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.
What trumps (hahahahah) everything is public perception. Once a critical mass of the public takes a shine to a candidate, the "string pullers" won't monkey with it, unless the candidate will upset the apple cart. If Cruz gets strong public support, and the "string pullers" think he'll play ball (he will), then he's safe from exposure. If he becomes president-elect, Congress will seat him. You see, the people bought it, he's qualified, and perception trumps reality.
The legal argument is just a form of academic entertainment, and political/propaganda persuasion.
He won't. To the public, being faithful to the constitution is unimportant. They'll judge the candidates on policy, personality, and appearance, not necessarily in that order. If Trump beats on the NBC qualification angle for more than say another month (occasional mention only), he'll be thought of as irrationally fixated on an unimportant technicality.
From #9: Wait a second here. Since the Constitution never actually defines the term "natural born citizen," and thus is falls to Congress to define that term, isn't its doing so by statute in effect (per the argument made in this post) making EVERYONE a "naturalized" citizen?
From #186 (responding to Jim Noble): It would seem to be implied in the fact that Congress gets to define, per their power to establish uniform rules of naturalization, what isn't a natural born citizen. The question of implied powers was pretty much settled from the very beginning, so yes, Congress does get to define it.
From # 176: It's no fair pointing out that Farmer John's argument is circular and/or self-refuting.
To #9 and 186:
(1) Congress has no particular authority to define terms used in (but not defined by) the Constitution, especially terms relating to the qualifications of the highest office of the Excecutive, one of the other branches "co-equal" with Congress. Congress can and did make rules concerning naturalization (how to become a citizen) without defining "natural born" citizens (those who are citizens already by right of birth).
(2) Why does the Naturalization Act of 1790 have the title that it does? Maybe because it is about "naturalization" (creating citizens from those not naturally born as such), and not about defining constitutional terms?
(3) Why doesn't the language of the Naturalization Act of 1790 read like a definition? If that langague defines "natural born" then why are persons born inside the US to US citizen parents not included?
To #9 and #176: Farmer John's argument (based on statements by the supreme court) is not circular. From the posted article, quoting the supreme court (Black dissent in Rogers v. Bellei):
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.
Accoring to the supreme court, you are a "naturalized citizen" under the Constitution if your citizenship is based solely on an act of Congress. (This does not make everyone a "naturalized citizen" under the Constitution, and does not make the argument circular. RTP. Read (the whole article), then Think, then Post.)
(Maybe Farmer John should have used the words "solely derived" in the sentence you quoted.)
I recall several discussions about this issue before Trump was a candidate.
I will reiterate Post 35.
All actions of the US government are governed by laws. Those laws laws come from acts of Congress. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution enumerate Congress with the “Rules of Naturalizationâ€.
(See https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei)
The scope of those rules are not limited. The rules include who needs to be naturalized and the rules include who does not need to be naturalized.
The current expression of those rules are listed in Title 8 section 1401. Even those citizens who are born in the US are citizens at birth (Naturally born as citizens) are defined by that law.
(See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401)
It really does help to look these things up before commenting on them.
I find it interesting that for all his boasted about experience, Mark Levin deals with persons espousing a constitutional originalist vies of the “natural born citizen” phrase that is at issue by calling them “nut jobs” rather than articulating coherent reasons for why he believes them not to have a valid argument.
Well stated. Unfortunately, I agree with every thing you said..thanks.
Your situation illustrates a possible pattern on whether the child’s citizenship is determined by the mother, the father, or if there is a choice.
In your case it seems that the birth mother may be the determining factor. In Cruz’s case, it may also be his mother’s citizenship that granted him American citizenship. Perhaps both the US and Canada bias the decision on the birth mother, married or not.
The other variable at play is whether there was a possibility that you could have argued or applied for your daughter to also have American citizenship at the time of her birth? Whether through a normal application process or through appeal that perhaps Ted Cruz’s parents pursued where your choice may have been not to (or simply unaware was an option for you at the time)? My situation was slightly different in that I was born a Canadian to my birth mother, but adopted at birth by an American mother and a Canadian father and ultimately kept my Canadian citizenship. I was told by my adopting mother that my citizenship was a choice for them and is the reason I ask.
Clearly the variables are numerous and the accepted hearsay vetting by media personalities and not Canadian or American law doesn’t cut it for me. Would love to see this issue worked out and all doubt removed from Ted’s qualification.
His recent posting of his mother’s birth certificate answered a big question about her US birth and I think what remains is whether his mother retained her US citizenship while living in Canada and followed through with whatever steps are necessary for recording Ted’s birth with US authority that retain his natural born US citizenship (if US law even requires such steps to be taken)?
“So what have you done for Conservatism that’s even remotely comparable?”
So if I haven’t “done as much for conservatism” as Mark Levin - WHAT, exactly? I have no right to criticize him? Nonsense.
And I’m fully aware of Mark’s other activities. The fact that he’s a lawyer makes me trust him even less.
A defender of the Constitution is one who, when a Constitutionally mandated result goes against his/her personal interests, upholds it nonetheless.
It is technically in the category of “collective naturalization,” part of the broader legal definition of naturalization.
The dumbed-down children of yesterday are the dumbed-down adults of today.
Yes, sadly you are correct on that count!
He was a founder and put the definition to ink.
He was a founder and put the definition to ink.
He was issued a US BC?
That was a naturalization act that was revoked. Right?
I remember moving across town when I was four.
It must have been traumatic for Ted and his Mom, moving to a foreign country. Moving is the most stressful thing, especially if you need passports. I wonder if he spoke French.
Looking back at the 2008 election:
If McCain had been born in (let’s say) Arizona, instead of Panama, who do you think would have ended up in the White House?
Looking back at the 2008 election:
If McCain had been born in (let’s say) Arizona, instead of Panama, who do you think would have ended up in the White House?
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.