Posted on 08/27/2013 2:27:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas — love him or hate him — continues to stride across the national stage. With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret: Ted Cruz was born in Canada.
But does that mean that Cruz’s presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses? Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards, having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate?
No, actually, and it’s not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a “natural born citizen” of the United States, the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency. (The Founding Fathers didn’t want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.)
What’s a “natural born citizen”? The Constitution doesn’t say, but the Framers’ understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents — in a manner regulated by federal law — and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.
Snip~
So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Perhaps it’s a misunderstanding. I seem to recall you whistling a different tune on eligibility threads a while back.
I apologize if I have you confused with someone else.
Say what? If he came here illegally and gained citizenship by marriage, he can’t be POTUS.
“””Countries by treaty have reciprocal recognition of their naturalization laws.
The international status of a foreign born child of a US citizen may differ depending upon treaty.
That person may visit a country with which the US has secured by treaty reciprocal naturalization understandings without fear of claims upon him by the foreign country.
That same person may visit a country with which the US has not secured by treaty reciprocal naturalization understandings but at the risk of claims upon him by the foreign country.
While this person’s domestic status is the same, his international status depends upon treaty.
A “natural born citizen” - a person born within the US with parental US citizenship - has no such risk. His domestic and international status is always the same, without any dependency upon law or treaty, no other nation may make any claim upon this person.”””
************************************************
Thank you! That’s EXACTLY the point I’m trying to make, as that’s EXACTLY what the Founders intended: The U.S. President’s domestic and international status must always be the same, without any dependency upon ever-evolving laws or treaties. No other nation may make any claims upon the U.S. President, legally or in regards to loyalty, etc., EVER. Period.
It’s not too hard to understand that the Founders understood and intended such, explicitly, in order to preserve the newly independent nation.
You’re welcome.
Can a person who’s international status is dependent upon law or treaty be said to be a “natural born citizen”?
I get the point that you were making, but the fact is that any nation has the right to declare who its citizens are. So, even an NBC can be a citizen of another nation, regardless of whether or not he wants to be, if that nation legally declares him a citizen.
7 FAM 081 SUMMARY
(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005)
a. Dual nationality is the simultaneous possession of two citizenships.b. Dual nationality results from the fact that there is no uniform rule of international law relating to the acquisition of nationality. Each country has its own laws on the subject and confers its nationality on individuals on the basis of its national policy and law. For example, the laws of some countries provide for automatic acquisition of citizenship at birth or through marriage. Some persons born in the United States may be surprised to learn that they also possess derivative nationality of another country through a grandparent. Today, it is not uncommon for individuals to possess not just dual nationality, but multiple nationalities. While dual nationality can provide the individual with many benefits, such as the ability to work freely in the other country, it can also impose burdens, including military service, taxes, etc.
c. If you receive inquiries about dual nationality, you may refer the inquirer to our brochures on this subject, Dual Nationality and Advice About Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality, which are available on the Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet page.
d. International law recognizes that each country determines who is a national of that country.
e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person. A foreign country might claim you as a citizen of that country if (a) you were born there; (b) your parent or parents (and sometimes grandparents) are or were citizens of that country or (c) you are a naturalized U.S. citizen but are still considered a citizen under that country's laws. (The oath you take when you are naturalized as a U.S. citizen (8 CFR 337.1) doesn’t mean the foreign country does not still regard you as a citizen of that country.) Public inquiries about the citizenship laws of other countries should be directed to the embassy or consulate of that country in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1185(b) (Section 215(b) INA) and 22 CFR 53.1 require that U.S. citizens exit and enter the United States on a U.S. passport, with certain limited exceptions (22 CFR 53.2).
7 FAM 082 DUAL NATIONALITY AND U.S. LAW -- GENERALLY
(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005)
Current U.S. nationality laws do not explicitly address dual nationality, but the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.” See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
Case 1Now substitute Great Britain for GooGooGaGaLand.A person is born in foreign country GooGooGaGaLand to US citizen parents. The US and GooGooGaGaLand have a treaty reciprocally recognizing (or "harmonizing", if you will) their naturalization laws.
A few years later the family returns to the US. US law recognizes the foreign born child as a "citizen". Many years later as an adult, the child travels to GooGooGaGaLand. GooGooGaGaLand recognizes this person as a US citizen and he is unmolested.
Case 2
A person is born in foreign country GooGooGaGaLand to US citizen parents. The US and GooGooGaGaLand do not have a treaty.
A few years later the family returns to the US. US law recognizes the foreign born child as a "citizen". Many years later as an adult, the child travels to GooGooGaGaLand. GooGooGaGaLand recognizes this person as a GooGooGaGaLand citizen and impresses him into military service.
Or Canada for GooGooGaGaLand.
US law declares persons with the attributes of Mr. Cruz to be “citizen”.
