Posted on 03/12/2015 12:32:49 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Two of the top lawyers for the Obama and Bush administrations agree on this: Sen. Ted Cruz can become president. Legally speaking, anyway.
Paul D. Clement, former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, and Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general for President Obama, penned a piece for the Harvard Law Review tackling the question of what the Constitution means when it says that the president must be at least 35 years old, a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and a “natural born Citizen.”
“All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time,” they wrote. “And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.”
Cruz was born in a Canadian hospital to a mother who was a U.S. citizen. But he’s only the latest potential presidential candidate who has had his qualifications questioned. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) was born in Arizona before it was a state. Gov. George Romney (R-Mich.) was delivered in Mexico to U.S. residents. All were qualified to serve, . . . .
The First Congress, they noted, established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were themselves citizens at birth “and explicitly recognized that such children were ‘natural born citizens.’
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
That simply doesn’t make sense OWS. You’re saying native born citizens went through a process that they did not go through and did not need to go through.
At the moment they drew their very first breath....from the moment of the conception, in my view...they were US citizens.
Under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress promulgated and a President signed into law Title 8 Section 1401 of the U.S. Code which says, in part:
8 U.S.C. § 1401
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;
and with specific regard to Senator Cruz’s circumstances:
(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...
The landmark Supreme Court decision on this issue was U.S. v Wong Kim Ark in 1898. In that appeal the U.S. government asked the Supreme Court:
“Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”
“To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet be was not born subject to the ‘political jurisdiction’ thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”
And the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that: [An alien parent’s] “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 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’ “
‘Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is simply:
You are citing a normal act of congress regarding citizenship; the only type of citizenship congress is given power over is naturalization, you are therefore claiming that Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen and thereby ineligible to hold the presidency.
Thanks.
Seems clear Cruz is natural born, though.
Unlike Obama, he can actually produce a real birth certificate showing his mother was an American citizen.
The Rats want to cloud the issue, of course.
I don't know about that.
Most people here cite congressional acts to try to justify their assertion of his eligibility, but doing so undermines their claim because the only citizenship power congress has is in respect to naturalization… so by using said acts to cover Mr. Cruz they are claiming he is naturalized, which is different than a natural born citizen.
Don't get me wrong I like Mr. Cruz, I just don't think he's eligible for the office of president.
Certain people, like ansel12, claim that opinion makes me anti-Cruz
.
Realistically, I don’t think anyone is going to challenge the eligibility of Cruz to run for president.
We can have these debates, but realistically, if he wants to run, he will run. Only a court decision could realistically stop him from running. Who is going to file a lawsuit on this subject for a court to review in the first place???
The important phrase you stated is FIRST CONGRESS, the guys who were actually in the room at the time the Constitution was written, debated, and signed.
My understanding of the difference is that someone who is naturalized has to be, first, a citizen of another country. Then they become naturalized as a citizen of the US.
When someone is born, however, they traditionally take on the nationality of their parents. And, if there is only one parent who is a US citizen, then the default is US citizenship if that one parent is the mother, because there is a provable link between the child and the mother.
If the mother is outside of the country, she is still a US citizen. Therefore the citizenship passes to the child. Depending on the country, the child might have the option of becoming a citizen of its birth country, either through double citizenship or by abandoning US citizenship by a certain age.
Where this concept is abused, IMO, is where citizens from other countries come here specifically to have a child and invoke US citizenship. This turns the whole thing on its head. These "anchor babies" should be acknowledged as citizens of their mother's country, not the US.
In short, my understanding is that citizenship is a function of the person, not the place.
John Bingham, “father of the 14th Amendment”, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.
The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”
No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears they ALL where in agreement.
Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”
(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)
The take away from this is that, while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people’s house regarding “citizenship” and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect’s multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution. The United States House was in complete agreement at the time. NBC = born in sovereign U.S. territory, to 2 citizen parentS who owe allegiance to no other country.
” than applying the exact same rule in the exact same way gives England “Jurisdiction” over babies born in their country.”
You are right, but forget an important fact. The US does not care if the UK would consider someone a subject of the queen if legally an American citizen at birth, even if born in the UK. For the purposes of American citizenship it is irrelevant. This
was one of the issues that caused the War of 1812.
What I struggle with, is that Ted Cruz was born the citizen of three countries:
Canada, the land where he was born.
The US, by virtue of his mother’s American citizenship.
Cuba, by virtue of his father’s Cuban citizenship.
How does a person born with triple citizenship equal a natural born citizen, for purposes of Presidential eligibility? How does that square with the addition of the”natural born” wording by John Jay and George Washington to the Constitution to avoid someone without ties to a foreign nation?
If citizen at birth equals natural born by virtue of being born within the boundaries of the US, per the 14th Amendment, Cruz does not even meet that definition.
