Why is the natural born citizen requirement important?

Renew America ^ | February 05, 2016 | Tim Dunkin

[Yashcheritsiy]

A lot of sound and fury has been generated in the past month concerning the natural born citizenship requirement found in the Constitution as a requirement for holding the office of the presidency. The issue has been around since Obama's first run for that office, though it was largely ignored at the time by the media and the political establishment. More recently, Donald Trump stumbled (quite by accident, I presume) into actually mentioning the Constitution when he raised the issue with regard to his competitor for the nomination, Ted Cruz.

Now, the purpose of this present essay is not to rehash all the arguments for or against either Barack Obama or Ted Cruz being natural born citizens. Likewise, I do not intend to cover in great detail what exactly is a "natural born citizen," other than to note that the general run of the historical arguments that I have seen, from earlier English common law down to Blackstone and then through the statements of our own American jurists and commentarians, seems to be that the primary issue concerned with natural born citizenship is that of the place of birth, what is termed jus soli, or "law of the soil." There is a strain, represented best by Vattel, but also found within American legal thinking, that also includes the citizenship of the parents when deciding who is natural born, but that seems to be a secondary and minority opinion among the early jurists and statesmen, many of whom were alive and flourishing at the time of the Founding.

My concern at present is to investigate why we have this requirement in the first place. What is the point to it? Is it something we should be spending so much time and energy discussing, and if so, why is that the case? The reason for asking this question is because there are many out there who don't think we should even have this requirement anymore, that it's outdated, outmoded, and completely out of step with our modern, immigrant-soaked society.

To begin looking at this, let's first examine what the role of the president in our government was (and is) supposed to be. Essentially, when you boil down what Article II of the Constitution says about the presidency, you see three general areas of competency – acting as a check on the other branches through the veto and judicial nomination powers, molding American foreign policy through the treaty-making role, and serving as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Needless to say, each of these roles is quite important, and the abuse of them – as we have abundantly seen in recent decades, but especially in the last seven years – can cause a great deal of harm to this nation. The Founders and the generations immediately following well-understood that the safety and prosperity of America depended on ensuring that our leadership was devoted to the United States and did not have divided loyalties.

In 1803, St. George Tucker stated,

"That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence..."

James Kent, the "father of American jurisprudence," observed in his Commentaries,

"The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome."

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1840 in his own commentary on the Constitution,

"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."

The reasoning behind the natural born citizenship requirement is obvious – it was designed as a means of preventing foreign influence from taking root at the highest level of the Republic's government, in the office in which subversion could wreak the greatest damage. While it would be deleterious for one or a few congressmen to be subverted by a foreign power, prince, or ideology (such as is, for example, Rep. Keith Ellison from Michigan), and while the corruption of a justice of the Supreme Court would have far reaching effects, none would be as dangerous as putting the command of the military and the power to make treaties with foreign nations into the hands of one who was in the service of a foreign power, especially a hostile one.

We should recognize that, no matter how sincere an immigrant to this nation may be in their affections for this country, nevertheless, they still have divided loyalties. In many, many cases, their families are still home in the "old country." They often send money and information about America back to their native lands. Most importantly (and quite naturally – I am not condemning them for this at all), a piece of their heart is still often with the land of their nativity. My personal experience is that in nearly all cases of immigrants to America that I have known, they sooner or later will refer to their old homeland with "...in my country..." There is still a divided loyalty – which is to be naturally expected.

This is why a positive affirmation of the wisdom of and need for the natural born citizenship clause as a requirement for eligibility to be the president is even more important now than it ever was. With so many people from so many places around the world, there is a weltering pot of divided loyalties to every place on earth. As the object of immigration is (or at least should be) to increase the prosperity and strength of the Republic by allowing those who will be beneficial to us to join our body politic, it only makes sense that the highest office would be withheld from first-generation immigrants, while their natural born citizen children – born here on US soil – would be as eligible as the scion of a family of Blue Bloods. In a sense, immigrants are "proving themselves" to have an enduring loyalty to this land by setting down their roots and truly making this their home, and that for the generations following them.

We also would be wise to strengthen, rather than dismiss, our fidelity to this requirement because of the fact that in our globalized, shrunken world, there are simply so many more foreign actors out there with whom our nation comes into contact, a proportional number of whom will necessarily be hostile to our nation, for one reason or another. There are a couple of hundred official nation-states, dozens of competing ideologies, and even non-state actors who would love the opportunity to influence, or even control, American foreign and military policy.

