Posted on 03/13/2013 6:01:43 PM PDT by Fai Mao
On Mar. 8, reporter Carl Cameron on Special Report on Fox News Channel was surveying potential GOP 2016 presidential candidates. Then he raised Ted Cruz--one of the most brilliant constitutional lawyers ever to serve in the Senate--the new 41-year old Hispanic senator from Texas.
Cameron added, “But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible” to run for president. While many people assume that, it’s probably not true.
Cameron was referring to the Constitution’s Article II requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can run for the White House.
No one is certain what that means. Citizenship was primarily defined by each state when the Constitution was adopted. Federal citizenship wasn’t clearly established until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Constitution is not clear whether it means you must be born on U.S. soil, or instead whether you must be born a U.S. citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
No it isn't. You are just misrepresenting the positions of every authority in History. Most of them are like Bingham. They state the general rule, never considering that people would be so stupid as to suggest this also qualifies the very small number of exceptions.
Bingham makes it clear that the exceptions were never intended to be regarded as citizens. Others simply don't address the issue of transient aliens. It is simply fortunate that Bingham did, and it is readily apparent that his understanding of the exceptions are also the understanding of the rest of Congress, and for that matter, very likely the Wong Court as well.
It is not only sheer stupidity to grant citizenship to the children of transient aliens, It is demonstrably NOT the position of any of the authorities whom you persist in invoking. It is just YOU, and people like you who are pushing this meme. Bingham never intended "anchor babies." It is ridiculous to think that he, or anyone else ever did.
I like Cruz as well. I may even disregard his "natural citizen" status long enough to support him. (What does it matter anymore anyway?)
But what I won't do is fail to speak up when someone is saying something that is obviously incorrect. Ted Cruz is in exactly the same position as Aldo Mario Bellei. (Born in a foreign country of an American Mother.)
The Supreme court ruling in the case of Rogers v Bellei says that because Bellei's citizenship was created by an act of Congress, Congress has a right to set requirements regarding it. The Requirement that congress set was that Bellei had to be a resident of the United States for a set period of time. Bellei failed to meet this requirement.
Bellei was stripped of his citizenship by the US government for failing to meet the conditional requirement of his citizenship. Ted Cruz HAS met the conditional requirement of his citizenship, but the point remains.
A "natural citizen" has NO CONDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS to meet. He can remain out of the country indefinitely and retain his citizenship. Ted Cruz could not do this, and therefore he cannot be a "natural citizen." He is only a citizen by virtue of a Law which didn't exist in 1787.
Of course I don't.
I said:
Their entire rationale for declaring Wong a "citizen" was that all of their reasoning led them to the conclusion that he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
In fact, they even stated:
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions:
the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.
So if you can't read that, or can't understand it, let me spell it out for you:
The 14th Amendment didn't create some new kind of citizen. There were always natural born citizens, and naturalized citizens.
The 14th Amendment simply ensured that those rights of NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP were not denied to persons born on US soil, except for the historical exceptions and Indians in tribes.
Continuing:
The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
They specifically ruled that every citizen or subject of any other country, while domiciled here, was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The child of such person, therefore, was AFFIRMED by the 14th Amendment IN THE ANCIENT AND FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF CITIZENSHIP.
His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;’ and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides…”
So once AGAIN, the Court tells us, using DIFFERENT language, that Wong Kim Ark was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
They've already told us that "subject" and "citizen" are PRECISELY ANALOGOUS TERMS.
So when they quote Lord Coke, and apply his words to the UNITED STATES, it is completely obvious that they are saying such children are natural born citizens of the United States.
It takes an enormous amount of wishful thinking to gloss over this. It simply can't be done by anyone who reads the text of their decision in an unbiased way.
Can't be done.
At the very end, having proclaimed such things as this as their conclusions along the way, they sum up by saying, we were asked whether Wong Kim Ark is a citizen. Yes, he's a citizen.
I haven't contradicted myself in any way.
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.'
The first thing to note here is that Greisser's father was domiciled in GERMANY. So he was a visiting or transient alien.
This is not the same case as a child born to alien parents who live here.
