Posted on 02/16/2016 8:43:51 PM PST by omegatoo
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical- presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
“It’s your word versus an Originalist who has been cited 17 times by the Supreme Court.”
Citations notwithstanding, my word is irrelevant. It is the founders I have been quoting directly. Their word counts more than the courts or writers such as Blackstone.
“The 1952 Act didn’t make Cruz a natural born citizen either. Nor could it have.”
The 1952 act made Cruz a citizen at birth. The facts of his birth made him natural born — the fact of his mother’s citizenship more specifically.
“as if there is an amendment somewhere that changed the definition of natural born citizenship, allowing the mother to transfer citizenship to the father”
If the Constitution had specified “natural” to be limited to paternal citizenship, and this had never changed, I would have to agree. But that is not the case. Children “naturally” have two parents. They “naturally” inherit traits from their parents. They “naturally” are under the care and control of their parents until reaching an age of maturity. Children cannot “naturally” consent to being governed. Their parents consent for them. And, as Vattel explains, children “naturally” follow their parents’ citizenship.
The fact that the Constitution has been amended to recognize women’s rights cannot be ignored when it comes to what is “naturally” conferred to their offspring.
The fact that the basis for citizenship being conferred to children born abroad in the 1952 act is based on the citizenship of either parent, still makes the conferring “natural”. Jus sanguinis is the basis of the natural law the founders relied upon, and it is the natural law which makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen.
“British Common Law conferred citizenship to children born outside the country, provided that their father was an English Citizen and was not currently engaged in treason”
While the founders did reject the assumption of British common law, the distinction regarding “naturally born” was neither about place or parentage but about citizenship versus being a subject. Both Great Britain and the US regarded the natural state to be clear cut when the birth was to two parents of the same subject / citizenship status and on the soil of the land. They differed in other regards. Among these is that Great Britain had another class known as royalty. And only royalty could ever become king. In the US, commoners could become president.
If the Founding Fathers accepted Blackstone’s definition of a natural born subject, then it would not have been listed as one of our reasons for going to war with the British.
“No they didn’t [reject British common law]”
George Mason wrote, “But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire.” You can read the entire letter here:
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.txt
“So, can you quote it [Law of Nations]?”
Here are relevant sections:
“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” (Book 1, paragraph 213)
Jus sanguinis. Not jus solis.
“A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalisation. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens,—for example, that of holding public offices,—and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalisation.” (214)
Supports the idea that there are only two kinds of citizenship: naturalized and natural born.
“It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him”
Again. Jus sanguinis. Not jus solis.
“Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man’s country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement” (219)
The distinction Vattel makes of the father’s role is according to nature in the same sense last names typically come from the father. We know that genetic characteristics come from both parents. These are “naturally” conveyed. Keep in mind that the patriarchal system in place at the time connects citizenship with rights and privileges from particular nations, and these rights and privileges were largely revolving around position in society (like holding office and voting) , and settlements (which involved land ownership). Foreigners generally did not have such rights. They were rights of citizens. So when the Constitution was amended to extend these rights specifically to women, the rights of children inherited from their mothers would also be natural rights. That is, IF citizenship is conferred to children based on either parent’s citizenship, then it is “natural”.
“Where do they disagree? “
As I have said repeatedly, it is impossible to reconcile your definition of natural born citizen with the first act of naturalization. That act shows that the founders believed three things:
1. natural born citizenship is an issue within the purview of Congress
2. natural born citizenship may be conferred upon children born abroad
3. natural born citizenship is based primarily on the citizenship of the parents rather than the place of birth
While there has been a lot of bad blood, I think there is still a strong possibility of a Trump-Cruz ticket.
What may happen is that Trump has more delegates than other candidates but not a majority. If Cruz is number two in delegates, it is very possible that they could team up even if they do not see eye to eye on many things.
That would quite possibly be the strongest possible ticket, not just for winning but also for what they might be able to do for the nation as a team.
I can appreciate your position in this regard. I have read your links already. I remain unconvinced. I realize there are some strong judicial arguments, but these ignore the intent of the founders as per their writings in my opinion. If this does end up in court, it could go either way. We shall see.
LOL! Thank you for putting this in perspective. :)
Peace,
SR
When the unwanted truth stares you in the face, you retreat to your own reality. Who can argue with you. Your bat Shi’ite crazy.
