Donald Trump Ramps Up Attacks on Ted Cruz’s Eligibility

NY Times ^ | 1/9/16 | Trip Gabriel and Matt Flegenheimer

[randita]

OTTUMWA, Iowa — Donald J. Trump sharply escalated his rhetoric about Senator Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president on Saturday, suggesting that because he was born in Canada there were unanswered questions about whether he met the constitutional requirement to be a “natural-born citizen.’’

“You can’t have a person who’s running for office, even though Ted is very glib and he goes out and says ‘Well, I’m a natural-born citizen,’ but the point is you’re not,” Mr. Trump said while campaigning in Clear Lake, Iowa.

Mr. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, to an American mother, which automatically conferred American citizenship. Most legal experts agree that satisfies the requirement to be a “natural-born citizen,’’ a term that was not defined by the founders.

Mr. Trump, who began raising questions about Mr. Cruz’s ability to be president earlier in the week, said on Saturday that Mr. Cruz would have to go to court to get a “declaratory judgment” about his eligibility “or you have a candidate who just cannot run.’’ (Mr. Cruz could need a judgment if someone filed a lawsuit to challenge his candidacy and a court agreed to take up the question.)

With polls showing the race in Iowa tightening, and Mr. Cruz leading Mr. Trump by 4 percentage points in a Fox News poll released on Friday, Mr. Trump has returned to an issue that first gained him notoriety years ago when he challenged President Obama’s citizenship.

On Saturday night, before the final stop on a six-day bus tour of Iowa, Mr. Cruz said: “Under longstanding federal law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.”

[Cold Heat]

If your logic and understanding is correct, then it also holds true that every Mexican bastard child born on US soil is in fact a automatic natural born citizen and qualifies for president. (which is the leftist view)

At no time, in my 65 years of life has there been one single moment where my understanding was that there are three degrees of citizenship.

Natural Born
Naturallized
Naturalized but foreign born (not requiring naturalization)

[Cboldt]

-- They upheld....I meant that they did not change it. --

Ahh, okay. Yes, in Rogers v. Bellei, SCOTUS did uphold the statute. Bellei was stripped of his citizenship.

That whole question wouldn't come up today, because the statute, today, has no residency/citizenship stripping function. The whole case wouldn't come up. Bellei was contesting being stripped of his citizenship.

[Cold Heat]

I think we have a problem with “by statute”.

It seems to me that Cruz has more than just a statute in his corner. I also am aware the Congress has the authority to determine eligibility and I believe that entails the meaning of natural born in this case..

[jonrick46]

You have brought out a brilliant observation. If they tie the Obama birth question to Cruz’s effort to receive eligibility, we could unseal Hawaii’s documents on Obama’s birth. Obama knows the Hillary will pull the same birther tactic on Cruz that she did to him if he gets the nomination. If precedent was set by Obama that one could be eligible even if born in another country (Kenya), than Cruz becomes eligible through precedent if he can prove that to be the case.

The hell with corn for fuel use. I’m going to invest in popcorn futures.

[Cboldt]

-- If your logic and understanding is correct, then it also holds true that every Mexican bastard child born on US soil is in fact a automatic natural born citizen and qualifies for president. --

No, because citizenship of a person born in the US doesn't depend on any statute. The question there is under the 14th amendment and the meaning of "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction. It's a different type of citizenship case, and Wong Kim ark (wrongly decided) says that "subject to the jurisdiction" amounts to "if you don't have immunity from prosecution, you are subject to the jurisdiction." Anyway, the classification of native-born persons is a different issue from the classification of foreign-born persons.

-- At no time, in my 65 years of life has there been one single moment where my understanding was that there are three degrees of citizenship. Natural Born -- Naturallized -- Naturalized but foreign born (not requiring naturalization) --

Any time the class of people that are "citizens" is broken into two groups, and one is "naturalized," the only sensible conclusion is that everybody not naturalized (gone through a procedure) is natural born. The conclusion is inevitable.

But in Rogers v. Bellei, the court breaks the class of citizens int those whose citizenship depends on a statute, vs. those who have citizen without a statute. That gives a different result.

[patlin]

http://lonang.com/library/reference/tucker-blackstone-notes-reference/tuck-1e/

Blackstone’s Commentaries:
with Notes of Reference (1803)

St. George Tucker

VOLUME 1, NOTE E

From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:

First …. That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.

Secondly …. That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.

Thirdly …. That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it’s own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state has an exclusive right to be governed by it’s own laws only.

Fourthly …. Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations …. which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.

Fifthly …. That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution.

[Cboldt]

-- It seems to me that Cruz has more than just a statute in his corner. I also am aware the Congress has the authority to determine eligibility and I believe that entails the meaning of natural born in this case. --

Again I'd say that you are conflating eligibility for citizenship at birth with eligibility for the presidency.

Congress has the plenary power to pass a statute that makes all Norks citizens at birth. Do all Norks become natural born US citizens?

