Commentary on the Commentary "[o]n the Meaning of 'Natural Born Citizen'"

“Do these people know that we plebes have a thing called ‘the internet’?”

(Footnotes in the original commentary are brought into text with numbers retained for reference)

We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. [This is an appeal to authority, not evidence—“trust us, we’re the experts.”] We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree [authors Neal Katyal, (Obama administration acting Solicitor General (May 2010-June 2011), Al Gore's co-counsel in Bush v. Gore of 2000, (Yale Law)), and Paul Clement (G. W. Bush administration Solicitor General (July 11, 2004 – June 19, 2008), (Harvard Law)) are suggesting that this article represents bipartisan consensus, since they are from “opposing” political parties, and therefore this article is above the fray of partisan advocacy—but both authors are members of the “establishment” or “government” party and therefore stand naturally in opposition to the unwashed masses, and in favor of a Harvard Law alum, and as easily seen by reading the primary sources, this article is not neutral or objective, but is essentially pure advocacy] on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates [the authors are framing their argument as a voter freedom or voter rights issue—but what about the rights of U.S. citizens to live in a constitutional republic?], free from spurious arguments [Legal Writing 101: do not use pejorative terms like “spurious”, because they only highlight the weakness of your position— if the opposing arguments are “spurious”, why do we need two former solicitors general (acting or actual) to unite across the nominal party divide to address them?] that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad. [Straw man / deflection—the real question is whether someone who is a U.S. citizen solely due to an act of Congress (at birth or at any other time) is eligible to serve as President. If the answer is yes, then among other consequences, Congress has the power to determine eligibility for the Executive under the “natural born citizen” requirement, effectively amending the Constitution by statute.]

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” (1) (U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.) All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. [This is false—a mere conclusory assertion which is disproved by simply reading the primary sources cited in this article itself. For example, in 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *354–63, cited below by the authors, Blackstone states: “Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England . . . and aliens [are] such as are born out of it.”] And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution [false, the earliest evidence based on congress’ conduct is from 1790, three years after ratification] to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. parent citizen [false—the Naturalization Act of 1790 specifies children of “U.S. citizens” not of “a U.S. citizen”] generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States. (2) (See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.) [Irrelevant—the fact that someone may become a “citizen” as provided by act of Congress generally without regard to birthplace does not bear on whether one can become a “natural born” citizen without regard to birthplace. (See Blackstone, quoted above, on this point.) The enumerated powers clause of the Constitution grants Congress power to make a uniform rule of naturalization. Nowhere is Congress granted the power to define “natural born.” If Congress had this power, Congress could unilaterally amend the constitutional requirements for the chief executive, effectively completely eliminating the “natural born” requirement by redefinition, if desired. This is structurally untenable in the context of separation of powers. Based on the powers granted and not granted to Congress, U.S. citizens who are such by act of Congress are necessarily “naturalized” citizens only, unless they are also “natural born” on some other basis.]

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory [implying that this issue is easy, and that no one with any knowledge or intelligence would disagree (an implied ad-hominem)], here, the relevant materials clearly indicate [Legal Writing 101: the word “clearly” should be avoided because it is a red flag indicating that the opposite is true—if the point is so clear, the authors would just show it, not state it] that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. [False—the primary sources cited in this article show no such thing, and actually show that persons in Cruz’ position are not “natural born” citizens.] The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law (3) (See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888)) and enactments of the First Congress (4) (See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888)). [True—or at least the cases cited support the respective propositions asserted. But note that the British source is British common law (not British statutory law) and note that its use is in interpreting the Constitution, not as a direct source of U.S. law.] Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent. [False, as seen by simply reading the primary sources.]

