Canadian Born Gov. Jennifer Granholm Was Naturalized In 1980. When Did Ted Cruz Naturalize?

Cold Case Posse Supporter | July 21, 2013 | Cold Case Posse Supporter

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Since Canadian born Ted Cruz has emerged on the scene in Washington as a future presidential candidate for 2016, attention has turned to whether he is Constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1, the presidential qualification clause. This is what we know. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Many say that disqualifies him to be eligible for the presidency. Enter former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. She was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I came across an interview she did with Fox News's Chris Wallace in February of 2010. During the interview Wallace brought up the fact that since she was born in Canada, she wasn't eligible to be president. Here is the transcript:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/21/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-future-gop/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529

"GRANHOLM: No, I’m totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment. December 31st at midnight is when I’ll stop. So I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.

WALLACE: Yes, that’s true. We should point out Governor Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president.

GRANHOLM: I’m American. I’ve got dual citizenship.”

With that said, I went to the biography of Jennifer Granholm and found that she was born to one American citizen and is indeed a dual Citizen who became 'NATURALIZED' as a U.S. Citizen in 1980 at the age of 21. Now this raises a question. How can a naturalized U.S. Citizen become president of the United States?

Continued below.

[Jeff Winston]

Yeah, that may be, but lots of them like to make money and if there is a market for crackpot books and DVDs, they'll produce them. Without the financial incentives, this "movement" would have been a complete dud from the outset.

I agree to all of what you just said.

There are some people who keep promoting BS though for no apparent financial reason. Some of the posters on FreeRepublic, for example.

Why? There may be psychological reasons involved. Or maybe they're fanatically anti-Obama, which I have nothing against, but latch onto the invalid reasons to be anti-Obama instead of the valid ones. Or maybe they just love bullsh*t. I don't know.

It's kind of a mystery to me.

[Tau Food]

The exact meaning of “natural born citizen” is a Constitutional interpretation question . . .

Here's where we agree.

that falls within their purview.

Here's where we disagree.

I can buy Marshall's argument in Marbury insofar as it was applied in that case, but like many people I do not think that the Court's authoritative interpretive functions are all-encompassing. The Constitution allocates decision-making authority to many constitutional actors (Congress, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the President, the states, state legislatures, voters, electors, grand juries, petit juries, etc.) that are not part of the judiciary. The Supreme Court cannot and will not review many of the decisions that are made by these other actors.

I think if the founders wanted the Supreme Court to approve the qualifications of presidential candidates, they would have provided for appropriate procedures. The courts are simply not equipped to litigate dozens of eligibility cases from filing through discovery through trial and through appeals within anything like the relevant time frame. I try to picture Justice Thomas poring through a sack of old utility bills (residence requirement) or Justice Scalia arguing that the founders couldn't have required birth certificates because the founders didn't have them at that time.

What makes anyone who has studied our founding think that most of our founders trusted electors less than Supreme Court justices?

[Ray76]

In 1934 a child born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States to a US citizen parent and an alien parent shall be declared to be a citizen if, at the time of birth:

• the citizen parent has resided in the United States previous to the child's birth
• the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday
• within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday they take an oath of allegiance.

In 1952 a child born outside the geographical limits of the United States and outlying possessions to a US citizen parent and an alien parent shall be declared to be a citizen at birth if:

• prior to the birth of such person, the citizen parent was physically present in the United States or outlying possession for a period or periods totally not less than ten years
• at least five of those ten years were after attaining the age of fourteen years

A child born outside United States to a US citizen parent and an alien parent can at one time be not a citizen and at another time be a citizen at birth, depending upon statute at those times. In one instance the child must take actions, and in the other none.

How can this person be considered a "natural born citizen"? What is the difference between an Art. II "natural born citizen" and an Art I. "citizen"?

[Jeff Winston]

I do see your point. But I think most Americans, and the Court itself, would consider that the Court has the authority, if not the outright responsibility, to decide such a question.

You mention Justice Thomas poring through utility bills. That would be a question of fact regarding a specific candidate, and is well outside of the scope of the Supreme Court.

Nor do I think, as you suggested, that the founders wanted the Supreme Court to approve the qualifications of specific presidential candidates.

But the question of whether Ted Cruz is eligible isn’t a question of his specific qualifications, in a “fact” sense. Those are known. He was born a US citizen, is 42 years of age, and has resided in the United States for more than 14 years.

The underlying question isn’t a question of Cruz’s qualifications. It’s a question of the meaning of the Constitution. And that’s a question for the Supreme Court.

You maintain that electors should have the power to decide whether Cruz is eligible or not. But electors don’t operate according to stare decisis. In other words, electors don’t establish principles of what the law is. Courts do that.

And what we need is an enduring legal principle or rule. When the Framers said only natural born citizens could be President, did they mean by that phrase “citizens at or by birth?” Or did they mean something else?

