Posted on 03/03/2016 8:35:22 AM PST by Ray76
Please provide a specific cite. I’ve read Bellei, and did not see any clear statement that Bellei was naturalized, not in the majority opinion, though certainly some in the dissent believed it. But it was a necessary assumption to the dissent’s argument, and their argument was rejected.
Nevertheless, if you have a cite to the specific text that makes your point, and if it is in fact a component of the holding, and not just dicta, I would be interested in seeing it. Thanks.
Peace,
SR
Just tell me your theory. I don’t do the Socratic method with total strangers. Maybe it’s a trust issue. I was never good at blindfold games either. This is nothing personal. If you have a theory, spill it. You are speaking freely with others here. Why not me?
And yes, I want to be able to study the structure you intend to build before I make erroneous commitments without enough information. I have told you I don’t see an easy answer. The revolutionary transition was legally complex. I can see arguments for and against any number of theories. Caution in a complex domain is just being rational. So it’s up to you. Spill or spill not. There is no try. :)
Peace,
SR
Paragraph 54, “Further, it is conceded here both that Congress may withhold citizenship from persons like plaintiff Bellei [6] and may prescribe a period of residence in the United States as a condition precedent without constitutional question.[7]”
[6] At oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel conceded that “Congress need not vest a person in his position with citizenship if it chooses not to do so.”
No sale. This only asserts Congressional power to speak to the citizenship of persons like Bellei, which I agree is true. It does not state that Bellei is naturalized.
Peace,
SR
> This only asserts Congressional power to speak to the citizenship of persons like Bellei, which I agree is true.
“Speak to citizenship”? What a vacuous phrase. Congress granted citizenship to Bellei.
> It does not state that Bellei is naturalized.
Congress granted citizenship to Bellei - that IS naturalization. Bellei did not comply with the terms of the grant and so lost his citizenship and that is what he was complaining about. If Bellei wasn’t naturalized the case wouldn’t exist.
The majority, the dissent, the plaintiff himself ALL agree that Bellei is naturalized.
Well, yes, it was not recognized at that time. This stuff is often very subtle. There are lots of people born before 1970 that have dual citizenship. Often, they only found out years later, and in many cases, it is only in recent years that the dual citizenship is recognized by both countries.
Paragraph 51, quoting Ark, "But it (the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment) has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."The dissent:
Paragraph 93, "Bellei, as a naturalized American..."The plaintiff:
Footnote 6, "At oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel conceded that “Congress need not vest a person in his position with citizenship if it chooses not to do so.”"
"The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever. "This implies that there can be statutory conferrals of citizenship that are NOT accounted as naturalization, i.e., any that occur at birth as opposed to after birth.
7 FAM 1131.1-1 Federal Statutes (CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)
a. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is governed by Federal statutes. Only insofar as Congress has provided in such statutes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of “jus sanguinis” under which citizenship is acquired by descent (see 7 FAM 1111 a(2)).
b. Section 104(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1104(a)) gives the Secretary of State the responsibility for the administration and enforcement of all nationality laws relating to "the determination of nationality of a person not in the United States."
Available here: https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1130.htmlJus sanguinis (right of blood/descent) is one of the historic natural means of demonstrating a connection to the sovereign. As the FAM says, it has been so recognized since at least Roman times. By the time of the founding, the British parliament had established a long history of using statutory power to enhance the common law to include a right of descent for those born overseas, which they also recognized as "natural born" in various statutes.
How did you apply for a US passport?
Why the US Embassy interview if it’s automatic citizenship?
The court reviews the facts regarding Bellei, reviews the evolution of naturalization acts, reviews how those acts were applied to Bellei, finds nothing improper with those acts or how they have been applied, finds that Bellei did not comply with the requirements of those act and that the revocation of citizenship is within Congress's authority to naturalize.
