'Natural Born' Issue for Ted Cruz Is Not Settled and Not Going Away

NBC News ^ | 01/18/2016 | Pete Williams

[SeekAndFind]

While the nation's legal scholars differ over the exact meaning of the Constitution's requirement that a person must be a "natural born citizen" to become president, they're unanimous in saying Ted Cruz is wrong about an important point.

"As a legal matter, the question is quite straightforward and settled law," Cruz has said. "People will continue to make political noise about it, but as a legal matter it is quite straightforward.

In fact, the experts say, it is neither settled nor straightforward.

It's not settled -- because the Constitution does not define "natural born," a phrase that appears in the nation's founding document only once.

And though the federal courts have chewed on it from time to time, the U.S. Supreme Court has never officially said what it means.

It's not straightforward -- because at the time the Constitution was written there were different ideas about what the phrase meant and competing legal theories about where the power to confer citizenship came from.

The meaning of the term is so unsettled that scores of constitutional experts have been writing about it in the weeks since Donald Trump made it an issue in the 2016 campaign.

[Dstorm]

Just because you post it ad nauseum does not make it true. You have some weird theory about the meaning of Natural born but nothing in settled law that establishes that definition.

Ted Cruz is Natural Born until The Supreme Court or US Congress says different. You can rant and spittle all you want, still doesn’t change reality.

If Donald Trump was really concerned, I would encourage him to file suit, given that the courts have punted this issue for years and he may have standing.

I suspect this may not get resolved, because Cruz could lose and the issue becomes moot. Of course this was Trump’s intent all along.

I don’t know if Trump can beat Hillary, I suspect his ‘Larry, Larry. we just got to look under the Hood’ approach to solving the nation’s problems will not beat her.

I will pull the lever for him but, he gives me nothing to convince others in my family too.

[Cold Heat]

It has for over 200 years, so why not..

[Yosemitest]

It was Settled in 1790 and AGAIN in 1802!

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

So READ THE LATEST FROM the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

And what's YOUR source, some COMMUNIST COLLEGE PROFESSOR ? READ IT AGAIN, KNOT-HEAD !

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

... Citizenship is mentioned in
Article 1, Section 2,
Article 1, Section 3,
Article 1, Section 8,
Article 2, Section 1,
and in the 14th Amendment
and several subsequent amendments.

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen?
Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
"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."
But even this does not get specific enough.
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment;
the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4,
also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"


• Anyone born inside the United States *
  * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
  This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
  
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  li>Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as
Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402),
Alaska (8 USC 1404),
Hawaii (8 USC 1405),
the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406),
and Guam (8 USC 1407).
Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
he was not actually qualified to be president.
However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
"a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

U.S. Nationals

A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.
U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

(Continued

And what's YOUR source, some COMMUNIST COLLEGE PROFESSOR ?

[Dstorm]

Ok, now your just posting BS. My children had to do no such thing as you describe.

[Cold Heat]

Yes, the last time SCOTUS tried to screw with this, we ended up with a case used today and for the last 100 years that gave us Anchor Babies.

The case was not remotely similar, but they screwed with it and the result was very bad law.

The real constitutional term that is ambiguous and related to the Cruz argument, is jurisdiction.

One school of thought is that a natural born carries with him/her the jurisdiction of the home sovereign. Thus a child born while traveling temporarily in other countries will inherit their status.

The other says jurisdiction ends at the shore. Thus natural born is about the land, not the blood.

There really is no argument about what natural born means. The argument is about blood, land, or is it both....

I think it’s both, depending on the situation and in the best interests of the sovereign, the United states.

So it’s argumentative by nature and intent.

[Dstorm]

Yep, also meet all the other requirements, didn’t leave the US until I was 20, on by way to Okinawa for 18 months

[Cold Heat]

And what's YOUR source, some COMMUNIST COLLEGE PROFESSOR ?

Bwahahahaha!

[Cold Heat]

yes....as I believed and still do....

It’s been real difficult to argue this when the other side will not even accept that you have a valid position.

This appears to be to be hyper emotional claptrap. No evidence is admissible unless it fits the accusation.

I am so tired of it....aaaaaaahhhhhhhgh

[Cold Heat]

My father met my mother in Okinawa.

I think I was conceived there.....I wonder if they would argue that I was naturalized..

[Dstorm]

I’m supporting Cruz, but the main reason for me is my children, I had a poster post a passage from Vattel

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

If the framers accepted this, I wonder what their thinking was when they wrote the passage about Natural Born

[WhiskeyX]

“You have no legal statutes to prove your point.”

