Posted on 01/24/2016 1:04:47 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I usually enjoy reading Ann Coulter's columns thanks to her acerbic wit and gutsy grit. But, being human, she has flaws, among which is a penchant to suspend rationality when advocating for her flavor of the year in Republican presidential candidates. In past years, it was Chris Christie and Mitt Romney. Now, thanks mainly to his tough stance on immigration, it's Donald Trump.
This infatuation has caused her to write some ridiculous things about the eligibility of Ted Cruz for the presidency. Her use of the term "naturalization" is, frankly, unworthy of her status as a law school graduate. A recently published article from the Harvard Law Review holds that: "All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase 'natural born citizen' has a specific meaning - namely, someone who is a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time." Cruz meets this requirement.
There are only two paths to citizenship: automatically at birth, or after one's birth through some legal process such as immigration and naturalization. The plain meaning of "natural born citizen" is understood to be a person who was a citizen "naturally" by reason of birth, as differentiated from obtaining citizenship later in life. In 1790, the First Congress passed a law providing, "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
Newton Schwartz, an 85-year-old lawyer, has filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Texas challenging Cruz' eligibility. Schwartz told Bloomberg News that, while he's not linked to any particular presidential campaign, he will probably support Democrat/Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Nice company you're in, Annie!
Legally, this man has no "standing" to file this action. Only another presidential candidate could do so. If Trump actually thinks Cruz is ineligible, let him file suit and request expedited consideration which, along with any subsequent appeals, would surely be decided on an emergency basis. Otherwise, let's move on to real issues!
You are most welcome, and I thank you for the “wonderful teacher” compliment.
The law disagrees with you.
You are either natural born or naturalized. Natural born means you inherited your citizenship from your parent or were born in the US.
Naturalized means you had to petition a court.
There’s only two options. That’s it.
These posts are some of the most educational and entertaining on FR. Thank you.
BTW, you have the patience of a saint!
Two options - citizen pursuant to a statute, and citizenship without resort to a statute. You have seen the relevant legal authorities, and your claim is that SCOTUS is wrong. That is the mark of a kook. Wear it proudly.
Hardly! But thank you. I try to be very fair, intellectually honest, and defer on the ad hominems until my correspondent demonstrates obstinance. None are so blind as those who do not want to see.
Contact Ann Coulter.
As enacted in the 1790 law, how was “natural born Citizen” defined?
What part of the Constitution controlled the enactment of the 1790 Law?
To become a citizen at birth, you must:
- Be born in the U.S or in certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
- Have a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth
- If you were born outside the U.S., you must meet these requirements outlined by the U.S. Department of State
Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). To become a citizen by naturalization, you must:
- Apply for "derived" or "acquired" citizenship through parents
- Apply for naturalization
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, con- curring in the judgment. ...
The Constitution "contemplates two sources of citizen- ship, and two only: birth and naturalization." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, "[e]very 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." Ibid. Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and "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." Id., at 702-703; see also Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815, 827 (1971). Here it is the "authority of Congress" that is appealed to-- its power under Art. I, 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." If there is no congressional enactment granting petitioner citizenship, she remains an alien. I would point out that plaintiff below asked for a Declaratory judgment, and her case was heard on the merits. This is evidence that Cruz can, of his own volition, seek a declaratory judgment.
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, concurring in the judgment. ...I would point out that plaintiff below asked for a Declaratory judgment, and her case was heard on the merits. This is evidence that Cruz can, of his own volition, seek a declaratory judgment.The Constitution "contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, "[e]very 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." Ibid. Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and "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." Id., at 702-703; see also Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815, 827 (1971). Here it is the "authority of Congress" that is appealed to-- its power under Art. I, 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." If there is no congressional enactment granting petitioner citizenship, she remains an alien.
You have been very patient with people as well which is a mark of true character.
As others have said, I also am appreciative.
Thank You.
I sometimes wonder how many people are persuaded, appreciative, "get it" or whatever. Hearing from one of the "quiet readers" warms my heart. Your very kind compliments likely speak for others, as well as for you - I know these efforts reach a small audience, but it's worth it to me, knowing that at least a few come away better informed.
The United States has always applied the rule of "jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute." Bellei, 401 U.S. at 828
Case summary at SCOTUSBlog, judgment was affirmed without an opinion, by an equally divided court. Kagan recused herself, having argued below.
The only thing I've found so far, that could be spun as contrary, is a "brain fart" statement by Thomas, in 2015, in a case that was NOT about citizenship, but was about a power of the president ZIVOTOFSKY v Kerry - 13-628 (2015)
Our Constitution allocates the powers of the Federal Government over foreign affairs in two ways. First, it expressly identifies certain foreign affairs powers and vests them in particular branches, either individually or jointly. Second, it vests the residual foreign affairs powers of the Federal Government--i.e., those not specifically enumerated in the Constitution--in the President by way of Article II's Vesting Clause.Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, ignores that constitutional allocation of power insofar as it directs the President, contrary to his wishes, to list "Israel" as the place of birth of Jerusalem-born citizens on their passports. The President has long regulated passports under his residual foreign affairs power, and this portion of S:214(d) does not fall within any of Congress' enumerated powers.
By contrast, S:214(d) poses no such problem insofar as it regulates consular reports of birth abroad. Unlike passports, these reports were developed to effectuate the naturalization laws, and they continue to serve the role of identifying persons who need not be naturalized to obtain U. S. citizenship. ...
Although the consular report of birth abroad shares some features with a passport, it is historically associated with naturalization, not foreign affairs. In order to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization," Congress must be able to identify the categories of persons who are eligible for naturalization, along with the rules for that process. Congress thus has always regulated the "acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents . . . in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 688 (1898) ; see also Miller v. Albright, 523 U. S. 420, 456 (1998) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (recognizing that "Congress has the power to set the requirements for acquisition of citizenship by persons not born within the territory of the United States"). It has determined that children born abroad to U. S. parents, subject to some exceptions, are natural-born citizens who do not need to go through the naturalization process. 8 U. S. C. S:S: 1401(c), (d), (g).
On their face, the bolded passages are conflicting on the question of a 1401(g) person being naturalized.
“Ted was mistaken in his tweet.”
Ted lied in his tweet. Are you trying to justify the lie or what?
“Why are you defending Trumps attempts to steal this woman’s property?”
Why are you ignoring the fact Ted Cruz lied?? That pesky lie is a rotten foundation stone for the ad. Is that acceptable to you?? If so why?
Trump Spokesperson Says Ted Cruz Eminent Domain Attack Ad ‘Outright Lies’
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3387976/posts
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.