tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post1610750494126026725..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: A Citizen is One Thing, But a Natural Born Citizen is AnotherMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-18677274864697364302016-02-22T23:16:09.472-05:002016-02-22T23:16:09.472-05:00Mario, thanks for your comments.
Regarding Rubio...Mario, thanks for your comments. <br /><br />Regarding Rubio, I would think anyone could change the citizenship example from Cuban citizens to say Iranian or Iraqi in order to make a point. If Rubio's parents were citizens of another country, not one so close by, perhaps folks would understand why it is important to have US citizen parents in order to be a NBC child.<br /><br />For Cruz, an issue that is in the papers is regarding a form that his parents - or mother - would have needed to complete in order for Cruz to be a US citizen born in Canada. However no one has been able to locate such a form from Cruz. The second part of the issue is in 1970, Canada did not recognize dual citizenship. So Cruz would have to be either Canadian or a US citizen. Without that form, Cruz would not be a US citizen. So in this example, Cruz was solely a Canadian citizen. When he renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014, Cruz would not be a citizen of any country. Without the correct forms from birth, he wouldn't be US citizen and after renouncing his Canadian citizenship, which reports have been made that, that is what Canada thought he was, he would be without any country. Do you see any reason this story or example might not be true? If it is true, how do we get the message out?<br /><br />DennisDLJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08842252970462016941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-275335535049096832016-02-21T18:53:11.237-05:002016-02-21T18:53:11.237-05:00John Murphy,
I wholeheartedly agree that, among ...John Murphy, <br /><br />I wholeheartedly agree that, among other cases, Rogers v. Bellei, in its majority and dissenting opinions, nicely demonstrates that Ted Cruz became a citizen of the United States at birth only by the grace of Congress as express in the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, without which he would have been an alien (unless he so qualified under any previous naturalization Act of Congress) and have so written in my briefs to the courts and in my various articles on this blog. Bellei also shows that a person who is made a citizen at birth through a naturalization Act of Congress can even lose that citizenship not satisfying the Act's conditions subsequent. <br /><br />There simply is no way that a natural born citizen draws his citizenship at birth status from a naturalization Act of Congress without which he would be an alien. There also is simply no way that Congress could ever take away a natural born citizen's status for failing to satisfy some condition subsequent, for there are no such conditions standing in the way of a natural born citizen maintaining his or her citizenship. <br /><br />Cruz misrepresents the law and his citizenship status, telling people that he was a citizen at birth and therefore can only be a natural born citizen. He fails to tell that it was only by virtue of a naturalization Act that he is a citizen at birth and not solely by virtue of his birth circumstances, which is the case for a natural born citizen. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-71993630981404583042016-02-21T18:16:12.917-05:002016-02-21T18:16:12.917-05:00It seems to me, Mario, that the Supreme Court case...It seems to me, Mario, that the Supreme Court case, Rogers v Bellei, is an ideal example to expose cruz. Bellei was born out of country (Italy) to a foreign (Italian) citizen father and an American citizen (?) mother. Both sides of the opinion (holding and dissent) conceded he was a citizen ONLY by statute and therefore a "naturalized" citizen. Cruz maintains the he ISN'T a "naturalized" citizen, yet this case's birth scenario mirrors exactly cruz's birth scenario.<br /><br />Your opinion?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025719999741778895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-43626554368233456992016-02-17T20:04:37.298-05:002016-02-17T20:04:37.298-05:00DLJ,
With our culture of political correctness, i...DLJ,<br /><br />With our culture of political correctness, it takes courage to say that anyone wanting to be President has to be born in the United States. It takes even more courage to say that the person also has to be born to two U.S. citizen parents. