The US Citizenship Laws Say What They Say (electorate education)

US Statutes at Large ^ | March 6, 2016 | patlin

[patlin]

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), a.k.a. Hart-Celler Act, 1965

Section 202 of the Immigration and Nationality Act... “(b)(3) an alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject, or if he is not a citizen or subject of any country then in the last foreign country in which he had his residence as determined by the consular officer; (4) an alien born within any foreign state in which neither of his parents was born and in which neither of his parents had a residence at the time of such alien's birth may be charged to the foreign state of either parent.”

Now please tell me, if the 14th gives citizenship simply based on birth on US soil, then how can one born in the US be an alien at birth? Even the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1965 states that children born to alien in the US are themselves aliens at birth.

Further, the Act goes on to say... “SEC. 203. (a) Aliens who are subject to the numerical limitations specified in section 201(a) shall be allotted visas or their conditional entry authorized, as the case may be, as follows: “(1) Visas shall be first made available, in a number not to exceed 20 per centum of the number specified in section 201(a) (ii), to qualified immigrants who are the unmarried sons or daughters of citizens of the United States.

Now let's go back to Sec. 202 ... (b) Each independent country, self-governing dominion, mandated territory, and territory under the international trusteeship system of the United Nations, other than the United States and its outlying possessions shall be treated as a separate foreign state for the purposes of the numerical limitation set forth in the proviso to sub section (a) of this section when approved by the Secretary of State. All other inhabited lands shall be attributed to a foreign state specified by the Secretary of State. For the purposes of this Act the foreign state to which an immigrant is chargeable shall be determined by birth within such foreign state...”

Now since Canada did not recognize dual citizenship in 1970, and the fact that Canada considered Cruz to be a natural born Canadian, per the 1965 Act passed by Congress, which is 100% constitutional in its language, Cruz himself, at best, is a 14th Amendment “naturalized” citizen.

[Cboldt]

-- and whatever I post, if you disagree, you come back with liar liar. --

At this point in our relationship, pretty much true, although it was a long path getting to this point. I did offer more than just the observation, I recommended they read the case, and the others cited. As you know, I also recommend Rogers v. Bellei.

Brief Summary of Rogers v. Bellei: 01/16/2016 6:14:49 PM
On Zivotofsky v Kerry - 13-628 (2015)

[Springfield Reformer]

That’s stating a condition precedent. That’s not the Cruz scenario. He falls under the condition subsequent scenario, a world of difference. He has a claim by natural law, jus sanguinis, but being foreign born, he is in a suspect class. He needs to confirm his nexus to the U.S. body politic, so conditions follow (subsequent) that if met, will confirm the natural claim. See Rogers v Bellei for a good discussion of conditions subsequent versus precedent, especially in the oral arguments. What thise attorneys presented and how the justices interacted with them is very enlightening. I recommend it to all FReepers who want to get out of the inane birther echo chamber and see how the law really works.

Here’s the link:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/24

The point is, all of you I’m sure have good intentions, and I honestly don’t think you mean any harm with your inaccurate presentations of the law, but armchair quarterbacking is easy. When you have a real client whose life will be messed up if you mess up, it puts things in a more realistic perspective. Just please consider the possibility that the standard birther tropes you have been fed may not square with reality. Just sayin ...

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

Recommending cases is great. You need to also actually make a point, and those cases do not make your point for you. Sorry.

Peace,

SR

[BlackElk]

When Obozo and Hillary and McConnell and Ryan acquiesce to a few more "trade deals" in which the US can be fined by some :international" group of faceless bureaucrat corporate lawyers and slaves of those intent on making thee and me into serfs, will you still be cheerleading the "rule of law?" We have reached the point where more than 60 million innocent infants in utero have been surgically slaughtered by Herod Blackmun's idea of "the rule of law" and that is just by surgical means and not including those chemically slaughtered by RU-486 and such. How many more do you want killed before we stand up to "the rule of law?"

