Natural Born Citizenship: Free and Clear

Natural Born Conservative ^ | January 10, 2016 | Larry Walker II

[DiogenesLamp]

How does a Swiss citizen, dead before the US’s founding, writing in French merely describing a definition for BRITAIN, constitute a definition for the new country to come?

Oh, I wish I had time to answer this. I've got a dozen pieces of evidence to show you the connections between events and people that led up to the US Revolution.

Since I don't have time, i'll get straight to it. Vattel put the idea of revolution in the heads of the Colonists. It was *HIS* idea to create a Republic.

According to John Adams, it was William Otis that sparked the revolution. Otis belonged to a social club of Boston lawyers who debated philosophy. He got his hands on a copy of Vattel's book back in 1764, and it inspired him to push for revolution. Here's an excerpt from one of his pamphlets that he was handing out at the time.

Here is what Vattel wrote in 1758:

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

Which resulted in this: (Precursor to the US Constitution.)

Vattel put the idea into their heads. And why not? Switzerland had been a Republic since 1307. It was the ONLY Republic in the World at the time.

That's all I have time for.

[taxcontrol]

Congresss power to define those rules is not plenary.

The 14th amendment was not passed until 1868. Until then, there was not a single restriction on Congress's ability to define citizenship any way it wanted to. Further, the 14th amendment with regards to citizenship, only limited congress's power by reinstating jus soli.

So other than the 14th amendment which specifically addresses citizenship, and the other more general provisos of the various amendments (equality clause, etc), the naturalization clause of Article I Section 8 is without restriction.

[Dagnabitt]

I remember when the courts removed John McCain from the ballot in 2008 because he was born outside the states. I can't believe Cruz is running after that disaster.

/s

[Chauncey Uppercrust]

Larry boy Tribe just admitted on CNN that the reason he thinks this is important is.....

He wants people to stop and think who Cruz would appoint to the Supreme Court, that being Conservatives that he and libs disagree with.

Tribe does not like Cruz politics and he thinks it would be devastating to his side.

Thats what he just said in the nutshell

[McGruff]

Trump is right. This needs to get straightened out before Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson: I'll file suit if 'Canadian' Ted Cruz wins nomination. Yes it's BS but it will effect the general election.

[PJBankard]

the children of citizens of the United States

I don't know where you went to school but the word citizens is plural meaning more than one. Thus in it's context of the Naturalization Act of 1790, that means children of two US Citizens. If it only needed to be one, it would have stated "children of a citizen of the United States".

[DiogenesLamp]

I would like to know what your position is on the concept of citizenship via the operation of natural law insofar as to whether it implies that every person born has a natural allegiance that makes that person a Natural Born Citizen of a place, someplace, anyplace.

DNA can prove who your father is. It cannot prove where you are born. It doesn't get much more "natural" than nature. (The word "Nature" , "Natural" and "Nation" are derived from the same root word, which means "of birth." Native, Nativity, and Natal are other permutations of the same root. )

Jus Soli is silly. England adopted it to cement Scotland into the United Kingdom. It may be more practical for an Island nation where people seldom get in that don't belong there, but for a nation of our size, pegging citizenship to the fact you happened to be inside our borders is just silly.

[NaturalBornConservative]

You’re wrong, because Trump’s mother was a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth.

Now the Birthers.org website, which has been among those questioning Obama’s eligibility, reports that Trump’s mother did indeed become a U.S. citizen before the birth of Donald. It displays a small image of a signed naturalization receipt for Mrs. Trump on March 10, 1942, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, four years before Donald was born.

Read more at: http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/281157/#I6uMwqQqXCgCGaxP.99

[wintertime]

Congress can't legislate natural born because it is intrinsic to the character of the individual in the same way the blue or brown eyes are. Natural born citizenship is similar to natural rights. They are God-given and can't be legislated.

Congress can, though, make laws regarding who will be considered native born and naturalized.

So....Yes, I will vote ( reluctantly) for Cruz if he is the Republican candidate but in NO POSSIBLE WAY would any of our Founding Father have considered a man born abroad and with dual citizenship ( until very recently) a natural born citizen.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is why Trump said Cruz should seek a declaratory ruling from a judge. Glad you agree.

I would just prefer the issue go away. That Might make it go away, but I predicted over a year ago that this issue would haunt his campaign.

[lquist1]

“The “rules of naturalization” means:

1) who is a citizen at birth (naturally born)
2) who is not a citizen and must be naturalized

If you don’t like that, then change the constitution.”

