Holding my tongue until
after Iowa-New Hampshire
Posted on 01/13/2016 7:43:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
As utterly and demonstrably false as false can be. Read the post.
If a law has been passed before one is born and is in force when one was born, does meeting the generous provisions of that law at birth make one a natural born citizen?
It would not "make" it so, but it could indeed confirm it.
Or does the original intent of the constitution in regards to what they meant by "natural-born" SUPERCEDE the law that was passed long after that?
The Constitution cannot be legitimately amended except by the process defined in Article V. But... First of all, you can not know what the framers intended by the phrase Natural Born Citizen, despite the supreme level of confidence that you might feel. There is a wide range of opinion on the issue ranging from idiotic to the uninformed. Yours is toward the "uninformed" end of the spectrum.
The author of the article which you appear not to have taken the time to read, provides the most balanced, insightful and realistic perspective I have read in ten years. This is the case despite it not being a scholarly exposition, but merely a summary level rebuttal of the WAPO screed, which was off-the-charts uninformed.
This author ought to take the time to expand these ideas into a full length and complete exposition on the subject. It would likely become the standard treatise on Natural Born Citizenship.
RE: There is a wide range of opinion on the issue ranging from idiotic to the uninformed. Yours is toward the “uninformed” end of the spectrum.
I never expressed an opinion in this thread. I simply ASKED a question based on what the poster declared. Which is this: “Senator Cruz was made a citizen solely by virtue of the generous provisions of the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act.”
False. This canard was discussed - and dismissed as it should be.
"...the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated that “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..."
Assuming that modern Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence would not permit any constitutional distinction of children based upon fathers versus mothers who are U.S. citizens (Cruz's mother was a U.S. citizen at his birth; his father was not) - and there is no legal reason, today, to think that a mother who is a U.S. citizen owes less "allegiance" to the U.S. than would the father - the law existing at the time of the U.S. founding suggests that, in interpreting Article II's phrase "natural born citizen," children born abroad to U.S. citizens should be considered "natural born."
Actually reading a post before commenting on it is always to be recommended highly.
I love the way folks think they can get away with saying the most preposterous things simply by framing their remarks as rhetorical questions. LOL! But, you failed even at the modest task of framing a question, if that was your intent.
So then, if your “question”, which does not include a question mark and which is not otherwise grammatically structured as a question, but rather as a declarative sentence, is:
“Senator Cruz was made a citizen solely by virtue of the generous provisions of the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act.”,
then I can give you an answer -
“No.”
I owe you an apology, and I hereby offer it, humbly and with remorse.
I understood it to be you who was asserting that “Senator Cruz was made a citizen solely by virtue of the generous provisions of the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act.”
I was wrong; you were merely repeating the assertion of a previous poster and holding up his post to questioning. This I clearly failed to understand.
As a result, my contempt, which ought to have been reserved for “Eternal Vigilance” was mistakenly heaped on you. Twice, in fact.
I hope you can forgive my error and my rudeness.
The child of a foreign citizen is presented as a natural born citizen of the United States of America.
Any person who can past that premise and seek to support it with detailed explanations is seriously lacking a reasoning component. Perhaps it is a genetic thing or an acquired characteristic, but here it is simply recognized as nonsense.
The conclusion that a foreigner is a NBC is clearly an agenda driven one.
Your reasoning might better be applied to the question regarding how it is considered that persons in the service of the USA who have children born outside of CONUS could have their (the children’s) natural heritage be revoked. That is just plain stupid and unlikely something which would ever have been supported by any Founder.
Yeah...because Congress cannot dictate Natural Law.
not a reference to Natural Law anywhere in this guy’s screed.
I guess anything that helps them makes their case and no critical review of their own information will be done.
Who and what the devil are you talking about?
Agreed, and without a doubt is also the position of the writer.
And, neither can you. In accordance with natural law, a clild's nationality is thought to follow the circumstances of his or her birth so as to reasonably measure and determine where the child's natural loyalty and duty lies.
