Posted on 02/10/2016 1:55:32 PM PST by drewh
With Ted Cruz the victor of the first contest of the GOP nominating calendar, we can no longer avoid the question mischievously posed by Donald Trump: Is Cruz ineligible to be president? Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. The Constitution says that only a “natural born citizen†can be president. Is Cruz a natural born citizen? (You may recall that before he attacked Cruz on this front, Trump spent months flogging a ludicrous version of this critique against President Obama, who was actually born in the United States, unlike Cruz.)
The words natural born citizen, and their original meaning at the time that this constitutional clause was crafted, go a long way to answering this question. In founding-era America, like today, a person could be a citizen by virtue of birth on American territory; a citizen by virtue of a statute that granted citizenship to him at birth; a “naturalized†citizen, meaning one who entered the country as an alien but later obtained citizenship via a process determined by law; and a foreigner.
A natural born citizen cannot be a foreigner. Foreigners are not citizens. A natural born citizen cannot be a person who was naturalized. Those people are not born citizens; they’re born aliens. Most important for the purposes of the Cruz question, a natural born citizen cannot be someone whose birth entitled him to citizenship because of a statute—in this case a statute that confers citizenship on a person born abroad to an American parent. In the 18th century, as now, the word natural meant “in the regular course of things.†Then, as now, almost all Americans obtained citizenship by birth in this country, not by birth to Americans abroad. The natural way to obtain citizenship, then, was (and is) by being born in this country. Because Cruz was not “natural bornâ€â€”not born in the United States—he is ineligible for the presidency, under the most plausible interpretation of the Constitution.
Enlightened1, Interesting argument you are making but I disagree.
Reading at this FED Gov site https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html I am led to believe that the 5 year requirement is NOT limited to time abroad in military or diplomatic service, but rather makes that time abroad ELIGIBLE for the five year requirement. From the site plus footnotes:
In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:
-The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and
-The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision. [2]See Below
2. Any time spent abroad in the U.S. armed forces or other qualifying organizations counts towards that physical presence requirement. See INA 301(g) See Below
(g) 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 five years, at least two 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, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
Perhaps a refresher course in jurisprudence is in order. Ted is already on the ballot in most states. It would take a suit against him to take him off, which would make Ted the defendant in this case.
Furthermore, it is the States that elect the President, thus it is a State issue - not a federal issue. Democrats would have to file 50 separate suits between the Convention and the December election.
OK what if he were on ticket as VP and say Florida filed suit with ALL THOSE DELEGATES????
How about all the children left behind by American servicemen in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc?Are they all also Natural Born Citizens?
Such an excellent question, entropy12. Our FRiends here who are employing industrial strength cognitive dissonance to justify the candidacy of their Canadian-born favorite conservative is astonishing.
There are lots of examples as you state. Another interesting case would be that of any offspring of the Sultan of Brunei who famously kept harems of women from around the world, including desperate Americans who were allegedly paid handsomely. No telling how many potential Presidential candidates were spawned in that den of Islamic misogyny.
But back to your example. There were so many cases of Amerasians fathered by our soldiers in Vietnam that it required legislation. IMMIGRATION legislation of which one example was the American Homecoming Act ...
The American Homecoming Act or Amerasian Homecoming Act, was an Act of Congress giving preferential immigration status to children in Vietnam born of U.S. fathers. The American Homecoming Act was written in 1987, passed in 1988, and implemented in 1989.[1] ...
Let our FRiends here explain why any such laws were needed for these presumably Natural Born Citizens. For anybody wondering how these all these NBC Amerasian presidential candidates fared in life they should read Legacies Of War ...
When the last U.S. military personnel fled Saigon on April 29 and 30, 1975, they left behind a country scarred by war, a people uncertain about their future and thousands of their own children. These children - some half-black, some half-white - came from liaisons with bar girls, "hooch" maids, laundry workers and the laborers who filled sandbags that protected American bases.They are approaching middle age with stories as complicated as the two countries that gave them life. Growing up with the face of the enemy, they were spat on, ridiculed, beaten. They were abandoned, given away to relatives or sold as cheap labor. The families that kept them often had to hide them or shear off their telltale blond or curly locks. Some were sent to reeducation or work camps, or ended up homeless and living on the streets.
They were called "bui doi," which means "the dust of life."