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-58486297495252232162016-02-17T18:27:43.432-05:002016-02-17T18:27:43.432-05:00Why has no one attacked Marco Rubio for being born...Why has no one attacked Marco Rubio for being born to two non-US Citizens. It seems pretty black and white that he does not meet the definition of Natural Born Citizen. I see he is a US Citizen, but not a NBC. Does this have anything to do to his parents being from Cuba? Do they have special rights that made them US Citizens without going through the Naturalization process? Why is this a silent subject?DLJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08842252970462016941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90438711937973780522016-02-17T18:27:30.603-05:002016-02-17T18:27:30.603-05:00Why has no one attacked Marco Rubio for being born...Why has no one attacked Marco Rubio for being born to two non-US Citizens. It seems pretty black and white that he does not meet the definition of Natural Born Citizen. I see he is a US Citizen, but not a NBC. Does this have anything to do to his parents being from Cuba? Do they have special rights that made them US Citizens without going through the Naturalization process? Why is this a silent subject?DLJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08842252970462016941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-65069401641389354022016-02-17T18:26:44.177-05:002016-02-17T18:26:44.177-05:00Why has no one attacked Marco Rubio for being born...Why has no one attacked Marco Rubio for being born to two non-US Citizens. It seems pretty black and white that he does not meet the definition of Natural Born Citizen. I see he is a US Citizen, but not a NBC. Does this have anything to do to his parents being from Cuba? Do they have special rights that made them US Citizens without going through the Naturalization process? Why is this a silent subject?DLJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08842252970462016941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-81997711282007149192016-02-14T18:16:27.155-05:002016-02-14T18:16:27.155-05:00A Simple Euler Logic Diagram Shows Logical Relatio...A Simple Euler Logic Diagram Shows Logical Relationship of Constitutional Article II “natural born Citizens” to Other Type “Citizens” of the United States | CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/euler-logic-diagram-shows-logical-relationship-of-constitutional-article-ii-natural-born-citizens-to-other-type-citizens-of-the-united-states/ CDR Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-54270719739327503492016-02-04T22:41:26.749-05:002016-02-04T22:41:26.749-05:00Breaking News: WOBC Website Launches Petition Camp...Breaking News: WOBC Website Launches Petition Campaign to Stop the Constitutionally Ineligible Canadian Born Ted Cruz | CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog<br />https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/breaking-news-wobc-website-launches-petition-campaign-to-stop-the-ineligible-canadian-born-ted-cruz/cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-11393747756915772342016-01-25T12:39:22.366-05:002016-01-25T12:39:22.366-05:00III of III
I'm somewhat new to in depth rese...III of III <br /><br />I'm somewhat new to in depth researching of this matter. In any event, my current opinion is that one must be born in the United States (-perhaps also in a U.S. embassy, military base, naval ship, etc.) to satisfy the U.S. constitutional requirement of “natural born Citizen” The question becomes to be natural - so obvious to be self-evident without need for a statute - what requirements if any would ALSO be required in the status of the parents. I tend to believe that each parent must have U.S. citizenship at the time of birth. Furthermore, in doubt, I’m inclined to follow what was probably the understanding of the majority of the signers/citizenry at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified (which apparently was Vattel (as quoted in the dissent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ))). Moreover, given that the President of the United States is in a unique position that includes the military role of Commander in Chief (and hence the existence of acute security / safety) it’s reasonable to tend to strive to maximize security. By the way, given that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was apparently repealed and replaced with the Naturalization Act of 1795 the following point is apparently for the most part currently moot (unless there would be an attempt to change the eligibility to be president via statute other than amendment (which would be illegitimate)). The U.S. Constitution requires a “natural born Citizen” and human statute is not the same as natural law. Thus, it seems impossible that the Naturalization Act of 1790 had any significance regarding the requirements to be eligible to be “President of the United States of America”. Thus, it is necessary to conclude that the Naturalization Act of 1790 intended to provide protection from discrimination (NOT including regarding eligibility for the “President of the United States of America”) for certain individuals not actually “natural born Citizen[s]” that such individuals “shall be considered as natural born citizens”. There must have been concern that since “natural born Citizen” is an optimal level of citizenship, that there may be undesirable discrimination. For example: If there would ever be a requirement for the Secretary of State to be a natural born citizen then would the child – born outside the jurisdiction of the United States to a U.S. ambassador and his/her U.S. citizen spouse – be prevented from becoming Secretary of State? However, with the Naturalization Act of 1795, apparently the Congress (when George Washington was still president) decided that there could be some scenario (in addition to the presidency) in which insisting on a “natural born Citizen” should