The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part II: Shocked, Outraged or Ambivalent?

Constitutionally Speaking ^ | Oct. 26, 2009 | Linda Melin

[proud American in Canada]

That is a lot of info...but Congress can’t do that on its own. Changing the Constitution is a serious matter.

I remember one of the arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment was that men could conceivably be allowed to use women’s bathrooms....how far we have come.

[proud American in Canada]

Exactly!

[Mastador1]

Oh hell, they don’t need Congress to destroy citizenship, Lord Foul our dicktator is doing that by royal decree. And I disagree, some of those bills are dated right in the period that nobama was being groomed for his run from nowhere, and surely his handlers were well aware of his true history.

[patlin]

some of those bills are dated right in the period that...

the same could be said for Ted Cruz, their bios read as if they are twins, both educated and groomed by the same establishment hacks

[greeneyes]

That’s my opinion too. It was not defined in the Constitution. The definition could be proposed as a Constitutional Amendment, and duly ratified.

Congress has powers pertaining to uniform rules for naturalization. Naturalization does not pertain to natural born citizens-hence not within Congress’s jurisdiction.

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

Exactly. Natural born meant something. Whatever it meant is what we live with if we are truly respecting the Constitution.

[Bob434]

[[Naturalization does not pertain to natural born citizens-hence not within Congress’s jurisdiction.]]

Correct- congress gets to define who needs to be naturalized and who doesn’t- they don’t define who a natural born citizen is- anyone that doesn’t need to be naturalized is naturally a natural born citizen- there are only 2 ways to be a citizen, as explained by several court opinions- one is to be born into it either AT BIRTH or BY BIRTH (jus Soli or Jus Sanguinis- both of which are birthright citizenship) OR to become a citizen AFTER BIRTH- Those who need to become a citizen after birth are not citizens at birth or by birth- and therefore are foreigners who have no right to citizenship- IE they need to be naturalized via a process via an act of congress-

A sovereign citizen parent has every right to have their citizenship passed to their child under natural law AND the law of nations- As sovereigns- their child enjoys the same rights and privileges that they do- as sovereigns, they are NOT subjects of any other nation- they are sovereigns of this nation first and foremost

A child born to a sovereign citizen automatically is assumed to have the same allegiance to the US as the parent does because the child can not choose an allegiance yet for themselves until they are 18 years of age legally- Simply because a mother travels on vacation overseas, and either can’t travel back to the US to have a child, or chooses not to- doesn’t mean that the woman has formally renounced her citizenship here and taken the pledge of allegiance to another country- She is still a sovereign citizen of this country- and so is her child who’s allegiance is the same as their parents until they are 18 and can either continue in allegiance to the US OR renounce their us citizenship status and pledge allegiance to another country in that country’s foreign citizenship ceremony-

[Bob434]

[[Those who need to become a citizen after birth are not citizens at birth or by birth- and therefore are foreigners who have no right to citizenship-]]

Sorry, that hsoudl have read:

Those who need to become a citizen after birth are not citizens at birth or by birth- and therefore are foreigners who have no right to citizenship EXCEPT via a process of naturalization if they so choose to be naturalized here

[Ray76]

Citizenship conferred by statute is naturalization.

[Ray76]

Conflating “at” with “by” is a source of confusion and all too common.

“at” indicates a point in space or time

“by” indicates a causative agent

A person can be a citizen at birth either by statute or by nature.

Citizenship conferred by statute is naturalization.

[Ray76]

But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. 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. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703 (1898)

[Spaulding]

And that is why James Kent so rightly wrote in his treatises on the Constitution and American Law that while all born on the soil are natives, not all natives are natural born citizens.

Thanks Patlin, As you know well, for many this language is not well understood by many readers. I hadn't paid attention until I wondered about Obama's eligibility, which was certainly put into doubt with all the secrecy, secrecy which is still maintained, around his background.

Yes, anyone who hasn't read the 14th Amendment wouldn't know that U.S. Indians, "natives" or "Native-born" because they were born on U.S. soil, were not only not natural born citizens, they were not naturalized, "naturalized at birth" as Cruz redundantly crows. They were not made citizens. To John Bingham and the House of Representatives, there was no doubt about the definition, "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….", the quotation from Congressman and 14th Amendment author John Bingham taken from Bingham's address to the House in 1866.

[Bob434]

[[Citizenship conferred by statute is naturalization.]]

