment of statutes takes place under the umbrella of the Constitution. Every single word of the US Code is under the authority of the Constitution and is intended to further it purpose and design. It is absolutely permissible and natural that a statue of the United States may elaborate and specify details to be used to determine whether circumstances support classification into one or the other of the two classes of citizenship established by the Constitution. That's the very purpose of a statute.
For all other purposes than the qualifications for president, there is no real difference. A naturalized citizen has been made as if he were natural born, with all attendant privileges and immunities.
Yes, indeed.
A statement that's close to the truth, but not quite.
Some people are automatically naturalized and go through no *process*.....but it doesn't make them natural born. Cruz falls into this category. His citizenship was automatically derived from his mother's, but it is not equal TO it.
Since 1795 the term statutory natural born citizen has been a Constitutional oxymoron.
Absolutely agree.
Cruz was born a US citizen but he was also born a Canadian citizen because he was born in Canada.
And Canada does allow dual citizenship.
I think that is arguable, but is way off the topic/question of birth abroad.
Before 1934 no one in circumstances identical to Cruz would have been granted citizenship, much less have been considered natural born citizens.
Do you think we owe all of those people an apology for having deprived of their natural born American citizenship, by mere statute?
Just using your reasoning.
“For all other purposes than the qualifications for president, there is no real difference. A naturalized citizen has been made as if he were natural born, with all attendant privileges and immunities.”
No, that is incorrect. A person acquiring U.S. citizenship by the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Act is liable to the revocation of that grant of U.S. citizenship under the stated conditions of the statute, whereas an actual natural born citizen is born with and not granted at birth with U.S. citizenship. This type of difference is traditional in U.S. and British law ever since the English Naturalization Act of 1541. in other wrods, being “considered as” a natural born subject or as a natural born citizen does not accord the naturalized at birth citizen the same rights and immunities as an actual natural born citizen.
I suppose that if this were enacted by legislation, it would be possible, but it would require an application for naturalization and and and act of naturalization by the government. The government would then issue a certificate of naturalization.
But, that's not the statute we have, is it?
My grandson was born in Hong Kong a couple of years ago. There is absolutely no way that he could claim Chinese citizenship since both of his parents were American citizens with no Chinese ancestry.
How do you know that the intent of the Framers was solely to exclude naturalized citizens and naturalized citizens alone? Where is there any evidence for that from any person alive at the time and familiar with their intent?
According to the 14th Amendment, all citizens have equal rights and immunities.
Regardless of the circumstances of their birth or origin.
Of course it matters. That's not the question. The question needs to be understood as, what did they mean?. My contention is that they meant no more and no less that citizenship by birth. Otherwise they would have needed to define the distinction, and they did not.
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.