Posted on 01/11/2016 4:52:40 AM PST by Joachim
The question of who qualifies as a "natural born citizen" may be close in some cases, but the case of Ted Cruz is easy. Constitutionally speaking, Cruz is a naturalized citizen, not "natural born."
Regarding citizenship, the Constitution grants Congress power over a uniform rule of naturalization, not over citizenship generally. Any citizen whose citizenship is derived from an act of Congress is thus a naturalized citizen, constitutionally speaking, and thus not "natural born." The basic principle is stated in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-3 (1898):
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. . . . Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
(Emphasis added.) That this principle still holds was recognized in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)— implicitly in the majority opinion of Blackmun, in which Chief Justice Burger, and Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White joined:
[O]ur law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute [and] the [Supreme] Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent.
(pp. 828-30) and explicitly in the dissent of Brennan, joined by Douglas:
Concededly, petitioner [Bellei] was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute. In the light of the complete lack of rational basis for distinguishing among citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas . . . .
(p. 845, emphasis added) as well as in the dissent of Black, with Douglass and Marshall joining:
Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.
(p. 840, Emphasis added).
The argument that Cruz is "natural born" because he was never naturalized is based on the false premise that Cruz was never naturalized. Cruz was naturalized (presumably at birth) by statute under Congress' power to make a uniform rule of naturalization. And since he (apparently) has no other claim to U.S. citizenship, he cannot be considered a "natural born" citizen.
Just pointing out additional differences, not disagreeing with what you said.
So lets take that quote and apply it by looking at the Naturalization Act of 1790. In the first acts of Congress, the requirement for birth on US soil was REMOVED by statute.
______________________________________________________
That would be an amendment to the Constitution by congress without 3/4th of the states ratifying.
So I don’t believe that he had time to be married before he left Cuba.
***************
Didn’t say he was married before he left Cuba. He came to UT,
enrolled and got married somewhere around his junior year, had
two daughters, got divorced at some point, hooked up with Eleanor,
married her and they went to Canada where Edward was born.
snip
In 1959, Cruz married Julia Ann Garza (1939-2013), but divorced after a few years.
She later became a professor at California State University, Stanislaus. They had two
daughters, Miriam Ceferina Cruz (11/22/61-2011) and Roxana Lourdes Cruz (b. 1962), a Greenville,
Texas, physician. He has one grandson.[8][19][27][28]
source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Bienvenido_Cruz
All that proves is that people born in the US are viewed as US citizens. Most of them are also citizens of Mexico or China via the citizenship of the parents, by Mexican or Chinese statutes.
I think everybody agrees that Cruz is a citizen by operation of 8 USC 1401(g). What they don't agree on is whether or not his citizenship depends on that statute (although I think it does, as does the weight of precedent); and also if it does depend on a statute, whether or not that makes him naturalized.
See tagline.
A “one room” farmer.
As I have said before... If the obummer can be President then there isn't any standards at all.. ANY son of a sea going sap sucking sea biscuit can be President..!!
Nothing personal, but the “Let’s Move Along” attitude is what gave us obama 7 years ago..
__________________________________________________
Yes. But despite over 50 court (civil and criminal) cases, state A/G decisions, appellate reviews, and the SCOTUS refusing to deny any of then - it is abundantly clear that any US citizen is a Natural Born Citizen.
The OP has a cite to a 1971 decision. I think a fair read of 'settled law" is law that existed long ago, and has been applied in a consistent fashion over a long period of time, up to and including the present. Just saying, if a 1971 decision happens to cite 18th century readings, and the modern decision endorses the same analysis and conclusion as being settled law, then the 18th century readings continue to have effect, directly through modern decisions.
-- It is clear that it is up to Congress to make the laws about what is natural born. --
The words of the constitution make it clear that Congress has the power to make rules of naturalization. You have to use rhetorical and logical cheats to convert that into a power to make a naturalized citizen into a natural born citizen.
-- I just think its much ado about nothing. --
It is much ado. Different people will attach different degrees of significance to it. I do agree that most people would reject the constitutional rule, and accept any citizen as a presidential candidate.
Yes. But despite over 50 court (civil and criminal) cases, state A/G decisions, appellate reviews, and the SCOTUS refusing to deny any of then - it is abundantly clear that any US citizen is a Natural Born Citizen.
IMO, Soros probably paid him to mess up the Republican race and now he figures to go all the way. MANY of his supporters are Dems or have never voted. You would get the same people if Sean Penn or Richard Gere threw his hat into the ring. They get their news from Page Six or the Enquirer.
There is a void in his life story that hasn’t been told as far as I can find.
If you have any info to fill it in with please post.
You said anyone whose mother is a US citizen is a natural born citizen. What about those whose mothers came to the US to give birth, like those maternity trips from China, picked up the US citizenship for their child, then the baby went home to China to be raised and give birth to a child in China, with a Chinese fatherr. That person’s child is a natural born citizen of the US? HUH????
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
I don’t remember who said it first, but it is clearly applicable in the case of a choice between the “ineligible” Cruz and Hitlery.
It’s no fair pointing out that Farmer John’s argument is circular and/or self-refuting.
Natural Law has nothing to say about citizenship—because the TEN COMMANDMENTS have nothing to say about citizenship.
I googled Cruz’s US Birth Certificate, and nothing came up.
Although he trotted out his Canadian documents, has he also released his US birth documents?
Someone mentioned the other day that Cruz sealed some of his records..I’m curious as to whether or not he has a Naturalization certificate to accompany his US cert...
Not anyone. The law does place some restrictions on those born overseas. But those born in the U.S. are natural-born citizens regardless of their parent's nationality.
What about those whose mothers came to the US to give birth, like those maternity trips from China, picked up the US citizenship for their child, then the baby went home to China to be raised and give birth to a child in China, with a Chinese fatherr. That person's child is a natural born citizen of the US? HUH????
Under current law, the parent is a U.S. citizen but the child is not. 8 U.S. Code § 1401: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:(g)a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years..."
I have always enjoyed Levin, but have known he’s a fraud every since I first heard him cut off a caller for bringing up Obama’s crudely-forged “birth certificate.” Or even before that, cutting off callers for bringing up other evidence that Obama is not a citizen.
The ONLY thing that matters is the truth, NOT whether a particular set of facts might serve to remove Obama from the White House.
I’ve known Levin was a fraud ever since I heard him argue that Obama’s birth was not to be discussed because “you won’t be able to remove him from office on that basis.” I heard Smerconish take that line, and Rush, and Hannity. Actually, ALL talkers other than Savage and Boyles.
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.