Yes, Ted Cruz is a â€œnatural-bornâ€ citizen -- even in an originalist reading of the clause

John, your posts are very good and helpful. I have enjoyed reading them. We have the same perspective.

Maelstrom, you have identified criteria you believe identifies a “natural born citizen,” but it has no binding legal authority. Historically, there have been several different ways a person could become a citizen without operation of a statute. They could be born on the soil, born under the authority, born to one citizen parent, born to two citizen parents, etc.

Every one of those is “natural.” It is a principle of long standing that a mother or a father may pass on what they hold title to in their own name. It simply isn’t necessary or just to deny the born person what is theirs by birth. Now if the situation is “complicated,” as you put it, because a person possesses two sets of citizenship rights, that does not cancel out the natural means by which they acquired those natural rights.

However, they do have the power to renounce one in favor of the other, and so remove the complication. This also is a natural and not a statutory right. The founders considered it essential to the American idea of citizenship that a person should have the right to expatriate, to disown one citizenship in favor of another, and furthermore this was for them under the domain of natural law, an expression of a fundamental human freedom.

So Cruz, having disowned his Canadian citizenship, has a clear and unclouded title to his naturally acquired American citizenship. There really is no problem here, other than the apparently desperate effort by some to read into the Constitutional text details it does not contain.

Peace,

SR

You must have laws and monarchs to tell YOU what a Natural Born Citizen is...and I understand that...but, like the Founders, I reject the concept.

In my words, "We cannot be held hostage to the whims and preferences of long dead kings and potentates". So forget "monarchs" and "potentates". In our country the people are sovereign, and I dare you to "reject the concept".

NATURALLY, a child born in the US to parents who are US citizens can have no real obligation to ANYONE except the US.

Maybe, maybe not. But such a person would be, under any set of criteria I know of, a natural born citizen. But no one is challenging the natural born status of such a person. It's not an issue.

If there's something complicating that fact...you do not have a Natural Born Citizen...period.

There are classes of person who are all natural born citizens who do not meet some of your criteria, fully under natural law. As I have explained. No need to do so yet again.

This is NATURAL LAW. It's quite simple. Whether or not it is simple is not relevant. What is relevant is that you have departed from and no longer understand or recognize true natural law, but only your peculiar sub-set of it.

Whether that is a result of a genuine lack of understanding, or whether it is a feigned misunderstanding because you cannot accept a position that might lend support to one person who poses a threat to another person in a political contest, I can't say.

So Cruz, having disowned his Canadian citizenship, has a clear and unclouded title to his naturally acquired American citizenship.

You can't make yourself into a natural born citizen, you're either born one, or you're not.

That's the whole point of the term NATURAL born, as in *not done by Man*.

Maybe, maybe not. But such a person would be, under any set of criteria I know of, a natural born citizen. But no one is challenging the natural born status of such a person. It's not an issue.

Exactly.

That's why they are Natural Born Citizens...and nobody else is...because it is not an issue.

No, and Cruz did not make himself a born American. He was just born into being an American naturally, and so required no naturalization, either at birth or later. It’s just what he was when he was born. He inherited the status from his mother. Jus sanguinis, as it is sometimes called, by the blood. That required no naturalization.

One thing I’ve noticed in these debates is how hard it is for the legally inexperienced to address the concept of overlapping law. You can have a fact pattern where the citizenship is both natural at birth and also recognized, not created, by statute. It is a trap to believe they are always or necessarily mutually exclusive. This sort of overlapping law problem goes on all the time in contract law.

The point is, Cruz never did require any statutory process to become a citizen. He was one by virtue of his birth, by nature, through his mother. The fact of being a dual citizen does not remove his claim to be a natural born American. However, to remove confusion and misunderstanding, it was to his advantage to renounce his Canadian citizenship, so of course he would do that.

So until you come up with actual, legally binding authority asserting that one passage from Vattell as the final authority, your opinion is nothing more than just that, your personal opinion, which is not enough to deprive one who was born a second generation American of his right to run for the highest office in the land.

Peace,

SR

...and nobody else is...

That is a bold assertion with no underpinning whatsoever, despite the sincerity and passion with which you believe it. It is nothing but your personal opinion. And, I grant, that of many others. But that doesn't change the fact that it is without weight.

I have given you the underpinning.

It comes complete with American History until Barack Obama.

Again: There is no question that these people, born in the US to citizens of the US, are Natural Born Citizens.

Chester Arthur was also ineligible, but lied until he got away with it.

If what you say is true, he had no reason to lie.

Again: There is no question that these people, born in the US to citizens of the US, are Natural Born Citizens.

So, what lacks any underpinning is the idea that someone else does. It just isn't there.

Congress was given the power to Naturalize Citizens. It wasn't given any other power. It did, however, naturalize citizens at birth without requiring a process, and that's where you and the others became confused enough to let Obama slide.

In another thread- a fella is arguing that the Bellei Case made it clear that someone born outside the US had to be naturalized, and claims Cruz is very similar to Bellei- The court apparently found that Bellei was ‘naturalized’ and thus his citizenship could be stripped of him because He or his parents, or both did not meet the specific requirements for naturalized citizenship (Cruz however has- mother was citizen, lived in us for required time, Cruz himself lived in US for required time etc)

[[No, and Cruz did not make himself a born American. He was just born into being an American naturally, and so required no naturalization, either at birth or later.]]

