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.
I haven’t seen one. All I’ve seen is his mother’s birth cert, and his Canadian birth cert.
Someone said that the parents are supposed to file the Report of US Citizen Born Abroad form, and I know for a fact we didn’t do that. I sure hope that Cruz’ parents did that.
Throughout virtually all of our existence as a constitutional republic individuals with circumstances like Ted Cruz were, by statute, NOT accorded citizenship, much less considered natural born citizens.
He definitely would not have received U.S. citizenship prior to 1934, because until Congress changed the statute, in response to the feminist agitations of Eleanor Roosevelt, citizenship could only be derived via the father.
The 1952 immigration and naturalization act, the act under which Ted Cruz was born in 1970, placed conditions on the individual to fulfill certain residency requirements as a young adult in order to keep their citizenship. I repeat, their citizenship was CONDITIONAL upon the meeting of all of the requirements of the statute.
Ted Cruz was made a citizen of the United States by virtue of an act of Congress, by statute. Which means he was not natural born, an event dictated by nature, not Congress.
You can be a naturalized - ie made like a citizen who is a citizen by nature - or you can be natural born. You cannot be both. The two things are mutually exclusive.
Ted Cruz was naturalized, and therefore is not constitutionally eligible for the office of President of the United States.
“Hating Levin and Rush on Free Republic.
Normally accusations of “troll†would fly.”
It figures a Cruz supporter would interpret my comment as “hating Levin and Rush,” when all I did is point out that, as President, Trump would steal much of their thunder (and consequently hurt their ratings). Whatever.
“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.”
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that the offspring of citizen parents were natural born no matter where they were born.
Oh No, it is the point.
Ted Cruz's mother was an American. Therefore he is.
and invader's kids are not citizens by virtue of birth in a country not their own.
Tell that to the Hospitals in Texas and Hawaii giving out Citizenship papers to Birth Tourists from Mexico and China.
If you Have An American Parent, that makes you and American, whether you are born in Canada or Germany or anywhere else.
Note that native born is not the same as natural born. Native born simply refers to the place of one’s birth, i.e., one’s nativity. The term does not speak to the legal circumstances of a birth, merely to its location.
______________________________________________
An example of this are the native born childreen of illegal alien parents born in the U.S. that statutes have wrongly proclaimed are citizens.
So what is Rubio,neither one of his parents were American citizens,he is an anchor baby,same with Jindal
Not necessarily. Such citizenship is dependent on the provisions of the immigration and naturalization statute which is in force at the time of the birth. It's been that way throughout most all of our existence as a constitutional republic.
I really hope that Cruz’ parents submitted the proper paperwork to make him a citizen from birth. We never even thought about it, and it was only the debate about Cruz that made me think of it just this morning.
The courts of the past, as well as government officials, and so on, used a different no-brainer rule from the one you assert, at least they did before 1934.
Prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the "1934 Statute") gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html
I am not asserting this cite to be a source of law, merely as a contention that the rule you posit as being a natural no-brainer was not applied until a statute made it so.
Marco Rubio, as the child of two non-American foreign nationals, is an anchor baby. In other words, his supposed citizenship, much less the natural born citizenship required to serve as President of the United States, is premised on a complete misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, one which ignores the clearly-stated intent of that amendment’s framers. They never intended that the children of foreign nationals would receive the precious gift of American citizenship just because they happened to be born on our territory.
Please read the following important excerpt:
” Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
“[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word...”
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be “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.”
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
From the other article by Farmer John posted here: according to 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)
Pretty much, yeah.
Was Ted Cruz's first birth certificate, at birth, issued by the US? Don't you see the problem?
No. Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency under the laws of the U.S.
Obama's eligibility, which should've been more fully challenged, was that he had a US mother and was born in the US. Cruz, logically, isn't even as elibible as Obama is.
No, both of them are.
But Cruz supporters not willing to seriously consider the questions we have here, because he knows he's elibible, makes a lot of us wondering why they don't want to discuss it or figure out how to get the question resolved in a way that's definitive.
Resolve how? What way would definitively resolve it in your eyes? The law is there. The evidence of his mother's birth in the U.S. is there. It's a done deal. What more do you want?
and invader's kids are not citizens by virtue of birth in a country not their own.
Tell that to the Hospitals in Texas and Hawaii giving out Citizenship papers to Birth Tourists from Mexico and China.
People here on tourist visas are here with permission, not invaders or legally analogous to invaders. (Does not mean that birth tourism is not a problem.)
If I had a dollar for each time I have made this very same argument I would have been able to retire rich years ago.
I have to say, right or wrong, this is very much a minority viewpoint, and I will no longer argue it, especially if doing so helps a narcissistic statist blowhard become President. My country means too much for me to do that.
But Cruz supporters not willing to seriously consider the questions we have here, because he knows he’s elibible, makes a lot of us wondering why they don’t want to discuss it or figure out how to get the question resolved in a way that’s definitive.
She could have one or the other, or neither, but never both.
My daughter was born in Japan to me, an American citizen, and a Japanese citizen, my currently naturalized wife.
She was born a naturally born, American citizen.
Respectfully, I think its a losing argument.
This is settled law. There are a lot of folks who are using 18th century readings to establish law that has been changed several times since its inception.
It is clear that it is up to Congress to make the laws about what is natural born. They have done so. Several times.
Trump looks bad when he keeps bringing it up.
I just think its much ado about nothing.
As I said, I respectfully disagree with you and those who are making the argument. There are more important issues to debate.
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.