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

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

[Bob434]

While this is a fascinating issue- and both sides have points, current law is what it is- and I have a health issue which causes bad ‘brain fog’ and it’s hard for me to concentrate well enough to put together long drawn out arguments o any subject- it exhausts me- As I mentioned, I believe You and Springfield Reformer have been over this issue pretty thoroughly- and he has shown that the Bellei case is not ruling law- nor the other cases you mentioned-

If it wasn’t you and He discussing the issue, I would encourage you to view his posts on the subject as they are very informative and do a much much better job than i of explaining current law and why congress has the right to do what it does regarding Naturalization and refining NBC requirements -

Abotu 1/2 or so down the page here: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:springfieldreformer/index?more=98516032

The US Citizenship Laws Say What They Say (electorate education)

and another thread titled

Maine Gov. LePage, my Canadian-born daughters “had to be naturalized, they couldn’t be natural”

and another one also abotu 1/2 way down titled

Trump Backer LePage: Cruz Is Ineligible To Be President Because So Are My Daughters

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:springfieldreformer/index?more=98335012

in which he states:

“It is settled, not in the sense of a definitive SCOTUS decision that spells out all the parameters of the NBC question, but in terms of the current thinking on the issue. A number of recent cases have reinforced an idea often rejected here at FR, that the naturalization process cannot be applied to one who is born a citizen, that naturalization is strictly an after-birth event, and that the enumerated naturalization power of the Congress includes the ability to address those who do not need to be naturalized, which in turn means citizens at birth as recognized by the INA statutes are in fact natural born citizens. In Zivotofsky (2015), Justice Thomas has made this statement explicitly. See here:”

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-628/concur5.html

He actually has many excellent discussion on this issue, and specifically on the Bellie case, the wong case etc- and like i said- He’s a lawyer and knows this stuff far better than i do- but ht bottom line is that currently, a person born overseas to a US citizen is no different in regards to NBC as a person born here on soil- by virtue of the circumstances of his or her birth. (IE ‘AT BIRTH/BY BIRTH) Not by virtue of a process of naturalization, (AFTER BIRTH) (again- cps only to stress key terms for the discussion)

[Ray76]

Well I hope you feel better.

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

“at” indicates a point in time

“by” indicates a causative agent

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

Article II does not require “citizen at birth” - it requires “natural born citizen”.

[Ray76]

> Nothing is conferred upon a child born off soil to a US citizen- it is their birthright

This is illusory.

[Bob434]

[[Well I hope you feel better.]]

Meh- it’s ongoing- 2 decades now- they say fibromylagia- possibly chronic fatigue, but i don’t have any of the trigger points or tender points needed for a ‘proper diagnosis’ of either- I personally think it’s some kind of glycogen issue where body doesn’t convert food, sugars into energy- but I don’t know- neither do docs-

[[it requires “natural born citizen”.]]

Which is what a citizen at birth is- The only one who isn’t is a person who acquires citizenship by way of process after birth- one who doesn’t go through the process can not be a citizen as shown in previous post- one who doesn’t need to go through a process is an NBC- as mentioned-

at birth also indicates a causative agent- the act of being born to a us citizen makes that person, at birth, a us citizen - The simple act of being born ‘to a us citizen’ is what confers NBC status- not a process of naturalization

[[it requires “natural born citizen”.]]

Which, since it was not defined by constitution, was left up to the congress to define what ‘isn’t NBC’ in order to establish what ‘is NBC’

There are good arguments on both sides- but as it stands now, a child born off soil to a us citizen is a NBC themselves with all the rights an privileges of their parent and NBC citizenship with whom they share their allegiance until 18 years of age-

[Ray76]

> “natural born citizen”
>
> Which is what a citizen at birth is

This is incorrect. Naturalization statutes can and do confer citizenship AT birth. Citizenship BY birth is natural born citizen.

[Ray76]

> the act of being born to a us citizen makes that person, at birth, a us citizen

No, it doesn't.

Note 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.

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

[Bob434]

that is contrary to what the courts have determined- Residency requirements are not issues which ‘confer citizenship- they confirm citizenship-

[[two former top Supreme Court litigators, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, said: “All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/15/that-vexing-natural-born-citizen-requirement-what-were-the-founding-fathers-afraid-of/

And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.”]]

[[Naturalization statutes can and do confer citizenship AT birth. ]]

Not on people who are already citizens- only on those who are foreigners and no citizen parent

Naturalization statutes only directly affect foreigner’s children- the children born of a us citizen overseas have always had a greater burden of proving their connection to their US citizen parent- this stricter requirement however does not mean that the person was granted citizenship via statute/process- but rather that statutes were enacted to enhance the definition of common/natural law that the states have long employed as to what confers a right

it has always been within the power of congress to address the parameters of those who have a natural claim to citizenship at birth. The statute itself does not confer citizenship it simply defines the parameters that must be met- IF they have been met, there is no need for a process of naturalization because the person is an NBC.