The best way to ensure that this doesn't happen is to scrupulously guard the natural born citizenship of those we elect to this highest office in the Republic. We've already seen the damage that a president with foreign ties and dubious loyalties to the United States can wreak, even should he be a natural born citizen. All the more reason to increase our vigilance to reassert this necessary and wise requirement and to raise it back to its former sanctity in our governing system.

[Yosemitest]

"If not born on US soil, then born to two US citizen parents, clear, simple, straight forward."

WRONG! Read it !


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

Can you NOT UNDERSTAND the in PLAIN ENGLISH LANGUAGE OF
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution ? ! ? It list the powers given to the Congress.
The third item on the list IS the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization ... throughout the United States."
Can you NOT UNDERSTAND the PLAIN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ?

Can you not READ and COMPREHEND typed writing ?

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !

Have you any knowledge of WHY those changes were made ?
Don't you realize that this changes only CLARIFY the definition given by our Founding Fathers, and do it for the good of our Country ?

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW, a good start at the background and the reason for the changes, can be read at Act of March 26, 1790 eText.

... What happened next ...

The 1790 act mentioned nothing about the attitudes of new citizens toward government policy in the new democracy.
Soon after the 1790 act was passed, however, politics became an important consideration in giving immigrants the right to vote.
During the two terms of the nation's first president, George Washington (1732-1799; served 1789-97), two distinct political parties had begun to emerge.
... One party, led by Washington's successor, John Adams (1797-1801; served 1797-1801), was known as the Federalists.
The Federalist Party included Washington, Adams, and the nation's first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755-1804).
The Federalists supported a strong central (federal) government and were generally sympathetic to the interests of merchants in the cities.
An opposing faction, the Anti-Federalists (also called the Democratic-Republicans), were led by the country's third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826; served 1801-9).
The Anti-Federalists opposed giving the federal government more power than was absolutely needed.

In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law.
The new law required immigrants to wait five years (instead of two) to become a citizen
and to make a declaration of intention to become a citizen three years before becoming naturalized.
An immigrant who failed to make the declaration might have to wait more than five years after arrival in the United States to become a voter.
The 1795 law also required naturalized citizens to renounce any noble titles they might hold (such as "duke" or "countess")
and to promise not to be loyal to any foreign king or queen.
These measures were intended to ensure that new citizens would not secretly want to restore a king and an aristocracy, or individuals who inherit great wealth and special political privileges.

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. ...

[Yosemitest]

WRONG!
This disgusting Curse on our Nation named Barack Hussein Obama II, aka Barry Soetoro, has a real birth certificate, with his right footprint on it.
All you have to do is look for it.

The Arab-Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), ( the one guilty of TREASON ! ) has NO legitimate Social Security Number.
His father was NOT an immigrant to the United States.
Barack Obama Sr. was a "TRANSIENT ALIEN" because he did NOT intend on residing in the United States permanently.
Barack Obama Sr. was a dual citizen of Great Britain and Kenya, and NEVER a United States Citizen.

Read British National Archives Show Son Born To Obama Sr. In 1961 In Kenya!

His mother could NOT impart U.S. citizen to her son, Barack Obama II,
because she did NOT meet the legal requirements to do so,
at the time her son was born IN the Coast Provincial General Hospital, MOMBASA, KENYA at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961.
Democrats knew this and tried to eliminate the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement at least 8 times BEFORE Obama won his election in 2008.

Obama is NOT a United States Citizen, and is NOT a LEGAL IMMIGRANT.
He has no VISA allowing him into this country.
Barack Hussein Obama II IS ILLEGAL !
He should be IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY, tried for TREASON, SENTENCED to death,
and then have his body deported back to Kenya.

Barack Obama, the first black Arab-American -Kenyan pResident of the United States.

[dalek1967]

If you read the PDF file you attached, it says parents, plural not singular. Neither Rubio or Cruz fall under that description.

I might add, if you are born overseas, you have to apply for citizenship. It is not automatic. You can see that here.

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

To be natural born, you don’t have to do anything but be born to fall under that definition. If you have to do something, you are not natural born.

[Yosemitest]

Do NOT waste my time.

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.