not be prohibited. To provide a present day example: Would it be ipso facto wrong for the U.S. government to insist that a nuclear submarine be staffed with only natural born Citizens? If “the 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed” (only) because “the language “considered as” could be confused to implying people born over seas were actually really “natural born Citizens’” then why not simply include some sort of disclaimer? <br /><br /><br />By the way, prior to the censorship of my comments (that were displayed at https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/), apparently Commander Kerchner (or the blog editor) indicated that President George Washington signed both the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the Naturalization Act of 1795. Thus, it’s hard to believe that the use of the expression “natural born citizens” in the Naturalization Act of 1790 was an erroneous (printing error). Furthermore, although the Naturalization Act of 1795 apparently repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790 it doesn’t seem to indicate that the appeal was retroactive (ab initio) as apparently asserted by Commander Kerchner (or the blog editor). <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90830170608896285702016-01-25T12:38:19.126-05:002016-01-25T12:38:19.126-05:00II of III
I previously stated “As for those who ...II of III <br /><br />I previously stated “As for those who argue that being born in the United States would be the sole parameter to being a natural born Citizen that doesn’t seem reasonable – as highlighted by the discussion of anchor babies (as even having the right to remain in the United States); moreover, the 14th amendment is regarding citizenship and even if it would mean that an anchor baby is a citizen it doesn’t mean that an anchor baby would be a “natural born Citizen”. Indeed, the need for the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment indicates that birth does not mean citizenship by natural law (or as if by natural law because of its obviousness) – rather by the most powerful statute – a constitutional amendment – citizenship was granted to those who were not recognized as citizens during slavery.” Thus, I was surprised to read in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874), “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/88/162.html , https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html ) Indeed, subsequent to the 14th Amendment, it seems that the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor went out of its way to question what was apparently previously believed to be Natural Law. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor seems to be acknowledging the possibility that Natural Law dictates (i.e. it’s self-evident) citizenship for “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”. Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor was concerned about the possibility for discrimination against those who were not at their time of birth born to U.S. citizens under a pretext of maximizing security. Thus, in Minor the U.S. Supreme Court seems to be raising the question - what gives anyone, including Vattel, a monopoly on the representation of Natural Law? Indeed, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ), Vattel is apparently only cited by the dissent. However, I’m not persuaded; two wrongs don’t necessarily make a right. In any event, it is apparently undisputed that Ted Cruz’s place of birth was NOT in the United States. Indeed, whatever criteria are used to determine a “natural born Citizen” it doesn’t seem reasonable that it would yield a “natural born Citizen” of more than one country.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-34054044823345464742016-01-25T12:37:05.039-05:002016-01-25T12:37:05.039-05:00Revised Posting(s) (Note: Apparently, my comments ...Revised Posting(s) (Note: Apparently, my comments were censored (on or around 1/24/2006) from https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/)<br /><br />I of III<br /><br />In the Naturalization Act of 1790 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 ) it apparently states that ‘And the children of citizens of the United States, that mayibe born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, …’ ( http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf ). Some attempt to argue that this means that it is not necessary to be born in the United States to be a natural born Citizen. However, even in the Naturalization Act of 1790 it apparently states “children of citizens” – citizens in the plural (i.e. BOTH parents). Moreover, the expression “shall be considered as” implies a leniency (and thus actually supports that “natural born Citizen” as used in the U.S. Constitution is more stringent (i.e. it is also necessary to be born in the United States)). Also in 1795, the Congress apparently REPEALED and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790 (while George Washington was still the president) with the Naturalization Act of 1795 as elucidated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1795 . Indeed, in the Naturalization Act of 1795 the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ is apparently NOT used (http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg414a.pdf ). Thus, it clearly seems to be necessary to be born in the United States to parents both of whom are U.S. citizens to be a “natural born Citizen”. Indeed, as far back as 1898 the (dissent in the) U.S. Supreme Court (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) stated – “Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”” (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ). (Note: In the 1898 decision of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the quote from Vattel is apparently undisputed (in terms of the version of the text attributed to Vattel).) As for 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 ), I didn’t see the expression “natural born Citizen” used in 8 U.S. Code § 1401, and thus 8 U.S. Code § 1401 is apparently not relevant. Natural law seems to imply obviousness and thus a “natural born Citizen” seems to mean a born Citizen so obvious as not to require a statute. Apparently, the requirement for the president to be a “natural born Citizen” is a safeguard to maximize allegiance for this unique position (which includes the military role of Commander in Chief). There also seems to be a “widespread and long-standing” tradition (prior to Barack Hussein Obama II) of adherence to the requirement of a president being born in the United States to both parents who are U.S. citizens (unless someone managed to deceive us regarding his background) as apparently documented in http://www.votefortheconstitution.com/natural-born-citizen1.html ; http://www.judeochristianamerica.org/NaturalBornCitizen.htm .Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-10882686070533704842016-01-25T00:00:50.582-05:002016-01-25T00:00:50.582-05:00II of II
Just as alien women gained U.S. citizen...II of II <br /><br />Just as alien women gained U.S. citizenship by marriage, U.S.-born women often gained foreign nationality (and thereby lost their U.S. citizenship) by marriage to a foreigner. As the law increasingly linked women's citizenship to that of their husbands, the courts frequently found that U.S. citizen women expatriated themselves by marriage to an alien. For many years there was disagreement over whether a woman lost her U.S. citizenship simply by virtue of the marriage, or whether she had to actually leave the United States and take up residence with her husband abroad. Eventually it was decided that between 1866 and 1907 no woman lost her U.S. citizenship by marriage to an alien unless she left the United States. Yet this decision was probably of little comfort to some women who, resident in the United States since birth, had been unfairly treated as aliens since their marriages to noncitizens.(5) [5. Frederick A. Cleveland, American Citizenship as Distinguished from Alien Status (1927) pp. 65-66.]<br />http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html <br /><br />Under the 1855 Act, Churchill’s U.S. citizen mother would have lost her U.S. citizenship when she married her non-U.S. citizen husband and moved to England. Even if she did not lose her U.S. citizenship, Churchill could not become a citizen of the United States only through his U.S. citizen mother. <br /> <br />No one contended that Winston Churchill was a citizen of the United States, let alone a natural born citizen of the United States. Can we just imagine the Prime Minister of Great Britain being a natural born citizen and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military? But yet, Ted Cruz wants us to accept that he, born under the same birth circumstances as Winston Churchill, but under a different naturalization Act, the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act which allowed a child born out of the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and non-U.S. citizen father to be a “citizen” of the United States at birth, is a natural born citizen and constitutionally eligible to be President. So, just because a naturalization Act made him a citizen of the United States when a naturalization Act did not make Churchill as citizen of the United States, Cruz wants us to believe that under that naturalization Act he is an Article II natural born citizen and that such a proposition has been settled law since the framing of the Constitution. Sure, Ted, just like you did not know that you were a Canadian citizen. <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-11716769037541190592016-01-24T23:59:10.463-05:002016-01-24T23:59:10.463-05:00I of II
Ted Cruz tells us that it has been settl...I of II <br /><br />Ted Cruz tells us that it has been settled law since the ratification of the Constitution that a child born out of the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father like him is a natural born citizen. <br /><br />I read a comment by Ghost posted on January 17, 2016 at http://theconservativemonster.com/constitutional-lawyer-mario-apuzzo-cruz-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen/ , which asked: “was Winston Churchill eligible to become President of the United States?