Posted on 02/20/2016 8:52:39 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Now Donald Trump is questioning Marco Rubio' eligibility for the presidency.
In a tweet Saturday, Trump shared a video of what appears to be an attorney making a bizarre case that not only Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, but Rubio, whose parents immigranted from Cuba, is not eligible to become president.
In the tweet to his 6.3 million followers, Trump quoted a message sent to him by another Twitter user, who at the time appeared to have five followers: "@realDonaldTrump Mr. Trump...BOTH Cruz AND Rubio are ineligible to be POTUS! It's a SLAM DUNK CASE!! Check it!"
The tweet links to a video on the website of the Powdered Whig Society, a group that says it is dedicated "to the restoration and strict obedience to the United States Constitution."
The 12-minute video shows an unidentified woman who is purported to be a litigation attorney describe what it means to be a natural born citizen. She argues that both Rubio and Cruz are citizens, but not "natural born citizens" according to the Constitution, which says only natural born citizens may become president.
Rubio was born in Miami. That makes him a natural born U.S. citizen under the Constitution. But the unnamed woman in the video Trump posted says he is not a "naturalized citizen," because his citizenship is defined under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. If not for this "man-made law," she says Rubio would have been born a "resident alien," the same status of his parents, both of whom were Cuban nationals.
The supposed attorney later goes on to call Congress using laws to change the original text of the Constitution as "ridiculous."
"In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definition the framer's use, otherwise texts become like Play-Doh. They mean whatever you want them to mean to get the outcome you want," she says.
Cruz, who was born in Canada to father who was a Cuban national and an American mother. Some legal scholars says that leaves his eligibility to run for president in question. But the supposed attorney makes a far more questionable case. She argues that when the Constitution was written, a woman's legal identity was subsumed into her husband's. That would also disqualify Cruz, she says, because it is necessary that he be born of a father who is a citizen.
When the Constitution was written in the 1780s, the purported attorney says all the framers knew what a natural born citizen was, using a definition provided in Swiss philosopher and legal expert Emerich de Vattel's book on political philosophy The Law of Nations. In it, she says, a child's status as a citizen is defined as being inherited from the father, and that it does not matter where the child is born.
Like his eye color, citizenship is "inherited by his parents, it's in his blood," she says. "Not an act of Congress."
Scroll down for video
Mr Cruz is naturalized because he is a citizen based on statutes. The statutes have changed and his basis for citizenship depends on the statutes in force at the time of his birth. In the early years of our Nation a woman would assume the citizenship of her husband automatically losing American citizenship upon marriage to a foreigner. At other times a woman could pass on her citizenship to children born abroad with a non-citizen father; the requirements for her age and residency to do so have also changed as have the residency requirements for the child to retain his/her citizenship.
I mention these facts not because of any specific implication to Ted Cruz’s case but to illustrate that his claim to citizenship is based on the law operative at the time. New naturalization laws are sometimes retroactive and sometimes not again illustrating that they are arbitrary and man-made not the same as natural born citizenship.
A child born of citizen parents on American soil needs no recourse to laws to be a American citizen and no other country can lay claims upon him/her. Neither can his/her American citizenship be stripped away if he/she does not make declarations at certain ages or comply with residency requirements as is the case of citizens who receive their citizenship by statute as did Senator Cruz.
I have linked to the case law discussing natural born citizenship in other posts as have several other freepers Cbolt for example, does excellent commentary on this subject and has linked to case law on citizenship and case law discussing Natural Born Citizenship.
Marking for later read
So by simply redefining what naturalization is you create a new class of “naturalized at birth” interesting.
Not persuasive but interesting.
FYI, I never said that I didn’t have a ‘legal education’, you assumed that. But for the record, are homeschooled children ‘educated’? Or do you also consider them inferior to your species?
Wonder if Trump realizes if he takes this position on the Rubio case (who I can’t stand BTW), he has disqualified 3 of 5 of his own children for POTUS?
“... if he takes this position ...”
Trump changes his “positions” hour to hour.
The primary reason I inquired as to your formal legal education was to figure out if you were well versed and dishonest, or just making neophyte mistakes. I have yet to encounter a person who is self educated on the law, who doesn't occasionally make serious errors in reading and applying legal authorities to an issue. I tend to cut the uneducated correspondent considerable slack in argument. The "lawyers," not so much.
