Sorry, the author is incorrect.
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates the exclusive power to Congress to define the rules of naturalization. That includes who is and who is not born as a citizen.
Congress has expressed it’s will through a number of acts that started with the Naturalization act of 1790 which specifically sets the precedence that a person does not need to be born on US soil. This act was repealed and replaced and subsequent acts have been repealed and replaced until we get to current law which is expressed in title 8 section 1401 which defines US citizens at birth (naturally born as opposed to naturalized).
Sen Cruz qualifies as a US Citizen at birth because of his US Citizen mother. Thus Sen Cruz was already a US citizen at birth (naturally born).
http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3382200/posts?q=1&;page=61
See post 66. Excellent example of WHY BOTH parents must be US citizens.
That is a non sequitur. It does not follow that Congress having the power to naturalize, can create "natural citizens" using their power of naturalization.
No. No. No. No. No. That is errant nonsense.
That is like saying because water is wet, it defines fire. No. No. No. No. No.
All acts of Congress which create citizens are "naturalization acts."
Congress has expressed it’s will through a number of acts that started with the Naturalization act of 1790 _________________________________________
How many times does it have to be said that Congress can not amend, interpret or change Article II. It can do all manner of things involving immigration, but it can not change Article II. The Constitution is what it is. Love it and respect it, don’t try to change it without going through the amending process.
With all due respect taxcontrol, please consider the following.
What many people do not seem to understand about Congresss power to define the rules of naturalization is the following. Congresss power to define those rules is not plenary.
More specifically, the congressional record shows that John Bingham, Bingham the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which addresses citizenship, had indirectly indicated that not even Congress has the power to define natural born citizen with respect to both parents being citizens of the same country and owing allegiance to no other country.
”I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” - John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866. Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend. (See top half of 2nd column)
Congress can, though, make laws regarding who will be considered native born and naturalized.
So....Yes, I will vote ( reluctantly) for Cruz if he is the Republican candidate but in NO POSSIBLE WAY would any of our Founding Father have considered a man born abroad and with dual citizenship ( until very recently) a natural born citizen.
“Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates the exclusive power to Congress to define the rules of naturalization. That includes who is and who is not born as a citizen.”
Natural Born Citizenship does not depend on ANY legislative act that has ever occurred!
There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz’s citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute. Here is one particular quote of note:
“Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.â€
I assume that Mr. Cruz and his parents have meet all of the obligations described above, hence that is why his US citizenship is not in question. But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) that have been drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural born citizenship.
I will use myself as an example. I was born in the United States to two citizen parents. My citizenship is granted (by nature) owing to the place of my birth (jus soli), and the undivided loyalties of my citizen parents (jus sanguinis), under the sole governance of the United States Constitution. That is, my citizenship does not depend on the existence of any statutory actions taken by the US Congress (nor can it ever be constrained by such); hence I am a natural born citizen.
“current law which is expressed in title 8 section 1401”
Here’s that section:
“(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;”
If this is the definitive clause then it looks like Cruz is a citizen.
That code section refers to “citizenship”. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution refers to the term a “Natural Born Citizen”. They are not the same, because Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 refer to the qualifications for representatives and senators; one of which is to have been a “citizen of the United States” for the past seven or nine years, respectively.
‘Sen Cruz qualifies as a US Citizen at birth because of his US Citizen mother.’
Has this been addressed?
Both mother and father of Cruz — registered to vote in Canada [breitbart]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3381497/posts
[Was she a Canadian citizen? If she repatriates to the US, does that still make him eligibible anyway? Been asking, no solid answers yet.]