Defining “Natural Born Citizen”

american-flag-2a
618
INTERACTIONS

The Debate Over Who Qualifies To Run For President

In order to qualify to be President, the US Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  So what defines a “natural born citizen.”  The answer has not been so simple over the years.  The framers left it fairly vague and up to us to interpret throughout our history, and it is an issue that has gone back and forth.

This has all been brought into question as a result of one man whom various media outlets have kept an eye on that he might try to run for President in 2016.  The man in question is freshman Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father.  His parents were working in the oil business there.  (This will be addressed later on.)  Cruz’s father did not become a US citizen until 2005.  So though he has made trips to Iowa and the media seems to be watching him quite closely, does he even meet the qualifications of being a natural born citizen?

145731159_640Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This still only leaves a very vague definition for what constitutes a natural born citizen.  So now we look toward Section 5 of the 14th Amendment which states, ” The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  It should also be noted that under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US Constitution, Congress has authority to create law regarding naturalization which includes citizenship.

So now we know that Congress, under the 14th Amendment, can write legislation declaring what constitutes a natural born citizen. And yes, that means that there will be legal challenges and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will have to make sure such legislation does not violate the Constitution in any way… including Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.  In the case Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Court ruled, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

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 parents.”

Now though the Constitution is vague in what constitutes a natural born citizen, Congess has stepped in to attempt to fill in the gap.  Under Title 8 of the US Code, Section 1401 defines the following as citizens of the United States upon birth… or natural born citizens:

  • Anyone born inside the United States.  The person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.  (This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.)
  • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
  • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

By the conditions just laid out, it would appear that Senator Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for President as he would not qualify as a natural born citizen since only one of the parents was a citizen of the US.  However, there still exists one more historical clause which will challenge this argument.  The clause states, “a person born before May 24, 1934 of an alien father and a US citizen mother who has lived in the US” is a citizen.  Does this change the argument?  If it is grouped with Section 1401 of Title 8 of the US Code, then it would appear so.

Currently, citizenship in the US is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.  The most recent changes to statutory law was done by Congress in 2001.  So since this most recent debate has circulated around Sen. Cruz, I am going to focus on one particular section… birth abroad to one US citizen.  There are a certain set of rules for those born after November 14, 1986, but I’m focusing on the rules at the time of Cruz’s birth which are the rules that were in effect from December 24, 1952 – November 14, 1986.  A person born abroad between those dates is a US citizen upon birth if all of the following are true:

  1. The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
  2. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
  3. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
  4. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

By these very definitions of the law, it would appear that Sen. Cruz is a natural born citizen and thus meets the qualifications to run for President if he decided to do so.  This also does one more thing, as well.  In regards to President Obama, if the “birther” theory had been proven correct (and I’m not saying that it is) in that he had been born in Kenya (instead of Hawaii) to his US mother and his Kenyan father, he would still qualify as a natural born citizen.

image005As I stated at the beginning, this issue is a complicated mess.  The Framers left it vague when they wrote the Constitution.  Did they do it because they couldn’t foresee our future situations or was it so we could make such a determination as our nation progressed?  One can only really speculate on that.  Regardless, we have done our best to set forth a definition, and one that holds for all Americans… born here and born abroad.  The laws have changed throughout our history, and they will probably change again in our future.  For now, we go by the laws which we have… the laws in which we live by… the laws that govern our society.  They apply to us all equally.  In this confusing mixture, I hope there has been some small sense to the issue and that now we can have a better understanding of it.

The Independent Voter Network is dedicated to providing political analysis, unfiltered news, and rational commentary in an effort to elevate the level of our public discourse.


