Posted on 01/16/2016 5:15:49 PM PST by John Valentine
I stand corrected.
Under the controlling statute under which Cruz was presumably granted citizenship, the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, that citizenship was conditional.
The individual was required to fulfill certain requirements as a young adult, or lose their citizenship. Primarily residence requirements in the United States.
Naturalized citizens include those who are naturalized at birth by the authority of the statutory law found in the Immigration and Naturalization Acts. Senator Ted Cruz acquired U.S. citizenship by the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Act o f1952, so he was naturalized at birth by that statutory law.
An interesting analysis. Thanks for posting.
Peace,
SR
Just soli.
Cruz was not born on US soil.
He is a citizen but no a NBC
Only because of the same confused, twisted, warped and bent thinking that insists that Ted Cruz is not.
This is as untrue as untrue can be. There is NO 'international law' on the subject. Each and every nation decides for itself who it does and does not consder its citizens. And most do not recognize naked jus soli citizenship. Period.
“But, that’s not the statute we have, is it?”
Of course it is. As I have posed so many times previously, here are the relevant statutes and the U.S. State Department Manual explicitly stating it is so.
66 Stat. Public Law 414 - June 27, 1952
TITLE III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
Chapter 1 - Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization
NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; . . .
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at lest five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
The equivalent present day statute is:
U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY. Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY. Subchapter III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION. Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization. § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ... (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic†acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.
Aren't you the individual who just yesterday told me that I had nothing to say to you? I think you were right.
That doesn’t follow.
Anchor babies are being made citizens because of those who turned the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirements, and the intentions of the framers of the Amendment, on their head.
Considering Cruz NBC is the continued watering down of the strict requirement to be considered for the office of the Presidency of the United States.
So, you have things exactly backwards.
Well, St. George Tucker, who knew the Framers, served as an officer in the Revolution and then became arguably the foremost law professor and legal commentator of the time used the two terms interchangeably, in both uses excluding anyone outside the definition provided by Vattel as a definition that would exclude any possibility of any allegiance to any other country through having one or both parents citizens of another country at time of birth. The focus of all commentators was on there being no dual allegiance of any kind from such mixed parentage. This was also the view of Story in his study of the Constitution. Do you know of any authority that makes a distinction between the two phrases and, if so, what is the distinction?
You haven’t given us the definition of two terms:
1. citizenship by birth
2. circumstances of birth
It’s not obvious to me that the first term means literally born in America.
The 2nd term is not equivalent to the first and describes “birth”, not “citizenship”. What’s it’s pertinence to citizenship?
Where is there any commentary by a Framer, or anyone who knew them, that says that that is all they meant, as opposed, say, to Jay’s concern in his famous letter to Washington, about dual allegiance?
“Just soli.
Cruz was not born on US soil.
He is a citizen but no a NBC”
Then neither was Barry Goldwater, George Romney and John McCain, yet they were all allowed to run for POTUS.
Obviously this debate is reignited by the Cruz candidacy so here’s how I like to look at things when its not clear from plain reading (in this case I think it is clear and you explained it well). If one is to allege that Cruz is not natural born, than what is he? Naturalized? But in order to be naturalized, one has to take affirmative steps to accept it. For example if a Canadian came here, he would have to ask for citizenship or in the case of a child have his parents apply for him. He has to forswear allegiances to other countries and take a loyalty oath to America, and be sworn in by a US official. How can one be neither naturalized nor natural born? It’s impossible. It has to be one or the other. So in this case “Natural born” means acquired at birth. It doesn’t matter what soil the birth occurred upon, if he is born a citizen he is ‘naturally born’.
Of course this doesn’t mean other things can’t also be true. For example many countries including the US will consider someone born in their country a citizen too. The USSC has ruled on this issue, saying that citizenship is a matter for each country to decide on their own. There is nothing the US nor even the person himself can do about it if that country chooses to record you as a citizen. If your parents are/were both stationed in a foreign land in a military or diplomatic assignment and you happened to be born outside the US borders, that country could claim you even if you have no desire to accept citizenship. This is important because of the question of the opposite: if they did not claim you and the US law was that you would have to be naturalized, then you would live without citizenship to any country. Not really possible, except in theory.
So if Cruz did not have to apply for citizenship, did not have to take an oath, his parents were American and recorded his birth to appropriate US government agency as being born from a US citizen as an America (e.g. he is ‘naturally born’), then he is a natural born citizen no matter where the birth happened to take place.
Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; . . .
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at lest five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
and...
U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY. Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY. Subchapter III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION. Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization. § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ... (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
and...
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic†acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.
No person who acquires citizenship AT BIRTH is naturalized.
You may be hanging your hat on a very short peg with this reference:
For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic†acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.
Please note that what is describe here is a special circumstance whereby citizenship is conferred AFTER birth by naturalization to 'certain' children. This is not the usual rule or process.
Native born means born on the soil. Anchor babies are native born, but that doesn't mean they are natural born Citizens..... Or do you think it does?
Citizenship is passed from parent to child. Or citizenship is acquired by being naturalized. I don't believe citizenship happens just because someone is born in this country regardless of who the parents are.
There are two variations of the word. Natural or Naturalized. Native isn't the same thing as either.
Your insistence on having it both ways is exactly the thinking that has given us anchor babies and it way past time you admitted it.
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.