This is how I’ve always understood it as well. For example, I have a daughter who was born in the Philippines. I’m a U.S. citizen, my wife is a dual citizen of both the U.S. and the Philippines. My daughter, though not born on U.S. soil, did not have to be naturalized. All we had to do was apply for a U.S. passport to “claim” her citizenship, and to accomplish this, we were only required to show that ONE of her parents (we chose me since I was born in the U.S.) is a U.S. citizen. Now my understanding is that my daughter is “natural born”, since she was never required to go through the naturalization process. Unless I’m missing something, it would seem that the same criteria would apply to Cruz.

[NaturalBornConservative]

Who do you think our Founder’s referenced at that time?

[taxcontrol]

Yes, Congress pass all legislation and expresses it’s will via acts. “Rules of Naturalization” includes who is and who is not a citizen and further, who is a citizen at birth or naturally born as a citizen and has no need of naturalization.

As for Minor vs Happersat, that is a very far off characterization of what the court actually said:

The court observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization” and that the Constitution “does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”

The court observed that some authorities “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”— but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth. (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. at 168)

The current law as expressed in title 8 section 1401 describes who are citizens at birth (i.e. naturally born citizens)

[fivecatsandadog]

By all means, let’s continue to disregard “the rules” the democrats have disregarded for the past seven years. What difference does it make now? The country is in ruin, so hey, let’s keep it going, right? WRONG!

[DiogenesLamp]

Congress can't legislate natural born because it is intrinsic to the character of the individual in the same way the blue or brown eyes are. Natural born citizenship is similar to natural rights. They are God-given and can't be legislated.

Congress can, though, make laws regarding who will be considered native born and naturalized.

It is comparable to Adoption.

It is the difference between a child born of blood, and one accepted as a member of the family.

[DiogenesLamp]

since she was never required to go through the naturalization process.

The Children of Naturalized Aliens also do not have to go through a "process." The lack of a "process" does not make them any less naturalized than their parents.

The concept in law is called "Derivative citizenship." The citizenship of the children becomes derived from the Naturalized Parent.

[John Valentine]

Have you ever actually READ Minor v. Happersat? I think not, because it is a case regarding the voting rights of women.

The issue of Ted Cruz's citizenship has nothing whatever to do with the voting rights of women and how they might or might not have been affected by the 14th Amendment.

It is true that courts often graze over a larger pasture than the section where they were originally tethered. that is what is called dicta. And even in the Dicta on Minor v. Happersat will you find anything like what you reference.

That's why I doubt you have ever read the opinion.

But, for your edification, this is indeed found in Minor v. Happersat:

"Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided... ...that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also."

Given that the limitation to offspring of males only has since been lifted, Minor v. Happersat actually holds precisely the opposite opinion that you appear to believe.

[DiogenesLamp]

By all means, let’s continue to disregard “the rules” the democrats have disregarded for the past seven years. What difference does it make now? The country is in ruin, so hey, let’s keep it going, right? WRONG!

What is wrong with out country now will not be corrected by strict adherence to Article II. We are facing a far greater crises than that.

We must first have a man who is loyal to our country, and secondly knows what must be done, and thirdly has the will to do it.

Barack Obama has already opened the door to non-natural citizen Presidents, and it would be foolish of us to make that the most important criteria for addressing our problems. We have plenty of Natural Citizen candidates who are just total F***ing idiots. (Bush, Huckabee, Pataki, Cristie, etc.)

We could hardly do worse than Obama if we grabbed the first Frenchman off the streets of Paris.

[EternalVigilance]

Very well done. Elegantly and eloquently expressed and presented.

It’s actually much simpler than most make it out to be.

If the individual was made a citizen by nature, ie was born in this country to two citizen parents, they are a natural born citizen.

If they were made a citizen by virtue of our immigration and naturalization laws passed by Congress, they have been naturalized, ie “made as if they were natural born citizens,” by statute.

It’s quite apparent that Cruz’s citizenship status at his birth was totally reliant on the existing provisions of our immigration and naturalization laws, the ones put on the books in 1952. Prior to 1934 he wouldn’t have even been granted citizenship at all, much less have been considered in any way “natural born.”

Hence, he is not a natural born citizen, he is a citizen by statute, and therefore not eligible to the office of president.

[John Valentine]

You’re wrong, because Trump’s mother was a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth.

Trump's mother was indeed a US citizen at the time of Donald Trump's birth. I have said so multiple times, but that fact has NO bearing on whether or not I am right or wrong. It is irrelevant.

I have to wonder about your reading comprehension skills. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote once again and see if you can figure it out. Or maybe you are just being willfully obtuse.