Learn More About IVN

Leave a Comment
  1. davidfarrar1 There is no question ascriptive allegiance (jus solis) is antithetical to the American ethos of consent and individual natural rights (jus sanguinis). The question now is; how, and why, have our courts arrived at ascriptive allegiance rather than allegiance by 'consent' and individual natural rights? This is the question, unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, Sen. Cruz's ineligibility will thrust upon us and one history will largely judge Sen. Cruz upon. ex animo davidfarrar
  2. cfkerchner franknnnstein There is a logical difference between a basic "Citizen" at birth per statutory, positive laws made by man and a "natural born Citizen" at birth per natural law and the laws of nature. The U.S. presidential eligibility clause calls for a "natural born Citizen", not simply a Citizen, at birth or otherwise. It takes two citizen parents to procreate and natural born Citizen. A second generation American via both Citizen parents. This was required by the founders and framers to minimize chances of foreign influences on the child due to non-Citizen parents. Its a matter of sole allegiance to the USA at birth as to whom can be in commander in chief of our military. Read this essay regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ Also read: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus — Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and Part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ
  3. franknnnstein Mr. Spurgeon comes to the following conclusion regarding Ted Cruz's eligibility: "By the conditions just laid out, it would appear that Senator Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for President as he would not qualify as a natural born citizen since only one of the parents was a citizen of the US."  However, in the provision immediately preceding his conclusion, it states, "Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)."  Add to this the fact that Mr. Spurgeon noted early in the article that "Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father."  So, even if Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and even if his father is Cuban, that fact that Ted Cruz's mother was an American citizen would, by the last provision, make him eligible to run for President.  I am not here campaigning for Ted Cruz.  His merits or lack there of are not the point here.  The question is seeking clarity regarding what constitutes eligibility regarding running for President of the USA.
  4. PeterLettkeman D Randall Radphord Howard  John Jay was an avid reader of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758).  In this book the definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is can be found http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=z8b8rrzRc7AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=vattel%27s+law+of+nations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RZUcUtupHcr4kAXL6oGAAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=natural%20born%20citizen&f=false p. 101 in section 212. Section 212 provides us with insight as to Jays wording of his letter back to Washington “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” After seeing the draft language by Alexander Hamilton of the requirements to be President, John Jay wrote this in his letter to George Washington dated 25 July 1787 here. “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”    Another argument is that Vattel was not talking about natural born Citizens in “The Laws of Nations” because naturels was only translated that way after the Constitution was written. In the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 27 July 1781 you will find “A memorial from the honable the Minister of France” was read. In the Translation you will find the word naturels translated to natural born almost six years prior to the adoption of the Constitution.   Was Vattel a favorite book of some of the founders, and may have been influential in the development of our Constitution? Judging by this http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DelVol02.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=459&division=div1  from Benjamin Franklin to Charles William Frederic Dumas dated 9 December, 1775 it looks to be so.” I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.     From http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=7PiHOIxUpX8C&pg=PA178&dq=vattel%27s+law+of+nations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l5YcUprzLYWGkAXer4GIBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=vattel%27s%20law%20of%20nations&f=false, p.178“ In the United States, it was said: At the time of the American Revolution the work of Vattel was the latest and most popular, if not the most authoritative, of the continental writers. Citations of Grotius, Pufendorf, and Vattel are scattered in about equal measures in the writings of the time. Possibly, after the Revolution Vattel is cited more frequently than his predecessors.” Jesse Reeves, “The influence of the Law of Nature upon International Law in the United States”, in Vol. III, American Journal of International Law (Washington, 1909), p. 549.  