Several elements, differing according to place and time, have traditionally figured into this measurement and determination, including place of birth as well as the nationality of the parent(s) and very importantly including the wishes of the liege.
There is no simplistic formula that can be used to make this measurement, one needs to look at all the facts. And in doing so you can't pretend like it's 1756. We no longer follow patrilineage in this country.
Also, it should be obvious, but I will restate it now just to encourage clarity of thought, that our polity cannot control how another polity determines how and from whom it demands loyalty or whom it considers its nationals. Therefore whether or not another polity considers one of ours to be one of theirs has NO bearing on the natural loyalty and duty of the child in question. This undeniable fact MUST be understood, as failure to understand has led to much confusion and tortured thinking.
So, in the case of Ted Cruz, the fact of his birth in Canada is not determinative of anything. It is merely one of the circumstances of his birth than must be considered, as must be his parentage which includes a Cuban father and an American mother.
I think we can safely say that there has been no evidence that Ted Cruz feels any sense of loyalty or duty to Cuba now or at any time in the past, nor has Cuba demanded this from him. His Father had left Cuba with no intent to return. At the time of Ted Cruz's birth, both his father and mother were in Canada merely on temporary work permits, but nevertheless, according to the rules the Canadians have chosen for themselves, they consider the baby Cruz to have Canadian nationality. This is none of our business as Americans. Canada could just as easily have chosen rules that would have denied the baby Cruz their nationality, and that also would be none of our business as Americans.
Because this is now the 21st Century, and until recently the late 20th Century, and attitudes and laws have evolved since the 18th century, we now, in our polity, consider women and men as equals before the law. Whereas in the past our polity only considered patrilineage, we now accept that our men and women may equally bequeath their nationality upon their children. This is not merely a accidental result of an arbitrary statute. This is a natural condition that the statutes, enacted in the name of our modern day liege, We The People, merely recognize and enforce in the name of clarity, certainty and the will of the sovereign.
Therefore, it is an entirely natural result of the circumstances of his birth that Ted Cruz was and remains a natural-born citizen of the United States for all these reasons as a natural consequence of the circumstances of his birth absent the action of any statute. If this assertion is supported by statute, so much the better in the interest of clarity and certainty. But we need to be clear that the absence of these statutes would not serve to change his status as a natural born citizen and national of the United States.
Dual Citizenship automatically creates a problem anywhere and any when.
The problem was exposed to all when the “American” journalist was jailed in Iran. He had dual citizenship. That made him subject to all of their rules and laws.
THIS is the consequence of ANY form of dual citizenship. THIS is why and how Natural Born Citizenship stands as it does, it prevents not ONLY problematic issues with loyalty, but ALSO problems with aggressive nations USING that citizenship to control anyone with that dual citizenship.
I’m sorry, but you have overlooked some very IMPORTANT issues.
Ted Cruz *is*, philosophically, the best choice for US President, and I can go with that, with the understanding that the Constitution has *already* been overthrown. However, this does NOT change the fact that under our former Constitution Ted Cruz would *NOT* be a Natural Born Citizen and would *NOT* qualify to be President for that reason.
I didn’t say that dual citizenship might not create problems. Only that it can’t be allowed to create problems within our own polity.
I said that we can’t control what other countries do. For a gentleman or gentlewoman whose loyalty and duty is demanded by a country like Iran; may I say that I think it very foolish indeed for that person to put himself or herself into Iran’s jurisdiction? It’s asking for trouble. The US government has been warning people about this potential danger for years.
And, let me point out that there is no way for anyone here to prevent Iran from making YOU, me, or Barack Obama, a citizen of Iran tomorrow.
You say that there could be problems with aggressive nations using “dual citizenship” to control anyone with that dual citizenship. Maybe, but then, given that any such nation has the power to declare any one at all as a citizen at any time, that means we are all vulnerable.
Ted Cruz is no more vulnerable to foreign pressures from Canada than Donald Trump is from Great Britain. This is nothing but a canard.
