Ted Cruz and that ‘natural born citizen’ requirement: What were the Founding Fathers afraid of?

Washington Post ^ | January 15 at 8:47 AM | Fred Barbash

[RC one]

The Founding Fathers’ insistence that the presidency be limited to “natural born citizens” was based on their openly expressed fear that “foreigners were disloyal,” as law professor Malinda L. Seymore has written.

As Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution declared: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President ….” (Italics added) A loophole for themselves, as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote 46 years later, was created “out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities.”

[Cboldt]

-- A natural born citizen, according to the founder's understanding, is someone born on US soil ... --

To be pedantic about it, and sometimes being pedantic is how the law operates, see Art IV, Sec. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[Cboldt]

-- Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."
(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) --

Remarking just to point out that the analysis proceeds from a negative, "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty." This is counterintuitive to the way people think. People think in terms of what they (or their parents) HAVE, not it terms of what haven't got.

Many things "shake out" in a way that most people find agreeable and comfortable, when the framework described by Bingham is applied. It takes care of anchor baby "natural born citizens," citizenship of children born to US citizens abroad (although I think the existence of the 1790 Act ironically makes that case HARDER, not easier).

Trying to state the principle in positive terms (what somebody has) instead of negative terms (what they don't have) results in some fairly interesting rhetorical gymnastics.

[meadsjn]

It matters not what the bloodlines of the various founders and framers were. What became the USA was thirteen colonies of Great Britain.

With the Declaration of Independence, these colonies declared "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States" (each on equal footing with the state of England, the state of France, the state of Spain, etc.).

The Constitutional Convention created a union (a compact, or contract) among these sovereign free and independent states, with specific enumerated powers delegated to that central created entity (and most of those delegated tasks pertaining to foreign affairs). The federal government is not a sovereign entity. The states and the people are.

Therefore, the whole discussion about royal bloodlines in the federal government is moot.

[Cboldt]

-- Congress gave no definition. --

Do you mean the constitution gave no definition? If so, I sort of agree. Does the consitution define who is a citizen of the US? Not NBC, just plain "citizen."

I think that's an easy yes/no question.

[RC one]

It seems clear and perfectly reasonable to me. You need to be born in the United States to parents owing no allegiance to any other sovereignty. Cruz doesn't come anywhere near fitting that definition.

I think many people are uneasy about this because it would suggest that we are not all equal and that is antithetical to what we have all been taught about America.

To them I would say, chances are, you weren't going to be POTUS anyways so relax and abide by the constitution as our founding fathers wrote it.

[Up Yours Marxists]

Believe what you will. We can all sit here and discuss how things “should be”. Doesn’t matter what the theory is when reality is very different. One thing is certain, precedent has been set for over 200 years. And we shouldn’t expect anything different now, or in the near future.

[meadsjn]

And guess who else ...
doesn't come anywhere near fitting that definition.

Cruz and Trump are very smart. They know where this is going. They both know what is at stake. They both love the USA.

[meadsjn]

precedent has been set for over 200 years.

Yes, the precedent was set, until 2008. Chester A. Arthur was the one exception, and he burned all his personal papers prior to his death to conceal the details about his father's citizenship, and his own birth.

Every other president and vice-president from Washington through GWB met the Vattel definition of "born in the country, to parents who were citizens at the time of their birth", or they were citizens at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution.

[Cboldt]

-- I think many people are uneasy about this because it would suggest that we are not all equal ... --

That's there too, I agree. But how does one overlook the fact that both terms, "natural born citizen" and "citizen" appear? Are they the same thing? If they aren't, then they aren't perfectly equivalent as a matter of logic.

And then there is the class of naturalized citizens. Are they second class? The answer is a resounding NO! Is a naturalized citizen qualified for the presidency?

The Supreme Court had this to say about Mr. Bellei, a citizen at birth of the US by dint of US citizen mother, alien father, and being born abroad. This was said in 1971, fairly modern case law, as far as citizenship goes.

Neither are we persuaded that a condition subsequent in this area impresses one with "second-class citizenship." That cliche is too handy and too easy, and, like most cliches, can be misleading. That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light of the conceded fact that citizenship to [Mr. Bellei] was fully deniable. 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. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not "second-class."

The SCOTUS went on to uphold stripping Mr. Bellei of his citizenship. The law has changed since, Cruz has no statutory duty to obtain US residency in order to keep his US citizenship, although if such a condition were in the statute, Cruz meets it, no question.

Minds are made up on the question. I see three different types of posters ...