Also during this period who was a member of the Congress Franklin spoke of? It was John Jay a Delegate to the Continental Congress, 1774-76 from New York, Member of the New York Constitutional Convention, First Chief Justice of New York, 1777; Delegate and elected President of Continental Congress, 1778.” If they received a copy of it in 1775 then by the time the Constitution was adopted it had been in their hands for over a decade.   The framers sought to prevent the influence of foreign governments or monarchies and wrote in to the Constitution http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html the Natural Born Citizen clause ” No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”   This clause and its wording were a direct result of a conversation in letters, specifically this http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1 between http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/jay.htm and George Washington as quoted above.   For those that do not know of John Jay and his importance in the drafting of the Constitution I present the following.  John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were the writers of The Federalist, or more popularly known as The Federalist Papers, where they articulated to the people of New York why they should support the ratification of the Constitution. John Adams later said in reference to who was the most influential proponent of constitutional reform that Jay was http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/jay_constitution.html
  5. PeterLettkeman D Randall Radphord Howard Only one place is the term natural born Citizen defined and that is the "Swiss" Emmerich De Vattel's The laws of nations “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”  Instead of retyping what I already have saved I will cut and paste from my previous research.    This clause and its wording were a direct result of a conversation in letters, specifically this http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1 between http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/jay.htm and George Washington.   For those that do not know of John Jay and his importance in the drafting of the Constitution I present the following.  John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were the writers of The Federalist, or more popularly known as The Federalist Papers, where they articulated to the people of New York why they should support the ratification of the Constitution. John Adams later said in reference to who was the most influential proponent of constitutional reform that Jay was http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/jay_constitution.html http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DelVol02.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=459&division=div1  http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=7PiHOIxUpX8C&pg=PA178&dq=vattel%27s+law+of+nations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l5YcUprzLYWGkAXer4GIBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw%23v=onepage&q=vattel%27s%20law%20of%20nations&f=false http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1 http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/jay.htm http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/jay_constitution.html http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1 http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/jay.htm http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/jay_constitution.html http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=z8b8rrzRc7AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=vattel%27s+law+of+nations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RZUcUtupHcr4kAXL6oGAAg&redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&q=natural%20born%20citizen&f=false
  6. PeterLettkeman The diagram that you posted along with a explanation can be found here. http://www.scribd.com/doc/76900058/Flier-Handout-Obama-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-Support-Article-II-Super-PAC
  7. PeterLettkeman James Spurgeon why did you put the diagram in the article and not discuss or explain what it means?  If you understand the diagram it show that to be a natural born Citizen requires both of your parents and you to be born in the USA to be a natural born citizen. Any factors that deviate put you outside the center.
  8. PeterLettkeman andybuzz2u The author posts the diagram that supports what Kmat says but doesn't address it in the article. To be a natural born Citizen requires both parents to be citizens and the child to be born in the country. That is what they area in the middle of the diagram represents.
  9. hopkinstom12 andybuzz2u JimNiner Obama has never never presented a Birth Certificate! He has presented a Certificate of Live Birth. They do not have equal standing in Hawaii. Furthermore, twenty five forensic document experts have proven Obama's Certificate of Live Birth to be a poor forgery. So tell us what kind of citizen presents forged birth documents?  THE ONLY DEFINITION THE SUPREME COURT HAS EVER USED FOR "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" IS: ALL CHILDREN BORN IN THE COUNTRY OF CITIZEN PARENTS! PERIOD! That has been law for atleast 135 years.
  10. andybuzz2u grf1939 andybuzz2u JoyceClemons mrrmwright Right.
134 comments
davidfarrar1
davidfarrar1

