Sen. Ted Cruz Is a Naturalized Citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen

London Telegraph ^ | Jnuary 30th, 2016 | reasonmclucus

[kathsua]

The United States Constitution requires presidents to be “natural born citizens”. The original Constitution doesn’t define “natural born citizen”, but the 14th Amendment states there are two categories of U.S. citizens: those who are born in the United States and those who are naturalized under Acts of Congress.

[Yaelle]

Of course Obama is still an Indonesian citizen. That’s for sure 100%.

[freepersup]

And the org. Subud is alive and well... still missing their brother Soebarkah.

[Cboldt]

See post 27

[Springfield Reformer]

He’s making promises, but his long-term record doesn’t give me any confidence he’s going to follow through on the things I want to see happen, and there are plenty of things he’s said that are just flat out wrong. I don’t want a man for president who thinks Kelo is great law. I don’t want a man for president who thinks killing innocent babies is OK as long as the dad is a rapist. I don’t want a man for president who would have a business involvement with a strip club. I don’t want a man for president who is even toying with the idea of universal healthcare. I don’t want a man for president who resorts to ugly trash-talk like some street thug. That’s not what “red white and blue” means to me. Sometimes I feel like a time traveler, and I’ve landed in a future to which I am not suited. Very depressing to me that a man like Trump gets any traction at all among my fellow citizens.

Peace,

SR

[RC one]

I think perhaps you need to read this again:

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) said:

it means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.

John A. Bingham (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

John Armor Bingham (January 21, 1815-March 19, 1900) was an American Republican congressman from the U.S. state of Ohio, judge advocate in the trial of the Abraham Lincoln assassination and a prosecutor in the impeachment trials of Andrew Johnson. He is also the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, a natural-born citizen. It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion of the Dred Scott decision and speaking specifically of natural born citizens and article II, section I, clause 5

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

James Madison

The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.

Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806)

As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.

St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES (1803)

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign.That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.

Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailorsâ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)

The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.

Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle

Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204, 206, 208 (February 1854).

That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral.

January 28, 1838, Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838)

The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)

Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.

Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.

The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

This is called becoming naturalized; that is, becoming entitled to all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens, or citizens born in this country.

Andrew White Young, First lessons in Civil Government, pg. 82 (1856).

The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.

Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

Natural-born Citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.

William Cox Cochran, The student's law lexicon: a dictionary of legal words and phrases : with appendices, Pg. 185 (1888)

Citizens are either natural-born or naturalized. One who is born in the United States or under its jurisdiction is a natural-born citizen without reference to the nationality of his parents. Their presence here constitutes a temporary allegiance, sufficient to make a child a citizen.

Theodore Dwight, Edward Dwight, Commentaries on the law of persons and personal property, pg. 125 (1894)

The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.

Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203

[Springfield Reformer]

Nope. Once was enough. If you have a specific point to make, I recommend you focus on that. In law school, they taught us to put our top two or three arguments at the top of the brief, because the judge is going to work off of those and never get to the small fry arguments. Your barrage of quotes still suffer the same deficiencies as before. Plus an additional problem I now take note of, in that they are only a bare fraction of the material SCOTUS would look at if it had to work though this problem in a real case. That’s one of the reason dicta is given short shrift. There’s no compelling reason for driving to a definitive answer, so the research supporting it is typically viewed as suspect. I used to be more caviler about references to legal and historical source material. But as a practicing attorney I can’t do that. People are counting on me not to screw it up and ruin their lives. I take it very seriously.

Peace,

SR

[Tunehead54]

NBC bump...
No

[Godebert]

Our founders were clearly well aware of Vattel and the principles of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis but it's not 100% clear that they accepted his definition of NBC in its entirety. What seems quite clear to me is that the English common law understanding of NBC was widely accepted at the time of the signing of Declaration of Independence and at the adoption of the Constitution and that NBC understanding is that, with few exceptions, any child born within the kings dominion and/or jurisdiction is a natural born English subject. The only difference here is that we prefer to call a subject a citizen. There is A LOT of historical evidence that supports this.