Congress has the power to pass rules of naturalization. A natural born citizen can't be naturalized. I can't become naturalized, I'm already a citizen. I was born here, of citizen parents. I don't need no steenkin' statute.

[patlin]

Virginia cast off the British feudal law of perpetual allegiance in 1779 under the governorship of Thomas Jefferson...

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

[jonrick46]

I have look long and hard for the dates that Ted Cruz’s parents became legal Canadian citizens. I have seen indications that Ted’s father only gained Canadian citizenship and that Eleanor only had a work permit. Could you tell me how you know the parents were already Canadian citizens before Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz (born December 22, 1970) was born? I would be deeply thankful.

[Cold Heat]

Well......I have a football game to listen to and will be distracted thankfully for a while..

To sum up, in my view the natural born language was meant to include all those who were not citizens of the 13 colonies at the time but were born on the continent, like the American Indian for example. They had no citizenship and were not citizens at the time of enactment.

Hamilton’s original draft nor the approved amendment language was related to Vattel or anything else.

The original draft language read this way;

“”No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

So simple.....

This left congress to determine who a citizen is. As it should be.

But the final draft muddled the language yet appears to mean exactly the same thing. Yet the term natural Born was used, and I think this was used to include those who currently held no state citizenship yet needed to be legalized.

[Cold Heat]

She never was....

[Cboldt]

-- To sum up, in my view the natural born language was meant to include all those who were not citizens of the 13 colonies at the time but were born on the continent, like the American Indian for example. They had no citizenship and were not citizens at the time of enactment. --

I'm watching the game too, sort of.

The Indians were NOT made citizens of the US. They were citizens of their own nations. This was a deliberate exclusion.

-- This left congress to determine who a citizen is. As it should be. --

As it is. Congress absolutely has that power. What the constitution aims to cut off is congressional power to expand the pool of presidents via acts of naturalization. There are two ways an "invader" could obtain qualification. One would be your Mexican invader example, born on US soil; the other being a Congress that was liberal with regard to naturalization of birth abroad.

The principles at work are highly nationalistic. As national barriers are broken down, and nations merge into "one world," all that nationalistic stuff can go in the crapper.

[jonrick46]

Is the NPR interview of Ted’s Dad, Rafael, the only evidence that people are using to say Eleanor was also a Canadian citizen? Or, are they using the Canadian voter registry that lists Ted’s parents. Simply, why are they saying that Ted’s parents were both Canadian citizens. Finally, why are they saying that Ted’s parents were Canadian citizens before Ted was born? Do we need to get answers from the Canadian government?

[Cold Heat]

The Indians were NOT made citizens of the US. They were citizens of their own nations. This was a deliberate exclusion.

I read all that some time ago, and my memory may be a bit vague however I recall that Indian nation citizenship was indeed carved out and allowed but they were encouraging them to pledge their allegiances to the United states and the natural born citizen was the legal out for them to accomplish this. In other words they left the door open for them and any others who were born on the continent or territory and wanted citizenship and legalization.

This is the difference between Hamilton's original draft and the eventual language. I will have to did into the federalist papers to see if I can find any discussion on it, but I don't think there is much..

John Jay in a letter to Washington said this...

"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.[20]"

While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.[21](from Wikipedia)

[Cold Heat]

So it appears they were concerned about them darned foreigners...

But I believe there was other concerns as well. They simply did not talk about it in any recorded way. But they never quoted Vattel or anyone else either.

[Cboldt]

-- I read all that some time ago, and my memory may be a bit vague however I recall that Indian nation citizenship was indeed carved out and allowed but they were encouraging them to pledge their allegiances to the United states and the natural born citizen was the legal out for them to accomplish this. --

If they're natural born into this country and out of their Indian nation, there is no "pledging" involved.

See Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) for a little bit. I don't know much about the details of citizenship of Indians in the US, nor do I recall much about the Elk case, but the syllabus opens with "An Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States," and this Indian was not a NBC of the US, that's for darn sure.

[RegulatorCountry]

Indians not taxed were specifically excluded as far as I know from my reading.

[patlin]

If you think what is being done with the citizenship laws is bad, you haven’t seen anything! I’m now researching the Internal Revenue Statutes (the Internal Revenue was established in 1862, NOT 1913 as is mistaught). If the American public at large knew how they are being used as voluntary slaves, we would be in the midst of a 3rd revolution because that tea tax the founding fathers got in an uproar about is chump change compared to the deceit going on today with all the w-4’s & w-9’s.

[patlin]

specifically, see this section of Tucker’s commentaries on Blackstone

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3381836/posts?page=406#406

[Cold Heat]

You are correct...my bad...my confusion was caused by the 14th amendment language. When I investigated it over another matter, I now recall that the jurisdictional language was meant to exclude Indian nations for citizenship.

At the time I was studying it from the standpoint of freed slaves. Got them confused..”Subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.