Secondly, as one writer on this subject (Woodman) has noted, there seems to have been a period in the late 1800s when the US State Department started taking sort of a birther position on these cases. This was not the case previously, as shown by the Opinion of Lincoln's Attorney General Bates.
The Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898 clarified what the law had been from the beginning, and what it was supposed to be. You can argue that that case didn't make things absolutely clear in regard to the children of TRANSIENT aliens domiciled in other countries. And you might even have a point.
But in these instances, such children are still either natural born US citizens, or not citizens at all. There is simply no case to be made that natural born citizenship requires citizen parents for those born on US soil.
If that's the case, then why can't you provide one single quote from Bingham in which he explicitly says that being a natural born citizen requires citizen parents, or that the children born of aliens living here aren't natural born citizens?
Your argument relies completely on interpreting his words "not subject to any foreign authority" as including non-naturalized immigrants, in spite of the fact that he clearly says that "every person" born in the US is a natural born citizen, and in spite of the fact that he equates "citizens by birth" with "natural born citizens."
You cited him as an authority, but your argument has always been that no authorities support the parent citizenship requirement.
No, I didn't "cite him as an authority." Nor would I have, since he says things that can be construed both ways, since he only began speaking on the issue 75 years after the Constitution was written, and since he was a Congressman speaking (in many instances off the top of his head) on the floor of the House, rather than a judge issuing a carefully-considered and carefully-worded legal judgment, or a legal expert writing a carefull-worded book on the topic.
Nor do his words carry any LEGAL weight whatsoever, since he was simply a Congressman mouthing off on the floor of the House.
But you've been reduced to arguing that a Congressman mouthing off on the floor of the House, 75 years after the Constitution was written, and saying things some things that sound like they may support you, and other things that clearly contradict you, is an authority that "proves" your claim.
Don't look now, but that's pretty darn pathetic.
You see, your argument requires that there not be a single deviancy from your orthodoxy. Bingham is a poison pill to your argument. (As are others.)
No, my "argument" (which is really just an accurate statement of history and law) doesn't require that. My "argument" only requires that the authorities that really matter say what I'm saying they say.
And they do.
Translation: I'll ignore whatever authorities I darn well please.
Here’s a better translation: Ignore every real early authority. Ignore the US Supreme Court. Make your case on the basis of a Congressman who spoke ambiguously, off the cuff, 75 years after the Constitution was written.
ROFLMAO!
"I didn't contradict myself because I said I didn't."
I've already shown you here .
And you have yet to answer the question as to how you come to the conclusion they said he was a natural born citizen when they THEMSELVES said that whether he was natural born wasn't even the question before the court?
For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Jeff Winston... the master of the self-fufilling argument.
------
There is simply no case to be made that natural born citizenship requires citizen parents for those born on US soil.
So riddle me this-
If, as you contend, the Founders believed a woman could walk across the border and give birth to a brand-spankin' NEW natural born citizen within 9 months, why did they even bother with the naturalization process?
According to you, it would work something like this:
Naturalization process = a few YEARS = naturalized citizen
OR
citizen 'by birth' = min* a few hours/max* 9 months = natural born citizen .
Oh, GEE! I don't know which one to choose! /s
------
The Founders were NOT stupid, and I strongly object to your insinuation that they were.
Others here, including myself, have done just that. You have not.
You're taking the defensive posture that it's unnecessary for you to make your case, and that simply providing selected citations is sufficient. It's not, Jeff. You'd get nowhere in a court of law using that tactic, and you'll never win any debate that way.
Answer me this:
If you're crafting a new model of government, and are setting forth the qualifications for the various offices, would you not set the qualifications for President at the highest, purest pedigree you could, in order to best ensure their unwavering fealty to the nation?
Further, what pedigree of citizenship would you logically consider most likely to produce the kind of person who would remain unerringly loyal to your people, in that office:
A. A citizen born in a foreign country to parents who were also born there?
B. A citizen born in this country to parents who were born in a foreign land?
C. A citizen born in this country to one parent born here, and the other born elsewhere?
D. A citizen born in this country to parents who were also born here?
Applying simple deductive reasoning, tell me which of those conditions of citizenship is most likely to produce the sort of loyalty one would want in a national Chief Executive.
