A Simple-Minded Reading of the Constitution on the Subject of Citizenship

vanity | 1/16/2016 | Self

[John Valentine]

I shall show that the Constitution contemplates two types of Citizen: those that acquire their citizenship at birth and those who acquire their Citizenship at a later time. The first are referred to in the Constitution as 'natural born' and the second is a class of citizen not specifically named but implied and are those we consider 'naturalized citizens.'

The word 'citizen' including derivative forms appears only eleven times in the Constitution. We shall look at each instance and derive what is possible from each usage and instance. By the end, I hope to have exhaustively shown that within the 'four corners' of the Constitution, two and only two types or classes of citizen are identified or implied: citizens by birth and citizens by naturalization. There is no third subset of citizen to be differentiated from among the two classes of citizen identified or implied in the Constitution.

 

Instance 1: Article I, Section 2, Clause 2

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility to membership in the Untied States House of Representative. They are:

1.     Age of at least 25 years

2.     A citizen of the United States for at least 7 years

3.     An inhabitant of the state from which elected

Notice, please, that the citizenship requirement requires fewer years than does the age requirement. This fact requires acceptance of the notion that an individual can become a citizen at some time long after being born, and implies things about citizenship: first that individuals can be citizens, and second that there can be a time in the life of the individual before the individual became a citizen.

This is important: there is nothing in this clause that says or implies anything about citizenship by birth.

 

Instance 2: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility to membership in the Untied States Senate. They are:

1.     Age of at least 30 years

2.     A citizen of the United States for at least 9 years

3.     An inhabitant of the state from which elected

Notice, please, that the citizenship requirement again requires fewer years than does the age requirement. This fact requires acceptance of the notion that an individual can become a citizen at some time long after being born, and implies things about citizenship: first that individuals can be citizens, and second that there can be a time in the life of the individual before the individual became a citizen.

This is important: there is nothing in this clause that says or implies anything about citizenship by birth.

 

Instances 3 and 4: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5

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

This clause establishes three requirements for eligibility for service as President of the Untied States. They are:

1.     Age of at least 35 years

2.     A natural born citizen of the United States or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

3.     Resident within the United States for at least 14 years

Notice here that a different citizenship requirement is established: in fact, two alternative requirements. We need not concern ourselves with the second, which concerns the Framer's generation and has no application to anyone alive today.

As to the first we see that the citizenship requirement has no specific requirement for its duration. Instead, it refers to a citizenship deriving from the circumstances of birth.

This is a distinctly different citizenship requirement than those for the House of Representatives or Senate. The citizenship requirements for the House of Representatives and Senate could encompass the same class of citizen contemplated by the requirement for Presidential eligibility. We do know that historically individuals have served both in the Senate and as President so the requirements cannot be mutually exclusive.

Logically, we can conclude that the citizenship requirement for eligibility to the Presidency would also be sufficient to establish eligibility for the House of Representatives and Senate.

Thus far there are two classes of citizen established or implied by the language of the Constitution: (1) a class of citizen (natural born) which is derived by the circumstances of birth and which suffices to establish the citizenship component for eligibility for membership in the House of Representatives and Senate, and for service as President, and (2) another class of citizenship which does not depend on the circumstances of birth and can be acquired many years after the birth of an individual and which suffices to establish the citizenship component for eligibility for membership in the House of Representatives and Senate, but not for service as President.

For clarity, going forward I will refer to these two classes of citizen as follows:

As to the first class, these are 'natural born'

As to the second class, these are 'naturalized'

This is important: Thus far there is no third class of citizenship discussed, implied or established within the four corners of the Constitution.

 

Instances 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9: Article III, Section 2, Clause 5

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States,— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

This clause does not establish a further class of citizen. As for the first four instances mentioned in this clause, these by implication refer to the classes of citizen mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 and in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3; that is, those mentioned above as natural born or naturalized. As for the fifth instance, this refers to a citizens of a foreign State and therefore not relevant to this discussion.

This is important: Nothing in this clause references or establishes a third class of citizenship.

 

 

Instances 10 and 11: Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1

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

This clause, too, does not establish a further class of citizen, and the two instances mentioned in this clause, by implication refer to the classes of citizen mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 and in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3; that is those mentioned above as natural born or naturalized.

 

Thus we have exhausted every mention of the word citizen and all its derivative forms, plural, etc. that are found in the Constitution of the United States.

It is demonstrated that there are only two classes of citizen established within the Articles, Sections and Clauses of the Constitution.

