The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
“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,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized
...
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”
...
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners…It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”
...
“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”…Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.
...
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
Justice Gray cites the Slaughter-House case as well as the Happersett case.
So in 8 U.S.C. we have those who are born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, that is, they are not the children of any foreigners, they are the children of US citizens. All others are naturalized as Congress, under the authority given to them, they could deem others as citizen at birth, however, those citizens are not natural born as they were citizens of a foreign country at birth. Which is why Ted Cruz had to renounce his Canadian citizenship. Per the laws of Canada at the time, and since his parents had filed for and were lawful permanent Canadian residents, Ted Cruz is a natural born Canadian. One can not be a natural born of 2 nations per the laws of expatriation.
And that is why Cruz, when he came to the US, he came as a “non-quota” immigrant because his mother never formally renounced her US citizenship. I believe she held dual citizenship and may to this day. And since they will not release the documentation proving otherwise, I also believe there are a lot more skeletons in the Cruz closet than that of Obama!!!
patlin, I don’t understand your point.
Your arguments and points seem to agree with mine.
Are you arguing against my points or in support of them.
It surely seems to me that you also believe that Cruz is not eligible to be POTUS because he is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen”.
My only disagreement is on the # of classes of citizenship.
The case that you cited, Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) holds the Opinion of the Court, written by Justice Blackmun, that Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), defines those persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
This means that Congress created a NEW CLASS of CITIZENSHIP, which they designated as “Citizen at Birth” and specified conditions and requirements to retain that citizenship.
This was within their power, but it did NOT redefine “Natural Born Citizen”.