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

TO: RC one, Read the part of the article in the above link to see why your English Common Law argument just doesn't hold water.

[cdpap]

Dont feel sorry for the guy. He was a canadian citizen at birth as his parents obviously intended when they delivered him in that country.

[metmom]

I meant the liberals.

[exDemMom]

The certificate that my son has, and that Ted Cruz most likely has, is not the form FS-240. Apparently, the FS-240 has been issued since 2010, and is only a report, not a certification. The certificate that my son has looks just like this one:

Except that his says Rota, Spain, not Okinawa, Japan, etc.

It kind of looks to me like the form FS-240 is meant to dilute the definition of a US citizen, in that it is only a report, not a certification. I do not know what kids born abroad after 2010 are supposed to use for birth certificates.

[Cboldt]

FS-240 and FS-545 are equivalent. Both are evidence that a claim of US citizenship has been adjudicated and found valid. FS-545 was dropped in November 1990, FS-240 has been used since November 1990.

-- It kind of looks to me like the form FS-240 is meant to dilute the definition of a US citizen, in that it is only a report, not a certification. --

No dilution whatsoever. Both rely on whatever the statutes are at the time the claim the adjudication takes place. It is pretty strong evidence the named person is a US citizen.

Neither FS-240 nor FS-545 are birth certificates. The state department is not a recognized vital statistics custodian.

[Bob434]

[[The mother was an alien, and could not transfer citizenship at birth (child not born directly into citizenship). The key thing in Nguyen is that it recognizes naturalization as requiring some event after birth to secure citizenship. Birth that requires no such post-natal event is NOT naturalization. Is there any other non-naturalized category besides “natural born?” I am not aware of any.]]

If you don’t mind, I’d like to ping you over to the following thread briefly, as I am in a discussion that that follows almost to a T what you have stated about the Nguyen case- only I’m not explaining it as well as you are- I’m saying essentially the same thing, but in a more convoluted manner unfortunately

The counter argument in the thread is that the Nguyen case is that the case doesn’t make an equivalency between a mother who is a citizen who has a child on soil and a citizen mother who has a child off soil because the case is only about 8 us code 1409

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3390723/reply?c=219

Perhaps He’s not communicating a point that he is trying to make well, or maybe I’m just not seeing his point- I can’t tell which- you don’t have to jump into that thread, but Your ability to word arguments cohesively is better than mine I’m afraid-

[Bob434]

woopps I meant here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3390723/posts?page=219#219

Sorry- copied the wrong shortcut

[RC one]

I don't have time to give that article the time it warrants right now. I will read it later and say that I agree with you and actually hope that I am wrong in my opinion; however, there's a lot of evidence to support a simple common law understanding and my research has yielded little to nothing to suggest that a Jus Sanguinis element was also required. I think both elements should be present but I don't know that that opinion would hold up.

I think, for our purposes, it is unnecessary to resolve this dilemma as Ted Cruz clearly meets neither definition and, as I have shown, is a NBC of Canada in accordance with Canadian law and the English common law.

Ultimately, this argument is just one part of the madness contained in the Pandora's box that Ted Cruz is attempting to open. There is another aspect as well.

[x]

Okay. Remind me again.

Is that a difference without a distinction?

Or a distinction without a difference?

A lot is riding on which way you look at it.

[weston]

Obama’s mother was a citizen at his birth. So you are saying that even if Obama had been born in Kenya and he had admitted such, he would have been eligible to be President?
I do not believe that 8 years ago one Cruz follower would have argued that a Kenyan born Obama was an NBC and eligible for the presidency.

[Crucial]

The citizenship of Americans has meaning. No one born an American should be barred from potentially becoming president. You can argue someone has anti-American sentiments and fight against their candidacy. And we never did get to look at Obama’s birth certificate. There is something strange about the whole deal but it will never be solved. It’s probably a pile of ashes.

[weston]

And yet the Constitution says that some citizens are barred from potentially becoming president. Those who are not natural born citizens cannot serve as President.
It is the Constitution that created two different classifications of citizenship.

[thecodont]

The thing is, many people today are under the impression that being able to run and serve as President (or Vice President) is a right, not a privilege.