Posted on 03/23/2015 8:36:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Now that Ted Cruz is officially in the Presidential race, you may rest assured that some of the same people who considered it an insult of titanic proportions to even ask to see President Obama’s birth certificate will be kicking off a similar conversation regarding the Texas Senator. Because, you know… he’s a gosh darn foreigner. For the few of you who may have missed it, Cruz was born in Canada. His father was from Cuba but his mother was a US citizen. As our colleague Guy Benson explained over a year ago, this one isn’t even a question.
For the uninitiated, the Texas Senator and conservative stalwart was born in Calgary, Canada — prompting some to insist that he’s not a “natural born citizen” and is therefore ineligible for the presidency. But there are only two types of citizens under the law: Natural born Americans (from birth), and naturalized Americans, who undergo the legal process of becoming a US citizen. Cruz never experienced the latter proceedings because he didn’t need to; his mother was born and raised in Delaware, rendering Cruz an American citizen from the moment of his birth abroad. Meanwhile, Cruz hasn’t even indicated if he has any designs to pursue a White House run — he’s got his hands full in the United States Senate. National Review has more on this preposterous “debate:”
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.” Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen.
This was the same conversation that took place in 2007 and 2008 regarding John McCain. (McCain was born in Panama.) At the time, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama signed on to a simple resolution (along with the rest of the Senate) declaring that Senator McCain was “a natural born citizen” and eligible for the presidency. Given the current, rather toxic climate inside the beltway, I have to wonder if Ted Cruz will be offered the same consideration?
Perhaps a better question, though we’ve kicked this one around here before, is whether or not the Supreme Court will ever rule on this definition once and for all so we can just be done with it. True, we have some federal laws on the books which cover such things and they are frequently referenced when these discussions come up. And there’s absolutely nothing to indicate that this interpretation is any way unconstitutional.
And why would it be? The prevailing wisdom seems to at least have the benefit of sounding reasonable to the layman. Going back to the writing of the Constitution it was recognized that there are only two types of citizens recognized. You are either a citizen at the time of your birth or you become one later by going through the naturalization process. If we have to pick one of these two classes to be “natural born” it seems a rather easy choice.
But, yet again, that answer won’t be “permanent” (for lack of a better word) without the Supremes weighing in on it. And for that to happen, someone would have to challenge it. And that someone would have to have standing to even bring the challenge. You know… the more I think about it, maybe we should just stick with what we have now.
And this is what I think too.
Do you honestly think it would have been a problem? Because the Constitution clearly prohibits funding the Army for more than two years at a time.To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
IOW, the deployment/stationing abroad that is so commonplace now would have been unthinkable then.
By their own history, the Framers must have defined Natural Born Citizen to mean something beyond “born in the borders of the United States.”
I agree, but this is the question.
Dems can say anything they want. Its the courts that will decide. Just as the birthers continually said Obama was ineligible but the courts disagreed.
You might be unaware of this, but US Citizens were created by the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the THIRD governing document. (It was preceded by the Articles of Confederation.)
I don't believe William Blackstone was much help in writing the Declaration of Independence. That document pretty much turns English common law on it's ear, and it is *THAT* document which created US Citizenship. If you look at the early court decisions, they regard the dividing point between citizen/subject as July 4, 1776.
Again, it was the Declaration of Independence that created the condition we call "US Citizen."
For the same reason that any NBC who is born abroad to US parents has to fill out forms, to record and report the incident. By the way, US born natural born citizens, also have to fill out paperwork to record the birth.
All citizens need a Congressional statue, i.e. law to be a US citizen. It’s called title 8 section 1401. Most people are covered under subsection A. Congressional acts, laws and statutes define how the government is going to operate, ie rules, as in rules of naturalization a specifically enumerated power exclusive and unrestricted power granted to the Congress as detailed in the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
The founding fathers intent was clarified by the first acts of congress. You know, the Congress that actually had members who were the founding fathers. In one of their first acts, they specifically stated who was to be considered naturally born and specifically stated that a person born abroad to US parents was a naturally born citizen.
Excellent research.
And quite correct.
I need no law to make me a citizen, I am one by right of birth.
I reject your attempt to equate naturalization with citizenship in general.
The courts continually supported what the dems said about Obama.
If they continually support what the dems say...
right to privacythat justified Roe v. Wade.
OK.
I don't believe William Blackstone was much help in writing the Declaration of Independence.
I don't see Emmerich de Vattel mentioned either.
Again, it was the Declaration of Independence that created the condition we call "US Citizen."
So where does it define natural-born citizen?
good idea
Thank you.
“IOW, the deployment/stationing abroad that is so commonplace now would have been unthinkable then.”
And so was 1 day travel half way around the world. At that time in history, an American family could be in Europe, get pregnant and still not make it back to the 13 states in time to give birth.
Given soome of the FReeper opinions on this thread, our service members could very welll give birth while stationed oustside the borders and their child would NOT be eligible to run for POTUS. Yet, under current laws, illegal immigrants can sneak across the border and give birth and her child WOULD be eligible to run for president.
And the Gods of the Copy Book headings with Terror and Slaughter return.....
Lets go through a simple thought exercise. Let set up two people Mr. A and Mr. B Both claim to be US citizens. One has his citizenship confirmed by US Law (Mr A) and one CLAIMS to be a US Citizen but there is no US Law confirming his citizenship (Mr B)
Who is in fact, a citizen? Not Mr B because the laws don’t support his case NO MATTER WHAT HE CLAIMS. In other words, the law/act/statute is there to direct the will of Congress on the government and control the behavior of government with regards to how it treats the People.
Since “natural law” is NOT BINDING on the US government, Mr B can shout and shake his fist, but he is NOT a citizen of the US until there is an established rule making him a citizen of the US. Be it by birth or by naturalization.
Let me ask you this, a citizen who was not a citizen at birth is called a naturalized citizen. What do you call a citizen who was born a citizen?
The money quote: “All person 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.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html The money quote: “All person 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.”
My Friend, if you live by the Wong Kim Ark, you can die by the Wong Kim Ark. You are not going to like this quote from 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... as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens...
If I read that right, it says that if you are *NOT* born in the United States, you can only be a "naturalized" citizen.
Time will tell. Many of the decisions on Obama came from conservative judges appointed by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
The Alabama Supreme Court, for example ruled in Obama’s favor and they are nine elected judges, all Republicans. The decision was 7-2.
So, lets say my American (pregnant)mother and my father was out of the country on vacation, “lets say kenya”, and I was born there— would i be a US citizen at birth?- would i be issued a kenya birth certificate or a US one?
So, lets say my American (pregnant)mother and my father was out of the country on vacation, “lets say kenya”, and I was born there— would i be a US citizen at birth?- would i be issued a kenya birth certificate or a US one?
dont know why it double posted
Sorry, that is not true. See the first acts of Congress
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.