CNN: Why Ted Cruz Is Eligible To Be pPresident

CNN ^ | January 14, 2016

[2pets]

You're posting someone's "opinion." What needs to be looked at is the actual law in effect at the time of Cruz's birth. The 1952 law Sec 301 Subsection that applies to Cruz's birth doesn't permit "at any time" prior to the birth qualification, as it does in another Subsection that doesn't apply to Cruz. Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada for three years prior to Cruz's birth, so Cruz doesn't qualify for US citizenship at birth.

Words matter.

Just like 'born citizen' does not equal 'natural born citizen.'

[Cboldt]

-- the two-fold classification I posit isn't negated simply because one can state similar dichotomies on other points --

Neither is it rendered conclusive or authoritative. That it worked in the case in hand doesn't mean it works in a dual citizen case.

-- In fact, there is language in the opinion that runs counter to your supposed counterpoint --

That doesn't run against the general tenor of the case, that dual citizenship creates "uncertainties in loyalty," as well illustrated by the case.

And your blockquote about duties of citizenship apply equally to those naturalized, as to those not-naturalized. The naturalized "owed the United States the same duty of allegiance as any other citizen."

At any rate, you have your opinion, I have mine. I presume you hold that the Supreme Court would rule along with the scholars that you note.

I would point out that the weight of scholarship, today, holds that born-abroad is not a barrier to NBC. I assume you agree with that, too.

[Yosemitest]

WRONG AGIN, DUMMY !
I can be just as STUPID as you can.

So I guess that means that
if there are not TWINS born at the same time, they cannot be citizens ? < /sarc>

Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
And you ARE refusing the definition of "natural born citizen" CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !

Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

“Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.
... The U.S. Constitution allows only a “natural born” American citizen to serve as president.
Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz.

The only definition that matters is the one GIVEN BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS.

They addressed children of citizens,
where one parent who was a citizen,
and one parent who was an immigrant who had resident in the United States for a period of time,
and the child's RIGHT to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,
EVEN IF "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:"

The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

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: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

[2pets]

You DO realize that James Madison, as a member of the House committee responsible for doing so, had the 1790 law REPEALED and REMOVED "natural born" in the new 1795 law, no? Never to be seen again...

Congress had the chance in 2004 to reinstate natural born citizen status to such persons, but did not.

S.2128 - Natural Born Citizen Act

[2pets]

Words matter. 'Born citizen' does not equal 'natural born citizen.' Just like 'air balloon' does not equal 'hot air balloon,' 'tire' does not equal 'flat tire,' 'truck' does not equal 'tow truck.' I could go on all day...

[Yosemitest]

You DO realize that the 1795 law was law REPEALED, NEVER to be seen again...
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795 !

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

[2pets]

Cite where the 1798 law says “natural born citizen.”

[CpnHook]

Neither is it rendered conclusive or authoritative. That it worked in the case in hand doesn't mean it works in a dual citizen case.

Oh, please. The Courts (the SCOTUS and others) have repeatedly noted that dichotomy, affirming that all "native born" persons are eligible for Presidency. The scholarly articles are all in accord. The noted exceptions are always the same: cases of diplomats, hostile invaders, and (the now inapplicable) sovereign indigenous tribes. "Dual citizenship at birth" is NOT mentioned as an exception or even possible exception. The one exception I can recall is an obviously politically-motivated piece from 1916 which is devoid of any case citation or discussion. And from what the historical record show, that article was ignored.

Again, what is your support in the case law or body of legal scholarship to support your surmised dual citizen exception to "native born equals NBC." You have none. That should tell you that your argument is pure unsupported opinion.

I presume you hold that the Supreme Court would rule along with the scholars that you note.

There will be no Supreme Court case in the absence of disagreement in the lower courts. And there is no basis upon which to posit such disagreement since the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that all "native born" persons are eligible for the Presidency (whereas naturalized citizens are not), while uttering not one peep about dual citizens being an exception. A person making the claim at the trial court that a native born person is ineligible due to being born here with a dual citizenship would have the same legal basis for making that claim as you: i.e., no case support; all opinion. That case would be dismissed on motion.

I would point out that the weight of scholarship, today, holds that born-abroad is not a barrier to NBC.

I'm not sure that can be said. If anything, we are observing here an increasing number of "hold on, now that I've reviewed applicable Court precedent, this conclusion that "citizen at birth means NBC" is doubtful in the case of persons born abroad. There is a very vigorous amount of debate and disagreement going on within the scholarly community about the eligibility of citizens born abroad.