The sentence you quote is from Minor, not Ark. The Ark decision just quoted it.
As for the larger question: consider the statement "all B are A" (like "all natural born citizens are citizens"). If I'm setting out to find out if something is A, I can do it by showing that they're B. The fact that I end by saying "...and therefore the subject is A" doesn't mean I didn't show they were B.
If, as you contend, the Founders believed a woman could walk across the border and give birth to a brand-spankin' NEW natural born citizen within 9 months, why did they even bother with the naturalization process?
Maybe because they thought a grownup might want to become a citizen?
All I know is that Cruz seems more American, more patriotic and more of a Constitutionalist than any of the republicans currently serving in office.
You think that because you think Jeff is making the case for a certain standard. He's not. He's just arguing the historical facts of what the standard is. It's like he's explaining why Germany invaded Russia, and you're demanding that he make the argument for why that was a good idea. It's not the same frame of reference.
No, he's not. He's cutting and pasting walls of text to bludgeon others with. That's not 'arguing' by any means.
So what would you have him do? He’s claimed pretty clearly, as far as I can see, that ‘natural born citizen’ does not and never did require two citizen parents. (Do you agree that that’s his point?) In support of that fairly focused point, he’s provided cites from historical sources. (It may look like a bludgeoning wall of text to you, but that’s not his problem.) That all looks like ‘arguing’ to me.
On a seasonal note, the handsome Senator said he's part Irish.......his father being Cuban, his mother (Eleanor Darragh) being of Irish and Italian lineage.
Cruz was born in 1970, so he's 43 years old. He was baptized Rafael Edward Cruz.
The surname,"Darragh", means "oak" in Gaelic. Very apropos.....because to me, he's mighty like an oak as he expounds on his super-commendable conservative principles.
Leni
Fair enough.
Please find the phrase natural born citizen in the closing paragraph of the decision.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
The fact the Minor decision, the co authors of the 14th amendment as well as those of the Civil Rights Act passed before it all said a natural born was 'born in the country of parents who are citizens' ran totally contray to Ark bothers you not at all?
----------
If I'm setting out to find out if something is A, I can do it by showing that they're B. The fact that I end by saying "...and therefore the subject is A" doesn't mean I didn't show they were B.
Well, yeah. You could have saved yourself some time and just said correlation doesn't mean causation.
What does that have to do with anything?
----
Maybe because they thought a grownup might want to become a citizen?
But we were talking a citizen AT BIRTH, not a citizen 'at grownup'.
Answer the question in his own words, like we've been asking him to.
He’s claimed pretty clearly, as far as I can see, that ‘natural born citizen’ does not and never did require two citizen parents.
Well, sure he's made that claim. What he hasn't done (as others in this debate have) is to make a convincing argument for why the Framers would have considered that to be a sufficient citizenship pedigree for the office of President.
If all he's going to do is post cut and pastes of historical citations, then he's not really involved in the conversation. Any of us can look up citations on Google if we want.
Natural born is a concept of Natural Law, so how many natural parents does it take to make a child?
-----
Also, acting as if the federal government has the ability to consider ONLY the only citizenship of the American parent raises the question:
By what authority does the federal government deny the very existence of any human being?
It's not there. I know that already.
The fact the Minor decision, the co authors of the 14th amendment as well as those of the Civil Rights Act passed before it all said a natural born was 'born in the country of parents who are citizens' ran totally contray to Ark bothers you not at all?
No, they said someone 'born in the country of parents who are citizens' was a natural born citizen. That's not the same thing, so it's not contrary to Ark.
Well, yeah. You could have saved yourself some time and just said correlation doesn't mean causation.
What does that have to do with anything?
What I wrote has nothing to do with correlation. I'm sorry you didn't understand it. I wish I could draw it for you. Do you understand that "All B are A" is not a statement of correlation?
But we were talking a citizen AT BIRTH, not a citizen 'at grownup'.
You asked "why did they even bother with the naturalization process?" Naturalization applies to grownups, or at least not "at birth."
But that was my point--he's arguing what they did, not why they did it. If in fact they did what he says, it doesn't matter why.
No, just what YOU quote regarding them. We already know you like to lie by omission.
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.