There is no question ascriptive allegiance (jus solis) is antithetical to the American ethos of consent and individual natural rights (jus sanguinis). The question now is; how, and why, have our courts arrived at ascriptive allegiance rather than allegiance by 'consent' and individual natural rights?

This is the question, unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, Sen. Cruz's ineligibility will thrust upon us and one history will largely judge Sen. Cruz upon.


ex animo

davidfarrar


franknnnstein
franknnnstein

Mr. Spurgeon comes to the following conclusion regarding Ted Cruz's eligibility: "By the conditions just laid out, it would appear that Senator Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for President as he would not qualify as a natural born citizen since only one of the parents was a citizen of the US."  However, in the provision immediately preceding his conclusion, it states, "Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)."  Add to this the fact that Mr. Spurgeon noted early in the article that "Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father."  So, even if Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and even if his father is Cuban, that fact that Ted Cruz's mother was an American citizen would, by the last provision, make him eligible to run for President. 


I am not here campaigning for Ted Cruz.  His merits or lack there of are not the point here.  The question is seeking clarity regarding what constitutes eligibility regarding running for President of the USA.  

PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

James Spurgeon why did you put the diagram in the article and not discuss or explain what it means?  If you understand the diagram it show that to be a natural born Citizen requires both of your parents and you to be born in the USA to be a natural born citizen. Any factors that deviate put you outside the center. 

andybuzz2u
andybuzz2u

  • Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time) may serve president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, recently in the case of potential 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R - Texas), who was born in Canada to Cuban-born father and a U.S-born mother. 
  • One must also be at least 35 years of age to be president. John F. Kennedy was the youngest person to be elected president; he was 43 years old when he was inaugurated in 1961. There is no maximum age limit set forth in the Constitution. Ronald Reagan was the oldest president; at the end of his term in 1988, he was nearly 77. 
  • Finally, one must live in the United States for at least 14 years to be president, in addition to being a natural-born citizen. The Constitution is vague on this point. For example, it does not make clear whether those 14 years need to be consecutive or what the precise definition of residency is. So far, however, this requirement has not been challenged.

Kmat
Kmat

Natural Born Citizen as defined when the Constitution was written.

        Mother must be US Citizen

         Father must be US Citizen

         Child must be born on US Soil - Changed to be US Sovereign Soil.

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) Chapter 19, §212

This Book was used daily and the US Constitution could not have been written without it per Ben Franklin.  

Neither Cruz of Obama are eligible to be President, they are both Citizen of the United States by their CHOICE but they are Not Natural Born Citizen.  Natural Born Citizen do not Choose to be US Citizens because they do not have a choice of Citizenship.

mrrmwright
mrrmwright

nope , sorry james, if obama had been born in kenya he would not be a natural born citizen. in 1961 it required 5 years of us residence from the age of 14 . 5 plus 14 = 19 and stanley was 18 when she gave birth. ouch 

GlennPChickering
GlennPChickering

wow your research is lacking, the supreme court  has stated if the parent is female  who is the citizen  than a child born in a foreign jurisdiction will be a natural born citizen however if the parent of us citizen ship is male  than this male must claim child as his before his 18th birthday   wish I could remember the case however it was about a father and son and son was born elsewhere  and ended up deported to live with relatives and poor kid only spoke English  I believe it was between 20-30 years ago

Vicki
Vicki

I don't understand your math concerning Barack Obama and is citizenship.  His mother was 19 when he was born.  According to your article, she would have to have resided in the US for at least 5 years after her 14th birthday.  If he was born in what is now known as Kenya, his citizenship would depend on how long she had been in Kenya before his birth.  If she had been there for longer than 9 months, by your definition, he would not qualify.

PatriciaTeel
PatriciaTeel

A Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the US to parents that were born in the US .I should know. I am a true natural born citizen. My mothers ancestor was one of the first to settle in Jamestown VA in the early 1600s. She had more than one ancestor that fought in the Revolutionary War. My father's ancestors arrived in 1751 and one fought in the Revolutionary War. All my ancestors since then have been born in the USA, including one Seminole Indian. In my opinion, as much as I love Ted and for as much as I dislike Obama, neither qualify for president. BOTH had fathers that were NOT born here, so they are NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS !.

Surly Curmudgen
Surly Curmudgen

"Citizen at birth" is not the equal of "natural born citizen"

To be a natural born citizen the citizenship must be singular and beyond any doubt. You can not be born on foreign soil as that raises the possibility of dual citizenship. Your father can not be of British citizenship as that makes you a dual citizen. Your father can not be of Cuban citizenship as that makes you a dual citizen.

To be a natural born citizen, not just a citizen, you must have all three legs of the stool. First you must be born on US soil. Second your mother must be a US citizen at your birth. Third your father must be a US citizen at your birth.

US citizenship alone can be attained by any one of the three.

cfkerchner
cfkerchner

@franknnnstein There is a logical difference between a basic "Citizen" at birth per statutory, positive laws made by man and a "natural born Citizen" at birth per natural law and the laws of nature. The U.S. presidential eligibility clause calls for a "natural born Citizen", not simply a Citizen, at birth or otherwise. It takes two citizen parents to procreate a "natural born Citizen".  Laws of nature. It takes two tigers to make a tiger.  Two lions to make a lion.  The founders and framers wanted future presidents and CinCs to be a second generation American via both Citizen parents. This was required by the founders and framers to minimize chances of foreign influences on the child due to non-Citizen parents. Its a matter of sole allegiance to the USA at birth as to whom can be in commander in chief of our military. Read this essay regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ Also read: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus — Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and Part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

Kmat
Kmat

@andybuzz2u Native-Born US Citizen is not the same as a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.  Native-born US Citizen is a US Citizen either 

Born in the US

or Mother is US Citizen

or Father is US Citizen


Natural Born Citizen is a US Citizen who was 

   born in the US, 

and Mother is a US Citizen

and Father is a US Citizen

That was the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" when the Constitution was written and has not been change within the Constitution.

