University Chair Makes Pretty Convincing Argument Against Constitutionality Of Birthright

American citizenship as a birthright has recently become a prominent issue in the ongoing immigration debate, and congressional leaders sought answers during a hearing Wednesday.

The House Judiciary Committee called upon legal experts to discuss whether the U.S. Constitution actually allows children born in the United States to be citizens, even if their parents are illegal immigrants. Under the Citizenship Clause, which falls under the Fourteenth Amendment, people born within the country or its territories are automatically granted citizenship

The 19th allowed for an American woman the right to vote. But to vote she needed to be a citizen. Citizenship at that time was enjoined with the right to vote as it is today.

Before the 19th. a woman’s status as ‘citizen’ was not really relevant to anything other than her marriage to an American citizen. If she was unmarried yet a citizen by birth or in rare cases by naturalization, and she needed to travel her status could be questioned and settled by her own declaration or in hostile regions by a witness. If she was a citizen by birth or in a rare case of naturalization and she married say a European, then her status folded in with her husband’s.

Before the 19th, there wasn’t much that would compel women whose status was ambiguous to naturalize or otherwise assert her natural American citizenship other than travel or property ownership.

Before the 19th women were American citizens by birth or by marriage to an American citizen or by naturalization. If she was married to an American citizen, she need not be naturalized as her status derived from her husband.

The perceived requirement that both parents be citizens to confer natural born citizenship on their children leads to error because in fact the mother’s status was not relevant as long as she was married to an American citizen, and then she was automatically considered to be an American citizen because of her marriage. It didn’t matter before marriage what she was; she could be French, Native American Indian, whatever. Divorce was rarer than rare and dual citizenship was prohibited.

If a mother was unmarried, then her child was illegitimate and questions of citizenship for the child would be resolved by witnesses, affidavits and declarations, and knowledge of who the father was. If the child’s father was known to be an American citizen, then the child was considered natural born albeit illegitimate. If an illegitimate child’s father was say French and mother Iroquois Indian, the child was not natural born even if born in American territory. The loyalty and allegiances of such a child to the United States would somehow need to be adjudicated if the child were to someday vote.

Illegitimate children were not often considered for naturalization. There was no compelling reasons for naturalization unless later in life a child was to inherit property and was expected to vote.

Alexander Hamilton was an illegitimate child born on non-American soil who was never naturalized. But his circumstances were slightly different. But he was eligible to be President and may have been if his life had not been cut short at the hands of Burr.

Charles Curtis, 31st Vice-President of the United States was considered natural born, never needing naturalization, yet he was not born in a state and his mother was Native American Indian.

Ted Cruz never needed to be naturalized in order to vote. He was natural born because of his mother’s citizenship, her maintenance of a legal domicile in the United States and her loyalty and allegiance to the United States. Ted Cruz is eligible to be President of the United States. I predict he will also be one of America’s greatest Presidents.

The bottom-line is that Congress makes these determinations and distinctions, by resolution and by law.

Neither does ignoring them and positioning nothing to refute them

They refute themselves. In the Happersett decision the court states outright that people born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents are natural born citizens. They also state that some authorities also classify those born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents as natural born citizens as well, and while the court admits that some people question the second route to natural born citizenship stating Justice Waite also says that was not the purpose of the decision to settle that question. So no, the Happersett case does not say that only people born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents are natural born citizens. The just say that that is one of possibly multiple paths to natural born citizenship.

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.