'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.

[Cold Heat]

I will concur with that....

It’s football that is being tossed about over time. But the accepted interpretations seem clear, yet will satisfy none in this political debate. The more debated the more mud in the water.

Backing out to 20,000 feet, I ask the question, does it work as intended?

I think that answer is yes.

[Cboldt]

Things work, but your conclusion "a citizen at birth and that equates to natural born status" is false as a matter of law, as has been demonstrated by review of Bellei and the language of the constitution.

I mean really, if you read this exchange 5 years from now, you are going to be embarrassed at yourself.

[WhiskeyX]

“Settled. Nonissue.”

Settled, Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen by authority of the U.S. Naturalization Act of 1952.

[Cold Heat]

Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1956, which observed that such children are naturalized U.S. citizens and not native U.S. citizens. So, the statutory and case law decisively falsify your arguments

I have a lot of arguments. I often argue my own logic. But quoting definitions of natural and native does not change the statutes under which we argue the Cruz case. When I say does not need to be naturalized, I refer to the normal naturalization process ending with a ceremony. I am not talking about the statutory naturalization at birth.

[Vaquero]

Cruz campaign needs to go to the SCOTUS to clarify this like TODAY. However one does this. Let the lawyers figure that out.

Sword of Damocles, man.

[Vaquero]

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.

Obama LIED and the powers that be backed it up. Who will back up a conservative? the MSM ?

[Cold Heat]

you are going to be embarrassed at yourself.

Probably not. As I argue this I glean more and more understanding. But never do I expect to express a conclusion in a way that will satisfy a legal beagle. It's just not in me.

So if I equate the two, it must mean that the law makes it look that way to a layman.

I suppose I could get into a conversation on electrical theory, and why some hospitals service is totally inadequate and you might not be able to follow my logic in either case.

I guess what I am saying is that it's more important for me to get the conclusion right at this point, then it is to explain how and why I got there. This is not in my skill set but I am quite willing to learn by making mistakes.

[Yosemitest]

"There are two groups in the 14th amendment. This is settled law, by the way.
1. born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction
2. naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction
The constitution also has citizens in Art IV, Sec. 2, citizens of the several states are citizens of the US.

A person who isn't in ANY of those groups ... can be made a full fledged citizen by naturalization."

NOT according to the FOUNDING FATHERS, AND THE LAW !

You're taking the word of a "PROGRESSIVE" "SOCIALIST" !

Have you any knowledge of WHY those changes were made ?
Don't you realize that this changes only CLARIFY the definition given by our Founding Fathers, and do it for the good of our Country ?

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW, a good start at the background and the reason for the changes, can be read at Act of March 26, 1790 eText.

... What happened next ...

The 1790 act mentioned nothing about the attitudes of new citizens toward government policy in the new democracy.
Soon after the 1790 act was passed, however, politics became an important consideration in giving immigrants the right to vote.
During the two terms of the nation's first president, George Washington (1732-1799; served 1789-97), two distinct political parties had begun to emerge.
... One party, led by Washington's successor, John Adams (1797-1801; served 1797-1801), was known as the Federalists.
The Federalist Party included Washington, Adams, and the nation's first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755-1804).
The Federalists supported a strong central (federal) government and were generally sympathetic to the interests of merchants in the cities.
An opposing faction, the Anti-Federalists (also called the Democratic-Republicans), were led by the country's third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826; served 1801-9).
The Anti-Federalists opposed giving the federal government more power than was absolutely needed.

In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law.
The new law required immigrants to wait five years (instead of two) to become a citizen
and to make a declaration of intention to become a citizen three years before becoming naturalized.
An immigrant who failed to make the declaration might have to wait more than five years after arrival in the United States to become a voter.
The 1795 law also required naturalized citizens to renounce any noble titles they might hold (such as "duke" or "countess")
and to promise not to be loyal to any foreign king or queen.
These measures were intended to ensure that new citizens would not secretly want to restore a king and an aristocracy, or individuals who inherit great wealth and special political privileges.

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. ...

Let us remember ...

"You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept Communism outright.
But we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism
until you finally wake up and realize you already have communism.
We won’t have to fight you;
we’ll so weaken your economy
that you will fall like over ripe fruit into our hands. "


Nikita Kruschev, Former Soviet Premier

[WhiskeyX]

“OK...I am flexible.....lets rephrase to say that a child born under title 8 is a citizen at birth and that equates to natural born status.”

They are not equal, because the naturalized at birth U.S. citizen must comply with conditions for acquiring and retaining U.S. citizenship that do not apply to a natural born citizen. A naturalized at birth U.S. citizen is not eligible to the Office of the president or to the Office of the Vice President. The naturalized at birth is “considered as” a natural born citizen, while not being a natural born citizen or enjoying all of the conditions of a natural born citizen. See:

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”

[Cboldt]

-- I guess what I am saying is that it's more important for me to get the conclusion right at this point --

Actually, what you are saying is that it's only important that you BELIEVE you got the conclusion right, and as long as you don't change what you believe, it remains true.

Unlike electricty, there is no "smoke test" for your error on this point.

