Posted on 01/20/2016 6:57:04 AM PST by RC one
If Ted Cruz is a “natural-born citizen,†eligible to be president, what was all the fuss about Obama being born in Kenya? No one disputed that Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen.
Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and an alien father. If he’s eligible to be president, then so was Obama — even if he’d been born in Kenya.
As with most constitutional arguments, whether or not Cruz is a “natural-born citizen†under the Constitution apparently comes down to whether you support Cruz for president. (Or, for liberals, whether you think U.S. citizenship is a worthless thing that ought to be extended to every person on the planet.)
Forgetting how corrupt constitutional analysis had become, I briefly believed lawyers who assured me that Cruz was a “natural-born citizen,†eligible to run for president, and “corrected†myself in a single tweet three years ago. That tweet’s made quite a stir!
But the Constitution is the Constitution, and Cruz is not a “natural-born citizen.†(Never let the kids at Kinko’s do your legal research.)
I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy — as lovingly captured on tape last April by the Obama birthers (www.birtherreport.com/2015/04/shocker-anti-birther-ann-coulter-goes.html).
The Constitution says: “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.â€
The phrase “natural born†is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin’s Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin — a Scot — could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.
The court ruled that because Calvin was born after the king of Scotland had added England to his realm, Calvin was born to the king of both realms and had all the rights of an Englishman.
It was the king on whose soil he was born and to whom he owed his allegiance — not his Scottish blood — that determined his rights.
Not everyone born on the king’s soil would be “natural born.†Calvin’s Case expressly notes that the children of aliens who were not obedient to the king could never be “natural†subjects, despite being “born upon his soil.†(Sorry, anchor babies.) However, they still qualified for food stamps, Section 8 housing and Medicaid.
Relying on English common law for the meaning of “natural born,†the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents†was left to Congress “in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.†(U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898); Rogers v. Bellei (1971); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), Justice Thomas, concurring.)
A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born — but only by “naturalization,†i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you’re not “natural born.â€
Because Cruz’s citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had “any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit†— as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971).
That would make no sense if Cruz were a “natural-born citizen†under the Constitution. But as the Bellei Court said: “Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.†(There’s an exception for the children of ambassadors, but Cruz wasn’t that.)
So Cruz was born a citizen — under our naturalization laws — but is not a “natural-born citizen†— under our Constitution.
I keep reading the arguments in favor of Cruz being a “natural-born citizen,†but don’t see any history, any Blackstone Commentaries, any common law or Supreme Court cases.
One frequently cited article in the Harvard Law Review cites the fact that the “U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency.†Sen. McCain probably was natural born — but only because he was born on a U.S. military base to a four-star admiral in the U.S. Navy, and thus is analogous to the ambassador’s child described in Calvin’s Case. (Sorry, McCain haters — oh wait! That’s me!) But a Senate resolution — even one passed “unanimously“! — is utterly irrelevant. As Justice Antonin Scalia has said, the court’s job is to ascertain “objective law,†not determine “some kind of social consensus,†which I believe is the job of the judges on “American Idol.†(On the other hand, if Congress has the power to define constitutional terms, how about a resolution declaring that The New York Times is not “speech“?)
Mostly, the Cruz partisans confuse being born a citizen with being a “natural born citizen.†This is constitutional illiteracy. “Natural born†is a legal term of art. A retired judge who plays a lot of tennis is an active judge, but not an “active judge†in legal terminology. The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: “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.†Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.
As the Supreme Court said in Bellei, a case about the citizenship of a man born in Italy to a native-born American mother and an Italian father: “It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship.†The most plausible interpretation of the 1790 statute is that Congress was saying the rights of naturalized citizens born abroad are the same as the rights of the natural born — except the part about not being natural born.
Does that sound odd? It happens to be exactly what the Supreme Court said in Schneider v. Rusk (1964): “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ’natural born’ citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)“
Unless we’re all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now, and interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean, Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.†Take it like a man, Ted — and maybe President Trump will make you attorney general.
The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: "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." Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.You may notice that the words "shall be considered as" have been emphasized. Anybody who tells you that the 1790 Act is a definition is misleading you. Congress did so deliberately (misled you). In the ordinary use of the English language, the phrase "shall be considered as" is as assignment of pretend.
Social security regulation 20 CFR 416.1856 says, essentially, a person up to the age of 22 shall be considered as a child. That doesn't mean a person is in fact a child until they reach the age of 22, it means that the law will play make believe. This is called "legal fiction," and it is so common in statutory law, so as to be unremarkable.
If we look at only the 1790 Naturalization<,b> Act, and admit the fact (and it is a fact) that the phrase "shall be considered as" creates legal fiction, then what the founders said about the subject in the 1790 act was this:
the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States are not natural born citizens, but for purposes of law, we will pretend they are
The Act, on its face, disproves the contention that Cruz is an NBC. It doesn't help his case, it demolishes it!
-- And the counter argument, that both parents would need to be citizens ... --
The statute is ambiguous as to one or both parents, but it doesn't matter. When you grok what the 1790 Act says, actually in plain English, when you grok that is expressly excludes what is described (children born abroad) from the conclusion (NBC), then it doesn't matter if the child had one parent, two parents, three parents (donor sperm), four parents (donor sperm and donor egg), or even zero parents (test tube baby).