There’s only one body that can establish a lasting legal principle as to the precise meaning of a Constitutional term. And that’s the Supreme Court.

So it’s not a matter of trusting electors more or less than the Court. It’s that this is a fundamental question of what the law is, rather than a political question with multiple answers.

[Nero Germanicus]

Within the context of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, I don’t think that “at” birth or “by” birth makes the slightest bit of difference.
“All persons born or naturalized...”

[Jeff Winston]

How can this person be considered a "natural born citizen"?

The person can be considered a "natural born citizen" because:

1. The term "natural born citizen," by the time of the Constitution and ever since, has always been a functional equivalent of "born a citizen."

2. In the historical background in which our Constitution was framed, Parliament had possessed the authority to declare that children of English parents, born outside of England, were to be considered as "natural born subjects." And as far as I can tell, this declaration had the same effect as if the child had been born in England.

3. The Framers of our Constitution clearly believed that the Constitution they wrote gave our Congress the same power, including the power to declare that persons born abroad to citizen parents were to be considered as "natural born citizens, and eligible to the Presidency.

4. If they had not believed that, the First Congress would not have passed a law stating as much. This Congress, with the President, included 40% of the Signers of the Constitution.

5. Subsequent Congresses, with the possible exception of the Third Congress in 1795, have passed similar laws under the understanding that anyone who is a citizen at or by birth is the same thing as a natural born citizen. Therefore, the Congresses that passed our current laws in this regard, to whatever extent they thought about it, intended for persons like Ted Cruz to be eligible to the Presidency, whether they included the words "natural born" in the law or not. Since the phrase "citizen at or by birth" and the phrase "natural born citizen" mean the same thing, not only to our general population but to our legislators and our legal system, by default such citizens born abroad are eligible to the Presidency, unless Congress passes a law saying they are not. That would be within Congress' Constitutional power, but they have not chosen to pass such a law.

6. As argued by Justice Fuller in the dissent of Wong (1898), it is unreasonable to suppose that the children born on US soil of resident aliens are natural born US citizens and therefore eventually eligible to the Presidency, while the children of US citizens, born abroad, are not. And despite birther claims to the contrary, it is absolutely clear that the children born on US soil of resident aliens are natural born citizens.

7. The doctrine that such persons are natural born citizens eligible to the Presidency is also affirmed by historical judgments such as that by James Bayard in his Brief Exposition of the Constitution (1834), and in the Great Chief Justice John Marshall's apparent approval of Bayard's doctrine regarding Presidential eligibility.

8. It therefore follows that Ted Cruz is eligible to the Presidency.

What is the difference between an Art. II "natural born citizen" and an Art I. "citizen"?

The difference is that a "natural born citizen" is a specific KIND of citizen. It is a person who became a citizen AT OR BY BIRTH.

A "citizen" may be born, or naturalized after birth. It includes both "natural born citizens" - those who were born citizens, and "naturalized citizens" - those who became citizens through a naturalization process.

Is there some overlap? Probably. It is likely that Ted Cruz could technically be regarded (to use the words of Jill Pryor who wrote on this topic) as a "naturalized-born" citizen.

But it is clear that Congress has always had the power to specify which persons born abroad to citizens would be "considered as natural born citizens." And it seems clear that they have intended such persons to be equal with US-born natural born citizens.

Therefore, such "naturalized-born" citizens are, legally speaking, the same as US-born "natural born citizens."

They did NOT go through the process a "naturalized" citizen goes through, which involves acquiring citizenship after birth, through a naturalization process.

They became citizens through pretty much the same process as the native-born: Whether by the common law principle or by the Constitutional regulation of Congress, both were BORN citizens.

And they are equally eligible to the Presidency.

[Tau Food]

When the Framers said only natural born citizens could be President, did they mean by that phrase “citizens at or by birth?” Or did they mean something else?

I seriously doubt that more than a few of them gave it any thought at all. There were big issues at stake - control over the money (many of our founders were terrified because states under the Confederation were allowing the use of "paper" money), slavery, the slave trade, the proper counting of slaves for purposes of allocating House seats, how to protect small states from big states, the limits of Congressional power, separation of powers, war and peace, treaty powers, interstate commerce). As to the selection of presidents, they clearly expressed their view that the president should not be selected directly by the people, but only by electors (who were to be chosen in the manner specified by state legislatures and who were thus expected to be a bit more predictable) than the rabble.

The drafters did not provide the kind of specific and precise definition that will answer your question (by birth, at birth or something else) with certainty. That could be because they viewed it as a minor matter (at what point in the future would it even become relevant given the exception?) compared to other issues that were far more problematic and pressing. Or, it could be that they didn't feel there would be any consensus if definitions were proposed. It could even be because they really didn't care exactly how electors might deal with nuances and just assumed that decisions by electors would fall within an acceptable range of definitions. The founders stopped writing when they stopped writing. They were drafting a Constitution. It can't be read like a mortgage.

