The Most Important Question in Natural Born Citizen Debate

Self | 1/12/16 | Rebuildus

[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.

[EternalVigilance]

A totally irrelevant website in terms of this discussion.

One would have to be pretty darned naive to be fooled by such misdirection.

[EternalVigilance]

The Constitution does not define natural born.

It didn't have to. The founders had a shared understanding of what the term meant, as expressed in the gold standard authority on the subject in that day, which was Vattel's Law of Nations.

They didn't even debate the subject, apparently, because the subject wasn't even debatable.

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children."

[Georgia Girl 2]

After you read up on Vattel’s “Law of Nations” and “The Federalist papers” and understand the concept of jurisdiction and why the Constitution is worded the way it is on the eligibility of the President then I will re-engage you in a discussion. This was argued ad nauseum in 2008.

The 14th amendment has nothing to do with the definition of natural born citizen for purposes of being eligible to be President.

All you really need to know at this point is that Ted Cruz will not be stopped from running for President nor will he be stopped from being sworn in as President if he should happen to win. Neither will Marco Rubio.

[Cboldt]

-- The Founding Fathers never explicitly defined the term "Natural Born Citizen." --

I submit that they did.

Article IV Section 2 of the constitution tells us who is a citizen of the US.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

To find out who is a natural born citizen of the US, one would look to who was granted citizenship in one or any of the several states, at the time of that person's birth. That would be a person who is born a citizen under the constitution.

What state was Cruz a citizen of, when he was born?

[Political Junkie Too]

My theory is that the natural born clause in Article II is not intended as a definition of a type of citizen, as that would belong in Article I section 8. Instead, it is a only a qualification for the office, along with the age and residency qualification. This is a tighter requirement than simply citizen or naturalized citizen, just like citizen at least 35 years old is a tighter requiremeet than just citizen. So, natural born is an understood requirement for office, not a Constitutional definition of who is a citizen.

We don't argue whether "citizen over age 35" is a category of citizenship the way we argue over "citizen natural born."

Most people understand the awkward grammar of the Second Amendment. What if the late weekend (Sept. 8-12, 1787) change from the Committee of Style and Arrangement rushed the grammar in their rewrite of Article II Section 1? What if Article II Section 1 were instead written:

"No person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not be natural born, have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Would this make a difference?

-PJ

[MosesKnows]

The Most Important Question in Natural Born Citizen Debate

Thank you for bringing this up in the proper context.

I've already learned more from the thread, thanks again.

[MosesKnows]

What statute make me a US citizen?

None, other than the Constitution makes you a US Citizen.

You are also a "natural born Citizen" but not because of where you were born but rather because of where both your parents were born.

[MosesKnows]

If this is correct it must fit in somewhere.

"Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. " .....John Jay letter to George Washington dated 25 July 1787

[P-Marlowe]

So what you are saying is that slaves and the children of slaves and Indians cannot be eligible for President.

Both of those groups were excluded from being considered citizens at the time of the drafting of the constitution. Any citizenship conferred in contradiction to the established meaning at the time of the drafting of article II would not be given Natural Born status.

Good thing Obama wasn’t descended from slaves.

[rebuildus]

"The Most Important Question in Natural Born Citizen Debate"

Thank you for bringing this up in the proper context.

I've already learned more from the thread, thanks again.

Thanks, MosesKnows. I've learned a lot too.

[xzins]

Actually, what’s being said is that anyone must have a father considered a resident, committed to the USA, to have been considered an NBC in that era. That would apply across the board as if slaves hadn’t existed.

[Godebert]

You just can' seem to grasp the difference between Natural Law vs. Positive Law.

Educate yourself.

[Godebert]

Prior to Jay's letter to George Washington the proposed language for presidential eligibility was "born a Citizen."

[Yosemitest]

You can NOT ACCEPT the United States LEGSAL Definition of "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" !

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

[P-Marlowe]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence. It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II.

Since "Natural Law" refers to rights and privileges granted by God and not by virtue of any grant from any government, how can you reconcile the fact that Indians and Slaves were not included in the definition of Natural Born Citizen at the time of the Constitution?

Did God have a problem with slaves and Indians? Since it is claimed that through the Laws of Nature all men are created equal, did God somewhere determine that these specific peoples were not men?

[Electric Graffiti]

In regards to slavery, their condition was an unnatural one created by men not God. Both Indians and Slaves weren't citizens at all. Hard to be a natural born citizen to non-citizen parents.

[P-Marlowe]

Hard to be a natural born citizen to non-citizen parents.

My point is that citizenship is not a natural law status. It is a creation by statute or decree. Natural Born Citizen therefore cannot relate to a status conferred by Natural Law. In simple parlance, Natural Born Citizen references a person who gets his citizenship by nature of his birth.

[Godebert]

Strawman.

[Godebert]

You can cut and paste naturalization laws until you are blue in the face. No naturalization law can create a natural born Citizen.

[Yosemitest]

You have no comprehension of the word "Naturalization", or the laws defining it.
What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?

"Naturalize" !

Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
And you ARE refusing the definition of "natural born citizen" CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !

Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

“Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.
... The U.S. Constitution allows only a “natural born” American citizen to serve as president.
Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz.

Oh, one more thing:

Sen. Cruz: The Real Story of What Is Happening in Washington ( 59:47 )
Published on Sep 28, 2015

It really IS worth your time.

****************************** WRONG !
It was defined for the United States, BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS !

The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

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: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.