Posted on 01/06/2016 3:58:46 PM PST by sunrise_sunset
Tuan Anh Nguyen vs IRS (No 99-2071)
Transcript at the Oral Argument pop-up
Justice Scalia: I mean, isn't it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England ?
They did not want that.
Davis: Yes, by the same token...
Scalia: That is jus soli, isn't it ?
Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can't apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Scalia: Well, maybe.
I'm just referring the the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don't think you're disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn't it ?
So, all the children born to US Servicemen in Vietnam are considered US natural born citizens?
No....you have to renounce your other citizenship when you become a naturalized American citizen !
No, RED isn’t describing Trump as he does NOT and NEVER has had dual citizenship.
But one has to ASK for it; it doesn’t come with one’s birth.
When Trump’s mother married his father she took her husband’s US citizenship. Was like that back in the day. And furthermore, when a female US citizens became the wives of foreigners they lost their US citizenships upon marriage.
*******************************************************************************
Dude, that’s not what you were discussing in post 3 above. You were discussing the “problem” of dual citizenship and the possibility of conflicting loyalties. Yes, Trump’s mother gained US citizenship when she married. But did the British decide to affirmatively come after her and “remove” her British citizenship. As I understand it they seldom did that and there’s no indication they did it for Trump’s mother.
I was just trying to caution you about going down the “dual citizenship & conflicts of interest” road.
NO !
So even if Cruz was born to a mother that had to renounce her American citizenship to become a Canadian citizen under laws in effect at the time (hypothetically, I’m not saying she did), she would still be recognized by the US government as an American citizen. I think. :)
“It has been pointed out that more recent cases have held that the seemingly exclusive language of the Fourteenth Amendment of citizenship being limited only to those who are “born or naturalized in the United States,” is applicable only with regard to Fourteenth Amendment first-sentence-citizenship, and is not necessarily the exclusive means of acquiring citizenship “at birth,” since the category of “at birth” citizenship can clearly be expanded by law adopted by Congress. Such cases indicate that the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a “floor” for citizenship at birth, or for naturalization, which can be expanded by federal law.
The Supreme Court in Rogers v. Bellei explained that under the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause the requirement that one would have to be either born in the United States or naturalized in the United States were designations for “Fourteenth-Amendment-first-sentence” citizenship only.
The category or designation of citizen “at birth” or “by birth” could, however, as expressly noted by the Court, be expanded and “modified by statute” (as it had been in England with respect to natural born subjects for more than 600 years): “We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.”
It is significant to note that in a more recent case, in 2001, the Supreme Court indicated that under current law and jurisprudence a child born to U.S. citizens while living or traveling abroad, and a child born in the geographic United States, had the same legal status. In Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, the Court explained that a woman who is a U.S. citizen living abroad and expecting a child could re-enter the United States and have the child born “in” the United States, or could stay abroad and not travel back to this country and have the child born abroad, and that the child in either case would have the same status as far as U.S. citizenship:
[T]he statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’s birth and the other chooses not to return, or does not have the means to do so.
Concerning the contention made in earlier cases that everyone who is made a citizen only by federal statute is a “naturalized” citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), it may be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms “naturalized” and”naturalization,” as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that someone who is a citizen “at birth” is not considered to have been “naturalized.”
Justice Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that “this kind of citizenship,” that is, under “statutes that confer citizenship ‘at birth,’” was not intended to”involve[ ] ‘naturalization,’” citing current federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(23).
The Supreme Court recently recognized in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, that federal law now specifically defines”naturalization” as the “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth,” and thus it could be argued that by current definition and understanding in federal law and jurisprudence,one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship automatically “at birth” or “by birth” could not be considered to be “naturalized.”
Yep, pretty funny. And after endless debates about this concerning Obama and now Cruz, the one thing that is clear is that the legal definition of NBC is not clear. By the strictest definition, Cruz is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen.
But nothing will come of it and it will probably remain unclear.
I’ve been getting crickets to the question today...hehehehe
AFAIK....Mrs. Cruz NEVER renounced her American citizenship, but I may be wrong. Was she a Canadian naturalized citizen?
Yep, that’s the case. I didn’t say he had dual citizenship. He’s the full definition of NBC.
Dual citizens have been stripped of their US citizenship who are also native born per 14th Amendment and got deported becuase of divided loyalties. In Nguyen v. INS, Nguyen claimed US citizenship because his father was a US citizen and despite, that he lost his court case and faced deportation proceedings. This does not happen with Natural Born Citizens. Cruz has a problem if this gets to court and I hope his problem doesn’t become our problem.
No, RED isn’t describing Trump as he does NOT and NEVER has had dual citizenship.
*****************************************************************************
READING COMPREHENSION, ‘nopardons’, READING COMPREHENSION. He was discusssing Trump’s MOTHER. Now...try to re-read the thread and FOCUS!
There were a LOT of illegitimate kids born to American military guys, during the Nam War. Since they stayed in Nam, they can ‘t be American citizens nor run for president.
Which gets us to the other part of the law as enacted by congress. That being there are several provisions placed upon the US mother of a child either born in and out of wedlock as to whether the child is a citizen at birth or not. In Cruz's case he appears to meet the requirements of citizen at birth. I tend to believe citizen at birth and natural born citizen are the one in the same.
If we try to pin Jus Soli down as the requirement for President which no congressional definition can override we are stuck with anchor babies in perpetuity.
No, RED isn’t describing Trump as he does NOT and NEVER has had dual citizenship.
**********************************************************************
I redirect you to post # 3. Red was discussing the situation of citizenship being handed down through the generations.
So, a person’s right to run for President of the United States is subject to the citizenship law of a foreign country?
Where in the Constitution is jus soli mentioned?
The Fourteenth Amendment says “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.” Therefore being born and being naturalized are two different things. You can be a naturalized citizen without being born jus soli.
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.