Trump won’t drop birther question, and Ted Cruz is fighting back

McClatchy DC ^ | January 10th, 2016 | By Maria Recio

[Mariner]

WASHINGTON -

Canadian-born Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, continued to come under fire Sunday over whether he is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be U.S. president.

Cruz, a lawyer, has said that his citizenship is “settled law” and on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday said it is “clear and straightforward” that he became a U.S. citizen at birth in Calgary because his mother was a U.S. citizen. His presidential primary campaign even released his mother’s U.S. birth certificate over the weekend - after denying she had become a Canadian citizen, although her name appears on a 1974 Canadian federal election voter roll.

But Republican national frontrunner Donald Trump, who stoked the issue last week by saying that Democrats would sue if Cruz was the nominee and ensnare the election, continued to press his case on several Sunday news programs that the foreign birth was “a problem” that the Supreme Court ought to decide.

Asked about his eligibility as a citizen on CNN Sunday, Cruz said, “The substance of the issue is clear and straightforward. As a legal matter, the Constitution and federal law are clear that the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.”

Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, in 1970 when his Cuban father, Rafael Cruz, and American-born mother, Eleanor Cruz, were living and working in the oil industry. However, his father became a Canadian citizen, as Rafael Cruz told NPR in 2013. And both his and Cruz’s mother’s names appear on Canadian voter rolls in May, 1974, in documents obtained by McClatchy. Only Canadian citizens are eligible to vote in that country.

[WhiskeyX]

Our searches of Wikipedia and the web searches on the string you cited come up with nothing in any Wikipedia article.

Just pasted in the Wikipedi search box:

Is Queen Noor an American citizen

Results: nothing like what you described....

[Yosemitest]

Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

Now if the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary — as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding. Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

But the fact is, they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” — in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been overturned 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark, who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” — he was ALSO “natural born.”

If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,” then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.

The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility. So they in fact found that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence. Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course. And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking, Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States — if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.

There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course. I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to. There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here, though.

It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place. However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me. The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

Judge Richard Gordon dismissed the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party. And he did so “with prejudice,” which means “This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits and we’re done with it — don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

Note that again: Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked. And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three. That is NOT a lot of discussion, which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”

The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

“Plaintiff claims that President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution…

Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.

[Yosemitest]

The "kooks" are those who ignore REAL CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS AND LAWYERS (many of whom that have argued cases in the United States Supreme Court),
such as the MANY who have PROVEN BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT
that TED CRUZ IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States !

[higgmeister]

I think who ever chews this bone will choke on it. It's just a matter of timing.

Please explain what you are talking about. Either people will vote for Cruz or they will not. Who do you think will choke?

[Walt Griffith]

There were no natural born citizens when the Constitution was accepted as the law of the land and only the full citizen males could bestow Natural Born Citizenship on their children, but the problem was they were not all born in the USA, thus it had to be allowed that Citizens born outside of the USA could bestow Natural Born Citizenship on their children.

[Yosemitest]

So you're backing SOCIALIST Trump for President .

Donald Trump and Eminent Domain, August 22nd, 2015

... More, Trump has publicly defended the confiscation of private property for eminent domain, even when the use for which the property is confiscated is purely private in nature:

Trump consistently defended the use of eminent domain.
Interviewed by John Stossel on ABC News, he said:
"Cities have the right to condemn for the good of the city.
Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good."
Challenged by Stossel, he said
that eminent domain was necessary to build schools and roads.
But of course he just wanted to build a limousine parking lot.

Once again, this is Donald Trump's vision of private property rights when he was just another private citizen.
Imagine how much more damage he could do as the leader of the Federal executive branch.

[RC one]

He is a citizen by statute, not by nature. His Canadian birth certificate is evidence enough of that.

[Yosemitest]

Here's more details on "Natural Born Citizen" and the history of it.
Read the data of just WHO made up the FIRST United States Congress (our FOUNDING FATHERS).