-- How did justices in the Bellei case argue away this act (which was cited in the Bellei case) --
The legal fiction created by this act was repealed in 1795. The justices didn't have to argue it away, and plus, Bellei is, say all 9 of the justices, unremarkaby, naturalized.
At this point, many people deploy "magic thinking" and relapse into believing that a person can be "natural" (which is better thought of as "under the constitution") and naturalized (which is better thought of as "NOT under the constitution, but under Act of Congress") at the same time. They want to believe, so badly, that a person born abroad of a citizen parent is an NBC, that they become, on this point, literally kooks.
It's not an issue in real life. Just these people want to preserve the dream that their child can grow up to be president. The kids are citizens, but they are not 100% American at birth. A person born in Canada of a Cuban father and US Mother is not 100% American at birth. It's not their fault. They may turn into the best advocate for America, but they were born mixed. We the people can abandon the constitution via stupidity. Hell, I think we have.
So it’s just something someone made up? Thanks for the clarification.
You can be obtuse if you want to, but it doesn't wear well in serious argument.
Do you have any legal authority for that position? Foreign daddy, American mom, born in foreign country. I don’t see any legal difference yet, except one is a commie and one isn’t.
It won't be the end of the story when an anchor baby born to a Mexican drug lord and an American mom decides to run for president.
It won't be the end of the story when the grandchild of an anchor baby, neither of whom have grown up in the U.S. decides to run for president.
Oh, how I hope it is so. I surely, surely do. It would restore a bit of faith, and it would begin to crumble the foundation of sand and gravel that the NWO and its subversive US Congress have built their plans on.
Sorry, you are wrong again
The Constitution delegates that authority to Congress. I have NEVER said that naturalization requires participation in a naturalization ceremony so please stop trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said is what the Constitution says, specifically that Article I Section 8 enumerates the authority of Congress to establish ALL laws with regards to naturalization. That includes who is a citizen at birth and does not need to be naturalized.
Not so that I could express the argument with justice. This issue is the one that is unsettled. One side will say WKA controls, the other side (which is correct) will say that WKA is only a citizenship case. There is sound authority for my position, I didn't arrive at it lightly. But is not near as simple and easy to understand as the one against Cruz.
Congress can make the whole world NBC. That is your position. It is a ludicrous position to take, but you own it.
You assert that Congress has the power to natualize and that that power is limited to naturalization only.
That is not what the Constitution says. Allow me to quote the section directly from Article I Section 8:
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
“A uniform rule of naturalization” includes but is not limited to, who is a citizen - by birth or by naturalization. A citizen at birth is naturally born a citizen.
We’ve seen the birth certificate, but where is the Consular Report of Birth Abroad?
I’m sure Ted’s mom went to the consulate, presented documentation of her citizenship, accounted for ALL of her international travel outside of the U.S. covering the duration of her ENTIRE LIFE, and paid the fee, which document is used in place of his birth certificate for ALL government purposes. Where is that document?
Weird.
Or did he apply for it after becoming an adult?
Citizenship abroad isn’t automatic. You have to CLAIM IT.
I know a family who had a child in a European country without birthright citizenship. Until his parents claimed his U.S. citizenship, he was a child without a country. It was the only time they ever used his original birth certificate.
Yes, that is your rule. The constitution empowers Congress to make all newborns in the whole world NBC by declaring them to be citizens at birth.
We’ve seen the birth certificate, but where is the Consular Report of Birth Abroad?
I’m sure Ted’s mom went to the consulate, presented documentation of her citizenship, accounted for ALL of her international travel outside of the U.S. covering the duration of her ENTIRE LIFE, and paid the fee, which document is used in place of his birth certificate for ALL government purposes. Where is that document?
Weird.
Or did he apply for it after becoming an adult?
Citizenship abroad isn’t automatic. You have to CLAIM IT.
I know a family who had a child in a European country without birthright citizenship. Until his parents claimed his U.S. citizenship, he was a child without a country. It was the only time they ever used his original birth certificate.
You are exactly right..where is the CRBA?..It’s becoming obvious that we already have the answer.
I answered a different question earlier. The question you are asking pertains to Cruz.
The legal support, that Bellei is a naturalized citizen, is a premise (has no bearing on the decision of the case, just that case only arises because Bellei was naturalized) in the case of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
The case looks at the constitution, 14th amendment, and the Act of Congress that made Bellei a citizen of the US at birth, with no naturalization ceremony.
Then please provide a copy of the Consular Report of Birth Abroad.
The fact is Ted Crus knew of his Canadian citizenship when he ran for the US Senate, then lied and claimed he didn’t know of it when he ran for President, and only in July 2014 did he formally renounce his Canadian citizenship. Ted Cruz doesn’t sound so dedicated to the United States as he claims. Seems he was keeping the Canadian door open to run there if his attempt at politics failed here.
That's why I don't read her books. She never lets facts get in the way of a good diatribe.
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.