<br /><br />Churchill’s mother was an American citizen! of High Society Brooklyn and NYC.” This question led me to investigate the matter and this is what I found. <br />Churchill was born in Woodstock, Oxfordshire, England, on November 30, 1874, to Lady Randolph Churchill (née Jennie Jerome), who was born in the United States, and to Lord Randolph Churchill, a British citizens. Hence, Churchill was like Cruz born out of the United States to what Cruz would consider a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. <br /> <br />In 1963, Churchill was named an Honorary Citizen of the United States by An Act to proclaim Sir Winston Churchill an honorary citizen of the United States of America, Public Law 88-6/H.R. 4374; 88th Congress (1963) (9 April 1963). "H.R. 4374 (88th)". Wikipedia also reports: “On 29 November 1995, during a visit to the United Kingdom, President Bill Clinton of the United States announced to both Houses of Parliament that an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer would be named the USS Winston S. Churchill. This was the first United States warship to be named after a non-citizen of the United States since 1975.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill . <br /> <br />Being born in 1874, the Naturalization Act of 1855 would have applied to Churchill when he was born. On February 10, 1855, Congress enacted "An Act to Secure the Right of Citizenship to Children of Citizens of the United States Born Out of the Limits Thereof," (10 Stat.604). This Act stated, in part, that: “persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.” Under that Act, children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen fathers were considered as “citizens” of the United States. Under this Act, U.S. citizen mothers were not capable to transmit their U.S. citizenship to their children born out of the United States to non-U.S. citizen fathers. It was only in 1934 that Congress allowed U.S. citizen mothers to be able to make such children citizens of the United States. <br /> <br />The 1855 Act also provided that a U.S. citizen woman marrying an alien husband made her an alien like her husband. We have this explanation on that Act: <br /> <br />Continued . . . <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-84537500521721996442016-01-24T22:08:02.251-05:002016-01-24T22:08:02.251-05:00To be President of the United States via the U.S. ...<br />To be President of the United States via the U.S. Constitution's "natural born Citizen" clause it is necessary be born in the United States (-perhaps also in a U.S. embassy, military base, naval ship, etc.) etc. (as I already previously indicated) That being said there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires or prohibits a natural born Citizen for certain other conceivable positions (such as an ambassador or an admiral etc.) Thus, the Naturalization Act of 1790 apparently intended to provide protection from discrimination (NOT including regarding eligibility for the “President of the United States of America”) for certain individuals not actually “natural born Citizen[s]” that such individuals “shall be considered as natural born citizens”. Do you believe it would be possible to get a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding natural born Citizen by piggybacking the issue to an applicable case(s) that was already accepted by and is pending with the U.S. Supreme Court? <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-83659545433675336002016-01-24T21:07:59.048-05:002016-01-24T21:07:59.048-05:00Robert Pilchman,
Do you believe that being born ...Robert Pilchman, <br /><br />Do you believe that being born or reputed born in the United States is necessary to be a natural born citizen? Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-38958045232686304872016-01-24T19:52:25.152-05:002016-01-24T19:52:25.152-05:00I'm somewhat new to in depth researching this ...<br />I'm somewhat new to in depth researching this matter. In any event, my current opinion is that one must be born in the United States (-perhaps also in a U.S. embassy, military base, naval ship, etc. The question becomes to be natural - so obvious to be self-evident without need for a statute - what requirements if any would be required in the status of the parents. I tend to believe that each parent must have U.S. citizenship. Furthermore, in doubt, I’m inclined to follow what was probably the understanding of the majority of the signers/citizenry at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified (which apparently was Vattel (as quoted in the dissent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ))). Moreover, given that the President of the United States is in a unique position that includes the military role of Commander in Chief (and hence the existence of acute security / safety) it’s reasonable to tend to strive to maximize security. By the way, given that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was apparently repealed and replaced with the Naturalization Act of 1795 the following point is apparently for the most part currently moot (unless there would be an attempt to change the eligibility to be president via statute other than amendment (which would be illegitimate)). The U.S. Constitution requires a “natural born Citizen” and human statute is not the same as natural law. Thus, it seems impossible that the Naturalization Act of 1790 had any significance regarding the requirements to be eligible to be “President of the United