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

vanity | 1/16/2016 | Self

[Cboldt]

-- In the case of Sen. Cruz, birth did. --

Slight correction, I don't think you will object. In the case of Sen. Cruz, birth and operation of an act of congress did.

[Cboldt]

LOL at the tagline.

[WhiskeyX]

“According to the 14th Amendment, all citizens have equal rights and immunities.”

That is a demonstrably false statement. The 14th Amendment is what is described as a general clause, whereas the natural born citizen clause and a number of other clauses in the Constitution proper are specific clauses. The code of Statutory Construction does not allow the general clause of the 14th Amendment to negate the specific clauses of the Constitution proper which do provide for unequal rights.

[moehoward]

How can anyone argue with that?

[Mach9]

Logically stated, John Valentine.

The notion of natural birth entailing birthplace (i.e., in one of the United States or the nation’s territories or even the nation’s military bases or embassies) is preposterous. Such a requirement would obviate the U. S. citizenship of any child born of a U. S. citizen parent serving the nation OR NOT anywhere in the world. If “serving” is the operative word, what qualifies as “service”? Military? Legation? Trade? U. S. business interests? Academic study? Vacation? Who or what would rule on meeting the “service” categorical requirement?

Location of birth, for any reason whatsoever, has to be the least compelling, most ephemeral, of all imagined requirements for “natural birth” citizenship. If location of birth WERE implicit in the Constitution, what mother-to-be would dare leave the country, knowing that her child would be ineligible for citizenship until he was able to master the requirements for naturalized citizenship? Would she knowingly deprive him of the benefits of citizenship (such as they are) up until that time?

BECAUSE the U. S. hasn’t required naturalization of a foreign-born child of a U. S. citizen, we should be able to deduce that an additional requirement for citizenship is not necessary.

And, by your reasoning, if there ARE only two categories of citizenship, the child of a U. S. citizen, born ANYwhere, is a natural-born citizen.

[so_real]

We do have statute that defines "citizen at birth". What we lack is statute that defines "natural born citizen". Why? Because Congress does not possess the enumerated power to alter the Constitution except through the amendment process. An amendment could be written to redefine "natural born citizen" from Article II, or "treason" from Article III, or "republican form of government" from Article IV, etc. But these changes in definition cannot be legislated outside the amendment process; the Congress cannot "amend by statute". As such, regular legislation with regard to citizenship is restricted to establishing uniform rules of naturalization. Ergo, a citizen who requires statute to enjoy citizenship is not naturally a citizen ... is not a natural born citizen.

[spintreebob]

The analysis is incomplete. Check out the 14h Amendment. The purpose of the 14th was: Equal-protection to all citizens; and that such equal-protection does not apply to non-citizens. Thus it tries to describe who are citizens and because it was focused on former slaves, it left ambiguous those born as citizens who are not born in the US.

There is absolutely no dispute that Cruz was born a citizen. Anyone who argues that can’t read or think. The question is whether Cruz was a natural-born citizen. Some would argue that there are 3 classes of citizens:
Those born in the US.
Those born outside the US to US citizen parents and thus inherit the parent’s citizenship.
Those born not-a-US-citizen but naturalized into citizenship.

This was argued and pretty much settled when George Romney (born in Mexico) ran for president. It was agreed by all lawyers, media personalities, politicians, just about everyone, that anyone who did not need to be naturalized was in fact natural born. Thus George Romney and Ted Cruz are natural born citizens.

I was not a George Romney fan and was open to being convinced that he was not a natural-born citizen. But the facts and logic to support my desire to eliminate him just did not exist.

[Cboldt]

You are welcome. It is not possible to honestly read this case for the proposition that Bellei and his doppelganger Cruz are NBC. The case would not exist if Bellei was NBC! The fact that the case exists at all, is the proof both are naturalized.

I still get cranks who assert I am reading the case wrong. Cherry pick the reference to the 1790 act, for example. Blatant dishonesty, is what it is. Willful misrepresentation. Moral corruption. SMH.

[unlearner]

Do you want Congress and the President to restrict immigration?

If so, under what provision of the Constitution do they have the authority to do so?

[AmericanVictory]

In modern American English that is quite true. I was only referring to the fact that the prominent legal authority of the time of the Founding, St. George Tucker, used both terms, giving them the same meaning, in his extensive commentary on the Constitution with its extensive discussion of English law and the differences between it and American law. The principal point he made that is enormously relevant on this topic is that the law applying to subjects of a monarch has nothing to do with the law applying to citizens of a democratic republic.

[exit82]

I know-we are seeing a lot of this dishonesty lately.

But you are educating many—hang in there.

[WhiskeyX]

“Then neither was Barry Goldwater, George Romney and John McCain, yet they were all allowed to run for POTUS.”

Barry Goldwater was a natural born citizen, because the Territory of Arizona was determined by U.S. law to be an incorporated territory of the United States of America and thereby under the full sovereign jurisdiction of the United States in common. If Barry Goldwater had been born in an unincorporated territory of the United States, he would have been born with U.S. citizenship by the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Act as a naturalized at birth U.S. citizen.

[amihow]

In other words a foreigner from any contry in the world can come in the U. S. legally or illegally have a child here and that child could be president?

Just have a hard time believing that is what founding fathers steeped in Natural Law and English common law wouldhave intended.

[EternalVigilance]

The Constitution gives control over immigration and naturalization to Congress.

Which is why Cruz was made a citizen, by virtue of the immigration and naturalization laws duly passed by Congress.

If the statute had read differently, as it did at other times in U.S. history, Cruz would not have even been granted citizenship, much less have been considered “natural born.”

[philman_36]

No person who acquires citizenship AT BIRTH is naturalized.

You need to head straight to DC and straighten out the people there then, John, because that isn't what they say.

There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through U.S. citizen parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18.
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Background
In general, current nationality laws only refer to acquisition of citizenship for persons who automatically become U.S. citizens either at the time of birth or after.
Chapter 3 – United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a person born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

Surely they aren't talking about people who aren't aliens/foreigners since Congress can only establish an uniform rule of naturalization (nationality laws wouldn't govern a natural born citizen because their nationality is already established, right?), are they?

[BuckeyeTexan]

And it was added very recently by the Obama people.

I know.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3054508/posts?q=1&;page=148#139

[John Valentine]

You are correct that a statute cannot be used to amend the Constitution. But statutes are used all the time to give effect to Constitutional mandates. We have hundreds os statutes and hundreds of thousands of federal regulations, all ostensibly enacted and promulgated under the authority of the Constitution.

I would argue and I have argued that there is nothing in the statutes dealing with nationality that acts to amend or alter the plain words of the Constitution.

But you are just plain wrong when you argue that the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ as used in the Consitution is settled or clear. It never has been that, ever.

[EternalVigilance]

Wow. Excellent job.

[philman_36]

Citizenship by naturalization is never conferred at birth.

Again, see reply 95.

[John Valentine]

In other words a foreigner from any contry in the world can come in the U. S. legally or illegally have a child here and that child could be president?

Just have a hard time believing that is what founding fathers steeped in Natural Law and English common law wouldhave intended.

I don't like it any more than you do, but thanks to our courts and a bunch of very poorly reasoned decisions, that's exactly where we are, very sad to say.