I did leap to the conclusion that you did not have a formal legal education, based on your 02/20/2016 4:06:27 PM PST remark, "I understand that and that is why I no longer apply Vattel as I did nine years ago, out of ignorance from lack of education in the subject of law." So perhaps you have obtained a formal legal education in the ensuing nine years.
Until just now, you did not remark on or correct my 02/20/2016 4:28:51 PM PST "I do appreciate your letting me know that you are approximately a layman on the law, and it appears to me that you are making an earnest and honest effort," so whatever my impression is of your education and experience in the law, I get it from a combination of my questions, your responses, and your propositions of what the law says.
Either way, my patience is exhausted, and it's not just you, although it is partly you.
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. A good read all around, but keep in mind he is describing the law of England, not the law of the US. The US adopted some and rejected other parts of English law (rejected for sure that no man can expatriate).
In the context of our past discussion, you might read all of Chapter 10 - The People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives.
Tucker's Blackstone is another good resource, as Tucker overlays, compares and contrasts the law of England (as summarized by Blackstone) with the law of the US.
In the context of our past discussion, you might read all of Section 9 - Powers of Congress - Naturalization and Bankruptcies, and brief discussion of citizenship at Section 17 - Miscellaneous Provisions.
I think it is helpful when reading case law, secondary and ESPECIALLY tertiary authority (such as the piece by Professor Professor Lawrence B Solum), to read the material cited. Not even court decisions merit a presumption of being intellectually honest. I used to make a practice of reading the internal cites, and while internal cites are generally applied honestly, sometimes they are not, and it can make a HUGE difference. For example, the Presser case is chronically cited as justification to hold the OPPOSITE of the proposition that it actually states, as to the power of states vis-a-vis the RKBA.
It is considerable extra work, but IMO worth it, to apply your own noodle to the question, even if the only thing hanging in the balance is your own curiosity.
Memorandum of Law in Korman et al v. NY State Board of Election does a good job addressing use of the 1790 Naturalization Act as a "definition" or "evidence that the founders saw constitutinal NBC as including birth abroad."
FWIW, you are the one who defines "naturalization" differently from the case law and centuries of historical precedent. "Naturalized" lends itself to being carved into subgroups. The people of an entire nation was "collectively naturalized" by ratification of the constitution. Large groups of people are collectively naturalized by conquest and peace treaties, or friendly treaties that cede territory. There is "derivative naturalization" which is a person naturalized by having some sort of family attachment, and there is also "acquired naturalization," which is what Cruz falls into.
If you want to add some heft to your argument, it is up to you to cite some legal authority that supports your paraphrase. Otherwise, you are just making it up.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration thatWong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)
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,contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. 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 [p703] 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.
Your definition of "what naturalization is" is restrictive, and includes only what the WKA described as "enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals."
There are literally hundreds of cases involving the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens. The outcomes of those cases are either the person is an alien, or is a naturalized citizen.
I believe you have been exposed to some of these cases, and are just obstinate. I think so, because your handle is on a short list I keep here, of persons to "do not reply."
Wong Ark of course might directly y apply to Rubio, though the decision does support him being NBC (sorry djt fans)
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
That it has nothing or little to do with a person born of a US Citizen on foreign soil is also with out doubt. I do wonder what the djt side would claim of some one born of US citizen on the seas (international waters)
I note that you use “collectively naturalized” mind giving any citation “ it is up to you to cite some legal authority that supports your paraphrase. Otherwise, you are just making it up.”
Most of what you describe is “Force majeure” and not relevant, infact with in the United States those people conqured (American Indians) were not made citizens.
Feel free to keep me on your list, I take it a a badge of honor in a way.
See Rogers v. Bellei.
No sweat. Liars are a dime a dozen, and aren't worth spit. You fit the pattern very well. If this was my website, I'd ZOT you in a heartbeat.
glad that you are so easy to anger and lose composure so quickly it is most admirable.. no wait...
Calling some one a liar when is a good sign your argument has failed.
Bye.