• Innocently ignorant. They believe Cruz is NBC, either haven't studied the law, or lack the intelligence to understand its language
• Willfully ignorant. They believe Cruz is NBC, have been presented with clear evidence to the contrary, and on various basis cling to the position that Cruz is NBC. "Denial" might be a good word for this bunch. Situational con-law. The outcome is more important than following the constitution.
• Deliberately misleading. They believe Cruz is not qualified, but stridently argue the opposite.

By this time, all the naysayers on FR are either willfully ignorant or deliberately misleading.

[jonrick46]

"OK....lets assume we take that definition where two citizen natural born parents are required. If so....then trump does not qualify for president either.

Mary Anne Trump (MacLeod)

Trump's mother, Mary Anne MacLeod was born in Stornoway, Scotland, giving her British citizenship at her birth in 1912. In 1930, aged 18, Mary visited the United States and met Fred Trump a U.S citizen. They were married in 1936. Donald John Trump Sr. was born on June 14, 1946, in the borough of Queens in New York City. He is the fourth of five children to Mary Anne MacLeod; 1912--2000), a homemaker and philanthropist and Fred Trump (1905--1999), who worked as a real estate developer. The following 1942 receipt of Naturalization to U.S. Citizenship for Mary Anne is shown here:

Donald John Trump Sr. has provided sufficient documentation attesting to his place of birth, and upon research of his parents it is determined that they were both American citizens at the time of his birth. There is no doubt that at his birth his natural allegiance for the United States of America was and is as a natural born citizen.

[John Valentine]

A dissenting view, and in my opnion a determinative one, from Vattel's 'Law of Nations', in English translation:

"The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

In modern times, when both mothers and fathers are equally respected as bequeathers of citizenship at birth, this paragraph must be read as follows:

"The country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father or a mother who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

Applying this to Ted Cruz, it is readily seen that Vattel would reject Canada as a natural sovereignty for Cruz; in Vattel's opinion, Canada would be 'only the place of his birth, and not his country'. Whereas, with respect to the United States, Vattel concludes that 'the country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.' Everyone, please, meet Ted Cruz, Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America.

[RC one]

By this time, all the naysayers on FR are either willfully ignorant or deliberately misleading.

I shouldn't say this but I will. Cruz instructed his faithful to "strap on the full armor of God". That set of armor includes a helmet with a very restrictive view. You might even call it a blinder in fact.

[Cboldt]

-- lets assume we take that definition where two citizen natural born parents are required. --

Where does THAT line of inquiry come from? I mean, it is theoretically possible to define the qualifications on a multi-generational basis, and of course it is possible to make up all manner of hypothetical. What I'm wondering is what would prompt a person to offer the hypothetical you put out? Nothing in the constitution or the surrounding historical documents suggests such a thing.

The hypothetical is better viewed as coming from a crank, and not deserving of serious debate. Are there cranks and crackpots out there? You betcha. Some of them post of FR.

[John Valentine]

May I say:

I agree, minds are made up on the question. I also see three different types of posters ...

Innocently ignorant. They believe Cruz is not a natural born citizen, either because haven’t studied the law, or lack the intelligence to understand its nuance and meaning

Willfully ignorant: They stubbornly hold to the belief that Cruz is not a natural born citizen, despite having been presented with clear evidence to the contrary. These individuals cling to willfully the position that Cruz is not a natural born citizen, despite overwhelming historical, legal, and common-sense evidence to the contrary. “Denial” might be a good word for this bunch.

Deliberately misleading: They believe Cruz is fully eligible, but stridently argue the opposite so as to provide support to their favorite.

Which of these applies to you?

[Cboldt]

Yeah, you shouldn't have said that. It just opens a sideline argument that has no upside.

Whatever the reason for the blinders, some have 'em, and those without blinders are out and out liars.

[Cboldt]

I have nothing to say to you.

[RC one]

Vattel was crystal clear that, according to natural law, the child followed the condition of the father. This is still natural and in practice and evidenced by the fact that a child inherits his or her's father's last name, not his mother's and the mother herself inherits the father's last name at marriage as well. Your theory does not hold water IMO. It is not consistent with Vattel or natural law. Cruz inherited his father's condition if we are to subscribe to Vattel's Law of Nations.

We are not left to do that however as ample evidence exists to support my position that our forefathers meant a NBC to be someone born in this country at a minimum.

We can argue about the citizen parentage aspect later but it is not necessary to settle this matter as Cruz was not born in the United States and does not meet even the minimum requirement.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

That dude definitely absolutely has an allegiance to countries other than the US, ones that usually involve the Muslim brotherhood.

[RC one]

regardless, there are some that just will not be swayed by any amount of evidence.

[afraidfortherepublic]

I thought they were afraid of Alexander Hamilton, for one.