As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s [what happened to the discussion of British common law?—the authors are jumping straight to British statutory law, which is not one of the two “useful sources” listed above—why?—because British common law does not support their argument, so they ignore it] recognized [this term “recognized” is false in this context—British laws in force in the 1700s, naturalized, by act of Parliament, children born outside Britain and thus made them, by statute, subjects of the Crown—these British laws did not “recognize” them as such (as if this had been the pre-existing British common law)] that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children. (5) (See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655–72 (1898).) [False in the phrase “used ‘natural born’ to encompass such children”—a weasel-lawyer phrase if ever there was one. The casual reader might be surprised to notice that the British laws at issue do not “use the term to encompass such children” in the expected sense of actually applying the term “natural born” to such children. These laws do not describe such children as “natural born,” or state that they were/are natural born independent of the effects of the respective Act itself (because they in fact were/are not). Instead, these laws provide that such children “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever” 7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (1708) or “shall and may, by virtue of the said recited Clause in the said Act of the seventh Year of the Reign of her said late Majesty, and of this present Act, be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever” British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21. (See https://archive.org/stream/statutesatlarge00britgoog#page/n506/mode/2up and http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1730.htm for online versions of the primary sources.] (The cited case itself does not support the conclusion for which it is cited, but appears to give a fair reading of the history and interpretation of the British laws.)] These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.” (6) (7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (1708); see also British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.) [False in the use of the word “were”, as noted in the preceding comment.] The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. [True, but misleading in light of the foregoing parts of the article. The Framers would also have been familiar with the fact that under British common law natural born citizens (subjects) were those born within the territory of the King (unless they owed him no allegiance, as in the case of children of foreign ambassadors or of foreign invaders), and that Parliament had thus found it necessary or advisable in certain cases to create statutory law in order to provide the benefits of natural born status to foreign born children of British subjects.] They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries (7) (See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *354–63), a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution. [True, but also misleading in light of the foregoing parts of the article. For example, the cited reference in Blackstone states (as quoted above) that “Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England . . . and aliens [are] such as are born out of it. . . . [And further] “an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions . . . . The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.”]

No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition [what longstanding tradition??—two British acts of Parliament, separated by 22 years (in 1708 and 1730)??—is that the “longstanding tradition”??—where is expected the discussion of British common law??], just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established [false in the use of the term “established”—Congress did not “establish”, but rather “provided,” by law, under the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization] that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth [so what?], and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” [False in the statement that Congress “explicitly recognized that such children were ‘natural born Citizens’.” Congress rather, by statute, under the enumerated power to make a uniform rule of naturalization, provided by law that such children “shall be considered as natural born.” If these children were in fact “natural born” prior to the law being passed, the law would have been unnecessary. If the law was merely intended to restate the existing state of the law, the law would at least have said “are” natural born, or “are acknowledged as” rather than “shall be considered as.” In fact, Congress, by providing that such children “shall be considered as” natural born (in law), implicitly recognized that such children were not natural born (in fact), directly contrary to the authors’ claim of explicit recognition of “natural born” status.] The Naturalization Act of 1790 (8) (Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795)) provided that “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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .” (9) (Id. at 104 (emphasis omitted)). The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. [True but misleading in light of the foregoing and the following.] That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents. (10) (See Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349, 371 (2000/01).) [True, but totally beside the point and straw man / deflection: the statute does not define “natural born”, merely provides that certain children will be treated (in law) as natural born, though they are not (in fact). There is no definition in the statute to object to!!]

The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly [another Legal Writing 101 no-no—“plainly” is a red flag for something that is not “plainly” so] includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings [false—as seen from the comments above, the 1790 act does not define “natural born”, further, “natural born” under common law traditions does not include someone who is a citizen from birth by descent—see, e.g., United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 671 (1898) ("‘The acquisition . . . of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments.’" (citing Dicey Conflict of Laws, 17, 741))], the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. [Again, having citizenship, from birth or later, as provided by statute, is not the issue and is beside the point—if these various and time-varying laws, passed under the naturalization power of Congress, change the meaning of “natural born”, then they effectively amend the Constitution, a result which makes no sense.] The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth. (11) (See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.) The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth [the authors seem to imply that the 1790 Act was expanding on the British statute, but this is not the case as the British statute had no effect in the US, and was not being amended or replaced by the Act of 1790] to include children born abroad of citizen mothers [this is a stretched and unsupported interpretation not at all clear from the 1790 Act text—mothers are not mentioned in the text, and the text says the provision applies to “the children of citizens of the United States” (emphasis added) which may well require both parents to be citizens (at a time when legal citizenship of a woman generally followed that of her husband, so that blended citizenship marriages generally did not exist)—see http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html for an online copy of the text of the Acts of 1790 and 1795] as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. [True as far as it goes, but straw man / beside the point. Congress has naturalization power only, not “natural born” power.] Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth [irrelevant—so what?], and thus are “natural born Citizens [false].”

The original meaning of “natural born Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in including this language in the Constitution. [False, in the context of the original meaning asserted in this article.] The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:

[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. (12) (Letter from John Jay to George Washington (July 25, 1787), in 3 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (Max Farrand ed., 1911).)