States of America”. Thus, it is necessary to conclude that the Naturalization Act of 1790 intended to provide protection from discrimination (NOT including regarding eligibility for the “President of the United States of America”) for certain individuals not actually “natural born Citizen[s]” that such individuals “shall be considered as natural born citizens”. There must have been concern that since “natural born Citizen” is an optimal level of citizenship, that there may be undesirable discrimination. For example: If there would ever be a requirement for the Secretary of State to be a natural born citizen then would the child – born outside the jurisdiction of the United States to a U.S. ambassador and his/her U.S. citizen spouse – be prevented from becoming Secretary of State? However, with the Naturalization Act of 1795, apparently the Congress (when George Washington was still president) decided that there could be some scenario (in addition to the presidency) in which insisting on a “natural born Citizen” should not be prohibited. To provide a present day example: Would it be ipso facto wrong for the U.S. government to insist that a nuclear submarine be staffed with only natural born Citizens? If “the 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed” (only) because “the language “considered as” could be confused to implying people born over seas were actually really “natural born Citizens’” then why not simply include some sort of disclaimer?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-5236927953666164322016-01-24T15:32:12.836-05:002016-01-24T15:32:12.836-05:00Robert Pilchman,
Please provide your definition ...Robert Pilchman, <br /><br />Please provide your definition of an Article II natural born citizen. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-53361502301358549192016-01-24T13:28:19.044-05:002016-01-24T13:28:19.044-05:00
I previously stated “As for those who argue that ...<br />I previously stated “As for those who argue that being born in the United States would be the sole parameter to being a natural born Citizen that doesn’t seem reasonable – as highlighted by the discussion of anchor babies (as even having the right to remain in the United States); moreover, the 14th amendment is regarding citizenship and even if it would mean that an anchor baby is a citizen it doesn’t mean that an anchor baby would be a “natural born Citizen”. Indeed, the need for the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment indicates that birth does not mean citizenship by natural law (or as if by natural law because of its obviousness) – rather by the most powerful statute – a constitutional amendment – citizenship was granted to those who were not recognized as citizens during slavery.” (https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/ted-cruz-is-missing-two-legs-the-three-legged-stool-test-for-natural-born-citizen/#comments ). Thus, I was surprised to read in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874), “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/88/162.html , https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html ) Indeed, subsequent to the 14th Amendment, it seems that the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor went out of its way to question what was apparently previously believed to be Natural Law. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor seems to be acknowledging the possibility that Natural Law dictates (i.e. it’s self-evident) citizenship for “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”. Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor was concerned about the possibility for discrimination against those who were not at their time of birth born to U.S. citizens under a pretext of maximizing security (Note: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/a-new-crs-memo-re-qualifications-for-president-and-natural-born-citizen-clause-2016-version/#comment-4668 ) . Thus, in Minor the U.S. Supreme Court seems to be raising the question - what gives anyone, including Vattel, a monopoly on the representation of Natural Law? Indeed, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ), Vattel is apparently only cited by the dissent. However, I’m not persuaded; two wrongs don’t necessarily make a right. In any event, it is apparently undisputed that Ted Cruz’s place of birth was NOT in the United States. Indeed, whatever criteria are used to determine a “natural born Citizen” it doesn’t seem reasonable that it would yield a “natural born Citizen” of more than one country.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-48518513382041844152016-01-24T02:39:21.276-05:002016-01-24T02:39:21.276-05:00