These classes are:

1.     natural born

2.     naturalized

All citizens must belong to one of these classes. If a citizen is not naturalized only one other possibility has been identified: natural born. All citizens are either naturalized or natural born; there is not other possibility.

Obviously, this analysis will categorize any citizen acquiring citizenship by birth as natural born. Some argue that only SOME citizens acquiring citizenship by birth are to be classed as natural born. They claim that other citizens acquiring citizenship by the circumstances of their birth are a subset of naturalized citizen.

But, all such arguments must be based on suppositions, presumptions and hypotheses that are extraneous to the Constitution itself, for as I have exhaustively shown, the Constitution itself creates no such category of citizen.

I also submit that unless the Constitution is inherently impossible of interpretation or understanding based on its own terms, such extraneous references must not be permitted, or may sometimes be permitted with little weight as set against the Constitution’s own clear provisions.

I submit that all the fevered and tortured bending and twisting, and all the references to this and that while perhaps entertaining are essentially nothing more than a diversion.

The Constitution itself is clear. It establishes two classes of citizen; those that have become citizens through the process of naturalization, and those who are citizens by birth, that is the natural born citizens.

There is no third class of citizen.

[Ray76]

when don’t know when this occurred

s/b

we don’t know when this occurred

[Robert DeLong]

Really?

Jus soli is observed by a minority of the world's countries. Of advanced economies (as defined by the International Monetary Fund), Canada and the United States are the only countries that observe birthright citizenship.

There is no International Law as you claim there is.

Interestingly, only 30 out of 196 countries grant citizenship upon birth.

[AmericanVictory]

It does not say, in Article II, a “born citizen.” If the Framers had wanted to say just that, they would have. The word “natural” was included for a reason.

[so_real]

Well played, Sir

[nevermorelenore]

Cruz

[Cboldt]

-- Vattel was all about jus sanguinis, and so were the Framers. --

Well, they composed a jus soli constitution. It has plain "citizens," "naturalized citizens," and "natural born citizen."

Accepting the argument that there can't possibly be three categories, let's go with two, plain old "citizen", and "naturalized citizen." I will presume that it is not contentious that one must be at least a plain old "citizen" (not naturalized) if one is to also obtain the label "natural born citizen." Said another way, there is no such thing as a "naturalized natural born citizen."

Article IV, Sec. 2 defines citizen. Other section apply further qualifications for certain offices. But the "raw" meaning of citizen is in Art. IV.

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

That leaves the definition of citizen up to the states, first, but approximately speaking, if you are citizen of one of the several states, you are a citizen also of the United States.

I'm open to persuasion. Do we find Mr. Cruz in Article IV?

The other place the constitution defines "citizen" is the 14th amendment.

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.

There is no serious argument that Mr. Cruz was born in the US. And there is no serious argument that he is not a citizen. The only bucket available is "naturalized."

The default in the constitution is jus soli (with that "natural born citizen" category in there, that we don;t need to get to for Mr. Cruz, unless there is such a thing as a "naturalized natural born citizen," and I am sure some crank will argue that, at some point.

Congress can make all manner of jus sanguinas law, and it has.

To read the constitution as conferring Congress with the power to define "non-naturalized citizen" inverts the bedrock legal principle that the constitution is superior to a statute.

This has been a point of attack by subversives since the day the country was founded, and it continues to this day.

[MamaTexan]

Why would the father become a Can. cit. and the mother not? Why would the campaign lie about the possibility of her becoming a citizen?

The discrepancies in the stories about how she hadn't been there long enough to be naturalized and the older interview where the dad said they'd been there much longer were rather strange.

I haven't a clue as to Canadian law, but some English law similarities are there. A minor child here would be naturalized if the parent became naturalized, if that applied there....

[BuckeyeTexan]

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130818-born-in-canada-ted-cruz-became-a-citizen-of-that-country-as-well-as-u.s..ece

[Robert DeLong]

Yeah Obama claims he was born in Hawaii, while his grandmother remembers his birth in Kenya. Why would Obama lie?

Now I am not saying Ted Cruz is even remotely like Obama, but like Obama, I believe he does not pass the test of "Natural Born" citizen as the Framer's intended. Especially considering his father was a Canadian citizen, and his wife and he had lived there for 8 years or more. Ted is obviously a "Natural Born" Canadian citizen under that criteria. So how could Ted also be a "Natural Born" American citizen?