If fact if such pressure were really a worry, Trump’s would be the bigger problem because he has yet to renounce his British dual nationality. Cruz already renounced his Canadian connection.
I'd like to give a little more attention to this paragraph, for you and other readers because it exemplifies the confused and twisted thinking that comes from wrong ideas about "dual citizenship".
Let's get this fact straight first of all: the United States does not grant anyone dual nationality of a foreign nation. The foreign nation does. And in doing so, they can use any criteria they want to, from the strict to the whimsical. And there is nothing that the United States can or should do about it.
Except, to understand that whatever these foreign nations do, We the People rule here. We enact our own laws. We decide who our citizens are, and we protect them to the best of our ability. We can enact a law that enjoins our courts from recognizing any claims brought within our jurisdiction based on a claim of foreign citizenship. Maybe we already have. That's our sovereign right. We could also enact legislation that declares that we do not and will not recognize any such competing claims on the loyalty of our citizens.
But we need to be clear. No such law would prevent the arrest, trial detention or imprisonment of a US citizen in Iran if Iran deems that person to be one of theirs. Iran controls its own laws and its own actions within its polity. That must be clear to you. If Iran declared you to be a Citizen, no intensity of scorn, no enactment of legislation, no jawboning by the President, and no cries of pain from your relatives will protect you from Iran if you choose to physically go there. Conversely, if you remain within the realm of protection that the US can afford to its citizens, you should have no worries.
You err in thinking that the status of "natural born citizen" will protect you from this sort of predation by an aggressive foreign state.
If Britain were still our enemy, then Donald Trump would be vulnerable to precisely this sort of predation as as result of the British nationality he inherited from his dual-citizen mother.
This would be true despite the fact that under every interpretation of of the meaning of natural born citizen that I am aware of, Donald Trump qualifies. But, none of that has one whit of significance to Great Britain, which, by law, extends its nationality to the offspring of their subjects.
In short, the entire idea of placing dual citizenship at the heart of how we determine who is and who is not a natural born citizenship add nothing of value to the discussion, and adds much confusion and erroneous thinking. We need an approach to this subject that leads to clarity, not confusion and illogic.
On the subject of loyalty, the Framers were concerned about the loyalty of the child. They were not concerned about specious claims to loyalty ginned up by one foreign power or another. Their concern was with the child, and mere dual citizenship was not and could not ever be determinative of the child's loyalty. In many, or even most of the cases the child might not even be aware of the claims upon his loyalty made by a foreign power. I doubt Donald Trump loses sleep over the fact that British law makes him a subject of the crown, nor do I suspect that he harbors a secret loyalty to the homeland of his mother. Nor should you.
So, you’re OK with anchor babies becoming President, and people like Obama, whom, with questionable birth status, might be American. THAT is what your acceptance of this bastardized definition allows.
Your definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is brand spanking new. Well, new since Obama.
Yes, lineage is no longer purely through the father, that’s why both father and mother need to be US citizens today. The issue creates more restrictions, it doesn’t open it to more people, and laws Congress passes can’t make someone a Natural Born Citizen no matter how much you or I might wish otherwise.
Of course not. You really haven't read what I wrote with any degree of care if you could come to that conclusion.
...and people like Obama, whom, with questionable birth status, might be American. THAT is what your acceptance of this bastardized definition allows.
I never said anything like that either. No one whose birth status is questionable can be assumed to be natural born citizen. It is up to every person to be able to demonstrate the circumstances of their birth through validated evidence. Certainly no one ought to be considered qualified for the Presidency with out complete and substantial vetting of all birth records and evidence.
Your definition of 'Natural Born Citizen' is brand spanking new. Well, new since Obama.
I don't think so. Although I didn't have the time to annotate and provide subnotes, my entire effort was and is aimed at preserving the meaning of natural born citizen as understood by the consensus of the Founders, such as it was.
Yes, lineage is no longer purely through the father, that's why both father and mother need to be US citizens today.
Who says so? There is literally no scholarship that supports that view.
