Posted on 08/14/2013 6:29:08 AM PDT by Cheerio
CNN's Athena Jones investigates if Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is eligible to run for president. CNN says the "natural-born citizen" question is dogging Cruz. For the record, CNN said every constitutional law expert they interviewed for said Cruz is a natural-born citizen and eligible to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
c. The Constitution doesn not define "natural born". The "Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization," enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103, 104) provided that, "... the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."So an inoperative statute passed in 1790 does not govern citizenship laws today. Additionally, you omitted the important caveat that the Founders specified regarding fathers.d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
As the State Department indicates, without a judicial ruling, there is no definitive answer to the question.
7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF “IN THE UNITED STATES”If we do not automatically grant citizenship at birth to children born abroad on our military installations and diplomatic facilities, (BTW, I disagree with that policy) then any discussion about Cruz's eligibility is legitimate. I believe the courts would rule in favor of Cruz's eligibility, but that's irrelevant with respect to a discussion about citizenship laws.c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”
I was an Army brat as a kid, and have two brothers who were born in Japan. As I recall, my mom had to go through some extra paperwork regarding their citizenship (forgive me, but that was well over half a century ago).
I believe they also had to fill out some sort of affidavit (or something) when they turned 18. I believe it had something to do with their eligibility for Japanese military service.
For what it's worth, I believe Ted Cruz is as solid a patriot as can be found in this country, and per the Framers' core intents regarding the office of President, would pass muster with them.
Unfortunately, none of them predicted how badly the Constitution would be subverted by the malicious use of language in the distant future. The plain meanings of things in their day, have been stood on their heads, and interpreted precisely opposite to what they originally meant, in our time.
Had they only known, I think they would have spelled things out in even plainer language than they did.
No, they repealed an old law on a subject and placed a new law on the same subject. Happens all the time. In fact, our current law on the subject looks nothing like even the 1795 law. So, don’t be deceived, they KNEW the debate around the entire Constitution.
And, we were looking at the use of the expression “natural born citizen.”
It is used by the Founders for those born to citizens overseas. It is. No one can change that. There it is in black and white.
Notice that the reason for the change was the incorporation of new provisions. The 1795 law is at least twice as long as the 1790. They added that the father of the overseas born could NOT be a British soldier from the war.
And they showed that CITIZEN born to citizen parents AND “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” are EQUIVALENT TERMS.
Earlier they had USED “Natural Born Citizen” because they didn’t see any problem with it being used of those born overseas. They did. That can’t be changed.
Nor can anyone show from any record that there was an objection to using those terms interchangeably.
So, those who wish to believe that “natural born citizen” is only for those born in this country of 2 citizen parents are wrong.
It was not used that way in the 1790 law.
They are entirely free to believe what they want. But the facts are against them when they try to say those who have analyzed it according to the actual record are wrong. The best they can say to them is: “You MIGHT be wrong.”
What I can say to them is: “The Evidence is Against You. “Natural Born Citizen” IS used of those born overseas.
The very beginning of that section explains that citizenship is by geography or by bloodline. That discussion on bloodline is here in 7 FAM 1131. Specifically, it says about the presidency:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.‖
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.
In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes
As you can see, the pamphlet concludes that a statuatory natural born citizen is not necessarily a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Note first that it does not say: "such a person is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
Note second that in arguing "not necessarily" that the pam recognizes that a count-argument can forcefully be made that the person is a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Also note that saying "does not necessarily imply" indicates that the record does "seem to imply". Otherwise, the formulation "does not necessarily imply" would not be used. The forumulation would be: "does seem to imply that the citizen is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
So, the bottom line is that bloodline citizenship has been called "natural born citizenship" by no less than the Founding Congress and signed by President George Washington.
Windflier, you have the wrong section of the Foreign Affairs Manual. You have the section that deals with what is to be considered the geography of the United States.
The very beginning of that section explains that citizenship is by geography or by bloodline. That discussion on bloodline is here in 7 FAM 1131. Specifically, it says about the presidency:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.‖
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.
In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes
As you can see, the pamphlet concludes that a statuatory natural born citizen is not necessarily a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Note first that it does not say: "such a person is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
Note second that in arguing "not necessarily" that the pam recognizes that a count-argument can forcefully be made that the person is a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Also note that saying "does not necessarily imply" indicates that the record does "seem to imply". Otherwise, the formulation "does not necessarily imply" would not be used. The forumulation would be: "does seem to imply that the citizen is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
So, the bottom line is that bloodline citizenship has been called "natural born citizenship" by no less than the Founding Congress and signed by President George Washington.
