Posted on 04/12/2016 4:48:11 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas meets the criteria to be considered a “natural born citizen” and can run in New Jersey’s Republican presidential primary on June 7, an administrative law judge ruled Tuesday.
Judge Jeff Masin’s decision will now go to Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, who also serves as New Jersey’s secretary of state, for consideration. She can choose to accept it in full or in part, or reject it.
Masin heard arguments Monday on two challenges to Cruz’s eligibility to run for president. In both cases, the challengers argued that, because Cruz was born in Canada, he is not a natural born citizen, one of three constitutional requirements for the presidency.
Cruz, 45, was born in Calgary, Alberta. His mother, a U.S. citizen, was born in Delaware. His father was born in Cuba. Cruz has said that a child of a U.S. citizen is automatically granted citizenship at birth and is therefore “natural born.”
(Excerpt) Read more at northjersey.com ...
Well that is where we disagree. The act clearly shows the the child was born a US Citizen at birth and never needed to be naturalized. As such, qualified for NBC. Naturalization ONLY occurs after birth.
WOW, bump for comment #68. Impressive research, Lady.
Apparently, I’m not explaining myself well today, so I’m not getting into this any more except to point at my OSAS illustration.
So far as George Washington and the 1790 law, the law said that a person born overseas was an NBC....IF they met 2 provisions.
Those are generally ignored AND the implication of them. I didn’t even notice them for the longest time.
I was born in the USA of 2 citizen parents and did not have to meet any provisions.
The best arguments, by far, are against eligibility for Cruz.
The Pennsylvania judge mostly just quoted law review articles, especially the one from Harvard by the former and former (acting) Solicitors General (conveniently produced just in time for this election season). The Pennsylvania opinion has little or no analysis of original sources, and relies heavily on the analysis and arguments in secondary sources such as the Harvard article, without any recognition of the problems, including potential mis-use of original sources, in the secondary sources.
The Harvard article in particular has many problems. One of the big ones is that the Harvard article, after stating (correctly) that English common law is an important source for interpreting the U.S. Constitution, then completely ignores English common law and just uses English statutes as if they were the English common law, without even mentioning, let alone justifying, this sleight-of-hand.
The New Jersey judge appears to have made a more serious effort (or maybe the Cruz legal team's briefs, where the analysis probably originated, were better by that time). The New Jersey opinion uses a lot of text attempting to justify the concept that English statutes are part of the English law for purposes of interpreting the "natural born" requirement in Article II.
A major problem with this position is that the only support for including English statutes as a part of the common law comes from cases interpreting issues of state law. The states, which were basically created instantly from pre-existing colonies upon independence, naturally continued to follow the major laws of England where applicable, some by explicit legislation receiving the English law into the law of the state, and (apparently) some by judicial decision. Federal law, and federal Constitutional law in particular, is a different matter. There is no citation in the New Jersey opinion of any case that uses English statutes as a part of the English common law for purposes of interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
In addition to relying on weak support (only cases based on state law issues), the New Jersey opinion does not deal with some of the stronger arguments that the "natural born citizen" clause did not and does not incorporate the English statutes in force at the time of drafting and ratification.
For example, if the Founders created the "natural born" requirement with the understanding or intention to incorporate the statutory laws of England, then why, in the notes of the committee discussions of the drafting of the Naturalization Act of 1790, did one of the committee members state that "The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III." If the English statutes were already incorporated, why was Congress in 1790 drafting a law specifically in order to provide for what was already provided for in one of the supposedly incorporated English statutes?
The best arguments, by far, are against eligibility for Cruz.
Fwiw, last night, thanks to the link in post #5, is the first I've seen or read this info and last night was the first time I've seen this much of Cruz's father's and his mother's pre-Ted story compiled together in one place.
Anyhoo, you asked what it was, so I posted a quote from it. Why you didn't just go read it for yourself is curious, but no matter.
If you're curious beyond what I posted, then you're on your own. I can't offer what I don't have. This is the first I've seen that timeline laid out with any of the many missing detail filled in.
If you do look for yourself and discover something of value? Please share.
“Well that is where we disagree. The act clearly shows the the child was born a US Citizen at birth and never needed to be naturalized. As such, qualified for NBC. Naturalization ONLY occurs after birth.”