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

As Hans von Spakovsky wrote in his Commentary "An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":

... The Constitution, federal law, and the historical understanding of the Framers, as well as prior British legal traditions and law, all support this view.
In a recent article in the Harvard Law Review, two former U.S. Solicitor Generals, Paul Clement (who served under President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (who served under President Barack Obama) stated:

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning:
namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth
with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that,
subject to certain residency requirements on the parents,
someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Thus, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be eligible to run for president
because the Austrian native had to go through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen.

Certainly the Framers of the Constitution held this view of “natural born” citizen.
They had a deep understanding of British common law and applied its precepts, particularly as explained in Blackstone’s Commentaries, throughout the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama (1888) recognized that
“the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that
its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law,
and are to be read in the light of its history.”

Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States
if the American people make that choice.

One of those precepts of British law was
that children born to British citizens anywhere in the world,
even outside the dominions of the British Empire,
were “natural born” citizens of the Empire
who owed their allegiance to the Crown.
This historical understanding is explained in great detail by the Supreme Court in a well-known 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

The First Congress, which included many of the Framers of the Constitution, codified this view of a natural born citizen.
A mere three years after the Constitution was drafted, they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790,
which specified that the children of U.S. citizens born
“out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
The modern version of this Act is found at 8 U.S.C. §1401.
It contains a list of all individuals who are considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
Paragraph (g) includes:

A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien,
and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions
for a period or periods totaling not less than five years,
at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. 

Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970;
his mother, who was a U.S. citizen by birth from Delaware, was in her 30s at the time.
She met Cruz’s father, who was born in Cuba, as a student at Rice University.
These facts show that
Cruz’s family background clearly meets the standard set out in the federal statute for being a natural born citizen who did not have to go through any naturalization process to become a citizen.;
That was also the case for Senator Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state,
and Governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico.

The bottom line is that Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States if the American people make that choice.
The same is true of my wife, who was born in Manila.
Her father, whose family had been in America since shortly after the Pilgrims got to Massachusetts,
was temporarily working abroad for an American company—just like Ted Cruz’s father.

My wife is not likely to run for president,
but there is no question that she—like Ted Cruz, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain—is eligible to be president
and to swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”


Hans A. von Spakovsky is a a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department lawyer. 
He is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk”(Encounter 2012)
and  “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside 2014).

The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it , too ( even though it DOES NOT APPLY) !

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.

[Yosemitest]

WRONG !
Learn the Law, and the HISTORY of that LAW !
And learn HOW TO back it up with LINKS to FACTS !

[elhombrelibre]

I thought Trump supporters told us that Trump was merely asked about this and offered, as Trump said, a helpful answer. Now, it appears that what nearly everyone else knew, that out of desperation for the Iowa vote, he’s trying to make this an issue. And this confirms how mercurial and situational Trump is. In Sep 2015, it was a non-issue, Trump said. It’s like how he said Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment, perjury, and obstruction of justice were non issues, right before Trump attacked George W. Bush with Democrat talking points. Trump’s principles are malleable and changed to fit his financial and political will to power.

[elhombrelibre]

Trump proved Obama wasn’t a US citizen, remember?

[RC one]

Here you go... for starters.

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

a.) It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore,eligible for the Presidency.

b.)Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.

c.) The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... 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.”

d.) This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes

If Cruz was a natural born citizen, there would be no need to provide statutes to defend his citizenship. natural born is just that, natural. It requires no statute which is why there is no statute.

Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate and had Canadian citizenship. He is, therefore, a statutory citizen, not a natural born citizen.

[Yosemitest]

Another DemocRAT Underground Source written by the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF minions WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.
It's not even a LAW you linked to, but a "U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs", with NO LEGITIMATE STANDING AT ALL ! Here's THE LAW.
For those who actually want to know THE LAW, HERE IS THE LAW as legislated and APPROVED BY CONGRESS according to the United States Constitution:

The ABC's of Immigration: Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States
by Greg Siskind
All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States (with the very minor exception of certain children of diplomatic personnel).
This is perhaps the only simple rule of US citizenship.
One of the most complicated areas of US citizenship law involves the passage of citizenship to children born outside the US to one or more US citizen parents.
While naturalized US citizens are treated like natural born citizens, which includes those who are deemed citizens even when born outside the US, in almost every respect, there is one important office that only natural born citizens can hold - - the presidency
(though expect to see efforts in Congress to change this if Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger decides to run for President).
Also, a person who is a citizen from birth cannot be denaturalized (though denaturalization rarely ever occurs).

