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question is because there are many out there who don't think we should even have this requirement anymore, that it's outdated, outmoded, and completely out of step with our modern, immigrant-soaked society.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.

[Ladysforest]

Did you READ that law? The part where it says; “Naturalization of Children on Application Of Citizen Parent”.

That is a SCREENPRINT. I did not interpret that in any way. It is a direct screengrab from OUR law.

That details, in words, how to NATURALIZE your children, born to US citizens outside of the boundaries of the US. Do you want me to post the rest of it, or can you research it and find it on your own?

When was Cruz naturalized? Ask him. He has yet to show a CRBA or any document purporting/supporting that he is a US citizen. HE DID have a document showing that he was a Canadian citizen. Or do you think to argue that also?

Just what is it that you are arguing, and what supporting laws/statutes/etc. can you present? I repeat, I have hundreds of hours researching this specific topic. What do you bring to this “argument”?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Lol, you and leftist Larry Tribe are the only ones holding this position.

Again, no answer provided.

Cruz was a US citizen the moment he drew his first breath.

Trump and his lawyers agree with me.

[Ladysforest]

You agree with you. US law, does not. Dispute that law. Don’t put it on me or Trump or random others, YOU dispute that law on OUR books.

I posted a screengrab. Tell me what you dispute about that? Can you begin there? No? Why not?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

An American woman who gives birth oversees, gives birth to an American.
Period.
Trump agrees.
Trump’s lawyers agree.
The IL election board agrees.
Every conservative constitutional scholar agrees.

Leftist Larry Tribe disagrees.
Trump cultists disagree.

Simple really.

The constitution doesn’t change because Trump goes down in the polls.

[thecodont]

But even I know he was born in Hawaii.

I remain unconvinced.

If BO really had been born in Hawai'i, he could have made a great show of marching down to the Department of Health with the press in tow, cameras rolling, and ordered his original long-form birth certificate right at the counter, then presented it with a flourish to the waiting crowd and all of TV land.

I'm a nobody and even I can go down to my County Recorder's office and get my birth certificate right at the counter, in less than 30 minutes. Tops.

Why hasn't he done this?

[Ladysforest]

“Simple really.”

Can you dispute the US law I posted? No? Then why are you still ranting? You have nothing. Nothing at all.

Most conservative Constitutional originalist find that at MINIMUM a person must be born in the US. The only time it has been thought it could be “otherwise” was to accommodate obama ... just in case it could be proven that he was not born here after all.

And now Cruz. Congrats. Look at the company you have chosen to be in. I am asking again, where is your research? WHERE is YOUR supporting material?

You have none. Accept that. Say out loud, “I want Ted Cruz to be eligible, so it doesn’t matter to me what the laws say”. Do that and be HONEST. Otherwise I can have no respect for you.

As for me, I will not compromise. The Constitution is not a living document, and I will not betray it. Not ever.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

My research and supporting material is Trump.

If you were right, Trump would be in federal court pronto.

He can afford the lawyers, so money isn’t the reason he isn’t suing.

I wonder what that reason could be??????

[Stanwood_Dave]

Thought you would appreciate the following:

Hard-wired into the {United States} Supreme Court's DNA is the notion that the court doesn't reach out to decide a constitutional issue if it can resolve a case by interpreting a statute. "The court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it," is how Justice Louis D. Brandeis expressed this principle of judicial restraint 80 years ago in a concurring opinion to which the court often makes reference.

[Ladysforest]

“My research and supporting material is Trump.”

That’s all anyone needed to hear from you. You don’t research, you emote. You KNOW something because, you emote.

Do you for one minute think all lawyers sit around wondering about that clause in the Constitution? No, you don’t. Do you think for one minute that most lawyers even focused on that clause ever once in their lives? No, you don’t. If anyone asked a lawyer, based on the simple fact of Teds mother being a US citizen when Ted was born, if Ted would also be a US citizen - the lawyers would likely have to check the laws quickly before answering “yes”. But simply being a citizen is not the same as being a natural born citizen. As most of the Constitutional scholars will instantly tell you. The only ones who will not are arguing from the viewpoint of a “living” Constitution. We don’t have a living Constitution, last I checked. Not all Constitutional scholars are law professors. The Constitution was written, after all, in common language purposefully so that every citizen could understand it. What a natural-born citizen is, is not a matter of law. It never has been. What extends US citizenship to those NOT native born is a matter of law. I posted a portion of the law that pertains to those such as Ted Cruz. You can read that if you care for truth, it is our law, passed by our congress.

[Ladysforest]

[Cboldt]

The naturalization procedure that Cruz's parent would have followed is to submit their claim to a competent (in a legal sense) tribunal for adjudication. The adjudicator reviews the evidence in support of the claim, and if he finds the claim to be valid, issues a finding and certification to that effect.

United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309) - Chapter 3, Part H, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS

A person born in the US does not have to submit to this procedure.

[Cboldt]

-- The Constitution is vague and unclear on this entire NBC requirement. --

But it is clear on who is a citizen under the constitution, and provides that those who are not, may be made citizens by act of Congress pursuant to the power to make rule of naturalization.

[Cboldt]

-- Someone born on US soil is an NBC, someone not born on US soil is not. --

Someone born on US soil can be an NBC, someone not born on US soil can not.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Lol, the fact that the cult leader is not in federal court now to have Cruz declared ineligible tells me all I need to know.

Money talks and BS walks........and the Donald is sure full of BS.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Lol, it is still “citizenship at birth” which is another name for.............

Naturally born citizen.

Will the stupidity never end?????

[Ladysforest]

BS does seem to be your particular specialty.

By the way, it is not illegal to RUN if you are not a natural-born citizen. Anyone can run. Anyone at all. You must be a natural-born citizen to serve.

It is why that weird Senator from FL said if Cruz is the *nominee* he will bring a lawsuit. The Senator knows it doesn’t matter at this stage of the process.

I guess if you were more inclined to doing actual research you would know these things.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Anyone can bring a lawsuit. Anyone.

The question is winning the lawsuit.

The chances of winning a suit to declare Cruz ineligible to be President is zero. Really less than zero, but zero is as low as you can go.

Trump knows this.....you don’t see him wasting legal $$$ do you????

[Ladysforest]

Keep crooning that to yourself, over and over and over .... it’s called self-hypnosis.

And again you are completely wrong. One must have standing to bring a lawsuit. No one has standing ... yet.

Do your research. Or self-hypnosis. Whatever.

[Yosemitest]

TED CRUZ is by far, the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE we've got !

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.

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

[Yosemitest]

As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...

As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:

" ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
that Congress considers invalid.


Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

NOTE: nonjusticiable political question

Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
One scholar explained:
The political question doctrine holds
that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
- - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
A court can only decide issues based on law.
The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
The court will not engage in political disputes.

A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
of a non-legal character
or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.

Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?

"Naturalize" !
"admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Related: Naturalizing.

Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !


The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

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.

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 !



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

Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

READ IT VERY CLOSELY.

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

... Citizenship is mentioned in
Article 1, Section 2,
Article 1, Section 3,
Article 1, Section 8,
Article 2, Section 1,
and in the 14th Amendment
and several subsequent amendments.

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen?
Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
But even this does not get specific enough.
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation in
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment;
the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4,
also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"


• Anyone born inside the United States *
  * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
  This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
  
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  
• A final, historical condition:
  a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as
Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402),
Alaska (8 USC 1404),
Hawaii (8 USC 1405),
the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406),
and Guam (8 USC 1407).
Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
he was not actually qualified to be president.
However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
"a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

U.S. Nationals

A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.
U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

(Continued)