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.

[Cboldt]

Did you read the OP? It purports to document and define what is a naturalized citizen. Natural born would be the citizens who aren’t naturalized.

[taxcontrol]

Incorrect.

We are a nation of laws. The government is controlled and bound by laws. The law defines those who are citizens at birth and do not need naturalization. Without the laws that define those who are citizens at birth, there would not be any naturally born citizens.

[oldplayer]

All you need to know:

Dad graduated from UT.
Mom graduated from Rice.

Although Ted, unfortunately didn’t get into either of these fine institutions of higher learning, he does apparently possess the “innate intelligence gene” that our Presidents have missed all too often as of late.

UT, where we concentrate on education and not football! sarc/ Hook ‘em!

Oldplayer

[Cboldt]

-- Without the laws that define those who are citizens at birth, there would not be any naturally born citizens. --

What about the 14th amendment?

[taxcontrol]

Incorrect.

The rules of naturalization define who is a citizen at birth and as such, define those who are naturally born as US citizens.

The book “Laws of nations” has no authority under the US Constitution which is the supreme law of this nation. As such, only CONGRESS has the enumerated power to set the rules of who does and who does not need to be naturalized.

Further, the very first act of Congress, the Naturalization Act of 1790 set the precedence that being born on US soil is NOT a requirement for citizenship at birth.

[demshateGod]

Have you seen any threads on articles that are critical of Trump?

[taxcontrol]

The 14th amendment is incorporated in Title 8 section 1401 which defines citizens at birth.

[P-Marlowe]

Jim,

This Cruz birther thing is a blight on your forum. Every other article is some loon telling us that in their simple minded world Criz is not “qualified “ to be president.

I’m getting pretty tired of all these left wing bloggers and Donald Trump fanatics trying to undermine the election and in the end destroy the a Republic with this kind of nonsense.

Are you going to continue to allow your forum to be Birther Central?

[Yashcheritsiy]

I dunno. I think Trump is playing ten-dimensional chess...and moving the pieces with his mind

[DoodleDawg]

It said natural-born citizens are those defined by natural law. Where is that natural law documented?

[grania]

how will the dems accomplish that

If Cruz were to be the nominee, find a judge who would push their agenda.

why should the dems raise this when Trump and the 'pubs are doing it for them

We're being pre-emptive with an issue they would bring up if he were to be the nominee. Establishing whether or not Cruz is eligible NOW takes it off the table. A better question would be why doesn't Cruz want the question fully vetted now. Not just so he's convinced, but so, once and for all, the issue is settled.

Why would Cruz WANT the nomination if it isn't established 100% that he's eligible.

Me? I don't think it's a real fine precedent to have a foreign born president.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

The book “Laws of nations” has no authority under the US Constitution

The founding fathers themselves used the book as an "authority" when writing the constitution! When they use the term "natural born citizen," it is taken from Vattel. It is their original intent. And as long as that is true, the assertions of modern day litigators (who also tell us anchor babies are citizens)-- with no grounds to make such a claim-- cannot stand.

Further, the very first act of Congress, the Naturalization Act of 1790 set the precedence that being born on US soil is NOT a requirement for citizenship at birth.

It was repealed, with George Washington specifically having that line expunged, and the act was replaced with the words now absent. It would have been considered unconstitutional.

[DoodleDawg]

You can start with the works of Emmerich de Vattel on the Law of Nations, referenced frequently by the founding fathers, and in whose work the phrase "natural born citizen" is actually found.

And we can also go to Blackstone's Commentaries, also well known to the Founding Fathers, and find an entirely different definition of natural-born citizen.

[Yosemitest]

Call 1-800-WHAAAAAH !

[Jim Noble]

Since the Constitution never actually defines the term "natural born citizen," and thus is falls to Congress to define that term

No, it doesn't. Congress has no such power.

[Yosemitest]

You wish! < /sarc>

Sen. Cruz: The Real Story of What Is Happening in Washington ( 59:47 )
Published on Sep 28, 2015

It really IS worth your time.

CRUZ: Loretta Lynch told a gathering the day after the San Bernardino attack
that her department would move to prosecute anyone whose, quote, "anti-Muslim rhetoric," quote, "edged towards violence."
The day after a terror attack, 14 innocent lives snuffed away.
As has been the case all too often in the Obama administration,
we may be facing once again the weaponization of one of our own government agencies,
deployed not to protect Americans,
but to force them to submit
to the Obama administration's code
of what is and is not acceptable speech.

RUSH: Heck, I'd go even farther than that.
The day after 14 Americans are wiped out and others are wounded by Islamic extremists,
the attorney general warns the American people
any criticism of those people and we're gonna prosecute you.
Anything you say that might lead to any violence, we're gonna come after you.
"Well, wait a minute,
what about the people that just killed 14 Americans?"
"Well, they were radicalized.
It wasn't their fault,"
or some such drivel.

[Cboldt]

-- The 14th amendment is incorporated in Title 8 section 1401 which defines citizens at birth. --

I know that, what I was wondering was whether you thought that incorporation was necessary in order for the 14th amendment to have effect.

Just to summarize our discussion ..

Me: If you took out that particular section of law, those persons would still be citizens under the constitution.

You: Incorrect. We are a nation of laws. The government is controlled and bound by laws. The law defines those who are citizens at birth and do not need naturalization. Without the laws that define those who are citizens at birth, there would not be any naturally born citizens.

Me: What about the 14th amendment?

I still say that if you took out that 1401(a), those persons would be still be citizens under the constitution, in particular, under the 14th amendment to the constitution.

You appear to be saying they would not be citizens, unless the statute now at 8 USC 1401(a) existed.

[DoodleDawg]

You could start with Vattel's Laws of Nations. And then proceed to Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

But they define natural-born citizen differently so that's no help.

[traderrob6]

Trumpophiles have no shame.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Everybody already knows this. I and a hundred others have posted the information ad nauseum since 2008.

Cruz and Rubio are neither one natural born citizens but that definition was changed by an agreement of both parties in 2008. So until or unless the SCOTUS decides to take up the issue Cruz and Rubio are at least as eligible as Barack Obama to be President.