Bellei challenged the constitutionality of the condition subsequent imposed by § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
"That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place." (paragraph 68) (emphasis added)
"We hold that § 301(b) has no constitutional infirmity in its application to plaintiff Bellei." (paragraph 70)
Bellei had no constitutional right to citizenship. He received citizenship via Congressional grant without which he would not be a U.S. citizen.
Explain how the Supreme Court said that since Bellei failed to meet statutory requirements he is not a U.S. citizen at all but - due to some fantasized "birth right" - is a natural born citizen.
Read Bellei and substitute "Cruz" everywhere you see the word "plaintiff". Insisting that Bellei Cruz is a natural born citizen is absurd. He has no constitutional right to citizenship. He received citizenship via Congressional grant without which he would not be a U.S. citizen.
I must resign from this conversation. It is as if you are not even reading my posts. I give up. If at some future time you wish to continue by addressing my objections to your position, I will be Ok with picking that up (except right now I have other irons in the fire). Until then, I feel we are going in an endless circle. It’s too time-consuming for no benefit. Nothing personal. I just don’t see us getting anywhere.
To the interested reader, you can make up your own mind. The evidence is there.
Peace,
SR
I do read your posts. I am showing you what the Supreme Court has said, they do not support you.
You assert that there is “no basis for assuming that someone who is natural born is automatically outside the scope of the Naturalization Act”, yet for that to be true requires inserting words into every naturalization statute ever written except for one. If it were true the pool of natural born citizens would vary by statute, which would obliterate the requirements of Article II. These are impermissible constructions.
No, I stand by my assessment. You are not getting the point about assumptions. I understand it is counterintuitive. Much in the law is that way. And the statements of SCOTUS are not like some divine monolith of uniform and traceable meaning. One of the things we studied in law school is how SCOTUS has trouble keeping track of it’s own use of words.
That’s one of the reasons you should be paying closer attention to cases like NGuyen, Miller, and Zivotofsky, instead of just writing them off as brain farts. They are clearly addressing the scope of Naturalization Act with greater clarity than some other cases in this area, and they are signaling how this SCOTUS would decide a case like that of Ted Cruz. He’s on very solid ground.
But all this is wasted, as far as I can tell. You are not responding to the core arguments against your position. I can’t help you there. It is what it is.
Peace,
SR
I have responded to your argument repeatedly and explicitly. Just because you disagree with my response doesn’t mean I haven’t responded to it, that’s cheap rhetoric.
You claim that a naturalized person who is granted citizenship at birth, whether with or without conditions precedent or subsequent, is a natural born citizen. You haven’t been clear, perhaps you also believe that no statute is necessary, that there is a “birth right” which makes the foreign-born child of a citizen a natural born citizen sans statute. Both of these have no basis in law or history and in fact are absurd.
Article II does not read “No Person except a those who Congress by statute designates, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”. This is the consequence of the absurdity.
Winston Churchill’s birth circumstances are the same as Cruz’s. Was Churchill a natural born citizen? Think what an insult it must have been when he was declared Honorary Citizen of the United States April 9, 1963 (Pub. L. 88-6)
No, now you are reciting a rambling collection of things a number of which I never said and attributing them to me. This makes it even more difficult to continue. We have obviously developed a serious problem in basic communication. I won’t ascribe blame to you or me. Communication is hard when two sides have very different assumptions. But I’m done trying for now. As I said, readers who pass this way can look at what we’ve each presented and make up their own minds. I’m comfortable with that.
Peace,
SR
The difference between Cruz and Churchill? A statute enabled Cruz to become a citizen, there was no statute enabling Churchill to become a citizen.
There goes the “nbc sans statute/birth right” argument.
So what’s left? Inserting words into every naturalization statute except one, thereby overturning centuries of precedent, all to support a claimed “implied nbc status”, a status which supersedes the explicit words of the statute.
It’s a fiction spun to further the aspirations of a politician.
I have no interest in “blame”
Do you claim that a naturalized person who is granted citizenship at birth, whether with or without conditions precedent or subsequent, is a natural born citizen. yes or no?
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.