The rules determining when such children are citizens are extremely detailed, and vary a great deal depending on when the child was born since the laws changed several times in the 20th century.

What are the rules for people born before May 24, 1934?

Persons born abroad before May 24, 1934 to a US citizen father who had resided in the US at any point before the birth are considered US citizens at birth.
The status of the mother did not matter unless the child was born out of wedlock.
There were numerous legal challenges to this rule, claiming that it violates equal protection by treating the children born to US citizen women different than those born to US citizen men.
The issue was never fully resolved by the courts, but in 1994, Congress passed a law retroactively granting citizenship at birth to children born abroad to US citizen women.

In 1940, Congress passed a law making illegitimate children born abroad to US citizen women citizens if the mother had resided in the US.
However, under this law, if the child was legitimated by the foreign national father before his or her eighteenth birthday, the child would not be considered a citizen.
In 1998, the Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the requirement that a child born out of wedlock to a US citizen woman be legitimated before his or her eighteenth birthday.
The decision was reaffirmed in the 2001 US Supreme Court decision Nguyen v. INS which held that differing requirements for out-of-wedlock children of US citizen men versus US citizen women are constitutions.

The US citizen parent must have resided in the US prior to the birth.
This residence can be in the US itself, or in certain US territories after certain dates.
The residence can have been while the parent was a minor, and there is no length of time for which the parent must have resided in the US.

What are the rules for people born between May 24, 1934 and January 13, 1941?

In 1934, Congress passed a law allowing US citizen parents, regardless of their gender, to pass citizenship to their children born abroad.
If both parents were citizens, only one was required to have resided in the US, and as with the previous law, there was no required length of time that the parent must have resided in the US.

However, if one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the child would lose their citizenship if they did not either reside in the US for the five years immediately prior to their eighteenth birthday or, within six months of turning 21, take an oath of allegiance to the US.
These requirements were gradually relaxed between 1934 and 1940.

Illegitimate children born aboard between 1934 and 1941 became citizens under the general provision, and because the child was considered to have only one parent, no requirements were imposed that could result in the loss of citizenship.

What are the rules for people born between January 14, 1941 and December 23, 1952?

As before, children born abroad to two US citizens, with one parent having resided in the US, the child was a US citizen at birth.
No further action was required to maintain citizenship.

When one parent was a citizen and the other a foreign national, however, the rules changed substantially.
To pass citizenship, the citizen parent must have resided in the US for at least 10 years before the birth of the child, and at least five of those years had to be after the parent turned 16.
Because this rule made it impossible for parents under 21 to pass citizenship, in 1946 the requirement was amended to create an exception for parents who had served in World War Two.

Originally, for children born during this period to retain US citizenship, they had to reside in the US for five years between the age of 13 and 21.
However, an exception was made for children of US citizens who were employed abroad by the US government or a US company.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother who met the residence requirements were automatically citizens, and they retained US citizenship even if legitimated by the foreign national father.
For a child born out of wedlock to a US citizen father, to obtain US citizenship the child must have been legitimated before the age of 21.

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14.
An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.

While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship, amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child.
Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.

What are the rules for people born on or after November 14, 1986?

Children born abroad to two US citizen parents, one of whom has resided in the US prior to the birth of the child, continue to be US citizens at birth, and need take no special actions to retain citizenship.