I struggle with all of this because Cruz is about the brightest shining light we have seen on the national scene since Reagan and Palin. Where he is right now is where we need him.
But if we are having this debate on FR, you can bet the Dims and the Leftists will bring the same questions to the fore should he declare.
I have the same issues with Rubio and Jindal. Neither had parents who were US citizens at the time of their birth. Thus they were born with dual citizenship, and are citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment. John Bingham, who wrote the 14th Amendment, never equated a person born of foreign parents but born here to be natural born.
Neither did the Wong decision equate the two. Citizen at birth does not equal “natural born” citizen in the Wong case.
It is hard to admit, but Barack Obama, unless proven to be otherwise(c’mon Sheriff Joe) has more of a claim than Cruz to be eligible because he was born in the US, and has an American mother. Cruz just has an American mother.
At CPAC, when talking with Sean Hannity, Cruz was very careful to say he was born in Canada to a mother who was an American citizen, and the requirement for President was to be natural born. He did not say he WAS natural born.
When I grew up, we were taught that natural born meant born in the US of citizen parents (plural). As the child of an American father and a non-American citizen mother, I understood I was not eligible to be President, though being a Senator and a Congressman was fine.
From reading these threads over the years, many others were taught the same thing.
It wasn’t until 2008 that all that got turned on its head in order for Obama to be acceptable.
I can only hope other documentation is found as to what the Founders meant by “natural born” at the time the phrase was used.
The issue must be squared away once and for all.
Congress has passed laws defining the criteria for being a Citizen of The United States At Birth under the provisions of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
From Wikipedia:
“Citizenship in the United States is a matter of federal law, governed by the United States constitution.
Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Statute, by birth within U.S.
As of 2011, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth.
if Ted Cruz was issued a Certificate of Naturalization then you are correct. If he wasn’t then you are incorrect.
I didn't really forget it, I just consider the concept of dual citizenship to be wrong on a fundamental level. According to the English Common law which everyone claims our "natural born citizen" is based on, Allegiance is complete, and solely to a single sovereign.
The concept of dual citizenship was completely rejected at this period in history. The English didn't even accept the concept of voluntary expatriation. You weren't ALLOWED to change your allegiance. It was perpetual.
For the purposes of American citizenship it is irrelevant. This was one of the issues that caused the War of 1812.
Yes it was. We were upset because the British refused to accept that some people had expatriated themselves and became Americans. To be fair, they mostly grabbed British Subjects, but they did grab a few born Americans under the pretext that their British Fathers made them British.
But to answer your point as best I can, I just regard "dual citizenship" to be incompatible with the concept of "natural" citizenship. I can't think of a civil condition more unnatural. As Founder Rufus King said:
A citizen is bound by Duties to which an alien is a stranger; he may not have them required of him without having consented to become a citizen, he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance; in short no doctrine is less supported than that which teaches that a nation may at their Pleasure adopt the citizens of another nation without their Consent or application " it certainly goes too far. Besides this doctrine is not only novel and unreasonable, but against contemporary exposition, and indeed is repugnant to laws wh. may fairly be deemed, declaratory of the meaning of the article.
Again you cite an act of congress, congress only has the power to define rules for naturalization.
The text of the Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Therefore, no new powers are thereby delegated to the federal government and they are still only granted authority over establishing a rule of naturalization via congress.
Allow me to reiterate — if you cite any ordinary act of congress WRT the citizenship of Ted Cruz you are asserting that he is a naturalized citizen precisely because any act of congress covering citizenship must be that of naturalization.
Will you MAKE UP YOUR MIND? Congress can either amend the constitution by Statute or they can't. Now which is it?
Hair splitting and Word Games. I think the Supreme Court summed up the point succinctly in Wong Kim Ark.
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized,...by authority of Congress, exercised ... by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens...
The Supreme court just out and out says that when Congress gives citizenship to the foreign born children of citizens, it constitutes "naturalization."
Central America, South America, Latin America, where they all speak Latin.
I should not be surprised if the Democrats do this very thing. They are scum, and I do not doubt that they will do it. They don't even have to win, they just need to get their hordes to keep repeating the allegation until they've put enough doubt in the public mind.
The Bad publicity will kill his chances, even if he wins the lawsuit, and I don't even know if he can actually win the lawsuit. All these anti-birthers tell me that "Wong Kim Ark" is the absolute precedent authority on matters of citizenship, and it does not help him at all.
Yes they did, and these are called "naturalization" laws.
if Ted Cruz was issued a Certificate of Naturalization then you are correct. If he wasn’t then you are incorrect.
As I pointed out earlier, naturalization numbers are never issued to children who receive derivative citizenship. Even in cases of actual bonified sworn in, Citizenship Test, Alien naturalization, "naturalized" citizens, they don't give numbers to the Children. The Children acquire "Derivative" citizenship from the naturalized parent(s).
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.