No, that is only a recent piece of implied disinformation that they planted into the INA after they repeatedly failed to pass an Amendment to the Constitution eliminating the natural born citizen clause. It is also physically impossible, just as it is physically impossible for an adoptive mother to be the actual natural mother of an adopted child. Look at the case law and note how a child born after the adoption of the Naturalization Act of 1802 and before the adoption of later naturalization acts granting naturalized citizenship was denied U.S. citizenship despite the fact of having two U.S. citizen parents. If a child born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents was a natural born citizen in 1790 or 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court could not have decided such a child was not a U.S. citizen, natural born or naturalized. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court did decide such persons were not U.S. citizens, and they did so because there was no naturalization law in effect at the time to grant such alien born children of U.S. citizens the right to adopt naturalized citizenship at birth. This is also why the U.S. Supreme Court accurately observed: United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....” What part of the U.S. Supreme Court statement, “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....” do you not understand?
Naturalization only occurs after birth.
USC Title 8 Section 1101 subsection A part (23)
It is not disinformation ... it is the LAW.
Cruz's paperwork, at his natural birth in Canada, says he's naturally Canadian.
We note that Ted Cruz recently officially gave up his Canadian citizenship well after his kids were born.
So...by your calculations, you're saying that his kids are Natural Born Canadians, too?
The conditions of Sen Cruz’s birth says that he was born a citizen, has always been a citizen, has never been naturalized and does not need to be naturalized. Title 8 section 1401 subsection G
I don’t know about Canadian law with regards to his kids. To answer your question, one would have to look at Canadian law which has no impact on US law.
FWIW the courts will rule that anyone born a citizen would qualify as a NBC. So this whole issue is a non sequitur. But the courts will never touch it anyway. So arguing about it at this point is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
In fact arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is probably more productive and edifying than trying to convince anyone on this forum to change their minds on the NBC issue.
To some they would rather see the country destroyed from within than to elect an ineligible leader. If, in the face of the certain tyranny of a Clinton or Sanders presidency, that would be someone’s sole reason to stay home then they do not love this country.
Frankly if Maggie Thatcher were alive and on the ballot against this group of clowns, not only would I vote for her, but I’d quit my job to work on her campaign.
We have a country to save. This kind of nonsense is not going to help. We are all engaged in a circular firing squad here. Thankfully I have run out of ammunition.
Well, you already know that I think Cruz is eligible based on our current laws, so it’s all a moot discussion anyway.
Prof Natelson said it isn’t necessarily clear and suggested individual states might make that known. That’s exactly where it’s been challenged, and there are a few more on the way. And the democrats will probably have another round of them in the unlikely event Cruz wins the primary.
I heard there is now a challenge in California. Do you know anything about it?
By the way, I really like the young Duncan Hunter from your state. Any way we can get him to run?
“Naturalization only occurs after birth.”
A child who is granted the right to claim U.S. citizenship retroactively by automatic naturalization at birth is in fact naturalized after birth. This can be observed for example in such cases where a child is born with a U.S. citizen parent and an alien parent outside the jurisdiction of the United States and who never comes forward to perfect the right to claim naturalized U.S. citizenship at some point in time after the birth. Instead the child is born with a foreign citizenship, the parents never come forward to claim naturalized U.S. citizenship at birth for the child, and the child reaches the age of majority and does not claim naturalized U.S. citizenship. A person who is an actual natural born citizen is born in the jurisdiction of the citizen parents’ sovereign and without any foreign citizenship. A person who is an actual natural born citizen cannot be a foreign citizen at birth,, because the parents are U.S. citizens and the birth occurred within the sole jurisdiction of the sovereign United States Article III courts. In the case of Ted Cruz, he may or may not have acquired U.S. citizenship, but if he did so it could only have been under the authority of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 which authorized the parents to file a claim after the birth claiming naturalized citizenship retroactively effective at birth.
Incorrect.
