Posted on 03/17/2016 8:11:04 AM PDT by chrisnj
You can’t possibly be that dense.
Cruz is a citizen due to a naturalization law, without which he wouldn’t be a citizen.
He was not “naturally born a US Citizen” - he was made one by law.
All citizens are made citizens via naturalization law. If you are born on US soil to US Parents, the USC Title 8 Section 1401 subsection A applies to the conditions of your birth and you are BORN a citizen. Likewise, Sen Cruz is a citizen at birth via USC Title 8 Section 1401 subsection G.
It is an enumerated power of Congress to make the uniform rules of naturalization. That includes the laws for the two types of citizens (born or naturalized). See Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
1401(a) is a restatement of the 14th Amendment, 1401(g) is not. Cruz is not covered by the Amendment, his citizenship depends solely upon statute.
The same statute that restates the 14th amendment also establishes other conditions by which a person is a citizen at birth. And further, the authority for such a statute comes from Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
“citizen at birth” is meaningless.
Citizenship by statute is naturalization.
Well we disagree on both points then
“at” indicates a point in space or time
“by” indicates a causative agent
A person can be a citizen at birth either by statute or by nature.
Cruz is not a citizen by birth, he is a citizen by statute without which he would be an alien. Both he and his citizen parent had to meet the requirements of statute. (see Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(a)(7),(b))
Persons who acquire citizenship via federal statute granting citizenship to individuals born outside the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents can lose their citizenship if they fail to fulfill statutory requirements. (see Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815)
The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,—birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enaabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts. United States v Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649)
The Constitution does not require “citizen at birth” - it requires “natural born citizen”.
Again, you are incorrect. When a person is born a citizen, they are naturally (see definition below) born a citizen.
adverb
1.
in a natural or normal manner.
2.
by nature; innately or inherently.
3.
of course; as would be expected; needless to say.
There are only two types of citizens, those that by the conditions of their birth are aliens and must be naturalized in order to be a citizen. The second group is those by the conditions of their birth are born citizens. Sen Cruz by the conditions of his birth, was a citizen from birth and has never needed to be naturalized.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
It should also be noted that under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has authority to create law regarding naturalization which includes citizenship.
So now we know that Congress, under the 14th Amendment, can write legislation declaring what constitutes a natural-born citizen. We also know that under the very first acts of Congress, executed by the very founders who wrote the Constitution, that Congress had the power to define NBC status and the method of obtaining NBC status. Under that act, we see that the founders specifically established the precedent that a NBC can be born 1) outside the boundaries of the US and 2) to one US citizen parent.
In the case Minor v. Happersett (1875), the court ruled, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”
Though the Constitution is vague in what constitutes a natural-born citizen, Congress has stepped in to attempt to fill in the gap. Under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 defines the following as citizens of the United States upon birth… or natural-born citizens:
Anyone born inside the United States. The person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. (This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.)
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Anyone found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
That is the current state of the laws of this nation. Disagree with it if you want. Clench your fist and shake your fist with all the gusto you can muster if you care to. But that is the law. If you don’t like, vote in those that can change it.
To support your claim you cite a naturalization act, which disproves your claim.
Calm down. Never going to happen.
Reality check:
Real world court cases won / dismissed:
Sen Cruz: New York, Illinois, Florida
Birther Fever Swamp: nada, zip, goose egg
(But keep up the good work swamp folks ! You’re still good for a laugh.)
To support my claim, I site authority of Article 1 Section 8 enumerated power of Congress. The naturalization act is authorized under that enumerated power of Congress.
You cite a naturalization act to support your claim that a person is not naturalized.
Additionally, the very words of the statute say “citizen”. To support your position you must insert words into statute and then ignore the fact that it is a naturalization statute - which you yourself acknowledge it is a naturalization statute.
Your claim is absurd. You will benefit from reading the cases I’ve cited.
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.