The issue creates more restrictions, it doesn't open it to more people, and laws Congress passes can't make someone a Natural Born Citizen no matter how much you or I might wish otherwise.
Do you hear what you are saying? You are proposing the redefinition of "natural born citizen" to make it more restrictive. You do not have the right to do that. Neither does Congress have such a right to redefine "natural born citizen". What Congress does have the right to do, as the instrument of the sovereignty of We the People, is to establish the criteria by which natural born citizenship will be determined in our nation.
If you think the criteria are clear already, can you explain why there is so much contention and disagreement around the issue. I'll tell you. It is precisely because that IS no agreed set of criteria to determine natural born status.
Let's be real clear here, I am not proposing that Congress redefine what is meant by 'natural born citizen'. But what Congress can do, and ought to do, is to clarify the measures to be used to establish that status, by a judicious combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis standards.
First of all, the concept of sovereignty residing in the People is a relatively new concept in the world. A the time of the Founding, the fledgling United States was perhaps the only country in the world that formally placed its sovereignty squarely in the hands of its citizens. Everywhere else in the world sovereignty resided in a person: a king, a sultan, and emperor, a prince, a potentate: subjects, not citizens, owed their allegiance to their sovereign and the sovereign had a reciprocal duty of protection.
This arrangement was seen as natural. The English Common Law recognized Natural Born Subjects. These were those who were born into the protection of the king to whom they owed fealty, loyalty and duty. This status was primarily determined by where a child was born, and why? Because the King said so. And to some degree this status was also extended to the children of subjects born outside the realms of the king. Again, why? Because the King decreed it. if the King decreed it, it had to be natural because the king was naturally the king.
Different kingdoms, different rules. The fledgling United States did not want its people to be subjects of any monarch. The intention was that sovereignty was to reside with the people themselves.
This created a bit of a conundrum since without a monarch, how was anyone to know what the standards would be for the determination of citizenship of a people with no allegiance to a monarch?
On this matter there is a plethora of opinion. Many courts have simply tied to graft the British concept of a subject and how the King determined this status onto our laws despite the undeniable fact that we had abandoned the entire status of being as “subject”. Some courts have made reference to Continental tradition, most notably in the form of Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”.
The point here is that the founders decided to use the term “Natural Born Citizen” in the Constitutional requirements to serve as President without precisely defining the term. From later writings and scholarship on the subject, it is clear that even at the time of the Founding there wasn’t any unanimity of opinion as to the meaning of this term.
It is clear enough that intent was to define a class of citizen who acquired their citizenship as a natural consequence of the circumstances of their birth, as opposed to a voluntary adoption of citizenship later in life. The question was always how to define the terms of measurement and criteria for the determination of this “at birth” citizenship by the operation of natural law. This is covered in my comments in Post 32 and others above.
But there seems to be a reluctance by some to accept that our law making can have any influence or effect on our thinking about this subject. But that ignores the fact that our laws and statutes are the embodiment of our own sovereignty. When “We the People” speak, we speak much as a King. We choose our own laws, which so far as they comport with our basic law, the Constitution, are determinative.
As sovereign people we have every right, not to redefine the Constitution outside the Amendment process, not to redefine the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, but to clarify how we will determine which children are those whose circumstances of birth, taken as a whole, qualify them to be considered Natural Born Citizens within the broadly understood meaning of that term.
We cannot be held hostage to the whims and preferences of long dead kings and potentates.
You must have laws and monarchs to tell YOU what a Natural Born Citizen is...and I understand that...but, like the Founders, I reject the concept.
NATURALLY, a child born in the US to parents who are US citizens can have no real obligation to ANYONE except the US.
If there’s something complicating that fact...you do not have a Natural Born Citizen...period.
This is NATURAL LAW. It’s quite simple.
I will post a more complete response in a few hours, but for now let me just say that you are off base. The class of citizens who are natural born citizens is not now and never has been as limited as you speculate. You are simply wrong and ill-informed.
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.