Maybe, just maybe, since the Founding Fathers invoked the law of God as the basis for our revolution against the wholly inadequate Brit "rule of law," and attributed our freedoms not to the Founding Fathers' handiwork but to God himself granting us our basic rights, we might consider calling our judiciary to heel.

Politics is the art of the possible. Birthers would like to make that impossible. JFK (even a stopped clock is right twice a day) said: Those who make peaceful evolution possible, make violent revolution inevitable. Is that what you would prefer or should we just sit back and take whatever the judiciary chooses to do to warp our nation, sap its morality and destroy its God given freedoms?

Pardon ME if I regard this Birther nonsense as destined for the dustbin of history and as irrelevant trivia compared to REAL ISSUES: Babies, Guns, Religion, Sovereignty, Freedom from Oligarchy, Civil Liberties, and many more.

So, vote for NBC Hillary. I am sure you will be delighted to do so since she satisfies your apparent one and only criterion for POTUS selection.

Also PARDON ME if I notice you are clueless as to conservatism if your one and only issue is the "rule of law." A Time for Choosing was given on election eve 1964, a mere five years before I entered law school and more than eight years before Herod Blackmun explicitly ignored the constitution to fashion a socially fashionable "right" to butcher unborn children out of whole cloth, with an admixture of a misreading of the 9th and 14th amendments crusted over with the utterly irrelevant and barbaric ancient Roman law of Paterfamilia by which a father could order the killing of his child so long as the child was younger than 21. That is what happened to your "rule of law." Mr. Injustice Blackmun took it home and gave it to his grandchildren to play with and they lost it never to be found again. One half minute of Reagan's famous speech given more than eight years' earlier will not erase that disgrace of SCOTUS.

Also, I was a state chairman for Reagan when he challenged Feckless Ford and I'll bet you were not.

You asked for a definition of conservatism. I gave you one and you re-enforced your blinders lest anything get in the way of a Trump criticism du jour against Cruz. You just ignored anything but your pet theory that conservatism is Birtherism. Well, you will have Hillary to vote for in November. Congratulations, I think.

[BlackElk]

Megadittoes!!!!

[BlackElk]

What do we know? We are just lawyers.

Your #157 hits the nail on the head.

[Cboldt]

-- You need to also actually make a point, and those cases do not make your point for you. --

Hahahah. You cited Rogers v. Bellei, made no remarks on the case, suggested readers check it for themselves, provided a link that doesn't work.

I cite the same case, point to my remarks, provide a working link, and you reverse!

[Springfield Reformer]

Yeah, what’s three years sweating law exams really worth when you can go to Trump University and come out an expert birther? :)

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

Hmmm. I just tested my links and they worked for me. Sure you don’t have a browser problem? The Oyez links go to oral arguments. You have to play them to get at the transcript text. It’s kind of cool how it works. The audio and the text track together.

Peace,

SR

[Cboldt]

You cite oral arguments as authority for the conclusion? Bwahahahahaha!!!! That is so rich.

[Springfield Reformer]

“Bwahaha?” Really? OK. But no, I never cited the oral arguments as authority per se. I DO find them to be a great and instructive discussion of the concepts of “conditions precedent” versus “conditions subsequent,” which further aids in understanding why the majority opinion comes out the way it does. I did not realize recommending good resources for understanding the law was a forbidden activity in these discussions. Who knew? :)

Peace,

SR

[Just mythoughts]

Below are Cruz’s own words regarding ‘natural born’...

http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm

Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it’s a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”
Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”
Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”
Interviewer: “Not exactly, but as I don’t have enough time to fully explain how one does become an natural born Citizen, based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?”
Cruz: “I would agree.”
Interviewer: “So when we get you elected, will you expose him for the usurping fraud he is?”
Cruz: “No, my main focus will be on repealing Obamacare.”
Interviewer: “But Mr. Cruz, if he is exposed as the usurping fraud he is, everything he has done will become null and void. Everything!”
Interviewer: “At that point, Cruz reiterated his main concern, so it was obvious the conversation was over as far as Cruz was concerned. I thanked him for his time and wished him success in the runoff.”

