Posted on 01/12/2016 6:10:48 AM PST by rebuildus
The Founding Fathers never explicitly defined the term "Natural Born Citizen." So we are left to use our common sense, and search the phrase's origins.
To take it back as far as it will go requires us to look at the book of Deuteronomy. Israel demanded a king, and God gave them one, but he gave them some parameters:
You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman (Deuteronomy 17:15).
The point is loyalty. Where are the loyalties of the "king"?
In the case of Senator Cruz, knowing that he was born of an American mother, and a father who chose to leave the country of his birth to live in America, it's fair to say that Ted's parents' loyalty was to the United States.
This is the central question, for the core of all law is its spirit, or intent.
The only weak spot I see in this situation is, because both Ted's father and Ted himself came to America from another country, I can certainly see that they would have a soft spot for immigrants, which may cause Ted's immigration policies to be more lenient, than if they had been born in the U.S.
That being said, on the primary question--loyalty--Ted appears rock solid. And I've seen nothing in his life and political career to indicate otherwise.
Little did the Founding Fathers suspect that, in the nearly 229 years since The Constitution was drafted, that "common sense" would become such a rare commodity.
I WANT AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT THAT TRULY LOVES THIS COUNTRY!
Why? Ted’s father became a Canadian citizen.
****************************************************
The author uses the words “America” and the “United States” interchangeably. Canada is part of America, so yes, he’s an American citizen. I’m going to leave it up to others to decide if he’s a United States citizen.
I could easily vote for Cruz if he makes it to the general election but he somehow must clear up this issue before then because the democrats aren’t going to forget it.
Boy, did the US ever screw that one up!
Got it.
Repealed in 1795.
US citizenship is assigned directly in the US constitution as ratified with the Bill of Rights, and as amended by the 14th amendment. This question can be resolved with the constitution as the authority.
Question, if Congress can make a person a natural born citizen, can it make a naturalized person into a natural born citizen? Why or why not?
Yes, clearly it makes us think of Barack Obama—a foreigner, with a completely foreign way of thinking. Not so, I must add, regarding Ted Cruz.
There is no third category.
If that were true, there would be no such thing as a "natural born citizen." Which would make the Constitution and its requirements ridiculous.
I'm a natural born citizen. I was born in Omaha, Ne., to two citizen parents. All of my people have been in this country for more than one hundred and fifty years, and the majority of them have been here for three to four hundred years. The framers of our Constitution pegged my qualifications for the presidency to that natural set of facts, not to the subsequent immigration and naturalization statutes passed by Congress.
Thanks. We need to look at this issue soberly, and remove the glasses of partiality. I happen to be a Cruz supporter. But I want the right decision to be made for this country. The future is too important for partiality. There’s too much on the line now.
That's a really good question.
-- Or was Natural Born Citizenship conferred on the basis of existing statutes? --
No, US citizenship was and is conferred by operation of the US constitution.
Article IV, section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Affected by the 14th amendment. 1. 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.
Congress has plenary power to define naturalized.
George was not enjoying a good relation with the public, however. Maybe it was because of his language and culture, or because he did not have a political olagarchy to support him in England. At any rate, it finally gave Parliament the free reign it needed to pass laws. At that time a law was passed that stated one had to be a natural citizen to hold office in England.
By the time our Constitution was written, the concept was firmly established and became the law of our land.
"All Citizenship in a country is derived by virtue of statutes."
I am curious my father was born here (USA) to a US citizen parents, my mother was born here to a US citizens parents. I was born here. What statute make me a US citizen?
Interesting.
Yes, the question is ‘loyalty’. How does one determine ‘loyalty?
My question -
compare obama (NOT settled whether he is nbc/loyal to USA only) to Cruz (NOT settled whether he is nbc/loyal to USA only) -
Did anyone ever vet obama to see if they THINK he would be ‘loyal’ to USA only? Did at least some of those who voted for him THINK he would be ‘loyal’ to USA only? (If they did, they certainly are dead wrong!)
Now you think/judge that Cruz would be loyal to USA only. Who is to say you won’t prove to be wrong? Do we have to try him out to see if he is loyal to USA only?
The founders wanted to ensure undivided loyalty to the USA, hence the nbc requirement - the president/VP MUST be under the sole jurisdiction of USA only (from the time of his/her birth) i.e. born on US soil to 2 USA citizen parentS.
A person born under any other circumstances is subject to more than 1 jurisdiction, e.g. USA and Kenya(obama); USA and Cuba (Cruz); USA and Canada (Cruz); USA and Canada and Cuba (Cruz)
Surely a nbc (such as the clintons) could be NOT so loyal to USA, but we have to set a guideline, establish a principle. We cannot go by our instincts or our often faulty judgement to determine whether a person will be loyal to USA only.
The Constitution is a statute. It is the highest law of the land. The Constitution did not define the term Natural Born Citizen, but clearly the framers did not intend that the children of slaves born in the United States would be considered as any kind of citizen at all.
Under "Natural Law" (referencing rights inherent by virtue of the creator) slaves would be considered Natural Born Citizens as they are endowed by their creator with whatever Natural Rights exist.
Citizenship has never been a Natural Right, it has always been conferred by the State under statutes or decrees.
Congress has the power and the authority to define whether or not Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen and whether that is any different from a person who is born a citizen.
Congress will be given the opportunity when the electoral college declares Ted Cruz to be the elected president and congress is given the opportunity to certify the election.
Anyone want to take a bet that they would undo the presidential election based on this obscure phrase in the Constitution - the same Constitution that granted no rights - Natural or otherwise - to millions of slaves living in the United States at the time of it's passage?
Thanks for the math help. The question remains not what Congress did by a statute about naturalization but what the Constitution means. For that, I would look to the decisions of the Supreme Court, which if the quotes in this thread are accurate, has described natural born citizenship only in the context of people born in the USA. We have people jumping up and down on FR claiming it is crazy / off the wall / nuts to have differing views over the meaning of this provision of the Constitution. I do not agree with that. I think we are seeing posters so motivated to support “their guy” that they are launching personal attacks on those who disagree with them, thereby acting like Democrats.
The 14th Amendment.
Prior to that, if your parents were slaves prior to 1865 or indians (prior to 1924) you were not a citizen.
You haven’t necessarily simplified, you have just asserted an analytical framework that you insist is the correct one.
So you defer to the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Interpretation?
So you must agree that unborn children are not human and not entitled to any right to life?
You also must agree that Homosexuals have a Constitutional Right to enter into holy matrimony and that people who disagree ought not to be allowed to be employed in State or Federal bureaucracies?
Yeah, lets defer to the Supreme Court on this one.
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.