Get back to me when you write your books on the Constitution and Conservatism...
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.
The NBC fever swamp is busy these days.
I've been "arguing" from the premise that Cruz has a CRBA in addition to his Canadian BC. The CRBA establishes US citizenship. His spokesperson said there was a CRBA.
I think Cruz is playing the game Obama did - hold the "best evidence" until the furor reaches some peak, release the evidence and claim that this document settles the question of law conclusively.
If he puts that evidence out "up front," he doesn't have a shiny object for later use.
So you're now including Michelle Malkin (senior editor of Conservative Review), Daniel Horowitz, Steve Deace, Dan Bongino, and Amanda Carpenter, among others, in your "schmuck" list?
Then go with Blackstone, since his definition would be the one directly drawn from English common law.
All I'm seeing on these birther threads is a bunch of cowardly, fake Conservatives peeing their panties over what the Rats might or might not do, and then using that paranoia as justification for dumping all over Cruz, the only real Conservative in the race. It's a complete disgrace!
Thanks...based on an post earlier this morning, I’m curious as to whether or not naturalization took place and would that be documented on his CRBA. As others have stated, there are only two types of citizens, natural, or naturalized..
If he is withholding some of the documentation..the question is why?
I have the feeling that we are being played..again.
No, Mark makes his living as a Constitutional lawyer and as head of the Landmark Legal Foundation, which has argued many cases of vital importance to Conservatives before SCOTUS. Mark was also the chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan Administration and also deputy solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior. He does Talk Radio only as an extension of his ongoing war against liberals.
So what have you done for Conservatism that's even remotely comparable?
This issue makes it so easy to identify complete idiots.
Get back to me when you write your books on the Constitution and Conservatism...
The technical legal label that attaches to that is "naturalization" because the citizenship depends on the statute. Naturalized citizens can be divided into various groupings too, but all of them get citizenship by statute. Some get it automatically at birth, some have to go through a proceeding.
The CRBA documents that the conditions associated with a birth abroad satisfy the conditions for attaching citizenship. That's all it says. It doesn't say "Certificate of Naturalization," even though SCOTUS cases make it clear that any citizenship associated with birth abroad requires a statute to enable it. Congress can enable whatever strict or loose conditions it wants to, with a statute. It has plenary power of naturalization.
-- If he is withholding some of the documentation..the question is why? --
He knows the public is stupid. Heck, he got a reaction by releasing his mother's BC, which is totally irrelevant! He's just waiting for a time when he thinks releasing the FS-240 will put out the fire. He knows no court will take the case on the merits, so his goal is to convince the public that all citizens at birth are natural born citizens. That a trivially easy "fact" to put over on the public - a good part of (maybe most of) which already believes it. But there will be a few who raise eyebrows at a Canadian Birth Certificate, and it takes time for that fact to percolate and register. Once enough people are at the "But he's Canadian!" stage, he'll show the CRBA, which declares him to be a US Citizen from birth.
There was no constitutional requirement for jus soli UNTIL the ratification of the 14th amendment. The Naturalization act of 1790 was prior to the passage of the 14th.
Agreed
Yes, it expanded beyond jus soli the acceptance of NBC status for children born abroad to US parents. The 14th made sure that jus soli was re-instituted as a means of NBC.
Michael Savage is right about Levin. “He’s a fraud!”
No, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was an action of Congress under it’s authority under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution to define the rules of naturalization. It did not amend the constitution, but it did state that a person born to US parents, even beyond the shores of the US qualifies as a NBC if born to US parents.
Thus the REQUIREMENT of jus soli was removed.
The 14th amendment then returned the justification (or allowance) of jus soli in 1868 and thus forced a change in the laws. The 14th is incorporated in current law under title 8 section 1401 subsection A
Thanks for the in-depth answer..
It is very obvious that once again, an unqualified candidate is relying on the ignorance of the electorate to steal an election.
Haven’t we been played enough?
Obvious to some, but not to most! The public is really really gullible, and Cruz has a plausible line, "I was born a citizen, I was not naturalized (this is ambiguous - false as a matter of law, true as a matter of going through a process), therefore I am a naturally born citizen.
I'd say way more than half of Freepers accept this as a perfectly and completely accurate analysis of the issue. A minute fraction, maybe 1% of the general public will have exposure to any contrary analysis, and I'd say 99% of them will accept Cruz's contention.
Plus, "why would he campaign if he wasn't?"
Courts won't take it up. It's a political question until there is a president-elect, then it is up to Congress to take up any challenge IT raises, to his qualifications.
Cruz knows this too.
Thanks..
I hope Trump, or some other qualified candidate, pummels Cruz with this each and every day..
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.