I'm plenty composed, not the least angry, just not bashful about judging internet figments.
“Held: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful.”
Since under the law Cruz is a citizen at birth
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Text of the Law.
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(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
(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.
Source.
https://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html
How would this case apply ?
Brief Summary of Rogers v. Bellei: 01/16/2016 6:14:49 PM
It meets their “facts”!
LOL
Yes, for the grammatically challenged, i.e., you.
The modifier “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” modifies “or a citizen of the United States”
There is no one alive today that meets that qualification.
Thank you for taking the time to link these excellent resources.
I just returned home and from my first read through I can see there is much to learn and reason through in reading & rereading these documents.
The Petitioner’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Designation of RAFAEL EDWARD (“TEDâ€) CRUZ for Republican Presidential Primary is lucid & very elegantly reasoned.
Nothing in your post 321 suggests that anybody but yourself had selected the passages cited from Story and Blackstone. Further, the statement that "But even Blackstone agrees that it is the father who confers nationality at birth" is YOUR conclusion. From the post you submitted, it is a conclusion that comes from YOUR selection and adoption of authority.
-- As far as Blackstone, you obviously haven't read Wilson's works very closely because for a guy who helped pen the Declaration as well as serving as one of the committee of 5 that drafted the Constitution & without Wilson's legal expertise & influence, Pennsylvania wouldn't have ratified the Constitution, Wilson is far more critical of Blackstone that what I wrote. --
You weren't critical of Blackstone, at least not clearly so in post 321. All outward appearance in that post is that you adopt a position that it is "the father who confers nationality at birth," that this is how "the law" works. "The law" in scare quotes, because you haven't clearly said whether you believe that law to be US law, British law at some particular time, or natural law, recognized as such by some court. You haven't expressed whether this rule is one that arises in nature, or if it is a rule of naturalization.
I don't see Wilson as critical of Blackstone either. Blackstone appears to have correctly summarized the law of England. In his composition titled "Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament, 1774", James Wilson summarizes the English law of the time thusly ...
An Englishman, who removes to foreign countries, however distant from England, owes the same allegiance to his king there which he owed him at home; and will owe it twenty years hence as much as he owes it now. Wherever he is, he is still liable to the punishment annexed by law to crimes against his allegiance; and still entitled to the advantages promised by law to the duties of it: it is not cancelled; and it is not forfeited. "Hence all children born in any part of the world, if they be of English parents continuing at that time as liege subjects to the king, and having done no act to forfeit the benefit of their allegiance, are ipso facto naturalized: and if they have issue, and their descendants intermarry among themselves, such descendants are naturalized to all generations." [4. Ld. Bac. 192. Case of the postnati of Scotland]Thus we see, that the subjects of the king, though they reside in foreign countries, still owe the duties of allegiance, and are still entitled to the advantages of it. They transmit to their posterity the privilege of naturalization, and all the other privileges which are the consequences of it. [Natural born subjects have a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born in the king's ligeance, and can never forfeit by any distance of place or time, but only by their own misbehaviour; the explanation of which rights is the principal subject of the law. 1. Bl. Com. 371.]
This string of perpetual and unalienable naturalization to those born abroad no longer operates as a matter of British law, and while I have not read 4. Ld. Bac. 192, I have no reason to doubt that Wilson is correctly summarizing the rule of that case.
The notion of perpetual and unalienable allegiance by the rule of jus sanguinis was anathema to the founders. Perpetual and unalienable allegiance under the law was used by the British to justify impressing US citizens with British ancestry into British military service, and was one of the reasons for the war of 1812.
Wilson discusses "[t]he notion of natural, perpetual, and unalienable allegiance from the citizen to the society" in his "CHAPTER VII.: Of Man, as a Member of Society." He is critical of this rule, asserting that "there are certainly cases, in which a citizen has an unquestionable right to renounce his country," and cites Locke and even Cicero!
Briefly summarizing, both Blackstone and Wilson see the rule of jus sanguinis as one of naturalization, granted to the parent as a privilege. Jus sanguinis citizenship is not claimed to be something arising by nature, and it is argued that (despite British law of the era to the contrary), should not impose any sort of citizenship commitment to one's progeny or posterity.
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.