The Uneducated Public and Press may have change the Definition, but that don't make it so.




andybuzz2u
andybuzz2u

@Kmat Obama's mother never renounced her citizenship. Cruz's mother did. 2nd, Obama was a Natural Born Citizen with his first breath. YOU need to read up more on this.

JoyceClemons
JoyceClemons

@mrrmwright  Even if he was born in Hawaii, as he claims, he had duel citizenship at birth, and that means , oh yes, he would be a citizen jus sanguis, and jus solie and a subject of the UK, just sanguis, and not jus solie from his father. However, he wasn't a natural born citizen as intended by the founders, who used the natural born citizen definition of Vattel, and not the British Common Law, which was all about subjects. For obvious reasons. Franklin made it clear that Vattel was a key reference, since distancing the US from British Common Law wherever possible was desirable.

mrrmwright
mrrmwright

@Vicki nope she got preg at 17 and was 18 when stanley gave birth

andybuzz2u
andybuzz2u

@Surly Curmudgen Really? So i have been lied to for 43 going on 44 years that i am not A Natural Born Citizen because my dad was american and my mom German, and i was born on Ramstein Air Force base, literally, and have spent the last 42 years in Texas? I want a hell of a tax refund then, cause your government has stolen plenty from me.


If you think Obama could not legally hold the office, do you really think they would have sworn him in? Hell no.

GlennPChickering
GlennPChickering

@Surly Curmudgen pleas show me such a law or a supreme court case that backs your opinion the law is more complicated than  one might think  and  children born of one parent out of wedlock are considered moms nationality  if born after 1952  and  you are either a natural born citizen or become nationalized which also can depend on age and registration but I see nothing saying both parents have to be American citizens

again  the supreme court will have to decide this issue I seen arguments on both sides of the coin  

RestlessNativ
RestlessNativ

@Surly Curmudgen I don't think I've ever agreed with the Curmudgen (though it's usually a less concrete more emotional issue...), but I agree wholeheartedly with him here

GlennPChickering
GlennPChickering

@Surly Curmudgen sorry but no where has the constitution or the supreme court say both parents have to be a US citizen  also natural born   is not what it says  it says naturalized the meaning being citizen at birth, the only way to settle the argument is for the supreme court  to take up the matter 

pugilist66
pugilist66

Apparently, you haven't read up on this matter before. But, good try lib.

andybuzz2u
andybuzz2u

@Kmat @andybuzz2u Really? So i have been lied to for 43 going on 44 years that i am not A Natural Born Citizen because my dad was american and my mom German, and i was born on Ramstein Air Force base, literally, and have spent the last 42 years in Texas? I want a hell of a tax refund then, cause your government has stolen plenty from me.


If you think Obama could not legally hold the office, do you really think they would have sworn him in? Hell no.

PeterLettkeman
PeterLettkeman

@andybuzz2u The author posts the diagram that supports what Kmat says but doesn't address it in the article. To be a natural born Citizen requires both parents to be citizens and the child to be born in the country. That is what they area in the middle of the diagram represents. 

JoyceClemons
JoyceClemons

@andybuzz2u  Obama was a US citizen and a subject of the UK with his first breath. The very thing that the Natural Born Citizen Clause was written especially to address.

JimNiner
JimNiner

@andybuzz2u

Dude ... you need to let this go ... it has already been proven that Cruz is a "natural born" citizen according to the law in effect at the time of his birth.


And his mother did not renounce her citizenship.  They were living in Alberta temporarily, while working with the oil engineers there to implement new seismic data processors to assist in oil exploration and generation.  His mother and father moved back to Houston in 1974 and still live in Texas.  His father is a pastor in Carrollton, TX and his mother still lives in the Houston area.