Forty years later, hundreds remain in Vietnam, too poor or without proof to qualify for the program created by the Amerasian Homecoming Act of 1987 that resettles the children of American soldiers in the United States.
God, if only these folks knew they should be here in the USA living the good life, running for President! Since according to our FRiends, these poor folks are not only citizens, but natural born citizens qualified to be President they should be able to walk into an embassy and get red carpet treatment, and perhaps we should declare war on Vietnam and rescue all our natural born citizens. After all, they are all potential Presidents.
There is no explanation for Mark Levin and Ted Cruz and their sycophants diluting and bastardizing the Constitutional requirement down to now meaning: Any offspring of a single American citizen born anywhere on Earth, or perhaps another planet. Yep, I'm sure that is exactly what John Jay meant. Jeez, I sure hope that enemy governments don't raid American sperm banks and raised armies of NBC presidential candidates! A HREF=
Florida couldn’t file suit. They would also be defendants. They already have Cruz on the ballot.
Yes, very afraid of an alien Trojan Horse bringing the destruction of our republic. Cruz might be a stand-up guy but if allowed to unlawfully become our President, he would set a precedent for any villain that had the urge to destroy us.
Those that idiotically say his eligibility has been settled are liars or in denial of reality.
Former Solicitor General Paul Clement,[146][147] former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal,[146][147] Professor Chin (see above),[142] Temple University Law School Professor Peter Spiro,[148] Professor Akhil Amar,[149] Georgetown University Law Center Professor Randy Barnett,[150] Yale Law School Professor Jack Balkin,[150] and University of San Diego Professor Michael Ramsey[150] believe Cruz meets the constitutional requirements to be eligible for the presidency. Similarly, Bryan Garner, the editor of Black's Law Dictionary, believes the U.S. Supreme Court would find Cruz to be eligible.[151]Tribe, however, described Cruz's eligibility as "murky and unsettled".[152] Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein believes that Cruz is eligible, but agrees with Ramsey that Cruz's eligibility is not "an easy question". Sunstein believes concerns over standing and the political-question doctrine will prevent the courts from resolving issues surrounding Cruz's eligibility.[153]
Mary McManamon (see above) writing in the Catholic University Law Review[154] believes that Cruz is not eligible because he was not born in the United States.[155] Professor Elhauge,[156] Professor Clinton,[157] and University of Chicago Professor Eric Posner[158] agree with McManamon that Cruz is not eligible. Alan Grayson, a Democratic Member of Congress from Florida, does not believe Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and stated he intends to file a lawsuit should Cruz be the Republican nominee.[159] Orly Taitz, Larry Klayman, and Mario Apuzzo, who each filed multiple lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility, have also asserted that Cruz is not eligible.[160][161]
Cruz's eligibility has been questioned by some of his primary opponents, including Donald Trump,[162] Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina, and Rand Paul.[163] Marco Rubio, however, believes Cruz is eligible.[164]
This is from Wikipedia with footnotes to document facts. Not settled is it?
I used wikipedia because it consolidates sources. That is not a full list.
What about a legislator from Florida on the DEM side????
Well, Donald’s mother was naturalized before he was born, so he meets the requirement: born in the USA of parents both of whom are US citizens at the time of his birth. Cruz might have been a NBC if his parents had filed the required form with the US Console in Canada recording his birth, but unfortunately they apparently didn’t, otherwise Ted would have produced it already. So as it stands, he is indisputably a natural-born citizen of Canada, under their law, as an anchor baby. He is a citizen of the United States under the Naturalization Act in effect when he was born. And he was a dual citizen of the US and Canada until he formally renounced his Canadian citizenship some 15 months ago.
Anyway, it won’t be a problem because Ted is not going to win the nomination.
"Arthur was born in Canada."
Chester A. Arthur was born in Fairfield Vermont. His mother was a limey.This thread is bedlam.
Wrong, on all counts. His mother was born in USA, his father was a naturalized immigrant. The problem is that old Chet was born before his father was naturalized, and he hid this by allegedly burning his records.
There are other allegations as well, including the possibility that he exchanged birth dates with a deceased sibling, and another that he was born in Canada. They are irrelevant because he was not pure NBC with no foreign allegiance due to the father being a foreigner. It mirrors Barry at many levels. If Barry is okay by you, then Chet is as well.