By the way, who were the founders? The guys who met in Philadelphia and voted to send their document to the states? How about the ones who voted no in PHiladelphia? Were the folks who met in state conventions founders, too? How about the ones who voted against ratification? The Constitution begins, "We, the people . . ." Was everyone a founder?

How many of those folks spent any time thinking about the question you've raised? How many had ever heard of Vattel? How many were tossing around the Latin terms you can find in these threads?

The Constitution is very clear about who is to select the president. The founders provided electors with the eligibility requirements that the founders wanted to give them. Each of those electors is required to apply those Constitutional standards. Just like Supreme Court justices, they might not all answer your specific question in exactly the same way, but they are all bound by the same standard.

[Ray76]

A person born out of country to an alien parent and a citizen parent at one time was not a citizen unless they took specific actions. At another time this same person was declared a “citizen at birth”. In both instances citizenship was vested by operation of law.

Naturalization statute may assign citizenship at any point. It may be at birth; or upon the naturalization of the parent(s); or, for those after 18 years of age, upon completion of a process.

Citizenship dependent upon operation of law is naturalized citizenship. A naturalized citizen whose citizenship was assigned at birth is not a natural born citizen. As shown with the 1934 law and 1952 law the same person may or may not be a citizen at birth or at all. If this “citizen at birth” is as you contend a “natural born citizen” then there is no difference between an Art. I “citizen” and an Art. II “natural born citizen”, both sets may vary by law.

The fact is that naturalization law may fix citizenship at birth. A citizen born in country to citizen parent is a citizen by birth.

[Jeff Winston]

I think you make some good points.

First, I don't think the Framers of the Constitution - or just as importantly, those who voted to ratify it - thought about the term very much at all.

To the extent that they DID think about it, they would have thought about it in terms of what "natural born citizen" meant to them, either popularly or in a legal sense.

I think popularly, it meant what it means now: "born a citizen."

Legally, it meant the same thing as "natural born subject" had always meant, except that now we were "citizens," not "subjects."

In neither case did it necessarily require two citizen parents. And I would say that in neither case did it necessarily require being born on US soil, either.

As to how many of the Framers and Founders and ratifiers of the Constitution had read Vattel: Damn few.

And as to how many of the Framers and Founders and ratifiers of the Constitution gave Vattel any weight at all in the meaning of the term "natural born citizen:"

ZERO.

[Jeff Winston]

A person born out of country to an alien parent and a citizen parent at one time was not a citizen unless they took specific actions.

The question is, were such persons citizens at or by birth? If they were, then they are "natural born citizens."

If their citizenship was acquired and effective after birth - even at one week of age, then they are not "natural born citizens."

Naturalization statute may assign citizenship at any point. It may be at birth; or upon the naturalization of the parent(s); or, for those after 18 years of age, upon completion of a process.

I would agree with that statement. But I would also add that those who are citizens at or by birth still qualify as "natural born citizens" and are eligible to the Presidency.

I have explained my reasons for that conclusion above.

If this “citizen at birth” is as you contend a “natural born citizen” then there is no difference between an Art. I “citizen” and an Art. II “natural born citizen”, both sets may vary by law.

Of course there is a difference.

A "citizen" is a citizen, whether that citizenship was acquired at birth or afterwards. "Citizen" includes both "non-natural-born citizens, ineligible to the Presidency," and "natural born citizens, eligible to the Presidency."

"Non-natural-born citizens, ineligible to the Presidency" are those who acquired citizenship at any time after birth.

"Natural born citizens, eligible to the Presidency," are US citizens who acquired their citizenship at or by birth.

So there's a very clear difference between "citizen" and "non-natural-born citizen" and "natural born citizen."

[Tau Food]

I think you're absolutely right.

The "founders" provided that the Congress of the U.S. could create an Army and a Navy, but didn't mention an Air Force. Surely, at least of couple of folks back then could imagine some kind of flying machine.

So, what was their intention with regard to an Air Force? They must have had one, right? We just need to read their letters and such.

Is the Air Force constitutional? Who knows, but we're not getting rid of it for anybody. Somehow, we get by. ;-)

[Ray76]

The law does not distinguish between naturalized citizens whose citizenship is vested at birth versus some other time.

8 USC § 1401 declares who shall in law be “Nationals and citizens of United States at birth”

8 USC § 1408 declares exceptions to section 1401, those who shall in law be “Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth”

The rule is given and the exceptions given.

There is no similar section which declares exceptions to section 1401, those who shall in law be “natural born citizens”

Such a declaration may have been provided by law, it is not.

[Ray76]

Revision:

The law does not distinguish between naturalized citizens whose citizenship is vested at birth versus some other time, terming some “natural born citizen” and others “citizen”.