[[[1] The foreign-born child is not a citizen by birth, the foreign-born child is a citizen by statute.]]

Again- the statute is not conferring citizenship- it is affirming citizenship-

A Statute does not naturalize- it simply determines who must be naturalized via process- Nowhere has it been deemed that a person born overseas to a US parent must be naturalized via process- Ted Cruz has never had to go through a naturalization process- the courts have determined that there are only two ways to become a citizen- naturally, and via a process

You seem to be stuck on the idea that a statute is the act of naturalizing- it is not- only a process is the act of naturalizing (with some rare exceptions)- A person who is foreign born to foreign parents, can not, except in rare exceptions, be declared a citizen without going through the actual process of naturalization- The statute simply declares that they, foreign children born to foreign parents, must be naturalized- it is not an actual process of naturalization however- this is very important- a statute which determines who must be naturalized is not the actual act of naturalization

As has been stated several times now, Supreme court cases have found that there is no difference between a child born of a us citizen overseas and one born here when it comes to NBC status and all the rights and privileges that go with it- previous cases were based on lax poorly defined laws that allowed the courts to determine ‘intent to expatriate’ far too easily- subsequent courts and statutes rectified that problem

[[[1] The foreign-born child is not a citizen by birth, the foreign-born child is a citizen by statute.]]

again- the statute isn’t conferring the citizenship it simply confirms what is the natural right to claim by the child- both jus soli and jus sanguinis confer the term ‘natural’ in NBC- the statute simply recognizes such children as citizens as per natural and common law and the law of nations fro mwhich we derive our laws, it does not confer the actual citizenship

[Ray76]

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

Read Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

The source of your confusion is your mistaken belief that a process is required. There is no such requirement.

[Ray76]

> [[Naturalization statutes can and do confer citizenship AT birth. ]]
>
> Not on people who are already citizens- only on those who are foreigners and no citizen parent

Is the foreign-born child of a citizen a citizen when the citizen parent does not meet the requirements of this statute?

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

[rxsid]

You got that right Spaulding. Good to see you!

John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

 

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

“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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.

 
Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

The take away from this is that, while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people's house regarding "citizenship" and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect's multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution. The United States House was in complete agreement at the time. NBC = born in sovereign U.S. territory, to 2 citizen parentS who owe allegiance to no other country.

[philman_36]

BTTT

[magglepuss]

bookmark

[Bob434]

I’m not going through the answers again- the answer to your question in post 69 is in my last post- You have also been answered by springfield reformer on this very issue in another thread that I pointed you to earlier- you asked the same question there and received the correct answer from him which was far more eloquent than I could do- If you wish to re-read hisp oitns, here’sd the link to the post:

“2) You have no basis for assuming that someone who is natural born is automatically outside the scope of the Naturalization Act. Foreign born children of US citizens have a presumptive claim to citizenship by descent (jus sanguinis), which is natural, but have always had a greater burden of proof regarding their connection to the sovereign, in that the presumption may be later rebutted. The Foreign Affairs Manual is explicit that this sort of claim is grounded in jus sanguinis:

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)).”

From this Post: http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3404633/posts?page=229#229

(In that thread you will find you answers to the issue of a statute not conferring citizenship- as well, what i stated before, the statute doesn’t grant citizenship to foreign born children of NON citizens, it simply states that they must be naturalized in a process- I also pointed otu that the law states that if a non citizen person doesn’t go through a process and in that process declare allegience, they are not a citizen except in rare circumstances which would preclude a process- but all other cases must declare allegiance in a process- The statute defining who doesn’t need to be naturalized- the child born to a us citizen offsoil is an NBC via a natural claim at birth- not via a statute- even though a statute may place extra burden on children born off soil- This extra burden is NOT granting citizenship- it can’t- the child is a citizen- an NBC at birth- Congress is fully within it’s right to demand an extra burden be placed on a child born off-soil in an effort to make sure th child is raised in an atmosphere where allegiance will be nurtured by the biological US citizen parent (who’s allegiance is automatically conferred to the child before and until the age of 18)

And “There was already a body of case and statutory law for non-14th citizens. Those categories include citizens at birth such as Cruz via jus sanguinis. Your analysis simply presumes without proof that all statutory citizens are all naturalized, when we know from Nguyen, Miller, Zivotofsky, etc., that is not the case. Naturalization happens after birth. Therefore citizens at birth are not naturalized.”

From: http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3405786/posts?page=175#175

As for The Bellei case, it was already explained earlier- (and also been explained by springfield reformer in those threads i pointed to as well) as were other cases that were based on lax interpretations of of the court of a citizen’s ‘intent to expatriate’- which incidentally laws have since been made much harder for a court to assign ‘intent to expatriate’

[Ray76]

> I’m not going through the answers again- the answer to your question in post 69 is in my last post

To: Bob434

> [[Naturalization statutes can and do confer citizenship AT birth. ]]
>
> Not on people who are already citizens- only on those who are foreigners and no citizen parent

Is the foreign-born child of a citizen a citizen when the citizen parent does not meet the requirements of this statute?