No. They have the ability to make a uniform Rule for Naturalization, not to decide who does or does not fit the criteira of who is or is not a 'born citizen'.
Although Story was speaking of commerce, the idea is the same.
§ 1075 ................... But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
Technically, U.S. law declares him a citizen at birth by statute. Some believe that statutory citizenship at birth equates to NBC and eligibility. Some believe any form of statutory citizenship equates to naturalization and ineligibility.
I hear ya.
Abraham Lincoln once asked a witness during a case "Suppose you call a tail a leg. How many legs would a sheep have?" The Witness replied "Five." Lincoln then said "No, four. Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so."
Congress cannot make "natural citizens." Those are made by nature. Congress CAN make "naturalized citizens." Those are made by laws.
Congress can ADOPT people into our national family. It can't make them blood relatives. That is beyond the power of Congress.
Yup. Lawyers in a nut shell.
Did you ever read the 1952 naturalization law? It even says "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION."
Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process.If, as SCOTUS suggests, statutory citizenship at birth is a Congressional generosity and such persons have no constitutional right to their citizenship, then their citizenship can be revoked without their consent by a mere act of Congress. The same is not true of 14th Amendment citizens.(...)
The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place.
I really, really like Ted Cruz. It bothers me that his citizenship is dependent upon the whims of Congress. Political tides rise and fall. It was not long ago that Senator Lindsey Graham suggested that Congress revoke the citizenship rights of those born on U.S. soil to illegal aliens.
I’ve said all along that assuming he was born in Hawaii, Obama is clearly eligible. I’ve taken a lot of heat for it, but it’s simply the truth. In fact, there’s not a credible Constitutional authority in the country - or in history - who says otherwise.
Bottom line is, if you want the intent of the Founders and Framers, their intent was that if a person was born a citizen, then he’s eligible to be President.
As far as the fact that if he had been born in the 1800s Cruz wouldn’t have been born a citizen/ NBC goes... I think you could just as well make the argument that Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are ineligible to the Presidency because the Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate women being elected; or that Barack Obama and Herman Cain are both ineligible simply because they’re black. After all, the US Supreme Court in 1858 (Scott v. Sandford) described black people as “an inferior class of beings,” and said they couldn’t even be citizens. Well, if black people couldn’t be citizens, then they certainly couldn’t be eligible to the Presidency.
But our understandings have changed. We have equal rights for people of all races, and that was certainly the right thing to do. We have equal rights for women as well, and women have certainly filled executive roles and done a fine job. When I think of the greatest leaders of England, two names come to mind: Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.
So in the end it doesn’t matter that Ted Cruz wouldn’t have been a natural born citizen if he had been born in 1850. He wasn’t. He was born in 1970. And he has been a United States citizen from his very first breath.
When it comes to eligibility, as the actions of the First Congress and early writings such as those from James Bayard show, that’s all the Founders intended.
Sorry, doesn't make any sense.
The idea of citizenship, and who qualifies, is a human invention, not handed down by God written on stone tablets.
What you are saying is that given certain assumptions common to our society, certain people have a natural right to citizenship. Which is true. But those assumptions themselves are human inventions, not natural laws.
The Romans would have agreed with you. Except they believed some men were "natural born slaves." Law of Nature.
What State were you born in?
Unless you were born in one of the thirteen original states, your citizenship is a result of an act of Congress.
Let's say you were born in California, for example. None of the people of California were United States citizens before an act of Congress made them that way.
In fact, this covers most of the population of the United States. More than two-thirds of Americans - including everybody born in the State of Texas - were made citizens by an Act of Congress.
You could add Elizabeth I to the list.
BTW, given your definition, Winston was an NBC American citizen, with exactly the same credentials as Cruz. Except that he was raised in UK.
I was born in Ohio to two U.S. citizen parents, who were also born on U.S. soil, and I am a citizen under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Congress cannot revoke my citizenship without my consent merely by passing legislation.
Here is how [Jeff] lies. He equates "Citizen by birth" without defining the term. According to the Understanding of James Bayard, and According to the Understanding of his son Thomas, The ONLY way to be a "citizen by birth" was to have an American father.
No, it wasn't, doofus.
In 1854, John Charles Frémont (note the French accent over the "e" - that's how he spelled it) was the first Republican candidate for President of the United States.
He ran as the proud son of a Frenchman who had never become a United States citizen, and never intended to. In a 3-way race, he placed a strong 2nd behind James Buchanan.
And yes, Frémont faced a crop of birthers who viciously attacked him because of his birth.
Because his father, you see... had not been married to Frémont's mom.
That was it. Frémont was viciously attacked by birthers... because he was a bastard.
But no one seems to have given a damn that his father hadn't been a United States citizen at the time Frémont was born.
Why? Because unlike Griesser, Frémont was born in the United States, to a RESIDENT alien father.
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.