I agree with this statement- My feeling is that it’s a birthright- a ‘natural law’ And that statutes that pertain to natural law can only confirm the natural law and can not alter them by setting up requirements to meet or anything like that- whereas Congress has been given power to set up requirements concerning situations like naturalization where and act of statute is needed to make someone something they aren’t- such as make an alien an American. Ted was no alien simply because his mother was a citizen. Had she not been- then Ted would have needed an act of statute to become a citizen

I’d like to get your opinion on the Bellei case as it does ‘appear’ to have consequences regarding Ted’s issue-

(I have a link to a CRS report that shows later cases ‘may have’ determined that the courts now view ‘certain cases of naturalization’ when considering ‘at birth’ and ‘by birth’ as Natural Born Citizenship (’By birth’ Meaning Jus sanguinis), and not in need of an act to make them citizens even though the term ‘naturalized’ is still used in their cases- there seems to be a distinction made now between naturalized NBC and a Naturalized citizen if I’m reading the report right-) (But to me the term ‘naturalized’ seems to confer an act- I’d have been more comfortable had the definition of ‘by birth’ been “Shall be a NBC without need of an act” or something along those lines- )

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

Bob,

I've taken a closer look at Nguyen and concluded that yes, Maskell's take on naturalization after birth in Nguyen is accurate. In the contested portion of the CRS report, he states:

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," 166 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."

Available here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

At issue in Nguyen was the fact that the father had to meet different conditions than the mother to confer citizenship on the son. The complainant was claiming the controlling statute was an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause, because it had different requirements for the father versus the mother. The father, to establish citizenship-worthy paternity, had to have more than just a dna connection to the child, but also had to demonstrate a real, personal connection that could only be accomplished after the child was born.

The Court, after concluding the statutory distinction between genders was not a violation of equal protection, addressed another of Nguyen's arguments, that the offensive subsection, had it been found unconstitutional, would have been severable from the Immigration and Naturalization Act:

In this regard, it is significant that, although the Immigration and Nationality Act contains a general severability provision, Congress expressly provided with respect to the very subchapter of the United States Code at issue and in a provision entitled "Sole procedure," that "[a] person may only be naturalized as a citizen of the United States in the manner and under the conditions prescribed in this subchapter and not otherwise." 8 U.S.C. Â§ 1421(d); see also Miller, supra, at 457-458 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Section 1421(d) refers to naturalization, which in turn is defined as "conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth." 8 U.S.C. Â§ 1101(a)(23). Citizenship under section Â§1409(a) is retroactive to the date of birth, but it is a naturalization under section Â§1421(d) nevertheless. The conditions specified by section Â§1409(a) for conferral of citizenship, as a matter of definition, must take place after the child is born, in some instances taking as long as 18 years. Section 1409(a), then, is subject to the limitation imposed by Â§1421(d).

Available here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_DN_0099_2071_ZO.html

The above passage is classic dicta, placed there to offer clarity to questions that might arise in inferior courts, but not controlling law the way a holding would be. It establishes that the paternity requirements are impliedly not severable from the act as a whole, which has the further implication that the Act would have to be re-legislated from scratch to change the provision in question.

And Maskell does not present this passage as controlling law but as informative of how SCOTUS views the federal law regarding "by birth" versus "naturalized" citizenship. Maskel's analysis is accurate because the condition of paternity (post-natal connection to the child) is inherently a condition that cannot be met at the moment the child is born. Given that Nguyen's mother was an alien, she could not convey citizenship automatically, at the moment of birth, which she certainly could have done had she been a bona fide citizen at that moment of birth.

However, unlike the mother, the best the citizen father could do would be to meet the required "connectedness" condition sometime after the birth, and only then have the citizenship attribute applied retroactively, back to the date of birth, but by process of law, and not as a condition inherent in the birth. Therefore, Maskell is correct in identifying an implicit federal dichotomy between automatic "by birth" citizenship ("natural born") versus citizenship resulting from "after birth" events ("naturalization").

Peace,

SR

[[The father, to establish citizenship-worthy paternity, had to have more than just a dna connection to the child, but also had to demonstrate a real, personal connection that could only be accomplished after the child was born.]]

Thank You for explaining this- I had read that this requirement had figured in fairly heavily into the naturalization acts especially for the mother because she was usually the one who had the most contact with a child as far as nurturing and forming a child’s moralities and allegiances, which was why later naturalization acts changed it from father to ‘either’ parent

[[However, unlike the mother, the best the citizen father could do would be to meet the required “connectedness” condition sometime after the birth, and only then have the citizenship attribute applied retroactively, back to the date of birth, but by process of law, and not as a condition inherent in the birth. Therefore, Maskell is correct in identifying an implicit federal dichotomy between automatic “by birth” citizenship (”natural born”) versus citizenship resulting from “after birth” events (”naturalization”).]]

Ok- it’s all falling into place for me now regarding the CRS report- I have always felt that citizenship should be ‘birthright’ or ‘citizenship by descent’ in a country made up of individual sovereigns (we the people)-

[[The above passage is classic dicta, placed there to offer clarity to questions that might arise in inferior courts, but not controlling law the way a holding would be. ]]

Could there ever be a SC ruling on the issue to settle it? Or will it always be ‘inferred’ that at birth and by birth are to be considered NBC?

I could be wrong, but I’m not optimistic this will ever be solved by adjudication. It’s very tough to get standing, and even if you do, SCOTUS will treat this sort of case like kryptonite, probably sweep it under the rug as a political question, etc.

My suggestion to some of the “Vattelians” has been if they really want to enshrine Vattell as the sole constitutional model for NBC, they need to get an amendment passed, Article 5 convention or something. Never seems to get a response. Oh well.

Peace,

SR