You can believe all you want from Salon, the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos and the Onion (they all have about the same level of journalistic integrity).  The truth is that Cruz is eligible to run.  End of debate.  


I'll bet you didn't give this much thought to Obama's eligibility.

GlennPChickering
GlennPChickering

@andybuzz2u where are you getting your information  everything I seen says Cruz's mother was a american citizen at his birth and still a American Citizen

andybuzz2u
andybuzz2u

@JoyceClemons @mrrmwright You people are so ignorant of our own laws and you want to quote British law as well? There is not more "Subject" it is the British nationality law of 1948 and 1981 plainly states when a person is a British National. Unlike American law that usually "updates" or "corrects" itself and very rarely supersedes anything, British law regularly supersedes and voids laws. The British nationality law of 1981 vacated any other law regarding British nationality and struck the word "British Subject" for any preceding laws, or future use of the word or it's meaning.


More to the point, Ann Dunham divorced Barack Obama, SR when Barack Obama was less than 5 years old. 5 years is the key under British nationality law, Barack Obama, JR never had any ties or British nationality, his only nationally was the United States of America. Barack Obama, SR was a British Commonwealth citizen, only British citizenship and certain Commonwealth citizens have the automatic right of abode in the UK. Kenya was a Commonwealth until being granted independence in 1963. Therefore, Barack Obama, SR was a second tier Citizen in, what was the British Empire in those days. To that effect, it would have taken him years to "prove" his son was a British citizen, however, British law has always, since colonial times, denied that to people born to a woman citizen of the United States, pre 1972, as British law supports the citizenship of the mother to determine "natural" citizenship origins.


Barack Obama, JR is not only our President, he is as American as Apple pie is American.

Surly Curmudgen
Surly Curmudgen

@pugilist66 Just what in that makes me a lib. Try Googling the screen name and then come back and try telling me I am a lib. LOL 

Much research in a law library reading on paper the pertinent cases. My stance is rock solid. Neither Obama nor Cruz is qualified for the office.

JoyceClemons
JoyceClemons

@andybuzz2u  Don't be silly, you are a citizen, and it is YOUR government, and it didn't steal anything from you. Besides, even if you lived in another country you'd pay taxes, and that isn't stealing. Your silly argument lends weight to the questions against the quality of reasoning for Obama's eligibility.

andybuzz2u
andybuzz2u

@JoyceClemons @andybuzz2u You need to read up on British law regarding British citizenship. You will find it anti U.S. as much as U.S. is anti British, as far as citizenship is concerned. Barack Obama IS A United States citizen.

andybuzz2u
andybuzz2u

@JimNiner @andybuzz2u Yes i did. I still do not understand why all these two party jokes can push for anyone to be president from other than a BORN AND RAISED IN THE USA citizen. What's next for them? Putting a Puerto Rican in the office?

JoyceClemons
JoyceClemons

@andybuzz2u @JoyceClemons @mrrmwright  I rechecked and found that Obama Senior was, in 1961 a British Citizen in a category then known as CUKC, Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; he was married to the child's mother, was of course then the putative father. His ability to transmit his British citizenship as a CUKC, in 1961, even to a child born in wedlock outside of the UK, was transmissible to one generation, and still is. No certification or registration was required then, and I believe, now, but that is beside the point. The only reason someone in his situation would need to show his proofs is to apply for right of abode, and that isn't relevant.  I was, as you point out, wrong to use the word 'subject' because he was in fact a citizen, by descent, and still may be able to prove that were he so inclined. He had duel American and British Citizenship at birth, and the 1983 changes don't change that. It doesn't mean he's not American, and I never said he is not American. I merely said that he was also a British (subject, meant citizen) at birth. No one alive except The President could know if he was ever registered, and he might not even know. It doesn't matter, however, since it only would affect a certification of his right of abode. If he didn't formally renounce, he may still in fact be a British Citizen, as well as an American citizen. He could register now, and he'd easily gain right of abode. Apples are naturalized in America, from Britain, who got them from the Romans...and Apple Pie recipes date back to Chaucer's day. Why does everyone take this so personal? It's just an argument, and I never said he wasn't American.