By contrast, there is NO disagreement or uncertainty expressed within that same community about persons born here with dual citizenship.

Your attempt to compare these situations is ridiculous.

[Cboldt]

-- There will be no Supreme Court case in the absence of disagreement in the lower courts. --

Not likely in a presidential qualifications case. Plenty of cases are tsaken without a split. Bush v. Gore, NYT v. Sullivan, etc.

Listen, you and I best not interact. I find you to be intelligent, but a mean-spiritied, intellectually hidebound weenie. I may be wrong, but that's how I see you, and it's conclusive in my mind.

Go ahead and claim winning on the merits, I don't mind.

[CpnHook]

Not likely in a presidential qualifications case. Plenty of cases are tsaken without a split. Bush v. Gore, NYT v. Sullivan, etc.

Bush v. Gore needed to be taken to resolve a presidential election. What I'm saying is that no lower court is going to rule a candidate ineligible due to having had dual citizenship at birth. The SCOTUS will simply deny cert as the dismissal of the case below would be completely consistent with SCOTUS prior decisions.

Listen, you and I best not interact.

Then I'd suggest refraining from making assertions on a point of law that are incorrect which you then can't defend. Otherwise, error invites correction. Capiche?

I find you to be intelligent, but a mean-spiritied, intellectually hidebound weenie.

Seriously, you're going to cop-out by going ad hominem? You're displaying a rather thin skin there, counselor.

My posts have all been polite within the bounds of an open discussion on a point of disagreement. What on earth do you construe as mean-spirited? Perhaps you're not quite equipped for this type of forum.

Go ahead and claim winning on the merits, I don't mind.

Let's see. You've made an assertion on a point of law which you haven't been able to support in the least. Is this supposed to be some gracious offering? Of course I've won. Sheesh.

[Yosemitest]

No need!
Even EXTREME LIBERALS like the ones at CNN understand.

On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen",
MAR 11, 2015, Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement

... While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape,
at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.^15×
15. See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579494001552603692.
Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a "natural born Citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution.
Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a "natural born Citizen" even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.^16×
16. See Michael Dobbs, John McCain's Birthplace, Wash. Post: Fact Checker (May 20, 2008, 6:00 AM), http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html [http://perma.cc/5DKV-C7VE].
Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President,
wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain's birth.^17×
17. See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).
Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain's candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord.
The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency,
resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was "inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the 'natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States,
as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term 'natural born Citizen.' "^18×
18. S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008).
And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state.
Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party's presidential nominee in 1964,^19×
19. See Bart Barnes, Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies, Wash. Post, May 30, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm [http://perma.cc/K2MG-3PZL].
and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.^20×
20. See David E. Rosenbaum, George Romney Dies at 88; A Leading G.O.P. Figure, N.Y. Times, July 27, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/obituaries/george-romney-dies-at-88-a-leading-gop-figure.html.

There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle.
The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.
Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues.
To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a "natural born Citizen."
Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve.
But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization.
And the phrase "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.
Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent - - whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone - - is a U.S. citizen from birth
and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.



---



* Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of Law, Georgetown University.
** Distinguished Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University; Partner, Bancroft PLLC.

[CpnHook]

If that's true, why didn't SCOTUS rule Ark a natural born citizen?

It did. The opinion makes abundantly clear that the 14th Amendment's "birth" provision takes its meaning from the common law meaning of "natural born citizen." And J. Gray in turn traces the meaning of NBC from its common law counterpart -- natural born subject. This is Part II of Gray's opinion, in which he concludes:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore 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.

Then starting Part III J Gray observes:

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

This can ONLY mean (given that shortly after the Court states "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" to be "precisely analogous" terms) that the prevailing "rule" in the U.S. was that "every child born of alien parents was a 'natural born citizen.'" There is no plausible alternative reading for what he means by "the same rule."

Now follow the simple logic:

1. All persons born in the U.S., even to alien parents, are natural born citizens.
2. Wong Kim Ark was born in the U.S.
3. Therefore, in the court's view, Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

Got it now?

Again, words matter.

Yes, they do. And the fact in Justice Gray's opinion he makes over 30 references to "natural born" (coupled with the fact Wong could not be naturalized) should clue you in as to which source of citizenship the SCOTUS view Wong as having.

[CpnHook]

He was ruled a citizen only.

As a citizen, he HAD to be either natural born or naturalized. There is no third category.

I've demonstrated how the Court made abundantly clear Wong was a natural born citizen.

You've not tried to demonstrate he was naturalized. You're just trying to play dumb here.