[BuckeyeTexan]

I would love to see SCOTUS rule on this. And I will accept their decision for or against Cruz.

[Ray76]

The controversy has been building for some time and has exploded in the past 7-10 days or so. Lawsuits have been filed. Yet all we get from Cruz is snark (”jumped the shark” remarks), diversions, and unsupported assertions rather than answers. There’s no upside to him withholding documentation so why does he do it?

When he began his campaign for president I was very disappointed. I knew it was a huge mistake. The way he’s handling this now... disappointment has become disgust. Reasonable questions have been posed and he refuses to give straight answers.

[BuckeyeTexan]

As an aside, this is why I tell my kids to get their @sses back to Texas if they happen to be outside of it when their children are about to be born.

I expect my grandkids to be multi-generational Texans born on Texas soil.

[BuckeyeTexan]

What documentation is he refusing to release?

[nevermorelenore]

Thanks for posting. I was born overseas, but my Birth Certificate was issued by the U.S. State Department. Had dual citizenship, but because I did not declare, at age 18, became solely a U.S.citizen. Canadian law makes different provisions, obviously.

[Cboldt]

-- some of the posters on this thread who are appalled by anchor babies will defend with all their strength the jus solis based jurisprudence that created them. --

What created anchor babies was construing "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" liberally, so as to include everybody, including foreign invaders (or at least illegal aliens), and excluding only diplomats, who have immunity from court process but can be expelled (so even diplomats are subject to some jurisdiction).

There has to be some connection between citizenship and birth on the soil, otherwise the nation just disperses. If the world was pure jus sanguinas, the notion of "nation" would eventually become meaningless, as people and blood lines disperse.

And so, defending jus soli is defending the nation, as a defined place on the earth. Perhaps you find that to be a bad thing.

[philman_36]

7 FAM 1130 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT
7 FAM 1131.6 Nature of Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parents
7 FAM 1131.6-1 Status Generally
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute generally have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as citizens born in the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One exception is that they may be subject to citizenship retention requirements.
7 FAM1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United State s, 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.”
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

There can be no statute for a natural born citizen. It is a state of nature.
And the only "Constitutional purpose" of a natural born citizen is for the office of POTUS/VPOTUS.

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(CT:CON-474; 08-19-2013)
Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.

There is that word considered again.

Now let's look at the law and not what is added onto what it says...
Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1101 - Definitions
(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
(22) The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

Snip...(36) The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Snip...(38) The term "United States", except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

There is no definition for "state" (lower case "s") and the times when it does come up is in regards to a "foreign state". So (23) is simply stating the obvious and "by any means whatsoever." can mean "at birth, like the US has and which I linked to earlier.

[Cboldt]

-- His mother and father both became citizens of Canada before Ted was born. --

That can't be true. If it was, Ted would have zero claim to US citizenship.

I believe Mrs. Cruz was a US citizen, applied for residency in CA, maybe on a path to CA citizenship, maybe not, but no matter, she was a US citizen, resident of Canada when Ted was born. Father's status then becomes completely irrelevant.

Ted was able to get a US passport, and probably has a CRBA - his spokesman claimed to have one some time ago. CRBA or not, Cruz is a citizen of the US. The argument is a legal one over whether he is naturalized; essentially over the definition of the word "naturalized."

[AFret.]

Cruz became a U.S citizen the moment he was born.
Let’s say for arguments sake that Cruz was born in another country that did not confer citizenship to the child of two non-citizens. If Cruz was not born a U.S citizen then he would be born with no citizenship whatsoever!

---

Cruz became a Canadian Natural Born Citizen the moment he was born. His mother had to submit the CRBA in order to “activate” his US citizenship.

[John Valentine]

And so, defending jus soli is defending the nation, as a defined place on the earth. Perhaps you find that to be a bad thing.

No, I don't consider jus soli a bad thing. I do consider naked jus soli a bad thing. I think that jus soli is a consideration to be weighed along with other factors.

I agree with Vattel who advocated the primacy of Jus Sanguinis. But sure, weight must be placed on the place of birth. But is can not be a disqualifying factor in the presence of jus sanguinis citizenship.

[Cboldt]

-- I would love to see SCOTUS rule on this. --

If they follow existing precedent, it looks like ...

post 64 on this thread

The alternative is SCOTUS give Congress the power to define natural born citizen via Act of Congress. All the act need do is attach citizenship at birth. It could do that for the whole world, literally, and be constitutional, if SCOTUS finds the power to lie with Congress.