Andrew C. McCarthy: Cruz, Natural Born Citizen

We disagree on that, unless by "had to be taken" you mean that she actually took an overt action.

What did I say in my most recent response to you? "As I explained, an overt action had to be taken by the mother to obtain US citizenship for her infant son. It was my assumption that she did register the birth with the consulate. Obviously, Ted could not do that himself. The use of the word "had" is meant to describe what actually happened."

The way I read those statements together, citizenship under 1401(g) attaches at birth, and is not conditioned on approval. You have said that citizenship attaches after birth, on approval, and doesn't attach at all if the conditions are met and approval isn't sought. Well, that's the natural meaning of the words you typed, maybe you mean something different, and I'm just confused again.

There are two ways to become a citizen, at birth (jus solis and jus sanguinis jus solis is automatic. You are born on US soil or a territory of the US and you are a citizen no matter who your parents are or whether they are here legally or not. It is called birthright citizenship for a reason. Jus sanguinis is derivative citizenship based on a number of conditions. The burden of proof falls on the applicant to show that they are eligible to receive it under the laws current at the time.

There is no such thing as retroactive citizenship. Again, the at birth proviso is to distinguish the two ways you can become a citizen, i.e., at birth or naturalization. The procedures, required documents, etc for naturalization are different than those required for those acquiring citizenship via jus solis or jus sanguinis .

That was uncalled for. I can only go by the words you type, and as i pointed out with the "had to pay by check" example, maybe the words you type are taken, by others, in a way different from what you intend.

I don't appreciate being called a "crank and crackpot." Like Trump, I don't respond unless attacked. When you get personal, it weakens your position. You can disagree without being disagreeable.

-- What did I say in my most recent response to you? "As I explained, an overt action had to be taken by the mother to obtain US citizenship for her infant son. --

To be honest with you, I have no idea what you mean in that statement, that you find to be perfectly clear.

If I view it as meaning her action is mandatory, you say that is not what you mean. But the normal meaning and consequence of "an overt action had to be taken by the mother to obtain US citizenship for her infant son" is that if she did not take an overt action, then her infant son is not a citizen.

-- The use of the word "had" is meant to describe what actually happened." --

That just confuses me even more. Does that result in your statement being "As I explained, an overt action actually happened by the mother to obtain US citizenship for her infant son."? Please disregard that is awkward phrasing, I'm not criticizing the phrasing, just trying to ferret out what you mean to say.

-- I don't appreciate being called a "crank and crackpot." --

Of course, I understand. But that's the way i feel, and maybe it's my own fault because I take what you write in the normal way those phases parse. Hell, I even looked up the meaning of "have to" as a sanity check on myself. Define "Have to" at Dictionary.com. That came back with a meaning of "be obliged to" or "must," which coincides with the meaning I applied. But after your example of paying for the couch with a check, and otherwise finding me to be pedantic, well, I'm confused and frustrated with our exchange.

I don't want to be a pest to anybody, I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to honestly state exactly what our differences are, and see if we come away in agreement or disagreement. At this point, I think that is impossible, and of course, I don't think that's my fault. What started as what I thought was a simple (and FWIW, ssent in friendship) correction of an academic legal point has turned into pages of talking past each other.

I know I asked a few questions above. You can answer them if you want, but please don't feel that I expect or deserve a reply. You are probably frustrated and tired of this debate too, I doubt we'll resolve it (meaning I doubt we'll figure out what our differences are, if any), I don't care if it's resolved or not, and there is no consequence if we don't resolve it.

I have nothing further.

Your logic would have one law on naturalization (Naturalization Act of 1790) legal and subsequent ones not.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1798 - did intent change here? - which was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1802 - did intent change here?

The constitution does not define natural-born, it does empower Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

It has always been that there are two ways to citizenship, natural-born or naturalized.

Your argument is also covered in the article.

thanks for your reply.

The natural born concept was frozen into the Constitution. Congress has the power to determine citizenship, but that doesn’t change Constitutional mandates.

I have heard the argument that the Constitution does not define the concept of natural born citizenship at least a thousand times. There are numerous words in the Constitution that are not defined. Does that mean we are permitted to run riot with all those words.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was written by the same people who wrote the Constitution, and it defines what natural born means — the offspring of citizens. I, along with millions, was taught in American history that natural born referred to someone born of parents who both were citizens. The Founders were concerned with loyalty; for example, the king of England at that time was a German, raised in Germany. Loyalty was not a prerequisite for the British throne; bloodlines were. In England, when the king died, people usually celebrated, they hated him so much.

According to the Naturalization Act of 1790, citizenship descended through the father only. Cruz’s father was not a citizen of the United States until much, much, later after Cruz was born.

“It has always been that there are two ways to citizenship, natural-born or naturalized.

I don’t know. It seems like now it is naturalized, citizen, and natural born citizen. But this whole thing is not for us to decide.

Likely my last point in our discussion. I'll leave you the last word.

It seems like now it is naturalized, citizen, and natural born citizen.

Born a citizen is natural born a citizen. As opposed to naturalized as a citizen. It always has been. I don't see a valid argument that it ever was different. So, IMHO, Cruz is either not a citizen or is natural born.

But this whole thing is not for us to decide.

Yeppers, we can argue our positions, but... In any case I don't buy Trump's 'it's gonna be a distraction on Cruz if he's elected. It didn't distract Obama. :)

Thanks for a vigorous argument.

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.