I’m sure that the Commiecrats and RINOs are working overtime to make sure that Cruz is ruled ineligible. We just can’t seem to catch a break anywhere.
So, in short, the analysis is that the record “does seem to imply” that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency, although it “does not necessarily imply” that such is the case.
So, the weight of the debate is on the side of those who say that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency.
Yes, it is always the ones they see as a threat that they work to destroy early on in the process.
The do it through minions on the internet, too, whose real loyalties are actually covert.
That sounds like an oxymoron to me. A person is a citizen by birth or by statute, but not both. The so-called natural born citizen is so, due the the circumstance of their birth in the country to citizen parents.
Also, I didn't cite anything from the Foreign Affairs Manual.
I'll have to come back to this discussion later. I've got to head out to work.
See post #127.
Buckeye & Windflier, I mixed up the names of those posting to be about the State Department FAM and the law of 1795.
So, my apologies for mixing up your names. The points made, though, have nothing to do with that. They are valid.
The Framers also wrote the Articles of Confederation before they replaced it with the U.S. Constitution. Are you going to also claim that our nation is bound to the words they said in that earlier document?
You're basing your argument on an act that was repealed. You may as well argue that Prohibition is still the law of the land. Good luck.
Allow me to say it again, Windflier.
The repeal of the statute has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that these founders thought the definition of “natural born citizen” to be appropriate to describe a child born to US citizens overseas.
I would be excited to learn they also used the expression “natural born citizen” to describe a child born overseas to US citizens. It would simply further confirm the point.
Being born overseas to US citizens abroad does not preclude the use of the expression “natural born citizen.”
These Founders saw NO CONTRADICTION in using that expression to describe a child born overseas to US citizens.
Leftists are hypocrites, always
LOL! As if the ability to be born with only one parent isn't bad enough!
You have to admire the way they twist words, though.
They ARE 'equal', but they are not the same. Statutory citizenship, or Naturalization, is a citizen by the positive law of Man.
Natural born citizenship is one designated by Natural Law, or what the Founders called the Law of Nature.
Are they equal, sure, but a statutory citizens do not have the priviledge of the ability to run for President or VP.
THAT is reserved for natural born Citizens.
It was the way it was supposed to work, anyway. Until government decided it had the ability to define damn well everything.
The State Department, which is responsible for examining claims of citizenship by those born abroad, stipulates that the courts have not ruled on their eligibility to the presidency, which means that there isn't a definitive answer. The State Department recognizes that arguments can be made for and against their eligibility.
For the record, I cited two sections of the FAM. First, I cited the section on eligibility to the presidency. Second, I cited the section about military installations and diplomatic facilities. So, I'm not sure why you think I cited the wrong section.
As to your point that the Founding Fathers recognized jus sanguinis, you are correct. However, they restricted jus sanguinis citizenship to the father. They did not recognize jus sanguinis citizenship transmitted through the mother.
As the FAM stipulates, the primary means of acquiring U.S. citizenship is the principle of jus soli under the 14th Amendment.Jus sanguinis citizenship is acquired only by federal statute.
7 FAM 1131 Basis for Determination of AcquisitionIf his U.S. citizen mother met the residency requirements before his birth, then Senator Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen by federal statute through the principle of jus sanguinis. Whether or not he is eligible to the presidency is a question for the courts, but I believe they would rule in his favor.7 FAM 1131.1 Authority
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)).
I encourage debate on this issue because I believe we need a definitive answer from SCOTUS.
They did recognize it through the mother after the nation recognition of women’s rights, in general.
I agree with you that the courts would recognize bloodline citizenship if it ever had the case brought before it. Should they intervene on their own without a case brought before them? I don’t know if they can do that. The Constitution as I read it says they have jurisdiction over cases arising under the constitution, under the law, and under treaties.
It seems that a case would have to come to them; that they can’t come up with a case on their own.
To have standing in such a case would require a candidate denied access to a presidential election due to bloodline citizenship, and that probably won’t happen.
I don’t read where the legislative or executive could ask them to rule on a question, and I don’t think they’d ask that anyway, since they would be inclined to preserve their own powers.
I suppose a State could bring a case against either a candidate or a fuzzy law, and they could choose to rule on it.
7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by "Naturalization"
(CT:CON-479; 08-19-2013)Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.
LOL! How conveeenint!
Maybe that's what's up with the glitchity-glitch on FR. You'd THINK since they're driving us into poverty they could either get better equipment to listen in with or buy a clue.
Natural born citizenship is hereditary, people, ya get it from yer parents!
...and YES, it takes TWO to tango!
LOL!
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.