Ted Cruz is a Naturalized Citizen, not "Natural Born"

Farmer John

[Joachim]

Ted Cruz is a Naturalized Citizen, not "Natural Born"

by Farmer John

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.

[Yosemitest]

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

[Cboldt]

-- hat was a naturalization act that was revoked. Right? --

Whatever it was, it is said to define NBC. If you were in the class of "children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States," you are NBC. If you are not in that class, you are not NBC. That's the way definitions usually work.

People who see the Act as a definition (and I would say that is the vast majority of them who confront this) reject the notion that this part of the act created a legal fiction, and was not a definition. But if it was a definition, it would have included at least some of the people born in the US (not Indians, some reference to state citizenship, and so on).

Seeing as how the 1790 Act doesn't define the citizenship of persons born in the US, I wonder where the people who cite 1790 Act as a definition go, to find the source of citizenship of persons born in the US, before the 14th amendment existed.

[Cboldt]

-- 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? --

I don't think citizenship affects elections. The voters are more ignorant than you can imagine. Not to say they aren't good, honest, hard-working and mostly well meaning folks, and certainly competent and intelligent enough in what they do for a living, just that this sort of issue is WAY outside the box of factors that determines their vote.

The system is arranged to allow candidates to bluff their way through to the office. If the PTB like the candidate, they will go along with the bluff. If they don't like the candidate, they will call the bluff. Nobody in the class of PTB is calling Cruz's bluff. Even the DEMs say he is qualified.

[DoodleDawg]

He was a founder and put the definition to ink.

Great. But what makes his definition the sole correct one?

[PA-RIVER]

I see the 1790 act as the founders telling us born over seas was not NBC, but naturalization they wanted to include that class at that time. They omitted the NBC language in subsequent acts, not including that class. NBC was defined prior to the act, so they had to add that class.

Washington would not invent a new term and not define it, then send it all over the country if it was not understood.

David Ramsay was that historian and friend of Washington, who took the time to write down a description. Born of citizens on US soil.

Vattel had it written down. It was the book in Independence hall that they used. We can't deny this truth.

If it required a naturalization act to include Cruz, then it required a naturalization act. Is it in our current law?

Everything I read keeps saying the 1790 is a dead letter. Does current law refer to a 1790 immigration act? Why are people saying the 1790 act was rescinded?

[Cboldt]

-- Why are people saying the 1790 act was rescinded? --

The 1795 act specifically repealed the 1790 act.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

Cruz is a citizen by operation of a modern statute. His citizenship depends on the statute, because he was not born a citizen of any state, and he was not born in the US.

The legal authorities say Cruz is a naturalized citizen. The popular authorities obfuscate the law and say Cruz is a natural born citizen.

[Steven Tyler]

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,

again...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...

Two Citizen parents are subject to the jurisduition of the USA, and no other Country. Thus, their baby born on US soil is a natural born citizen. No need to look at laws created by congress to referee whether a person can apply for naturalized citizenship

[poconopundit]

I question Mark Levin's impartiality.

I think we can all agree that Mark Levin is a great man and a patriot.  But that doesn't mean he is always correct.

It's silly that this issue has been debated for — what is it — two weeks now?

Cruz is a constitutional scholar.  Why doesn't he hold a press conference and settle this matter once and for all?