Technically correct for citizenship in the first place. But, as you know, the 1952 act also specifies citizenship retention requirements. 301(a)(7) is what you have purported to quote, 301(b) applies to persons born under 301(a)(7). 301(b) recites additional requirements (presence in the US for five continuous years) to be completed between the ages of 14 and 28.
And, seeing as how you are a legal expert, you also know what the meaning of "continuous years" is, under the law.
At any rate, just nitpicking so casual readers have a chance to know that citizenship under the 1952 act depends on MORE that the circumstances of birth.
I am NOT arguing that Cruz is not a citizen. Merely making a nitpicky correction to your original post.
He was as much Cuban as American, at birth, regardless of what his mother does subsequently.
Cuba has a law similar to US act of Congress, born abroad to one citizen parent acquires the citizenship of the parent. Cruz's dad transmitted Cuban citizenship to Ted, just as Cruz's mom transmitted US citizenship to him.
He was as much Cuban as American, at birth, regardless of what his mother does subsequently.
Cuba has a law similar to US act of Congress, born abroad to one citizen parent acquires the citizenship of the parent. Cruz's dad transmitted Cuban citizenship to Ted, just as Cruz's mom transmitted US citizenship to him.
I would add, neither his US citizenship nor his American citizenship are "known" to the respective countries, until Ted presents himself and claims his statutory citizenship. Until Ted presents himself to the US or to Cuba, neither of those countries knows he exists. After he reaches the age of majority, he can cut off one of the statutory forms of citizenship attached to him, depending on the laws of the respective countries. The US makes it very difficult to cut off US citizenship; voting in foreign elections and fighting for enemy does NOT remove US citizenship (Kawakita, on the later point).
But at birth, he was literally "as much Cuban" as he was American, by operation of the same type of legal mechanism. He was also Canadian, by operation of Canadian law. He was born in Canada of parents who were legally married, and legal permanent residents.
Citizen is not necessarily the same as natural born citizen. Two completely different things.
Evidently somebody thought that there was a distinction between a 'Citizen' and a 'Natural Born Citizen.'
Two ‘types’ of citizens expressed in the text before any person was ever naturalized by an Act passed by Congress.
Finally! It is who you are, not where you were born! I thought you would never give it up.
Yep, they realized they didn’t need those words in a statute on naturaization, and that their presence could lead to an incorrect conclusion.
Let's say that his mama hooked up with a foreigner and ran off to a foreign land where they started a business and had a baby boy.
A few years later, she comes back with him and her kid and say they want to stay, so the family agrees to adopt adopt her husband and son Ted into the family.
Ted is, along with his dad, legally one of the family now and we treat him as such and vice versa, but he's not blood.
Having been born in a foreign land to a foreign father, Ted is not "one of us" like with the rest of the family.
He's adopted. He could have chosen to stay as a step-son, but he wanted to be one of US and we welcomed him into the family.
His DNA is a little different, but we accept him as one of US.
He can participate in the family business as a full member, just not as the head of the family. That's only for those born family, not adopted step-kids.
Let's carry it out further and imagine that Ted is deemed ineligible, Just what do you think the Republicans would do? Perhaps install Jeb Bush as the nominee? Very plausible indeed, and may even hand the Democrats the Presidency.
Get this resolved now Ted.
>> Cruz is only a citizen when Donald Trump FEELS like he is a citizen <<
Of course. And if Ted promises to stop lying and saying nasty things about The Donald, The Donald will have his lawyers loudly proclaim that Ted is NBC.
What’s next? Ted goes on the ticket as Don’s VPOTUS candidate? Wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
There’s a very long post this morning that really does a great job of covering all of this, but basically, even if we hypothetically imagined a nation that with such as inept government such that they never got around to passing any laws having to do with citizenship, certain people would still be deemed citizens of that nation. Those citizens would be “natural born citizens”.
Nope, Trump has ample legal advice so he has to know Ted can’t take any unilateral action to resolve this. There has to be an opponent, with standing, and the case must be ripe, I.e., past the “what if” stage. Even with all that, SCOTUS may just punt because of the political question doctrine.
So Trump dangling it out there as if Cruz is reluctant to act is, I have little doubt, just meant to manipulate public opinion of Ted, not to foster a solution to the problem. I believe Donald has too much to gain by milking this to actually want it solved.
Peace,
SR
By that definition then, no African-American can be a natural-born citizen since it took the 14th Amendment and its corresponding legislation passed by Congress to overturn the Dred Scott decision and grant them citizenship of any kind.
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.