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.
Well, he can RUN, however SERVING is where he would need to be legally eligible. :)
“Trump knew EXACTLY what he was doing. ..”
Yes he did, and he CLAIMED it was to help Ted Cruz. What a phony Donald Trump is.
“....then the Supreme Court could be called upon to answer the question. ..”
Would this be the same Supreme Court which gave us UNconstitutional rulings, like abortion, same-sex “marriage,” eminent domain, etc..
NO THANKS.
But this is a direct quote from Ted Cruz in Aug 2013,
“As you know, I was born in Canada. My mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of my birth. She was a U.S. citizen from birth so, under U.S. law, I’m an American citizen by birth.” “Beyond that,” he added, “I will leave the legal consequences of those facts to others to worry about.”
I had seen him say that, or nearly exactly that, on camera. It’s ambiguous on the one part of the statement, and dismissive on the other. Especially since he later made the claim that it is “settled law”.
I have friends in law enforcement at a high level.
It is NOT out of the ordinary to hold evidence in abeyance for several years until the circumstances for clear and complete follow through come to fruition,
I would NOT be surprised that , if elected, Trump, along with Sheriff Arpaio brought forth the evidence so as to make it VERY EASY to overturn EVERY SINGLE executive order written by Obozo.
If they wre really hell bent on revenge they might ALSO prosecute the former usurper-in-chief.
It is not nonsense and it is not going away.
As I stated in post #23 (I'm assuming that is the post that you're referring to), and I'm going to type this real slowly, multiple people right here on FR have stated that they would be alright with Trump becoming dictator if that's what it would take for him to accomplish his stated agenda.
No mind reading necessary. After reading those posts I've parted ways with the Trumpbots; y'all is crazy.
Many I know say that we've already allowed a MUSLIM to become president.. are we NEXT going to allow a Canadian to govern us?
It's too late. You're right, .. the milk has been spilled.
Those who have a question about Cruz’s eligibility for POTUS need to address a court.......or shut the hell up.
His comments demonstrate a dismissive attitude and lack of due diligence.
“”” Do mean Sheriff Joe who said he had all the goods on obama and was set to make a major announcement... like two years ago????
I have friends in law enforcement at a high level.
It is NOT out of the ordinary to hold evidence in abeyance for several years until the circumstances for clear and complete follow through come to fruition,
I would NOT be surprised that , if elected, Trump, along with Sheriff Arpaio brought forth the evidence so as to make it VERY EASY to overturn EVERY SINGLE executive order written by Obozo.
If they wre really hell bent on revenge they might ALSO prosecute the former usurper-in-chief. “””
That could be but I won’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen. I have heard so many stories from Joe, Issa, Gowdy etc. that all claim to have the real thing and when they release it all hell will break loose that I don’t believe any of it anymore. When you add to that the fact that the uniparty doesn’t want to do anything about it we get what we have now.
I don’t see that as problematic at all. Cruz doesn’t want us talking about that all the time; Trump DOES. Even though Trump HIMSELF said Cruz was a Natural Born Citizen, now that Cruz is doing so well, Trump is putting doubts in people’s minds. DIRTY POLITICS by Trump.
I, too, am disappointed. Would a true conservative jeopardize the nation is such a manner? Surely he **knows** that the Marxo-Demo-Proggies will use his questionable eligibility at an optimal time to inflict maximum damage on the Republicans.
Cruz's actions are the behavior of an ambitious opportunist and weasel.
Does Cruz seriously believe that the Founders would consider a person Natural Born who was born in a foreign country, lived there several years, did not renounce his foreign citizenship until the moment he chose to run for president,was born to an American woman who **voted** in foreign elections, and whose father was Cuban?
Unbelievable!
The **last** person I would want for an enemy is Trump!
However, Trump does not, and never has, claimed to be a expert on the Constitution, nor is he a lawyer, Constitutional or otherwise. Cruz does make that claim. When Cruze does deign to speak on the topic, he has said it’s “settled law”. Well that came, of course after he said he’d “leave the legal consequences up to others to worry about.”
In fact he first claimed, in 2013, that he DIDN’T KNOW he had Canadian citizenship. Didn’t know? How on earth could he not know? He is an attorney, right? He had his Canadian birth certificate. And there is the Princeton collage friend that Ted discussed his dual-citizenship with. That friend went on record with the story that Ted declared as a dual citizen at the Canadian border on one visit the friends took into Canada. Ted had never refuted that story. So none of this adds up in a straight line.
It’s what we’re stuck with for the time being until they are term limited.
True.
[[The SCOTUS has in fact dealt with natural born citizenship in Minor v. Happersett (1874), and in that case they defined it as born in the U.S. to citizens.]]
So trump isn’t eligible because only one parent was a citizen?
Both of Trump’s parents were citizens at the time of his birth.
That's just an emotional rant which doesn't get anywhere in terms of the discourse.
There is no controlling authority on the question of what constitutes a natural born citizen under Article II, Sec. 1; the Supreme Court decides on the facts presented whether or not the individual is eligible.
And the Court, as a general interpretative proposition ignores legislative history in favor of its own reading of the words on the paper.
There is no doubt that there is momentum to expressly modify the Constitution to define who meets the test. At present, the general direction of the media and the academics is that a nationalist US definition is no longer appropriate in our global world environment. That view is driven by Liberal support for the guy in the White House who is not eligible by any definition. If the Liberals get their guy to impose an unconstitutional culture on America, I get my guy to unravel it. Although I could be persuaded Trump might do it; I believe Cruz, if elected, would do it.
That may or may not be a majority view in the country--most of America thinks Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court; people don't really have a clue what is involved.
As a general proposition, I probably would be fairly close to your view--born in the geographical territory of the admitted states. But in the case of Cruz, I think he is probably the best quality candidate for President so I hope he is not held ineligible.
As to what the founders might have thought, their legislative drafting could have been a much better job--on the commerce clause; the second amendment; and maybe the first amendment too. The legal work was poorly done.
However the Court ignores the history of various clauses in favor its own reading of the words. The only specific reliable legislative history on the provision is a letter from John Jay to George Washington which probably supports the born in the admitted states interpretation; certainly specifically in the case of Canada.
In this case, that won't carry the day I don't think. But it is a close call which could have been addressed and resolved by Cruz in the last twelve to fifteen months in which everyone on our side was attempting to sweep the issue under the rug.
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.