Trump Goes All 'Alinsky' on Ted Cruz, Calling Him 'An Anchor Baby'

PJmedia ^ | January 30, 2016 | MICHAEL VAN DER GALIEN

[RC one]

So we're clear on what we're arguing about. A.) there is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen and that is, a natural born citizen is someone born under the jurisdiction of a specific sovereign and into the allegiance of the same and B.) I maintain that there is no US law or common law principle that does or even can make a Natural born citizen of one country into a natural born citizen of another country. Such a law would be equivalent to a law that says all black men shall henceforth be white.

My opinion is based on the work by Horace Binney who addressed this very topic in 1853 and came to the ultimate conclusion that you are, with few exceptions, a Natural Born Citizen of the country where you were born. Binney graduated from Harvard in 1797, studied law under Jared Ingersoll who had been a member of the Constitutional convention, was an attorney in Philadelphia for half a century, the attorney general of Pennsylvania twice, a Whig in the House of Representatives from 1833-1835, and actually defended Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war.

What's more, this specific work has shown up in many past supreme court cases pertaining to citizenship as supporting evidence for the final and dissenting opinions. For example, Ginsburg used it in Miller v. Albright in 1997 when she disagreed with the courts opinion there.

His opinion is, in other words, worthy of our consideration.

This is a fairly complex topic and, simple answers are not easily discerned and, as such, opinions are frequently offered up as matters of fact. One has to be willing to research material that is far beyond the normal scope of a normal internet disagreement to find the truth of the matter and I have done that. I will cut and paste from Binney's work and you may read it if you like or not. If you prefer, you may direct yourself to the boldfaced type where I have highlighted some very clear specific references pertaining to our disagreement.

Here's what Binney said, and yes, I am selectively editing his work simply to make my point more easily discernable:

THE ALIENIGENE OF THE UNITED STATES

By Horace Binney"

Every subject is either natus born, or datus given or made. 7 Rep. 17 a.

There be regularly, unless it be in special cases, three incidents to a subject born. 1st, That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2nd, That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3rd, The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered, for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the allegiance of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other. 7 Rep. 18 a.

"The being born under the allegiance of another king, is the touchstone to try whether alien or not." Jenkin's Cent. P. 3, Cent. 1, case 2.

.........

The doctrine, that a person born out of the dominions of the King of England, and under the actual obedience of a foreign king, is by the common law, an alien, though his parents were English, may be found in all the abridgments. See 1 Bac. Abr. 193, Alien; 1 Com. Dig. 552, Alien; for, "being born out of the King’s ligeance," has this meaning by common law.

Blackstone says that the common law stood absolutely so, with only a very few exceptions, 1 Black. Comm. 372; and these exceptions, perhaps, are confined to the cases of the children born abroad, of ambassadors and their wives, natives of England, Calvin’s case, 5 Rep. 18 a; persons who are born within the places possessed by the Kings army, if he enters the territories of another prince in a hostile manner, and the parents are subjects and not hostile, Craw vs. Ramsay, Vaugh. 281; and persons born subject to a prince, holding his kingdom as homager and liegeman to the King of England, during the time of his being homager, Calvin's case, 7 Rep. 21 b.

The state of the law in the United States is easily deduced. The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded.

But the common law principle of allegiance, was the law of all the states at the time of the Revolution, and at the adoption of the Constitution; and by that principle the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution, or since that time, by virtue of an Act of the Congress of the United States

[RC one]

It has been defined many times by many reputable legal sources and by the common law of England. Natural born citizen means born under the jurisdiction of a sovereign and into the allegiance of the same. It means native born. It means born on soil owned and/or controlled by the sovereign. Its meaning was well understood at the time the constitution was adopted. The meaning has been forgotten perhaps over the centuries but it was not lost.

[alstewartfan]

As a practical matter, everyone born to an American parent or parents is considered an American citizen, and has been since we have been alive. Our nation is being torn asunder, And IMO the concern about this comes, with few exceptions, from enemies of Cruz.

[RC one]

The Cruz supporters are the ones that insist on conflating citizen with natural born citizen as it serves their immediate political interests. So don’t blame us for this crisis as it is of their doing.

[alstewartfan]

RC, Cruz is entitled to run, and it’s lying Marxist-donor Trump who is tossing feces against Cruz hoping that voters are dumb enough to be persuaded.

[RC one]

I’m sorry but please don’t insult me with your lack of insight again.

[RobbyS]

It is not defined by the Constitution, and as you know, international law is sadly wanting an authoritative interpreter. And, as I have said, we must remember that a Constitution is an act of positive law, and the US Constitution was at bottom agreement between several political entities, formerly subject to the King in Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland but now trying to establish a government that would protect their common interests. Of course they built with the bricks lying at hand but we must not suppose that there is more than the foundation of that government, nothing so logical and consistent as, say. the Napoleonic code. So, I merely say what I think. and as know know quite a bit about the history of that time, I am unmoved by attempts to make metaphysical what is merely physics. History is quite clear that without the person of George Washington standing in front of them, the greatest man of the age according to King George himself, the Constitution would not have been written, the new government of the Union would not have taken shape, and lord knows what might have happened if Washington had died that August he went under the knife. So, again, knowing I reduce the matter to my formula: Article II says simply: George Washington, or a man very, very much like him will be President and no foreign prince will be allowed to occupy the office. The second of these was necessary to keep the United States from becoming like every other state a monarchy. The words of certain clauses are but instrumental to the achievement of that end.

[RC one]

I’m sorry but I’m just going to copy and paste my standard reply to these arguments. I encourage you to read it and absorb it. It’s slightly advanced material but is really enlightening and worthy of deep contemplation. I would suggest grabbing a beverage and really reading this. That’s what I’m gonna do. cheers.

[RC one]

I forgot to copy and paste it! Maybe I don't need another beverage.

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) said:

it means 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.

John A. Bingham (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

John Armor Bingham (January 21, 1815-March 19, 1900) was an American Republican congressman from the U.S. state of Ohio, judge advocate in the trial of the Abraham Lincoln assassination and a prosecutor in the impeachment trials of Andrew Johnson. He is also the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, a natural-born citizen. It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion of the Dred Scott decision and speaking specifically of natural born citizens and article II, section I, clause 5

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

James Madison

The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.

Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806)

As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.

St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES (1803)

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign.That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.

Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailorsâ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)

The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.

Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle

Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204, 206, 208 (February 1854).

That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral.

January 28, 1838, Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838)

The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)

Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.

Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.

The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

This is called becoming naturalized; that is, becoming entitled to all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens, or citizens born in this country.

Andrew White Young, First lessons in Civil Government, pg. 82 (1856).

The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.

Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

Natural-born Citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.

William Cox Cochran, The student's law lexicon: a dictionary of legal words and phrases : with appendices, Pg. 185 (1888)

Citizens are either natural-born or naturalized. One who is born in the United States or under its jurisdiction is a natural-born citizen without reference to the nationality of his parents. Their presence here constitutes a temporary allegiance, sufficient to make a child a citizen.

Theodore Dwight, Edward Dwight, Commentaries on the law of persons and personal property, pg. 125 (1894)

The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.

Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203

[RobbyS]

As I see it, this is not a legal but a constitutional question. Article two is quite brief, except for the length description of the process of choosing the President (and vice president), Brief because the aim was to create an executive who would not be a crowned head. Of course the job description was tailored to fit George Washington, or his twin brother, Further, the executive could not be a European prince, which would turn the country very quickly into a monarchy. Hence he could not be a relative of an European house.