No I’m sorry- that simply isn’t correct- The chidl is not a NBC by statute born overseas- they are citizen by birthright- only a foreigner who has no soveriegn citizen parent needs to be naturalized

Congress was given authority to declare who needs naturalization- and anyone who doesn’t need naturalization is an nbc- not by statute- but by birthright— Natural law- the law of nations from which we draw some of our constitutional rights- Cases since Wong vs Kim clearly show that there is no difference between two mothers who travel abroad, who are citizens, where one chooses to remain overseas for the birth, and one who doesn’t- Those born overseas do not have to go through any process of statute to become a NBC or even simply a citizen- they are one at birth- no process is needed- A child born overseas Can however apply for certificate of birth (CBRA?- something like that) but it is not necessary to be a citizen- a child brought back into the US without a CRBA is still a NBC with all rights and privileges of the us parent- that is the law as it stands- The US parent’s sovereign citizenship is passed by birthright to the child-

[[Citizenship conferred by statute is naturalization.]]

Again- it is not a statute which confers citizenship birthright confers citizenship- The Statute simply confirms this- there is no legal process a person born overseas to a US parent needs to undergo in order to be an NBC- only foreigners need to go through a process of naturalization in order to become a citizen- something they were not by birthright-

[Bob434]

[[only a foreigner who has no soveriegn citizen parent needs to be naturalized]]

only a foreigner who has no soveriegn citizen parent needs to be naturalized via a process of statute- Naturalization is a process- it is taking someone who is not a citizen, and making them one and making them swear allegiance to this country in this process- Since the child of a sovereign us citizen has the same allegiance as their US citizen parent- they do not need to swear allegiance in some naturalization process- either before the age of 18 or after- (it is the swearing of allegiance... among other things... in a process of naturalization, an act of statute, that makes a foreigner a citizen) There is no act of statute when a child is born to a US citizen overseas- there is simply a confirmation by stattute that such people do not need to undergo a process/act of statute called anturalization

[Ray76]

> Again- it is not a statute which confers citizenship birthright confers citizenship- The Statute simply confirms this-

If the foreign-born child of a citizen had a "birthright" to citizenship that the statute "simply confirms" there would be no possibility of citizenship not being granted or of the grant being revoked.

Observe that the foreign-born child is not a citizen if the citizen parent does not meet the requirements of this statute.[1]

The foreign-born child is not a citizen by birth, the foreign-born child is a citizen by statute. A citizen by statute is a naturalized citizen.

> there is no legal process a person born overseas to a US parent needs to undergo in order to be an NBC

Citizenship conferred by statute is naturalization. There is no requirement that the naturalization must include a "process" or "proceeding", that a declaration of intent be made, that an oath be taken, that there be conditions precedent or subsequent.

 

[1] Pub. L. No. 82-414 § 301(a)(7), 66 Stat. 163, 236 (1952)

[Bob434]

[[Observe that the foreign-born child is not a citizen if the citizen parent does not meet the requirements of this statute.[1] ]]

A child born off soil to a sovereign us citizen parent acquires citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of his or her birth. Not by virtue of a process of naturalization- This is what separates an NBC child from a foreign child- The immigration laws and naturalization acts simply convey who needs to be naturalized and who doesn’t - If a child’s parent or parents do not meet certain criteria, they must then apply for citizenship status for their child- IF however they do meet them- no process is necessary for the child- the child is an NBC- He does not acquire his/her citizenship via a process of naturalization

Current law dictates that certain conditions be met in order for parent/child bond to be made, and for allegiance purposes- however, the courts have made it much much harder for law to strip a citizen of their citizenship based solely on a court’s interpretation of the citizen’s apparent ‘intent to expatriate’

[[Citizenship conferred by statute is naturalization. ]]

Agreed- however, there is no conferring of citizenship for birthright citizenship- A child born off soil to a sovereign us citizen parent acquires citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of his or her birth. Not by virtue of a process of naturalization- Recent court cases have made this clear- there is no difference between a woman who travels abroad, and chooses to return to the states to have her child as one who travels abroad and chooses not to return- Both of hteir children aquire citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of his or her birth and not by virtue of a process/ceremony of naturalization

The child when it comes back to the US is fully a citizen with no need to go through a process to gain citizenship

[[There is no requirement that the naturalization must include a “process” or “proceeding”, that a declaration of intent be made, that an oath be taken, that there be conditions precedent or subsequent. ]]

4. Take the Oath of Allegiance

You are not a U.S. citizen until you take the Oath of Allegiance at a naturalization ceremony. You will receive your Certificate of Naturalization after taking the Oath of Allegiance.

https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-ceremonies

Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

Oath

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Note: In certain circumstances there can be a modification or waiver of the Oath of Allegiance. Read Chapter 5 of A Guide to Naturalization for more information.

