Posted on 01/19/2016 8:55:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
The past eight or so years should have proven conclusively that the various strains of birthers out there do not know about which they speak. Nevertheless, this has not stopped them from continuing in their ways. The latest speculation I've seen surrounds the Naturalization Act of 1790 passed by the First Congress. Here is the relevant portion:
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or 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...
Birthers have been asserting that, since Rafael Cruz* did not become an American citizen until 2005, and while he was in Canada with his wife, during which time Ted was born, he became an Canadian citizen. This, in the Birthers' view, disqualifies Ted from this Presidency, as "the Founders" never would have intended someone like him becoming President
But look closer at the bolder portion. It never says that the father has to be a citizen of the United States at the time the child is born. All it says is that citizenship "shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." It is indisputable that Rafael Cruz was in the United States for a period of time prior to both Ted's birth and his marriage to native born American citizen Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson in 1969. He fled Cuba in 1957 at the age of 18, arriving in Texas. There, he attended the University of Texas, graduating with a degree in mathematics in 1961. He even married his first wife there, Julia Ann Garza, in 1959. They later divorced, but not before he had two daughters with her. He was also granted political asylum in 1961 upon his graduation from UT.
In other words, Ted Cruz's birth meets everything required in this 1790 act. His mother, Eleanor Wilson, was a citizen by birth in the United States, fulfilling the requirement of a child being born to at least one citizen, and his father had lived in the United States for years and been granted political asylum here prior to his move to Canada.
With all of this said, the 1790 act is far from the only word on the issue. If we're talking about the Founders' intentions, it is also important to note that the Constitution specifically leaves to Congress the prerogative to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" in Article I § 4, and because of this, the ways and conditions under which a person acquires citizenship today. Here is the relevant section of the current law:
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
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 year...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, just in case we are curious as to what the law looked like when Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970, we can look to the Supreme Court Case of 1971 Rogers v. Bellei. Here is a layman's summary of the case (emphasis mine):
[Aldo Mario] Bellei (plaintiff) was born in Italy in 1939 to an Italian father and American mother, and visited but never lived in the United States. Bellei failed to comply with Section 301(b) of the Act, and in 1963 was consequently warned twice in writing by the United States that he was at risk of losing his United States citizenship. In 1964 and 1966, Bellei was informed by the American embassy in Rome, verbally and in writing, respectively, that he had lost his United States citizenship. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of the Act against Rogers (defendant), claiming the Act violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
And via the case syllabus, here is how the Court ruled:
Syllabus
Appellee challenges the constitutionality of § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S. 253, and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U. S. 163.
Held: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those "born or naturalized in the United States," and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. Afroyim v. Rusk, supra, and Schneider v. Rusk, supra, distinguished. Pp. 401 U. S. 820-836.
296 F.Supp. 1247, reversed.
The Cruz family moved back to the United States in 1974, when Ted was about four years old. Unlike Bellei, he has been a resident of this country ever since, thus meeting the requirements in place when he was born. All of this is irrelevant now, though, as Congress removed the portion of the law Bellei challenged in 1978.
In other words, Ted Cruz is absolutely eligible to run for President. Furthermore, the precise requirements for citizenship have evolved over the years. Even in the days of the Founders, this was true, as the 1790 act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795 and then later by acts in 1798 and 1802.
Bellei aside, the general trend since World War II is that the Supreme Court prefers to liberalize, not restrict, the requirements for citizenship. Joseph M. Bessette has a great summary of this in his article on naturalization for the Heritage Foundation. If they take up the Cruz eligibility case, I'd think they are far more likely to continue that trend than to impose any more restrictions upon the process. Is that what birther types really want?
So, to make a long story short, the Ted Cruz birthers (and the Marco Rubio ones, honestly) are engaged in a losing battle. The Senator from Texas is every bit as eligible as all other natural born citizens to run for and be elected to the Presidency. This current Quixotic crusade they are undertaking, facts be damned, is nothing but an attempt by rabid Trump supporters to disqualify one of "their guy's" rivals from the race, because they evidently understand that Cruz is a real threat to Trump winning the nomination. This is classic banana republic totalitarianism, and we are better than that.
P.S.: For further reading, this article from the Harvard Law Review, written by former United States Solicitors General Paul Clement (Bush 43) and Neal Katyal (Obama) is definitely worth a read.
Not so!
Dissenting opinion was in error!
Anyone can be stripped of their citizenship; remember Nolan? The man without a country?
The dissenters were nut cases.
Not so!
Dissenting opinion was in error!
Anyone can be stripped of their citizenship; remember Nolan? The man without a country?
The dissenters were nut cases.
> Anyone can be stripped of their citizenship
Persons who acquire citizenship via federal statute can lose their citizenship if they fail to fulfill statutory requirements (Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815).
A citizen under the 14th Amendment can not have their citizenship revoked (Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253).
You don't even know what you are talking about. First of all, the opinion had nothing to do with stripping of citizenship. It was the holding. Nolan was a fictional character.Even with Nolan, it was an action by Nolan himself that instigated the stripping of his citizenship. If you read Belli like you claim, you see they make a distinction between someone that does something of his own free will as opposed to someone that has not done anything.
Can Your U.S. Citizenship Be Revoked? - FindLaw
That says only naturalized citizens can lose citizenship, by denaturalization.
Speaking of people without a country ...
Dominican Republic Stripped Hundreds of Thousands of Haitians of Their Citizenship - Reason|Ed Krayewski|Jun. 18, 2015
In 2013 the Dominican Constitutional Court ruled that only people born to at least one Dominican parent could claim Dominican citizenship ...
What is the Nolan case? I've been looking for it, seeing as how your remarks sometimes lead to interesting self-education about the subject, and about your honesty.
You need to maintain a position that the whole court is nut cases. All of them view Bellei as naturalized.
There is no Nolan case. He is a fictional character in a short story :-)
.
No, Nolan was not a fictional character.
There were fictional novels that took off of the theme, and a movie too, but Nolan was real, and an excellent example of the kinds of judges a popping jay like Trump would be likely to appoint.
.
A person born a citizen cannot get naturalized.
One must be an alien to get naturalized.
You’ve woven an immense web of stupidity.
At least we agree on those two points. Except your definition of "get naturalized" isn't the definition used in the law.
However, the uncertainty involved works against the Cruz interest to a significant degree--I doubt that he is going to get the nomination unless the issue gets resolved.
Frankly, given Senator Cruz's high level of sophistication on Constitutional Law issues, I am disappointed that he has not advanced a plan to get it resolved earlier.
Now you are just insane. Show me where Nolan was real. Have you ever even read the story ? Do you even know what it was about ? It was a commentary on the Civil War and the need for the preservation on the Union.
There were fictional novels that took off the theme
Do you understand what fictional means and taking off a theme? It means something that is made up, never happened and a theme is an idea. Why don't you come up with some quotes from Harry Potter while you are at it. They would be just as relevant.
Remember when BO brazenly admitted British citizenship (via his father) at birth? The quote smacks of that.
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.