Cruz takes this one step further, having a foreign father AND also being born in a foreign land. Using the strictest standards for NBC makes him 1/3 natural born citizen.
This thread is "bedlam" to those drowning in cognitive dissonance. But no matter, due to a quirky electorate you have the right to vote for someone born in a foreign land to be President of The United States of America. Ain't it wonderful? Can't wait for some child born in Afghanistan or Iran to run for Prez, that'd be cool.
Yep, the destruction of the natural born clause has been ongoing for some time. Neither Rubio nor Cruz nor Obama are/were qualified. Why oh why are so many FReepers turning a blind eye to this?
I for one will not vote for any candidate whom parents are not both American citizens at the time of birth.
The founding fathers are looking down on us and are disgusted I’m sure.
WHY does one who is a citizen at birth need to become a Naturalized Citizen? obvious answer is they don’t, they are already a citizen because their birth mother met the requirements.
I disagree with your premise.
By the way Cruz is not even consistent on issue of illegals.
How can you be so eager to trample the US Constitution?
There are perhaps 20,000 people in Vietnam sired by American servicemen. Since you are doing wink-wink nod-nod to Rafael Cruz, how about all those NBC’s in Vietnam?
Amazing that people will sell their principle to back a person born in a foreign country whose parents were citizens of that country and living there as permanent residents. If the kid is born to people on temporary official government assignment on foreign soil, that is one thing.
But Vietnamese person born in Vietnam to American father, and spending childhood years in Vietnam is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?
Trump does not get to decide. It will have to be ruled by SCOTUS, preferably by better than a 5 to 4 decision.
Yes subject to the provision that the father had resided at some point in time in the US. Here is the text to prove it quoting DIRECTLY from the act:
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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States
How is it that you still do not understand this?
First of all, Congress only has enumerated authority from We The People to establish uniform rules of naturalization. That means only to create a path to citizenship, it converts ALIENS into plain CITIZENS. That's is where their authority ends. They have nothing to do with NBC and it makes no sense for you to invest that power into their untrustworthy hands.
When they use the term natural born or citizen at birth it only means as a reference to those who do NOT require naturalization. They also will say that 'this person born to an ambassador is considered a foreigner' and does not require naturalization. It is a glancing reference, NOT a definition of a chronologically earlier term. And it is a separation of powers issue as well because Congress does not get to decide who can run for President ( We The People do ), nor do they get to decide who can run for Congress!
Congress does not get to define, edit, modify, rewrite or interpret the Constitution. That is you, in your mind connecting these unrelated dots and consequently turning the Constitution inside out in the process.
Finally, that 1790 Naturalization Act that you quoted was modified in 1795 and brought into line with original intent by dropping the confusing reference, because they knew people like you would read too much into it.
From NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act, research from a 1967 House member ...
In 1795, James Madison himself actually expressed concern that some might erroneously infer, from the 1790 Act, that the foreign-born children of American parents actually "are" (not merely "considered as") natural born citizens. McElwee indicates:
Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term "natural-born" from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.
You see? They saw you coming from a mile and two centuries away. There is tons of research into this for anyone so inclined to absorb it. But that is doubtful since approving their preferred candidate is all that matters now.
What is astonishing is seeing how alleged Constitution loving FReepers are literally begging for the Congress to butcher the Constitution through laws/acts/statutes because they are struggling to find anything to satisfy their belief system that a partial foreigner in the White House is no big deal. Well it is a big deal to many of us.
Huh? He is natural born.
My biggest concern is a shopped federal judge by the DNC along with GOPe that puts a hold on Cruz. They even openly say they will do this if Cruz wins. Then at the Republican Convention they put in Jeb or Rubio to represent us.
It’s a nightmare scenario.
And that is where you are going wrong. The authority is NOT "power to naturalize" the authority is "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". That is FAR MORE than just the power to naturalize.
The rule of naturalization includes:
Rules that govern who is able to be naturalized
Rules that govern who can never be naturalized
Rules about how to apply for naturalization
Rules on how citizens give up their citizenship
Rules on the process and procedures on how an alien becomes naturalized
Rules on who does not need to be naturalized
Rules on who is a citizen at birth by the circumstances of their birth (naturally born a citizen)
I agree with you 100% on this.
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.