In the Naturalization Act of 1790 ( https://en.wi...<br />In the Naturalization Act of 1790 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 ) it apparently states that ‘And the children of citizens of the United States, that mayibe born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, …’ ( http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf ). Some attempt to argue that this means that it is not necessary to be born in the United States to be a natural born Citizen. However, even in the Naturalization Act of 1790 it apparently states “children of citizens” – citizens in the plural (i.e. BOTH parents). Moreover, the expression “shall be considered as” implies a leniency (and thus actually supports that “natural born Citizen” as used in the U.S. Constitution is more stringent (i.e. it is also necessary to be born in the United States)). Also in 1795, the Congress apparently REPEALED and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790 (while George Washington was still the president) with the Naturalization Act of 1795 as elucidated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1795 . Indeed, in the Naturalization Act of 1795 the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ is apparently NOT used (http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg414a.pdf ). Thus, it clearly seems to be necessary to be born in the United States to parents both of whom are U.S. citizens to be a “natural born Citizen”. Indeed, as far back as 1898 the (dissent in the) U.S. Supreme Court (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) stated – “Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”” (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ). (Note: In the 1898 decision of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the quote from Vattel is apparently undisputed (in terms of the version of the text attributed to Vattel).) As for 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 ), I didn’t see the expression “natural born Citizen” used in 8 U.S. Code § 1401, and thus 8 U.S. Code § 1401 is apparently not relevant. Natural law seems to imply obviousness and thus a “natural born Citizen” seems to mean a born Citizen so obvious as not to require a statute. Apparently, the requirement for the president to be a “natural born Citizen” is a safeguard to maximize allegiance for this unique position (which includes the military role of Commander in Chief). There also seems to be a “widespread and long-standing” tradition (prior to Barack Hussein Obama II) of adherence to the requirement of a president being born in the United States to both parents who are U.S. citizens (unless someone managed to deceive us regarding his background) as apparently documented in http://www.votefortheconstitution.com/natural-born-citizen1.html ; http://www.judeochristianamerica.org/NaturalBornCitizen.htm . Please see https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/ted-cruz-is-missing-two-legs-the-three-legged-stool-test-for-natural-born-citizen/<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-6957895566723933172016-01-23T23:58:45.044-05:002016-01-23T23:58:45.044-05:00Carlyle,
The Framers defined a natural born citi...Carlyle, <br /><br />The Framers defined a natural born citizen as a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Such a child became a natural born citizen by the mere circumstances of his or her birth, i.e., born in the country to citizen parents, and without the aid of any positive law. Tying this citizenship status to future presidential eligibility, it is the ceiling standard of U.S. citizenship. It is preposterous to maintain that the Framers would have subsequently allowed different and diluted versions of a natural born citizen to be created at different times by some positive law. Rather, what the Framers did allow was for Congress in matters of citizenship to be given only the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. That power did not include the power to make natural born citizens, but did include the power to make more citizens of the United States by adopting whom the common law viewed as aliens or foreigners as citizens of the United States, either at birth or after birth. <br /><br />For children born either in or out of the United States, Congress since 1790 exercised its naturalization power by statute over those who were not natural born citizens and therefore in need of naturalization, without the constraints of the Constitution and therefore as and when it pleased. <br /><br />Congress constitutionalized its naturalization of certain persons born in the United States who were not natural born citizens, through the 1868 ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the first sentence of this Amendment, Congress provided that "[a]ll 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." This Amendment also protects the citizenship status of the natural born citizens, who being born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents, also satisfy the place of birth and jurisdiction requirements of the Amendment. Therefore, for children born in the United States, Congress’s naturalization power is limited by the dictates of the Fourteenth Amendment which sets a floor standard of being a citizen of the United States by birth in the United States while subject to the jurisdiction thereof. At most, what Congress can do under the Amendment, consistent with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), is determine who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. <br /><br />In short, only those children who are born or reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents (father and mother who are both either natural born citizens of the United States or citizens of the United States) are natural born citizens. All the rest of the U.S. citizens are citizens of the United