[Ray76]

Do not conflate “at birth” and “by birth”.

“At” is a point in time.

“By” is causal.

§ 1401 declares who shall be nationals and citizens of United States AT birth. Such persons are citizen at birth by law.

The causal agent is operation of law. That law may vary causing a person to either be a citizen at birth or not at all.

A person born in country to citizen parent is a citizen BY birth.

The causal agent is birth. This person is always a citizen, this has never been doubted.

[Jeff Winston]

The law does not distinguish between naturalized citizens whose citizenship is vested at birth versus some other time.

It would be far more accurate to say that the law does not distinguish between citizens who are born citizens in the United States, and those who are born citizens outside of the United States.

In fact, all of these are listed equally under the EXACT SAME section of the law:

8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(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 five years, at least two 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; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

So you see that persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are treated equally in our law with the other categories named.

All are citizens at birth.

[Jeff Winston]

Do not conflate “at birth” and “by birth”.

Again, I would challenge you to find one single court decision in the entire history of the United States that makes a legal distinction between the two.

I would challenge you to find one authoritative legal opinion in the entire history of the United States that makes a legal distinction.

And I would challenge you to find one single statute in the entire history of the United States that makes a legal distinction.

[Ray76]

Naturalized citizens have NEVER been eligible to the Presidency.

[Ray76]

You claim that some naturalized citizens are natural born citizens.

I challenge you to find one single court decision in the entire history of the United States that says they are.

I challenge you to find one authoritative legal opinion in the entire history of the United States that says they are.

[Jeff Winston]

I challenge you to find one single court decision in the entire history of the United States that says they are.

As far as I know, there's never been a court decision declaring that persons born citizens are "natural born citizens" for the sake of the Presidency.

Just as there's never been a court decision declaring that they aren't.

I challenge you to find one authoritative legal opinion in the entire history of the United States that says they are.

Okay.

"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."

- James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1834) (in the section on Presidential eligibility)

Bayard's doctrine - that men like Ted Cruz are explicitly ELIGIBLE to be President of the United States - was approved not just by Chief Justice John Marshall, but also by the legendary Justice Joseph Story, the also-famous Chancellor James Kent, "and other distinguished jurists:"

Another edition of this work having been called for, the author takes the opportunity of expressing his satisfaction with the manner in which his humble performance has been received. He has been much flattered by the favourable notice of Chief Justice Marshall, Judge Story, Chancellor Kent, and other distinguished jurists, who have done him the honor to communicate to him their approbation of the plan of the work, and the manner of its execution ; and express their opinion that it is well calculated for the attainment of the object for which it was intended. He begs leave to tender them his thanks for their kindness ; and having, in the present edition, corrected the only error of construction which has been pointed out to him, he hopes the work is now worthy of confidence as a guide in the construction of our admirable Constitution.

- "Advertisement" (what we might call a second Preface) to the Second Edition of Bayard's work (1840)

The "only error" in the original work that he refers to was a subtle error pointed out by Chief Justice Marshall. It was not anything remotely so glaring as declaring ineligible people eligible would have been:

The error alluded to was on page 70, of the former edition ; where it was stated, that the power of Congress extends to lay out military and post-roads, through the several States, "with their assent." Chief Justice Marshall, in a letter addressed to the author, expresses a doubt whether the assent of the States is requisite for the construction of post and militaryroads, which Congress is expressly authorized to make ; though such assent is necessary for other internal improvement ; and add, "with this exception, I do not recollect a single statement in your book which is not, in my my judgment, entirely just."

So there you have it. According to multiple major legal authorities of early America - Chief Justice John Marshall, the legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, the also-famous legal expert Chancellor James Kent, and "other distinguished jurists" - none of the rest of whom found any fault with James Bayard's exposition, either - it is not necessary that a person be born in the United States to be a "natural born citizen" and eligible to be President.

This proclamation also decisively shoots down the general birther claim that it takes two citizen parents plus birth on US soil to be a natural born citizen. And when we add the extremely clear words of William Rawle, as well as the opinion of St. George Tucker, I can't think of a single one of the really major early American legal experts who doesn't contradict the birther claim.

[Ray76]

Bayard’s claim that “it is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’” is unsubstantiated and contradicted by law.

The Congress of 1790, many members of which were Framers, enacted law declaring children born out of country to citizens to be in law “natural born citizens”.

Congress in 1795 enacted law declaring children born out of country to citizens to be in law “citizens”.

The challenge was, that naturalized citizens are eligible. Bayard does not make this claim.

Bayard’s error is the claim that it is “not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’”. He cites no law which supports this claim, a claim which in fact is contradicted by law: the citizenship of children born outside the United States to citizen parents has always depended upon operation of law, only during 1790-1795 were such children declared to be in law “natural born citizen”.