A person’s birth circumstances can not change, thus their citizenship is fixed at birth. Naturalization changes that status after birth via a legal process. That is why Title 8 Section 1101 subsection A part (23) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101) defines naturalization as:
The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
Sen Cruz was born a US Citizen, has always been a citizen, has never needed to be naturalized and has never been naturalized. See USC Title 8 Section 1401 - Nationals and Citizens of the United States at birth. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
I think a qualification for president should be that the person be a combat veteran. Only a person who has literally put his life on the line for this country should be entrusted to lead it. (I know, McCain and Kerry would have been qualified under this clause and would still have made lousy leaders, but overall I think it is a much better indicator of loyalty to the country than some obscure rule about where your parents were at the time you were born).
Also those who have witnessed combat are obviously more qualified to be commander in chief than those who have never lost a friend in a firefight and have never actually been on the ground to witness the horrors of war.
When I become dictator, I’m going to write that into the constitution in place of the NBC clause. As dictator I will have a pen and a phone and I can create the America I want. ;-)
They did not understand it to mean that or else they would have freed their own slaves. Especially the Author. And by the way, all the states were slave states in 1776.
The Declaration of Independence was an appeal to higher law in order to justify the separation of the Colonies from England. It was understood at the time that the colonists were British Subjects and subject to the King who held his throne by Divine Right. It was a document that was intended to appeal to God to show that the King had violated his sacred duties and was no longer fit to be their king and that their rebellion was, in fact, sanctioned by the same God who granted the King his divine rights.
You started out well, then muddled it there at the end. The listing of grievances was a courtesy. (and a political tactic) The larger point is that their newly found understanding of natural law informs them that they are entitled to be free of a King.
That being said, the Declaration of Independence - if taken in its purest form - was, in fact, an emancipation proclamation declaring that all men are created equal and that they have inherent rights, granted by God, which include the right to life and the right to liberty and the right to rule their own lives.
And that I think is either accurate, or very close to accurate. Certainly that was the concept Jefferson was trying to convey, though I doubt it was the one the rest wanted conveyed.
The Founders reliance on the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature’s God were well meaning and I think in the end the words that brought America to the point ultimately where it was clear that enslaving men could no longer be tolerated.
I have, in the last year, come to some very different conclusions about that. As the London Spectator dryly observed in 1862, "The principle [of the Proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States" government."
Information which I have only seen in the last year points me to a very different conclusion regarding the cause of the Civil war. Basically it was about money.
I think people are not getting my point. There is no Natural Law as it applies to citizenship in a country.
Not any more, anyway.
I see people try to justify denying certain individuals the label of Natural Born Citizen and using “Natural Law” i.e, the laws of Nature and God, to justify denying that term to that individual.
They argue these things because they are in fact correct. There are conditions that make someone a natural citizen, and there are artificial conditions which can be created to make someone into a citizen, but they are not the same thing.
All Citizens, whether born or naturalized, are citizens in accordance with statutes that are on the books at the time of their birth or at the time of their naturalization.
And what statute created US Citizens? Point to the law that made a citizen of Martin Van Buren. There is no such statute. He was a citizen by Natural law.
As far as I can tell the only statute that defined “Natural Born Citizen” was the 1789 statute that George Washington signed into law. Under that statute everyone running for president right now would be a natural born citizen.
Now when you say things like this, it makes me think you aren't up to speed with the facts. That statute to which you refer, absolutely forbids citizenship to the child of a foreign father.
I do not see any distinction between a person who is born a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. And in going back to slavery, if those people, by virtue of statutes that prevented them from obtaining their God given rights to life and liberty, were prevented from being numbered among the Natural Born Citizens, then the whole idea of Natural Born Citizen is a creation of statute and if Congress can take it away, then they can give it as well.
Waaaa... The past was racist and unfair! Why yes. Yes it was. But no, the concept of "natural citizen" was not created by congress, or by statute. It was created by applying the natural law principles then being promulgated around the states by that famous book written by Emerrich Vattel.
The normal English word for membership in a nation at the time was "Subject." This "Citizen" word was not even in vogue until we started using it.
Had we intended to follow the English meaning for membership in a state, we would have kept the English term for it.
Ping to #183....
There are faster ways of convincing someone that you are a doofus. You could have just said so.
You keep making the assertions in defiance of the historical fact the U.S. Supreme Court decided such children acquired no U.S. citizenship after 1802 and until the naturalization acts once again gave them naturalized citizenship. You are also denying the fact many children born abroad with a U.S. citizen parent never become U.S. citizens.
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.