Children born to one citizen parent and one foreign national will obtain citizenship at birth if the citizen parent resided in the US for five years before the birth, with two of those years after the age of 14.
The child does not need to take any special action to retain US citizenship.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother will be US citizens if the mother resided in the US for one year prior to the birth of the child.
Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father will acquire US citizenship if the following conditions are met:


• There is an established blood relationship between the father and the child,
  
  
• The father was a US citizen at the time of the birth,
  
  
• The father has agreed to financially support the child until it is 18, and
  
  
• Before the child is 18 it is legitimated, or the father acknowledges paternity in a document signed under oath

While these are general rules, Congress has continually amended and revised many laws relating to citizenship, particularly those dealing with the requirements for retention of citizenship.
If a person believes that they have a claim to US citizenship, they should consult with an attorney for a full examination of that possibility.

[RC one]

Another DemocRAT Underground Source written by the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF minions WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

hehehe. that's really funny actually because I actually pulled that source from right here at Free Republic back in 2012 when we were debating the NBC status of Obama.

That's gotta sting

[citizen352]

We may see a series of Presidents born outside of the United States. A new buzz phrase “global citizen” is cropping up. The Times they are a’ changing. Unfortunately all of this change is bad and for the wrong reason.

[nathanbedford]

Congressional grants are naturalization.

Wrong!

Congressional extension or reduction of the length of time or the gender of the parent (s) imputing citizenship to his or her child born abroad do not convert citizenship created at birth into a naturalization process.

That conclusion was standard of common law in Great Britain prior to the adoption the United States Constitution, that was hornbook law under Blackstone and other authorities, that was the understanding of the framers, that was the understanding of the first Congress which enacted the naturalization act of 1790.

That is the understanding of the overwhelming weight of authority today, that is the effect of congressional legislation controlling today.

[Yosemitest]

Oh Contraire;

"(CT:CON-522; 07-08-2014)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS/L)

Always verify your sources!

[RC one]

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.

While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship, amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child. Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.

Nowhere in all of those statutes do I see the words Natural Born Citizen.

[RC one]

I pulled it right off of a Free Republic post from January 31, 2012. You should take the time to read it before posting again.

[Yosemitest]

Have you any knowledge of WHY those changes were made ?
Don't you realize that this changes only CLARIFY the definition given by our Founding Fathers, and do it for the good of our Country ?

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW, a good start at the background and the reason for the changes, can be read at Act of March 26, 1790 eText.

... What happened next ...

The 1790 act mentioned nothing about the attitudes of new citizens toward government policy in the new democracy.
Soon after the 1790 act was passed, however, politics became an important consideration in giving immigrants the right to vote.
During the two terms of the nation's first president, George Washington (1732-1799; served 1789-97), two distinct political parties had begun to emerge.
... One party, led by Washington's successor, John Adams (1797-1801; served 1797-1801), was known as the Federalists.
The Federalist Party included Washington, Adams, and the nation's first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755-1804).
The Federalists supported a strong central (federal) government and were generally sympathetic to the interests of merchants in the cities.
An opposing faction, the Anti-Federalists (also called the Democratic-Republicans), were led by the country's third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826; served 1801-9).
The Anti-Federalists opposed giving the federal government more power than was absolutely needed.

In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law.
The new law required immigrants to wait five years (instead of two) to become a citizen
and to make a declaration of intention to become a citizen three years before becoming naturalized.
An immigrant who failed to make the declaration might have to wait more than five years after arrival in the United States to become a voter.
The 1795 law also required naturalized citizens to renounce any noble titles they might hold (such as "duke" or "countess")
and to promise not to be loyal to any foreign king or queen.
These measures were intended to ensure that new citizens would not secretly want to restore a king and an aristocracy, or individuals who inherit great wealth and special political privileges.

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.

For More Information

Books

Franklin, Frank G. The Legislative History of Naturalization in the United States. New York: Arno Press, 1969.

Jasper, Margaret C. The Law of Immigration. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 2000.

LeMay, Michael, and Elliot Robert Barkan, eds. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.

Periodicals

DeConcini, Christina, Jeanine S. Piller, and Margaret Fisher. "The Changing Face of Immigration Law." Social Education (November-December 1998): p. 462.

Web Sites

History, Genealogy and Education, U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/ (accessed on January 22, 2004).