I don't think I'd trust a layman to design power and control circuits for industrial machinery, and I can tell you I have corrected a number of mistakes where the designer BELIEVED he got it right (and the thing runs), but his power and control circuits were dangerous and unreliable.

[Cboldt]

You'll probably get less heat from posters if you preface your legal conclusions with "I believe," rather than state then in a way that reads like your conclusions are in fact correct. I suspect that not all legal-laymen agree with what you believe, but have no objection to you being hidebound to your belief. The heat comes in when you try to prove you are right, to others. You are free to justify how you get to your belief, no sweat.

Nice chatting, enjoyed the civil exchange, hopefully the public record will be useful to others.

[Cold Heat]

Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”

Whiskey......I did not fall of the turnip truck yesterday, but it may appear that way occasionally. However what I am reading that you posted (I have read belli)is the same thing the statute says. It says in the statutes in every iteration that I have read that ted Cruz's situation qualifies for citizen at birth status. That status is said to be "as" like the natural born status, and there is no disclaimer that says it does not comport with the requirements for president.

Nor does Belli.

I am not saying it can't be argued, but it has and we are still at it after many decades.

I think the salient point is that this is a matter for Congress and always has been. I don't see a case with standing. I don't expect a case with standing to be brought.

This is a purely political dispute.

[Yosemitest]

Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

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

[Cold Heat]

yes, It’s been good...

CU LATER

[WhiskeyX]

“I have a lot of arguments.”

I realize that. I understand what you are trying to argue. You should understand I’ve heard these same arguments over and over again countless times since 1964, when I was tasked with an assignment to write a theme paper about the eligibility issue faced by Barry Goldwater and his campaign for the President.

It took me awhile to understand the pieces of the puzzle, but by the time George Romney faced the eligibility issue in his campaign for President, I had learned about the differences between the statutory naturalization laws versus the Natural Law and the naturalization of children born abroad. I’ve been asked by friends to help with dealing with their own family problems with citizenship, helping them write letters to Senators for help. I understand the language is very poorly understood, even by the State Department responsible for administering these laws (especially them!). But the bottomline is comes back to the historical chain of evidence and these case law decisions and dicta. They confirm the historical record by observing that such children are in fact naturalized U.S. citizens despite there being no need to subject them to the immigration and naturalization procedures for aliens acquiring U,S citizenship after birth. The poorly described process begins with birth as an alien born outside U.S. jurisdiction followed by an immediate acquisition at birth of U.S. citizenship, provided only when the parent/s or child adopts and perfects the at birth U.S. citizenship retroactively after satisfying the conditions to perfect the right and claim after birth. That is why there is so much confusion surrounding the terminology the government/s use improperly and inconsistently and thereby mislead so many people.

[WhiskeyX]

“This is a purely political dispute.”

No, it is a legal dispute over the right to assume some of he greatest powers on the Earth running the full gamut from legal to economic to military to political and more. It is comparable in grand scope to the days when the Roman Republic succumbed to the corruption of its political and legal foundations to the point where it was subsumed into the Roman Empire. The legal and extralegal precedents being established in since Chester Arthur assumed the office of the president despite not being an U.S. citizen is accelerating the destruction of the Constitution and the Republic.

[Cold Heat]

I concur that it’s confusing, but I think it was meant to be, which is a side argument I have been waging in recent days..

The longer I work at this the more I learn about the thinking at the time. I have tried to use original intent to make a basis for a separate argument about the definition of the term “jurisdiction” at the time of the original writing. The original draft language did not include the term natural born and as we know it was inserted by request for reasons of security. we know that they were worried that foreign powers would exploit the new and untested constitution.

To me there is just as much or more danger in a native born situation with potential divided loyalties as there might be with a foreign born child.

With security as the primary reason the restriction, they had to come up with something effective, and I think they could not agree and left it a bit vague or obtuse to the degree that it was arguable.

I don’t think that is a bad thing.

I also see no security issue with cruz’s birth, but if there was, a case could be made and it might have standing.

With no issue at large, the courts in a political argument are likely to pass and kick the ball to congress. and again with no issue, no argument will be made and cruz, if elected could take office.

So as it is now, vattel and Blackburn don’t mean anything..

It would be my preference that Cruz be constitutionally eligible by way of natural born, and you could get there by using jurisdiction in the old English parlance regarding subjects.

But that’s not going to happen either, so we go with the statutes and the interpretative wording of the statute in force at the time of the birth.

In my opinion the wording indicates that his citizen birth status as a result of his mothers qualifications give him the presidential privileges of a natural born. But not constitutionally as I would much prefer.

I hope I am getting better at this writing...as to expressing my opinion. If not, I’ll try to do better.

[Cold Heat]

G’nite all....

[trebb]

Many made the case here about Obama.

Now they ignore the Constitution for Cruz.

Go figure.

Not to mention that many think that Trump started it....

[Duchess47]

I always wanted to go to Berlin but we couldn’t get permission because of my husband’s clearance.

For my son to renounce his German citizenship it was just a matter of signing papers.

I don’t believe our children are stripped of natural rights if they are born overseas while their parents are working for/sent by the US Government, ie military, state, etc. but I am not sure on that and would never argue it.