The principles embodied in the Oath are codified in Section 337(a) in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that all applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:

Support the Constitution;
Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or
B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or
C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.

https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america

[Ray76]

> A child born off soil to a sovereign us citizen parent acquires citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of his or her birth. Not by virtue of a process of naturalization

Statutes “conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens” is naturalization. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703 (1898)

[Ray76]

Read Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

Congress has no authority, expressed or implied, to take citizenship from people.

Congress has authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and can impose nearly any condition precedent or subsequent.

Bellei lost his citizenship because he failed to comply with a condition subsequent required by naturalization statute.

Cruz’s situation is identical to Bellei.

Cruz citizenship is via the Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. No. 82-414 § 301(a)(7), 66 Stat. 163, 236 (1952). This statute has condition precedent and subsequent. Cruz is a naturalized citizen.

[Ray76]

Read Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) in tandem with Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).

[Bob434]

[[Statutes “conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens” is naturalization.]]

You keep citing wong kim- however recent court cases have declared congress does have a right to declare who needs naturalization and who doesn’t- You are citing majority opinion, not law- and since that case, and the Bellei case- courts have declared there is no difference between a child born to a us citizen overseas and one born here- that’s just the law now-

[[Statutes “conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens” is naturalization.]]

Nothing is conferred upon a child born off soil to a US citizen- it is their birthright- which is why we have the recent court cases finding no difference in the above situation i’ve outlined a few times now-

[[Congress has no authority, expressed or implied, to take citizenship from people.]]

First- it was the courts that did it not congress- second, courts do have a right to strip a citizen of hteir citizenship in the case of treason- and

[[The Constitution prevents the U.S. government from involuntarily stripping individuals of their citizenship. However, a person will no longer be a U.S. citizen if, by a preponderance of the evidence, officials can prove that the individual intended to renounce his U.S. citizenship.]]

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2012/06/can-you-lose-us-citizenship-renounce-it.html

(However- since the Bellie case and others like it many years go- it has become much much harder for a court to conclude that a person ‘intends to expatriate’ without actually going through hte process of expatriation’ As I’ll discuss more below-)

I know you have been over and over and over with this issue, and regarding the Bellei case with a poster/lawyer here called springfieldreformer- I’ve read those threads before- and He’s showed that the Bellei case does not reflect what it is claimed it does-

Bellie is not controlling law- In the more recent Nguyen (2001) case The supreme court recognizes only two categories, born with citizenship (natural born) versus acquiring citizenship at some time *after* birth (naturalization).

Nothing in the Bellie case found that the fella was naturalized- only that he had additional burdens being born off soil that had to be met in order to RETAIN (cps for emphasis because this is a key point) his citizenship- Bellei did not meet these requirements, and subsequently, the court- erroneously- (although, at that time, it was allowed by law to do so because the law regarding citizenship and expatriation was so vague) stripped him of his citizenship (which you will see explained in the dissenting opinion) because the court at that time had massive leeway to declare who ‘intended to expatriate’- Recent courts have made it much much harder for courts to strip a citizen of hteir citizenship based solely o na court’s interpretation of a citizen’s ‘intent to expatriate’- Courts have, since those cases you mentioned, made it nearly impossible for a court to strip a citizen of their citizenship UNLESS the person commits treason OR formally renounces their citizenship in a formal ceremony of expatriation and swears allegiance to another country- In the Bellei case- Bellie RELINQUISHED (again Cps because this is key to this case and to subsequent cases which forced the courts to make it harder for the law to strip a citizen of their citizenship based solely on the courts interpretation of a person’s actions or inaction, as in the case of Bellie) his citizenship

The CRS report outlines cases which have since refined who can be stripped of their citizenship and who can’t

(I’ll not go through the relevant points listed in the report as I have done so many times before- you can find the recent Sc cases and federal cases regarding the issues I’ve mentioned about 3/4 or so down the page- our discussion here is not going to change the fact that courts recognize there is no difference between a child born to a US citizen overseas as a child born to a us citizen here- Simply because a statute refines what must be done to retain ones citizenship does not make it a process of naturalization which all foreign born children born to non us citizens must go through with very few exceptions) The statute doesn’t make an NBC an NBC- it confirms it by way of ‘at birth/by birth’ natural descent/birthright- if certain requirements are not met, then it is assumed the person has relinquished citizenship, not that they never had it in the first place-)

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf