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 ...
I think Modern Judges are less intelligent, less knowledgeable, and less respectable than those.
Six 19th century Justices ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. 2 Justices disagreed.
The plaintiffs asked the Justices to decide: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”
“To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet he was not born subject to the ‘political jurisdiction’ thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”—Governmnt’s Brief, U.S. V Wong Kim Ark
“In fact, the very founders of the Constitution in their very firsts acts of Congress created a law to do EXACTLY what you say can’t be done - they defined via naturalization act, what was to be considered as natural born citizen.”
The Naturalization Act of 1790 did not define a natural born citizen, but it did apply the naturalization law to indicate the children of two U.S. citizen parents born abroad were naturalized U.S. citizens.
“So who is in defiance of history?”
You are, as you will surely demonstrate yet again in one, two, three...
Nice try but incorrect. The act established the United States citizenship of certain children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization. In other words, they were US citizens, at, by and since their birth. As such, they were never naturalized or needed naturalization. But don't take my word for it, lets reread the actual text:
"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".
Also, no requirement for two citizens parents.
The actions and understandings of the First Congress are persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Constitutional Convention served in the First Congress and none of them objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.
This paper goes into great depth and detail with all the footnotes in the world. It includes research into the contemporaneous notes of the First and Fourth Congress of the United States and includes the passage below.
You have to download it from SSRN Social Science Research Network.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2444766
C. The Import of Early Naturalization StatutesArticle I of the Constitution gives Congress the power “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”103 which Congress first exercised in 1790. Included in the first Act To Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization was the following language:
[T]he 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 . . . .104The very existence of this provision demonstrates that the early American notion of “natural born citizen” adopted the English common law only and did not include the eighteenth-century statutes. If it had been otherwise, there would have been no need for the 1790 statute because the children covered would have been natural born under then-current English law. As one nineteenth-century senator stated: “[T]he founders of this Government made no provisionof course they made nonefor the naturalization of natural born citizens.”105 Moreover, the legislative history suggests that the first Congress intended to effectuate a change in the law, not merely to declare the status quo.106 On February 3, 1790, Congress began debating a draft bill that provided for naturalization.107 The legislature acknowledged the common law principle that “[a]n alien has no right to hold lands in any country [but his own].”108 However, there was no real opposition to “let[ting] foreigners, on easy terms, be admitted to hold lands” in America.109 One of Congress’ greatest concerns was the prospect of all those immigrants pushing their way into the budding nation’s new government. For example, one congressman, summing up the issue, stated:A foreigner who comes here is not desirous of interfering immediately with our politics; nor is it proper that he should. His emigration is governed by a different principle; he is desirous of obtaining and holding property. I should have no objection to his doing this, from the first moment he sets his foot on shore in America; but it appears to me, that we ought to be cautious how we admit emigrants to the other privileges of citizenship . . . . [T]he admission of a great number of foreigners to all the places of Government, may tincture the system with the dregs of their former habits, and corrupt what we believe the most pure of all human institutions.110In sum, the debate focused on how to balance properly an immigrant’s need to purchase or inherit land quickly and Congress’ concerns about granting other aspects of citizenship. Another congressman, referring to a statute that allowed English children to inherit from alien parents,111 suggested that “the . . . children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done [by Parliament] in the case of English parents.”112 In essence, he called for a clause that would permit American parents to bequeath property to their alien children. Thus, he understood “children of American parents born abroad” to be aliens and ineligible to inherit property. At the close of the debate, the House sent the bill back to a subcommittee to consider how best to address the issues raised.113 Just before the end of the discussion, a member of the subcommittee that originally presented the draft bill announced that “he had another clause ready to present, providing for the children of American citizens born out of the United States.”114 This comment further demonstrates the recognition of an ongoing need to provide for these children due to their alien status. Because the 1790 Act stated that alien children of American parents would “be considered as natural born citizens,” the question remains as to the scope of the change Congress intended to effect. Did Congress mean to amend the requirements of the Clause statutorily? As aforementioned, the Framers constitutionalized the common law concept of natural born citizen. Under the common law, “[t]he first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born [citizens].”115 In other words, everyone is either an alien or a natural born citizen based on his or her place of birth; that status does not change. Article I grants Congress the power to naturalize, that is, “remove the disabilities of alienage.”116 However, Congress does not possess the alchemical power to convert one’s status from alien to natural born citizen.117 If truly Congress’ intent, such a result would expand the requirements of Article II without a constitutional amendment. Moreover, Parliament’s expansion of the definition of “natural born subject” in the eighteenth century sets no precedent with respect to the American provision. In comparison to the American Constitution, the English Constitution is unwritten.118 By the late seventeenth century, England’s Constitution consisted of whatever Parliament declared as law; Parliament had “sovereign and uncontrolable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws.”119 As such, it could “change and create afresh even the constitution of the kingdom and of parliaments themselves.”120 Parliament certainly had the power to extend natural born status to those who otherwise would have been aliens. The relationship between Congress and the American Constitution is quite different. According to the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison,121 to allow Congress the same latitude as Parliamentwould subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbid[d]en, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits.122Therefore, Congress cannot alter who is eligible to run for President by statute. Such a dramatic change requires a constitutional amendment.123Unsurprisingly, no evidence suggests Congress intended to expand the class of persons who could run for President. Moreover, early commentators agreed that the use of “natural born” in the first naturalization act did not amend Article II. For example, St. George Tuckera professor of law at the College of William and Mary124published his edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries in 1803, wherein he provided his own notes concerning the differences between English and American law.125 With respect to naturalization and citizenship, he cited all of the American naturalization statutes enacted to that date, including the 1790 Act.126 He then concluded that “[p]ersons [] naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural-born citizens, except . . . they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States.”127 In any event, Congress swiftly repealed the 1790 statute in 1795.128 This time, debate in the House focused on several issues, including whether aliens seeking naturalization should be made to renounce (1) foreign hereditary titles and (2) any claim to persons then held in slavery.129 The House voted “yea” on the first question and “nay” on the second.130 On January 2, 1795, the bill was recommitted to a select committee of three individuals, one of whom was James Madison.131 Earlier, on December 29, 1794, Madison had expressed the opinion that Congress had no naturalization authority over American citizens: “It was only granted to them to admit aliens.”132 The following Monday, January 5, 1795, “Mr. Madison . . . reported a new bill of Naturalization, containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superceded.”133 Madison salvaged the “Old Law” provision that granted naturalization rights to children of American citizens born abroad.134 Interestingly, the phrase “natural born” was deleted without any recorded debate on the issue.135 The new statute provided in pertinent part that “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”136 The law established that the alien child was only naturalized, not declared a natural born citizen.137
And furthermore (in the spirit of Cato), Ted Cruz was born in Canada to foreign parents which makes him ineligible to be President of the United States!
"Shall be considered as" did not mean that they are!
See my post 245 directly below yours. The ambiguous language was repealed and corrected by the 1795 Naturalization Act (An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject)
Sess. II, Chap. 19, 20; 1 stat 414.
3rd Congress; January 29, 1795.
The post states that Cruz's mother took up with an Englishman, moved to England and married him while still married to her previous husband. The marriage to the Brit would have granted her British citizenship.
She had a boy child who subsequently died, after which she returned to the US. Shortly after, she met Raphael Cruz (who was also still married to someone else) and they moved to Canada.
According to Canadian immigration law, as a British subject, she could become a Canadian within one year.
So, it doesn't appear that the word "loyalty" was in her vocabulary, as she applied it neither to her men nor her country.
What a mess. There are suppositions here but...what was her nationality when Ted was born in Canada?
"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".
Also, no requirement for two citizens parents.
Earlier, on December 29, 1794, Madison had expressed the opinion that Congress had no naturalization authority over American citizens: “It was only granted to them to admit aliens.”132 The following Monday, January 5, 1795, “Mr. Madison . . . reported a new bill of Naturalization, containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superceded.”133 Madison salvaged the “Old Law” provision that granted naturalization rights to children of American citizens born abroad.134 Interestingly, the phrase “natural born” was deleted without any recorded debate on the issue.135 The new statute provided in pertinent part that “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”136 The law established that the alien child was only naturalized, not declared a natural born citizen.137
[the emphasis is mine]
“Nice try but incorrect. The act established the United States citizenship of certain children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization. In other words, they were US citizens, at, by and since their birth.”
What part of the “Naturalization Act f 1790” did you fail to read and understand? The “Naturalization” in the title tells you it takes a person who is alien born and makes the person a naturalized citizen by the authority of the unnatural statutory naturalization law. Furthermore, you are once again ignoring the fact that in the absence of a naturalization law that provided naturalized citizenship for a child born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents, much less only one U.S. citizen parent, did not become a U.S. citizen at all of any kind. That historical fact makes it quite impossible for you to misconstrue who is and is not naturalized. If a child born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents was a natural born citizen in 1812, the U.S. Supreme Court could not have decided they were not U.S. citizens. The historical fact that the U.S. Supreme Court did decide such children were not U.S. citizens at all is proof beyond any possible doubt that such children were not natural born citizens and were not naturalized citizens until a naturalization law was finally enacted to grant them naturalized citizenship.
” As such, they were never naturalized or needed naturalization. But don’t take my word for it, lets reread the actual text:”
You obviously can keep on repeating the lie ad infinitum to your hearts content, but the historical fact that such children were not U.S. citizens for many decades until a naturalization law was enacted for the specific purpose of naturalizing them.
“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”.
Yes, and that very quotation says such children are naturalized citizens 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”.
“Also, no requirement for two citizens parents.”
On the contrary, the quotation says “citizens”, the plural form, and not citizen, the singular form.
I believe the holding was that he was a "citizen." The words "natural born" do not seem to be written in their holding. I have pointed out that in those days ink was cheap, and if they omitted the words "natural born" then it was their intention to do so.
The plaintiffs asked the Justices to decide: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”
Yes, yes, all of that may very well be true, but is seemingly irrelevant to the point.
Wong Kim Ark says that anyone born outside the geographical jurisdiction of the United States can only be a naturalized citizen.
It would seem that Wong Kim Ark, a case you and others have cited so many times as the "authority" on this sort of issue, does not favor the case of anyone born outside of the United States.
The offer of British Citizenship does not automatically strip away her US Citizenship.
My understanding is that it can only be relinquished by a deliberate act of renouncement. Absent that, it doesn't matter what the laws of other nations say about it. In the US, US law applies.
Also the bigamy references are just pot-shots at her character, and have nothing at all to do with the legal issue of her citizenship status.
Yes, bad people still retain the rights of US Citizenship.
Wong Kim Ark could not have been naturalized due to the Chinese Exclusion Acts whch barred him from naturalization.
The decision of the Court stated: [An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
Every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
Again, you say something which is true, but which is irrelevant to the point. The section of Wong Kim Ark I cited deals with children born outside of the US.
Please address that point.
Well, then doesn't it warrant a closer look? Did she or did she not renounce her US citizenship. That's kind of an important fact.
Are you implying someone can go traipsing around the world, becoming a citizen here and there, and then just come back to the US, and everything is fine...welcome home citizen, good to have you back?
the bigamy references are just pot-shots at her character
Well, what about her character?
Where did Cruz get his from; his footloose, abandoning communist father, or from his hot-to-globe-trot mother?
“Wong Kim Ark could not have been naturalized due to the Chinese Exclusion Acts whch barred him from naturalization.”
The U.S. Supreme Court decision determined Wong Kim Ark was born with naturalized U.S. citizenship before the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Acts and was thus not subject to those enactments.
“The decision of the Court stated: [An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”
A natural born subject has very little to do with a natural born citizen. The term, natural born subject, encompasses all persons who were subjects of the English/British sovereign whether they were subjects by naturalization at birth or born with two British subject parents in England/Britain. To be an English/British citizen required birth within the jurisdiction of England/Britain and a English/British citizen father; and being a mere English natural born subject without English citizenship was insufficient to qualify the child for English/British citizenship.
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’”
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are NOT convertible terms at all, because they define substantially different persons and membership qualifications.
“Every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
Some natural born subjects were naturalized and some natural born subjects were not naturalized. A natural born subject is not in anyway the same meaning or purpose as a natural born citizen; and all of the attempts to mislead people into misbelieving the terms are somehow equivalent deserve the strongest possible condemnation.
The 6-2 decision of the Supreme Court has been precedential for the last 118 years. Your disagreement with that decision is noted but the Court’s ruling has not been overturned or invalidated by clarifying legislation or by another Supreme Court decision.
Anyone who meets the criteria for being a Citizen of the United States at Birth is also a Natural Born Citizen, at least unless and until some court rules otherwise.
Two courts have ruled that way concerning Ted Cruz’s eligibility.
“The 6-2 decision of the Supreme Court has been precedential for the last 118 years.”
Yes, and you keep denying how that same U.S. Supreme Court explicitly said: 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....” Consequently, “A person” such as Ted Cruz “born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....” Yet, you just keep on dishonestly denying the plain words as if they did not exist like some character right out of the fairy tale story Alice in Wonderland.
“Your disagreement with that decision is noted but the Court’s ruling has not been overturned or invalidated by clarifying legislation or by another Supreme Court decision.”
There you go again with the dishonest false representations of what someone else said in order to put forth a deceitful strawman argument. The simple fact is that you do not even understand the fundamental basics of the word definitions you are using and/or you are falsely pretending you do not understand them to avoid acknowledging you arguments are a bunch of garbage inventions of fiction.
“Anyone who meets the criteria for being a Citizen of the United States at Birth is also a Natural Born Citizen, at least unless and until some court rules otherwise.”
Here you are putting forth that notorious lie time after time in complete defiance of the plain language in the U.S. Supreme Court case: 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....”
“Two courts have ruled that way concerning Ted Cruz’s eligibility.”
Neither of those courts can overrule the U.S. Constitution or the several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate their actions, nor do those courts have the power to invalidate Natural Law.
No, not really. It seems to me that all speculation in this direction is just a wild goose hunt by people who do not understand this basic aspect of US Citizenship law.
Did she or did she not renounce her US citizenship. That's kind of an important fact.
If she did, it would be in the archives of the State Department, and there would be no way it could be kept secret.
It seems pretty obvious to me that she did not renounce her citizenship. Again, this is not the sort of thing you can do by accident or by neglect. You must make an affirmative statement which is recognized by the US Government that you are renouncing it. If you do not do this, you cannot renounce your citizenship.
Are you implying someone can go traipsing around the world, becoming a citizen here and there, and then just come back to the US, and everything is fine...welcome home citizen, good to have you back?
Pretty Much. Unless you have formerly sworn allegiance to another nation, and then only if it can be proven, you still retain your US Citizenship.
You can't lose your citizenship by accident or by neglect. You have to take some sort of "Affirmative" effort to renounce it. Swearing allegiance to another nation is one example of an affirmative action to renounce it.
Well, what about her character?
What about it? Her "Character" has nothing to do with US Citizenship law, and therefore nothing to do with Cruz's citizenship. She could have been the world's worst man-crazed whore, but it makes no difference as to the law regarding her child's citizenship.
So why should we discuss her character?
Look, when any court at any level of the judiciary rules the way that you think they should, I’ll be the first to say that I was wrong.
Until that happens I’m going to continue to believe that whoever qualifies as a Citizen of the United States at Birth also qualifies as a Natural Born Citizen. You and I will have to agree to disagree!
The current law of the land states that a Citizen of the United States At Birth includes: “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...” —8 USC 1401
I woulf think that if this was a major issue, Congress would have held a hearing on it to at least look into the possibility of constitutional issues being involved. There has been no such hearing.
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.