As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.” (13) (3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1473, at 333 (1833).) The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. [Mindreading the Framers—where is the evidence?] Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility. (14) (See Michael Nelson, Constitutional Qualifications for President, 17 Presidential Stud. Q. 383, 396 (1987).) [(Is this the evidence?) Straw man / diversion and totally misleading in light of the primary sources—Jay’s proposal would not have had the effect of excluding his children, as Jay no doubt knew (and as the authors no doubt know). See, e.g., 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *354–63 (“[T]he children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held [under common law] to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador.”)]

While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. (15) (See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579494001552603692.) Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth [apparently true] and is thus a “natural born Citizen” [false] within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” [false, as the 1790 Act did not (and could not) create any natural born citizens] even under the Naturalization Act of 1790 [and possibly doubly false, in that, as noted above, the 1790 act applied to “the children of citizens of the United States” (emphasis added), arguably not to children of a singular citizen (at a time when citizenship of a wife was often determined by that of her husband), so Cruz may not even have been a citizen under that Act, let alone “natural born”—again, see http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html for an online copy of the text of the Acts of 1790 and 1795]. Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent. (16) (See Michael Dobbs, John McCain’s Birthplace, Wash. Post: Fact Checker (May 20, 2008, 6:00 AM), http://voices.washingtonpost.com/factâ€‘checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html [http://perma.cc/5DKV-C7VE].) [Straw man / diversion—(1) McCain was born to two U.S. citizen parents, unlike Cruz (2) the base and the Canal zone might arguably have been “dominions of the US” sufficient to confer “natural born status” (unlike Cruz’ Canada) and (3) service in the military of the father (or parent) might have been enough to confer “natural born” status, as in the case of an “embassador” under British common law (unlike Cruz’ father).] Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question [really?] that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President, wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth. (17) (See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).) Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain’s candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord. [OK then—bipartisanship!—that settles it!] The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’” (18) (S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008).) [So now the Senate alone has power to amend/define the Constitutional requirements of the Executive? And why would the Senate ever (except perhaps to honor some abstract principle) exclude one of its own members from the power of the Presidential office?] And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater [different issue, as Arizona was at least a U.S. territory and thus he was born within the dominion of the US—Canada is not within the dominion of the US] and Governor George Romney [not natural born because born in Mexico, but at least both parents were citizens] were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. [Straw man/ diversion/ beside the point for the reasons noted.] [Just because “we the people” may have slept through elections before does not mean we should or will do so now.] Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 1964 (19) (See Bart Barnes, Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies, Wash. Post, May 30, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm [http://perma.cc/K2MG-3PZL]), and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968 (20) (See David E. Rosenbaum, George Romney Dies at 88; A Leading G.O.P. Figure, N.Y. Times, July 27, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/obituaries/george-romney-dies-at-88-a-leading-gop-figure.html).

There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. [But Constitutional requirements for the office of President are not serious?] The less time spent dealing with specious [OK, the authors are really failing Legal Writing 101 now] objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear [still more Legal Writing 101 fail!] on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse [implying that the natural born requirement is bad, so we should not take it too seriously] , a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has ~~recognized~~ [provided, by law,] since [almost] the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parents [and, later, to a U.S. citizen parent (singular),] is generally a U.S. citizen from birth [and treated by law as if “natural born”] with no need for [any other form of] naturalization. [True, as fixed.] And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. [False.] Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose. [Pants on fire much?— Farmer John]

Excellent job taking apart this article.

My view is the MSM /Uniparty are taking the opportunity to use Cruz to redefine NBC as ‘U.S. citizen at birth.’

They are doing this because they know a President Trump is likely going to expose Obama’s foreign birth. They want to cover to say, “Didn’t matter. He was still born to a U.S. citizen even if overseas...”

They also want to set up a Hispanic candidate, then Arab for the future.

Joachim, I applaud your efforts, but I don’t think anyone is going to answer this question. I’ve lost count of how many times it’s been asked & ignored or obfuscated.

What this highlights is Cruz’s supporters’ claim that he is a ‘constitutionalist conservative’. He’s definitely not in favor of the Constitution as it was originally enacted. BIIIIG red flag right there.

Text from the U.S. Naturalization Law of 1790:

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

Citizen and ‘natural born citizen’ aren’t the same.

