Posted on 01/15/2016 5:53:58 PM PST by Enlightened1
Oh, I know that. I was trying to make point.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:
Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
It should be noted that in the rule the residency requirement refers to those who are already citizens...
For example: If I was born in Canada with American citizen parents, I would be a natural born citizen...If I grew up in Canada and married another American citizen but I never resided in the U.S., my offspring would not be American citizens even tho their parents were...
If Cruz's father was a citizen per the citizenship rule, Ted is certainly a natural born American...
Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.
Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.
If his father however was 'naturalized', then Ted is a natural born citizen...
It is an understandable and all-too-common error to view "naturalization" as synonymous with and referring only to a process that a person voluntarily undertakes, when naturalization (making a non-citizen into a citizen) can be granted without that process.
The SCOTUS precedents are so clear on this point, that to hold they say otherwise after looking at the law is willful ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation.
The case of Rogers v. Bellei (1971) involves a person in the same circumstance as Cruz. Born abroad to a US citizen mother and an alien father. Bellei obtained his citizenship, at birth, with no naturalization process. The common view, and the one perpetrated by Cruz, is that Bellei is therefore an NBC.
But Bellei's citizenship was stripped from him by an act of Congress. Nothing personal, he is just a member of the class of people covered by this act of Congress. He sued to get his citizenship back. If Bellei had been a natural born citizen, Congress could not have stripped him of his citizenship. The case would not exist, at all. But the case exists. As I said, Bellei sued to get his citizenship back. He lost.
The dissent, which wanted to have Bellei continue to be a US citizen, said this ...
Bellei, as a naturalized American, is entitled to all the rights and privileges of American citizenship, including the right to keep his citizenship until he voluntarily renounces or relinquishes it.
There was a separate dissent by Brennan and Douglas. It says ...
In the light of the complete lack of rational basis for distinguishing among citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas, the conclusion is compelled that the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to persons "born or naturalized in the United States" includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time.
But the founders used a common-law term -- natural-born -- a term the meaning of which had changed in the past and would likely, they no doubt understood, change again.
This is one case, perhaps the only one, where a changing interpretation is justified. IMHO.
But the originalist meaning is all natural law. And that is what Ted Cruz is all about.
Perhaps Cruz is about that interpretation umbrelled by the Natural law OR the interpretation Tribe attributes to him that the exact meaning of the words confines it.
Cruz seems enthusiatic about rights e.g. free markets and free trade et. al. But not so vocal about duties which accompany rights such supporting fair trade and fair markets which are elements of the entire of the Natural Law.
Our founding Fathers emphasized rights, but did not disbelieve or completely ignore duties. Subsequent jurists gradually tended to ignore the duty aspect of the natural law. Thus we have the right to have sexual activity any way one feels like it without any duty to rein in ones activitie for the physical, social and psychological good of self and community.
BTTT
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.