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

69 posted on Friday, April 8, 2016 7:25:24 PM by Ray76

You are asserting that the foreign-born child of a citizen is a citizen when the parent does not meet the requirement of the statute, is that correct?

[Ray76]

> As for The Bellei case, it was already explained earlier- (and also been explained by springfield reformer in those threads i pointed to as well) as were other cases that were based on lax interpretations of of the court of a citizen’s ‘intent to expatriate’- which incidentally laws have since been made much harder for a court to assign ‘intent to expatriate’

Bellei was not about expatriation, he had no desire to expatriate. He did not desire to lose citizenship yet he did because he did not comply with the terms of naturalization statute.

[Bob434]

[[He did not desire to lose citizenship yet he did because he did not comply with the terms of naturalization statute.]]

You are not even bothering to read anything I’ve written are you?

This is the last time- I really am burned out on this issue because i keep saying the same answers over and over, and people just ignore them but they are relevant ot the issue being discussed- there is no ‘naturalization statute’ for natural born citizens- there is a statute that creates extra burden for foreign born Natural Born Citizens, as is the congress’s right to define- but this statute does NOT confer citizenship on someone who is already a citizen- Bellei lost his citizenship because he did not meet them ore stringent requirements of off-soil born natur4al born citizenship- The courts interpreted that as ‘intent to expatriate’ and they stripped him of his citizenship- wrongly- Courts have since made it much harder for courts to ‘determine intent to expatriate’, and it’s now almost required that a person must formally renounce their citizenship, and declare allegiance to another country before the court will declare them a non citizen (except in cases of proven treason- the courts interpret that as voluntary expatriation without a formal process of expatriation needed)

There is no naturalization statute- there is only a statute for non citizens that declares they must be naturalized by a process- and there especially is no naturalization statute for NBC children born off-soil

[Ray76]

> but this statute does NOT confer citizenship on someone who is already a citizen

So your answer to my question “You are asserting that the foreign-born child of a citizen is a citizen when the parent does not meet the requirement of the statute, is that correct?” is “Yes”.

Congress wasted their time when they wrote the statute. And they wasted their time when they reduced the requirements from “not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years” to “not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years” (Pub. L. No. 99-653 § 12, 100 Stat. 3657 (1986)). In fact they’ve wasted their time every time they wrote a naturalization statute because the person (according to you) was already a citizen and in fact was a natural born citizen. Hardly likely. And the Supreme Court has never interpreted it this way.

> there is a statute that creates extra burden for foreign born Natural Born Citizens

You have shown no legal or historical basis supporting this claim.

Regarding Bellei - “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. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not ‘second-class.’” Rogers v Bellei

He was not already a citizen and then “burdened” with extra requirements. He was not a citizen until statutory requirements were met.

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, and for no other reason. If he had not been naturalized he would not have lost his citizenship.

Even if Bellei did not lose his citizenship he would still be a naturalized citizen, just as Cruz is.

[Bob434]

[[He was not already a citizen and then “burdened” with extra requirements.]]

Yes he was- the burden for NBC born off-soil is greater than on-soil for the reasons i and springfieldreformer mentioned- He lost his citizenship because of lax guidelines by the court in determining what a person’s ‘intent to expatriate’ were- I’m not going to keep stating this- You seem to be trying to dance around this point- but it always comes back to this point regarding the Bellei case-

[[Even if Bellei did not lose his citizenship he would still be a naturalized citizen,]]

There was no statute that conferred citizenship to him nor was there a naturalization process he went through- another point you seem disinclined to address- There was a statute that he failed to comply with which, wrongly, in the eyes of the court, they determined to mean he voluntarily expatriated himself without going through a process of expatriation- as mentioned several times now, courts have stepped up to the plate and done away with such lax interpretation of a citizen’s ‘intent to expatriate’, and for good reason- Courts can’t just arbitrarily strip a citizen of their citizenship without strong/stringent probable cause anymore-

[[If he had not been naturalized he would not have lost his citizenship.]]

If you will read the dissenting opinion in the case- he most certainly did lose his NBC citizenship- this is why later courts stepped in to correct this atrocity so that it never happens again- it is now much much harder for a court to strip someone of their citizenship and yes, a court can and does strip people of their citizenship- but it is nowm uch harder for them to do so than it was in Bellei’s day

[CincyRichieRich]

It’s all a set up for Ryan or Kasich or both in P/VP.

[Ray76]

> i keep saying the same answers over and over, and people just ignore them

That is because you offer nothing to support your assertions. Repeatedly asserting them doesn’t make them true.

> There is no naturalization statute- there is only a statute for non citizens that declares they must be naturalized by a process- and there especially is no naturalization statute for NBC children born off-soil

Your entire theory springs from this mistaken premise.