Ted Cruz made public statements claiming his mother’s U.S. citizenship was the basis for his acquisition of U.S. citizenship. The U.S. statute in effect in 1970 at the time of the birth of Ted Cruz that authorized such a grant of U.S. citizenship was 66 Stat. Public Law 414 - June 27, 1952. That statute reads as follows:

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.

The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual currently used to administer the past and current U.S. Immigration and Naturalization statutes says:

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.

At no time in Anglo-American history has a child born abroad been lawfully recognized as a natural born citizen, with the exception of those persons shielded by diplomatic immunity from the obligation of allegiance to a foreign sovereign. All children born abroad are born as aliens, and some of these alien born children with citizen fathers and later with citizen mothers have been granted the right to become naturalized at birth as naturalized citizens.

“BTW, I have no intent to carry this further. I have said all I will say, and this matter will not be taken up by SCOTUS.”

Of course not, you know you have no valid evidence to provide a rational rebuttal of the actual statutes, Constitution, and case law; so, you just gainsay with baseless denials.

[Windflier]

"As a legal matter, the question is quite straightforward and settled law," Cruz has said.

That's bullsqueeze, and you know it, Ted.

Or maybe you're not the constitutional scholar and champion so many of us took you for, when we busted our tails to get you elected to the Senate.

Ted is so losing my patience and trust over this. Armchair students of American history and the Constitution appear to have a keener grasp of what the Framers' original intent was, than Ted Cruz.

Anyone over 40 likely was taught in school that American presidents are required to be born on US soil to two US citizen parents. That's how the general public has understood the NBC clause for generations - right back to the founding of the nation.

Seems weird that over 200 years of precedent and understanding about something so basic to the fundamental structure of our government, has now become such a mysterious question. Obama got away with violating the spirit (if not the very letter) of the Constitution, so why not Cruz too?

It's hypocritical to say that Zero is ineligible if he was born out of country to one US citizen parent, but Cruz is not.

[Dstorm]

Probably not, in their quest to slander Cruz they don’t care who gets hurt. The military screw them, a bunch of chumps. Some times I get the feeling I’m arguing with posters from Politico or one of the other liberal sites.

[itsahoot]

I fully expect that within a week, the Cruzers are going to start arguing that since Obama got a bye, so should Cruz, and then we can call it even.

They were arguing that before he ever announced his bid.

[Cold Heat]

Hmmmm......I don't know specifically, but I think there was some disagreement, and as a result, there was no recorded discussion. They were silent. I think everyone agreed about the need for a level of security.

Being the entire purpose of it, they changed the original draft and inserted the term. The problem being that many, like you had children born abroad, including John jay, who is purportedly responsible for the change. It's noteworthy that during the course of arguing this for several days now, several of my opponents used Vattel to support the opposite point. It's just dicta, and this guy was musing about things on both sides of the argument, then comparing it to his home, Switzerland. So you can find things on either side to support your point....It drove me nuts!

In any case, the only position that makes any sense and it's confirmed in many places in statutes is that both blood and place are used to determine both citizenship, naturalization requirements and natural born status.

To be sure, there will be someone who will post dicta that they say proves the opposite and that natural born can only come from the land or place.

It's just as sure as the sun rise.

[r_barton]

A true conservative would want to preserve and uphold the Constitution and err on the side of caution by not voting for someone who is not eligible to be President.

Voting for Cruz and having him as President would weaken the Constitution.

[Dstorm]

Once again you post something not relevant to you argument, what you posted just establishes that Cruz is a US Citizen at birth. It does not address Natural Born. You then post your opinion without citing any settled case law.

You post “At no time in Anglo-American history has a child born abroad been lawfully recognized as a natural born citizen” Please post the case where the child was denied this right, that is what your trying to imply with this passage

[Cold Heat]

You can put that stuff up all day long, and tomorrow, next week, next year, and in 2050.

Nothing in my argument will change.

And this will still be argued.

[Cold Heat]

A true conservative would want to preserve and uphold the Constitution

A true conservative would also demand a true conservative president.

Trump is not that man and in fact far from it.

As to the constitution, it's quite safe with Cruz, In fact could not be in better hands then his.

[Cold Heat]

A true conservative would want to preserve and uphold the Constitution

A true conservative would also demand a true conservative president.

Trump is not that man and in fact far from it.

As to the constitution, it's quite safe with Cruz, In fact could not be in better hands then his.