[patlin]

I was a state chairman for Reagan

and I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Grfs2c9xg

[patlin]

“Jus sanguinis” can only apply when BOTH parents are US citizens and the foreign country does not recognize children born to aliens in their country as citizens who owe allegiance to that country. The determining factor in the 14th Amendment is “subject to the jurisdiction”, as it applies to those naturalized, it also applies to those born and this is where the Expatriation Act of 1868 comes in, exclusive allegiance to the US at birth or at the time of naturalization. Ted Cruz did not hold exclusive allegiance to the US at birth, therefore, at the time of his parents returning to the US, that is when his citizenship was formalized, not at birth, but upon his return to the US.

[Springfield Reformer]

“Jus sanguinis” can only apply when BOTH parents are US citizens and the foreign country does not recognize children born to aliens in their country as citizens who owe allegiance to that country.

This is an assumption on your part that cannot be sustained. It's main weakness is that there is simply no law that states this proposition.

The determining factor in the 14th Amendment is “subject to the jurisdiction”, as it applies to those naturalized, it also applies to those born ...  

This statement is difficult in it's structure, and I am not sure I will be able to parse it correctly, but I will try. I will agree that the 14th Amendment follows a structure of (A or B) and C, so one is a 14th Amendment citizen if one is (born in country OR naturalized in country) AND under the jurisdiction of country.  So? That is how you get a 14th Amendment citizen.  These are called constitutional citizens, and they are not the only form of citizenship, because we may also have common law and statutory citizens as well, may we not?  These other categories are certainly present in the case law.

... and this is where the Expatriation Act of 1868 comes in, exclusive allegiance to the US at birth or at the time of naturalization.

Alright, this is the really difficult part, because nothing in the statute as a whole seems to speak of "exclusive allegiance" in terms of a requirement for natural born status.  However, trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, may I surmise you draw your inference from the presentation of the two categories below?

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.

(BTW, I have borrowed the quote above from one of your own posts elsewhere. I hope you don't mind. Had a difficult time finding a good link.)

My theory is that you believe these two categories are 1) mutually exclusive and 2) cover all possible cases of citizenship:

1)  With respect to each other, they are probably mutually exclusive, guarding only for some exceptions. Those born in country but to a foreign diplomat would meet "native born" but fail because they are not under US jurisdiction.  But are they a complete set?

2)  The 14th Amendment provides protection from involuntary expatriation for the citizens it covers. But the 14th doesn't cover citizens at birth, born on foreign soil. In terms of the Venn diagram, those are outside all three categories described in the 14th.  If you wish to argue foreign born children of one or more American parents are covered under the 14th as naturalized, you would

    A) be begging the question, because you cannot assume without proof the conclusion you are seeking to prove. So you cannot assume the out of country births are uniformly counted as naturalization.  You have to prove that first.

    B) be arguing the defeated position in Rogers v. Bellei (1971), articulated by the dissent, but rejected by the majority, and it's rejection essential to the outcome, therefore binding precedent unless later overturned. Are you aware of any case law overturning that holding? Maybe there is. I don't know. I don't know of any such case.

There is a good reason, BTW, for this unique character of the 14th. It was specifically designed to cure the problems newly freed slaves would face.  There was already a body of case and statutory law for non-14th citizens. Those categories include citizens at birth such as Cruz via jus sanguinis.  Your analysis simply presumes without proof that all statutory citizens are all naturalized, when we know from Nguyen, Miller, Zivotofsky, etc., that is not the case. Naturalization happens after birth. Therefore citizens at birth are not naturalized.

