Posted on 01/16/2016 5:15:49 PM PST by John Valentine
I shall show that the Constitution contemplates two types of Citizen: those that acquire their citizenship at birth and those who acquire their Citizenship at a later time. The first are referred to in the Constitution as 'natural born' and the second is a class of citizen not specifically named but implied and are those we consider 'naturalized citizens.'
The word 'citizen' including derivative forms appears only eleven times in the Constitution. We shall look at each instance and derive what is possible from each usage and instance. By the end, I hope to have exhaustively shown that within the 'four corners' of the Constitution, two and only two types or classes of citizen are identified or implied: citizens by birth and citizens by naturalization. There is no third subset of citizen to be differentiated from among the two classes of citizen identified or implied in the Constitution.
Instance 1: Article I, Section 2, Clause 2
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility to membership in the Untied States House of Representative. They are:
1. Age of at least 25 years
2. A citizen of the United States for at least 7 years
3. An inhabitant of the state from which elected
Notice, please, that the citizenship requirement requires fewer years than does the age requirement. This fact requires acceptance of the notion that an individual can become a citizen at some time long after being born, and implies things about citizenship: first that individuals can be citizens, and second that there can be a time in the life of the individual before the individual became a citizen.
This is important: there is nothing in this clause that says or implies anything about citizenship by birth.
Instance 2: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility to membership in the Untied States Senate. They are:
1. Age of at least 30 years
2. A citizen of the United States for at least 9 years
3. An inhabitant of the state from which elected
Notice, please, that the citizenship requirement again requires fewer years than does the age requirement. This fact requires acceptance of the notion that an individual can become a citizen at some time long after being born, and implies things about citizenship: first that individuals can be citizens, and second that there can be a time in the life of the individual before the individual became a citizen.
This is important: there is nothing in this clause that says or implies anything about citizenship by birth.
Instances 3 and 4: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility for service as President of the Untied States. They are:
1. Age of at least 35 years
2. A natural born citizen of the United States or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
3. Resident within the United States for at least 14 years
Notice here that a different citizenship requirement is established: in fact, two alternative requirements. We need not concern ourselves with the second, which concerns the Framer's generation and has no application to anyone alive today.
As to the first we see that the citizenship requirement has no specific requirement for its duration. Instead, it refers to a citizenship deriving from the circumstances of birth.
This is a distinctly different citizenship requirement than those for the House of Representatives or Senate. The citizenship requirements for the House of Representatives and Senate could encompass the same class of citizen contemplated by the requirement for Presidential eligibility. We do know that historically individuals have served both in the Senate and as President so the requirements cannot be mutually exclusive.
Logically, we can conclude that the citizenship requirement for eligibility to the Presidency would also be sufficient to establish eligibility for the House of Representatives and Senate.
Thus far there are two classes of citizen established or implied by the language of the Constitution: (1) a class of citizen (natural born) which is derived by the circumstances of birth and which suffices to establish the citizenship component for eligibility for membership in the House of Representatives and Senate, and for service as President, and (2) another class of citizenship which does not depend on the circumstances of birth and can be acquired many years after the birth of an individual and which suffices to establish the citizenship component for eligibility for membership in the House of Representatives and Senate, but not for service as President.
For clarity, going forward I will refer to these two classes of citizen as follows:
As to the first class, these are 'natural born'
As to the second class, these are 'naturalized'
This is important: Thus far there is no third class of citizenship discussed, implied or established within the four corners of the Constitution.
Instances 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9: Article III, Section 2, Clause 5
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States,— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
This clause does not establish a further class of citizen. As for the first four instances mentioned in this clause, these by implication refer to the classes of citizen mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 and in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3; that is, those mentioned above as natural born or naturalized. As for the fifth instance, this refers to a citizens of a foreign State and therefore not relevant to this discussion.
This is important: Nothing in this clause references or establishes a third class of citizenship.
Instances 10 and 11: Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This clause, too, does not establish a further class of citizen, and the two instances mentioned in this clause, by implication refer to the classes of citizen mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 and in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3; that is those mentioned above as natural born or naturalized.
Thus we have exhausted every mention of the word citizen and all its derivative forms, plural, etc. that are found in the Constitution of the United States.
It is demonstrated that there are only two classes of citizen established within the Articles, Sections and Clauses of the Constitution.
These classes are:
1. natural born
2. naturalized
All citizens must belong to one of these classes. If a citizen is not naturalized only one other possibility has been identified: natural born. All citizens are either naturalized or natural born; there is not other possibility.
Obviously, this analysis will categorize any citizen acquiring citizenship by birth as natural born. Some argue that only SOME citizens acquiring citizenship by birth are to be classed as natural born. They claim that other citizens acquiring citizenship by the circumstances of their birth are a subset of naturalized citizen.
But, all such arguments must be based on suppositions, presumptions and hypotheses that are extraneous to the Constitution itself, for as I have exhaustively shown, the Constitution itself creates no such category of citizen.
I also submit that unless the Constitution is inherently impossible of interpretation or understanding based on its own terms, such extraneous references must not be permitted, or may sometimes be permitted with little weight as set against the Constitution’s own clear provisions.
I submit that all the fevered and tortured bending and twisting, and all the references to this and that while perhaps entertaining are essentially nothing more than a diversion.
The Constitution itself is clear. It establishes two classes of citizen; those that have become citizens through the process of naturalization, and those who are citizens by birth, that is the natural born citizens.
There is no third class of citizen.
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.