States, either at birth or after birth, under either the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Act of Congress or treaty, as the case may be. <br /><br />Barack Obama (presumably), Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikki Haley are all citizens of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of the floor standard of U.S. citizenship established by the Fourteenth Amendment. Ted Cruz (presumably) is also a citizen of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress. While they are all citizens of the United States at birth under these positive laws, since none of them were born in the United States to a U.S. citizen father and mother, none are natural born citizens of the United States, the ceiling standard of U.S. citizenship. Consequently, none are constitutionally eligible to be President or Vice-President.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-10407942559347046062016-01-23T11:17:15.685-05:002016-01-23T11:17:15.685-05:00THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT
I like Ted Cruz, but he...THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT<br /><br />I like Ted Cruz, but he definitely is NOT a natural born citizen. While there may be some debate as to precisely what NBC means, the one thing that is undeniable is that a NBC must be a citizen in a "natural" manner - i.e. NOT the result of a positive law. e.g. you can make a law that says, under certain circumstances, a person becomes a citizen at birth. That makes you "naturalized at birth", but cannot make you "natural at birth".<br /><br />If TC is elected as the candidate, contrary to the spineless Repubs who refused to go after BHO, the Dems will absolutely crucify TC. Not only that, they will have the full force of the MSM in shrill voice, as well.<br /><br />http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/motion-demands-cruz-be-removed-from-illinois-ballot/<br /><br />Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-42198729677848785802016-01-23T08:58:28.927-05:002016-01-23T08:58:28.927-05:00William St. George,
1. Becoming a citizen of a f...William St. George, <br /><br />1. Becoming a citizen of a foreign country does not necessarily cause a U.S. citizen to lose his or her U.S. citizenship. The requirements for renouncing U.S. citienship may be found here: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html . Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law governing the right of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily<br /><br />"(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state , in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State" (emphasis added).<br /><br />You can go to the site to read the full details. The question is even if Cruz's mother became a Canadian citizen, did she legally renounce her U.S. citizenship prior to Ted Cruz's birth? <br /><br />2. U.S. citizen parents on diplomatic or military service out of the United States are still dependent on the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Hence, they are found not to have quitted the U.S. territory. Therefore, children born to such parents out of the United States are reputed born in the United States. Being reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents, those children are natural born citizens. See Vattel, Section 212 and 217 of the Law of Nations. <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-56310252215097429082016-01-22T23:04:16.057-05:002016-01-22T23:04:16.057-05:001. The Cruz mystery deepens. If the mother did be...1. The Cruz mystery deepens. If the mother did become a Canadian citizen did that automatically nullify her US citizenship? True, to be a Canadian citizen one could not be the citizen of another nation--but if she acquired her Canadian citizenship by marriage she may not have done anything by way of renouncing her US citizenship. And it would be US law that determined the status of her US citizenship at that time, not Canadian. Anyway Cruz fails the natural born citizen test.<br /><br />2. Since the question concerns loyalty and allegiance, it seems that born to a diplomat overseas would not give the person allegiance to a foreign nation. The same surely would be true of military families. Is there a suggestion that born outside US territory will not work even in these cases? If born in an Embassy? If born on a military base? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13458690256053943151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-57169212728516312422016-01-21T17:23:04.321-05:002016-01-21T17:23:04.321-05:00Surprised that there may be an honest professor at...Surprised that there may be an honest professor at Harvard.Have seen some blogs which claim Cruz may be stateless.The claim is that his parents became Canadian citizens and voted in Canadian elections in 1972 and 1974. Further claim was that Canada did not recognize dual citizenship at that time so Cruz was born to Canadian citizens on Canadian soil and was not a US citizen. Then he recently renounced his Canadian citizenship.Was he ever naturalized? Is he stateless? Is there a commentor able to clarify this? thanks old Marine Phil Stonephil stonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798840335706659721noreply@blogger.com