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!
Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires that the President of the United States be a "natural born citizen," which led some to question whether McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there as a Naval officer, was even eligible to be president.1 U.S. Const. art. II, S: 1, cl. 4. That is a matter for constitutional scholars to sort out; but, as we will see, there is little dispute that McCain has been a citizen of the United States since birth. ...Interesting and accessible exposition on "acquired citizenship," which is not the same as "natural born citizenship," in that the citizenship depends on a statute.
Petitioner Jermaine Amani Thomas was born on August 9, 1986, in a military hospital located on a U.S. military base in Frankfurt, Germany. Thomas's father, a United States citizen, was a member of the United States military serving on the base. Thomas's father first entered the United States in September 1977, enlisted in the United States Army in 1979, and became a United States citizen in May 1984. Thomas's mother was a citizen of Kenya. ...The Bustamante-Barrera v. Gonzales case isn't helpful either way, as it involves derivative citizenship, not citizenship by acquisition.At a hearing before an Immigration Judge ("IJ") on December 12, 2013, Thomas conceded that, if he is not a United States citizen, he is removable based on his aggravated felony and domestic violence convictions. The only relief sought by Thomas before the IJ was a declaration that he is a United States citizen and the termination of removal proceedings. The IJ found that Thomas's birth in Germany gave rise to a rebuttable presumption of alienage. The IJ determined that based on the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), as well as the plain language of 8 U.S.C. S: 1401(a) and the Constitution, the military base on which Thomas was born was not part of the United States for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the IJ concluded that Thomas had failed to rebut the presumption of alienage. ...
The BIA agreed with the IJ that Thomas's birth at the military hospital in Germany, to only one United States citizen parent, gave rise to a rebuttable presumption of alienage. The BIA rejected Thomas's claim that his birth on a military base in Germany rendered him a birthright citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the BIA concluded that Thomas was removable and it dismissed the appeal. On April 22, 2014, Thomas filed a timely petition for review in this court. ...
"There are two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization." Bustamante-Barrera v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 388, 394 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that 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.'" Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 423-24 (1998) (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898)). "Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." Id. At the time of Thomas's birth, Congress extended birthright citizenship to children born abroad to one citizen
However, it is undisputed that Thomas was not a statutory birthright citizen because his father did not meet the physical presence requirement of the statute in force at the time of Thomas's birth.1 Id. Consequently, Thomas must rely on the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, in relevant part, that "[a]ll persons born . . . in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," U.S. Const. amend. XIV, S: 1, to sustain his claim that he is a birthright citizen. Thomas contends that the military base located in modern-day Germany where he was born was "in the United States" for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We disagree.
It seems Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 423, 118 S.Ct. 1428, 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998) is a primary source. Breyer, in dissent, cites Vattel.
I’m sure he’ll correct it. Meanwhile Trump still is will to steal homes from little old ladies.
“We disagree.”
About what? If naturalization laws grant him citizenship status, he is a citizen. But he is not a natural born citizen if a naturalization act creates his citizenship.
WEEDIN, Commissioner of Immigration, v. CHIN BOW, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)
The United States contends that the proviso of section 1993, 'but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States,' must be construed to mean that only the children whose fathers have resided in the United States before their birth become citizens under the section. It is claimed for the respondent that the residence of the father at any time in the United States before his death entitles his son whenever born to citizenship. These conflicting claims make the issue to be decided. ...Mr. Horace Binney had written an article, which he published December 1, 1853, for the satisfaction of fellow citizens and friends, whose children were born abroad during occasional visits by their parents to Europe. 169 U. S. 665, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, 2 Amer. Law Reg. 193. He began the article as follows:
'It does not, probably, occur to the American families who are visiting Europe in great numbers, and remaining there, frequently for a year or more, that all their children born in a foreign country are aliens, and when they return home will return under all the disabilities of aliens. ...The expression, 'the rights of citizenship shall descend,' cannot refer to the time of the death of the father, because that is hardly the time when they do descend. The phrase is borrowed from the law of property. The descent of property comes only after the death of the ancestor. The transmission of right of citizenship is not at the death of the ancestor but at the birth of the child
If he is born in the US, then he is under the first half of the 14th amendment, and not in the "naturalized" half.
Guess where that puts McCain?
Ted hasn’t corrected the lie. Click through the tweet to see.
I am again sorry but you are 1000% wrong. Natural born is of the land by two citizen parents..
There is NO law that makes one eligible to hold the office of president.. The office of president is not born of royal lineage, but of citizen parents in the land. Foreign born are NOT eligible !!!! Cruz knows this too in case you did not know that.
I would like to see someone like Trump bring on a lawsuit based on this but it won’t happen. He knows he rode it as far as it can go and bringing this to the Supreme Court and lose would galvanize Cruz support across the board.
I look at this NBC issue- as getting camel’s nose under the tent. We know that socialists play a long game when comes to politics, while Americans in general look only to the next election.
With a sufficiently lenient interpretation of NBC any anchor baby could run for president.
An obvious and blatant sign that her sex life is dead and gone.
In an honest hearing, I think Cruz would lose but the SCOTUS is good at going into weasel mode and avoiding their responsibilities. They would simply avoid making a decision until it was irrelevant.
They'll evade the issue, most likely. Might be tough, because I foresee some liberal judge seeing an opportunity to be a hero for the liberal cause, ordering a Secretary of State to remove Cruz's name from a ballot. It only takes one, and there will be literally hundreds of cases before this plays out.
It’s the that counts not your fantasy land wanna be.
The law says you are wrong.
America is a nation of laws with the Constitution as the Supreme law.
I think it is best to have Cruz in the race, and for him to strongly resist attempts to disqualify him, even by procedural arguments. Awakening the public is hard, maybe impossible, but for it to have a chance, the debate has to become hot in the minds of a sufficient fraction of the public.
If Cruz wins the nomination the liberals are going to find a new love, ‘original intent’. If Hillry survives her legal troubles, she will go full throttle on Cruz. She after all birthed the birther movement against Obama.
I do not think the GOP are that dull, and would put their credibility on the line for Cruz.. I see them declaring themselves a new love of ‘original intent’. Then strip Cruz of his delegates. I cannot see how Beck is the key to overcoming Cruz's ‘natural born’ problem.
But, the longer he stays in, the more people talk about this eligibility thing. So, keep him in. Have him fight using procedure. At some point, some judge is going to take the bait. where it goes from there will be amazing. Could be swept under the rug by the press, no matter if or when the courts pick it up on the merits. Worst case is status quo, the people remain "stupid" on the meaning of NBC, and the PTB get to set naturalized citizens in the office. NBC clause is dead by neglect now, it has nowhere to go but up.
Your link to the 2015 Thomas v. Lynch case doesn’t work. Very interested in this. Can you please provide another link? Thanks!
Sorry about that, I don't know what happened.
Thanks! VERY useful!
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.