The forgoing analysis shows there are at least some material questions as to what each of these terms mean. You cannot assume that a merely descriptive text is equivalent to a directive that there cannot be some foreign claim involuntarily placed on a child that would defeat their natural right to American citizenship at birth. It really flies in the face of what the 1868 Expatriation Act was trying to accomplish, which is exactly the opposite of what you are ascribing to it. Your theory results in denying a child born naturally as an American the ability to escape the claim of a foreign jurisdiction. The whole point of the Act was to throw off such claims and assert an American right of self-determination against any foreign contenders. Turning it into a way to use foreign law to deprive an American of that to which they are rightfully an heir turns the law on its head. That's not the outcome the law was designed to produce, according to the clear and lasting claims of the Act's preamble.

Peace,

SR



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481

[Cboldt]

Your "endeavoring to further aids in understanding why the majority opinion comes out the way it does" is diversion and smoke and a non sequitur to your own argument.

The armchair lawyers have an excuse for viewing the State Department FAM manual and Jack Maskell's CRS publication to be superior authority over SCOTUS precedent. The armchair lawyer might even hold that his interpretation of statutory language is superior to SCOTUS application of the same statutory language. But by the fact that you hold yourself out as a competent lawyer, you don't have the excuse of ignorance for trotting out inferior authority as deciding the case. And oral argument? Bwahahahahah again, as if oral arguments have any weight at all. One side loses.

In the Bellei case, both the majority and the dissent found Bellei to be naturalized. Bellei's argument that he was born in the US didn't fly. That Bellei was naturalized was as basic and as essential to taking the case, as finding that he'd first been through a trial.

You have not offered any support for the position that you hold, that Bellei was a natural born citizen of the US.

[Biggirl]

He is crazy to begin with.

[bert]

——all the girls in Downton Abbey could be President, -——

There you have it.

What difference is there between Cruz and Edith?

[Springfield Reformer]

??

My Friend, you never cease to amaze me. Within your own post you give both a true and a false reason for my providing the oral arguments in Bellei. You can copy and paste what I actually say and still miss my meaning. I really don’t know how to help you on that. I will state it a third time. I offer the oral arguments for their educational value, but not as deciding the case. I never said that, and I’m not sure what interest is served by you trying to give folks that impression. They can read. They can make up their own minds.

BTW, I think you haven’t listened yet to the oral arguments. They actually discussed this very issue, and they hedged on whether the Reconstruction Congress viewed “the statutory acquisition of citizenship at birth as part of the naturalization process.” That’s why, try as you might, you can produce no language from the majority that confirms their belief on that matter.

And that’s the nub of proof here. It is your positive assertion, that they viewed Bellei as naturalized, that has no citation to go along with it. I invite the reader to examine any of your previous posts on the matter. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

The problem is the decision in Bellei is largely negative. He’s not protected under the 14th Amendment, so the regulatory burden is justified constitutionally. Pretty simple really. All they had to do was find whether statutory citizenship of any kind could be regulated or whether it might fall under the protection of the 14th. The dissent’s argument was that he was naturalized, and that such naturalization was protected. The majority rejected that argument. Their negative finding on him being protected by the 14th is what drive the rest of the logic. Not a finding that he is either natural born or naturalized per se. It simply isn’t relevant. Again, listen to the audio of the oral, and you will see. You don’t have to take my word for it. I do in truth offer instruction here for the sort of benefit instruction brings, reduced conflict over nonsense. That is not a bad thing in my book.

Peace,

SR

[centurion316]

Am I correct that the two SCOTUS cases that you refer are Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark? I’ll comment on these two:

I don’t think that anything in Minor is precedent with respect to citizenship since the case was about women’s suffrage and the citizenship of the plaintiff was asserted and agreed by all parties as as preamble to the case. The citizenship discussion was connected to the rationale for the ruling, but was not part of the ruling.

WKA was precedent for one circumstance of citizenship by birth, namely a person born in the United States to parents not U.S. Citizens. They found that WKA was a citizen by birth. That circumstance applies to Mr. Rubio.

I was particularly amused by reliance on the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that refers to the method to apportionment of immigrants to a particular country for the purposes of quotas. Nothing to do with citizenship, but when heading over the rails anything in sight might avert disaster.