***

Yes, Cruz is a
citizen
of the United States, but he is not a
natural born citizen
because he
was neither born â€œwithin the jurisdiction of the U
nited Statesâ€ nor â€œof parents [plural!]
not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.â€ R
afael Edward â€œTedâ€ Cruz was born in
Calgary, Canada, and his father was a citizen of Cu
ba at the moment of his birth. By no
stretch of the imagination can one claim Cruz was b
orn on U.S. soil
and
to
two
U.S.
citizen parents. In fact, Cruz was born with dual c
itizenship: U.S. and Canadian. (Some
might even argue that he was also born with Cuban c
itizenship.)
In the 1885 U.S. Supreme Court case
Minor v. Happersett
, Chief Justice Morrison Waite
wrote, â€œThe Constitution does not, in words, say wh
o shall be natural-born citizens.
Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At
common-law, with the nomenclature
of which the framers of the Constitution were famil
iar, it was never doubted that all
children born in a country
of parents who were its citizens
[italics added] became
themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These
were natives, or natural-born citizens, as
distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some autho
rities go further and include as
citizens children born within the jurisdiction with
out reference to the citizenship of their
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, b
ut never as to the first.â€ That is, there
was agreement by all legal scholars in 1885 that th
e term natural born citizen meant
â€œborn in the United States to two U.S.-citizen pare
nts.â€ (A minority argued that the
citizenship of the parents was not material but, wi
thout justification, Obama supportersâ€”
and now Cruz supportersâ€”accept the less common interpretation.)

http://thecompleteobamatimeline.com/uploads/3/5/7/4/3574872/whytedcruzis_notanaturalborncitizen.pdf

Did Cruz undergo a naturalization ceremony in order to become a citizen?

I've been studying this in more depth today, and my understanding at this point is that the law governing the Cruz situation at his birth was the Naturalization Act of 1952.

That Act required that a child born to an American outside the country would, at the attainment of 18 years of age, be required to swear a loyalty oath to the United States.

This requirement as removed by the 1978 Naturalization Act, before Cruz reached the age of 18.

The point being that the governing law in the case of Cruz has always been our laws concerning naturalization.

Obummer cannot set a precedent for “native born” being able to become President in my opinion, because Obummer’s whole “reign” is fraudulent/criminal (as is his whole history, and I am waiting for the day he is exposed). But if Ted Cruz,”native born”, becomes President with no pre election fraud involved in the process, it will set a dangerous precedent for the future. Much as I like the man and his message and think he would make a good President, Cruz knows the Constitution inside out and should not let his personal ambition supersede the good of the country.

Hypothetical: A female US citizen is captured by ISIS and force-married to an ISIS soldier and bears a child. Is the child a natural born citizen of the U.S. under the Constitution, eligible for the Presidency?

If the female met the requirements in the current statute (below), the child does indeed have birthright citizenship (which is the same as natural born).

"A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child's birth to transmit U.S. citizenship."

Yes, why wouldn’t they be? There are tens of millions of disgusting, deplorable “natural born citizens” in this country right now who are eligible for the presidency. If such a person comes back here, waits 14 years, and turns 35, he or she is free to seek the presidency - just like every Klansman, neo-Nazi, and militant Black Panther who meets the same criteria. If we the people elect them, that’s on us.

I’m continuing to grapple with these questions, and have been doing quite a bit of further study of the matter.

I’ve learned enough to know for sure that there are vast periods of American history in which someone born in Cruz’s exact circumstances would NOT have qualified as a citizen at birth, and therefore could not, under any rubric, be considered as a “natural born citizen.”

When the naturalization laws have been changed by Congress, has that somehow amended the Constitution or something?

Article 11 Section 1

Article II, Section 1: 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

When you have Chuck E Schumer out front telling illegal aliens to come on in and WELCOME - our jackpot prize for you could be POTUS, what more can be said? Its crackerjack prizes found in a cardboard box. WTP continue to be left in the dark; Cruz and many others must get this in front of the courts There are those that deserve the votes and need the votes who will never see the votes. True Americans once voted their conscience. Today’s Americans, they are an entirely different breed of America and this might make no difference to them. Others take our Constitution seriously and DO NOT wish to unknowingly damage it. And just because the dark won in was deviously elected is no case that we should do the same devil’s work. Unlike the rats, we would rather play a FAIR game...even though many of us know this is no game, but something greater than.

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.