JimNiner
JimNiner

@RestlessNativ @pugilist66

Guys,

All of this has already been resolved.  The 14th Amendment established a baseline by which subsequent legislation has narrowed the defining characteristics required to be a "natural born" citizen.  The law in effect at the time of Cruz's birth in Canada, the McCarran-Walter Act, established that the following must be true in order to receive the status of "natural born citizen:"


- One parent is a US citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is before November 14, 1986 but after October 19, 1952.


and,


- The parents are married at the time of birth and the US citizen was physically present in the US or its territories for a period of at least ten years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, at least five of which were after his or her 14th birthday.


As Ted Cruz's birth meets all these requirements, he is a "natural born citizen" of the United States.  No further discussion is required.  No subsequent law can remove citizenship status granted at birth.  


Cruz is eligible to run for President.  

JimNiner
JimNiner

@andybuzz2u @JimNiner

Andy,

I still don't understand why you are trying to argue a point for which you are so terribly unprepared and uninformed.  Cruz's mother didn't renounce her citizenship (she lives in Houston, TX to this day).  Cruz was born in Canada to a US citizen and raised in the US.  The time he spent in Canada was during the earliest years of his life.  He doesn't even remember it.  


But none of that matters, because the law that defines the requirements for recognition as a "natural born citizen" (meaning born with the status of citizen) are very clear and validate Cruz's eligibility to run.  You may not like his politics, you may not like him, but it doesn't change the fact that he is eligible.


Whether or not he'll mount a credible challenge has yet to be determined, but pursuing this argument is even less productive than challenging the validity of Obama's birth certificate.

Surly Curmudgen
Surly Curmudgen

@JimNiner @RestlessNativ @pugilist66 The fourteenth amendment established congressional control over the requirements for citizenship only. It did not change the requirements for the office of president.

Natural born in regard to citizenship is not the same as natural born in regard to qualifying for the office of president. They refer to two entirely different concepts. 

andybuzz2u
andybuzz2u

@JimNiner @RestlessNativ @pugilist66

  • Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time) may serve president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, recently in the case of potential 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R - Texas), who was born in Canada to Cuban-born father and a U.S-born mother. 
  • One must also be at least 35 years of age to be president. John F. Kennedy was the youngest person to be elected president; he was 43 years old when he was inaugurated in 1961. There is no maximum age limit set forth in the Constitution. Ronald Reagan was the oldest president; at the end of his term in 1988, he was nearly 77. 
  • Finally, one must live in the United States for at least 14 years to be president, in addition to being a natural-born citizen. The Constitution is vague on this point. For example, it does not make clear whether those 14 years need to be consecutive or what the precise definition of residency is. So far, however, this requirement has not been challenged.

JimNiner
JimNiner

@RestlessNativ @pugilist66


In regards to the use of the concept of "natural born" in the time of the framers, I offer William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it."

However, Blackstone also recognizes natural born citizenship for subjects born abroad. English common law is comprised of precedents, court decisions, as amended by statutes.

"Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2 (passed in 1350). that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain."

The Naturalization Act of 1790, passed just 12 months after our constitution became effective in 1789, undoubtedly reflects the understanding of “natural born citizen” in effect in that era, and 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…

2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term“natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents;by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.



And so it seems this case is ... closed.

JimNiner
JimNiner

@Surly Curmudgen @RestlessNativ@pugilist66


Surly,

Not sure what you think your point is.  I laid it out pretty clearly, citing references and everything.  If you can't grasp the truth of what I've said, then I'm sorry for you.  If you are voicing agreement, then yay for us. 


Keep searching for a way Cruz isn't eligible ... the more time you waste on it the less time you're spending doing something else that's stupid.

JoyceClemons
JoyceClemons

@Kmat @JimNiner @RestlessNativ @pugilist66  Thanks for making the case that Obama had duel citizenship which gave him the very divided loyalties that the Founders sought to prevent in Presidents...especially if the word Britain was involved...nice job.

JoyceClemons
JoyceClemons

@JimNiner @RestlessNativ @pugilist66  Not so fast. Obama Senior was a non-resident alien on a visa, who was not present for 2 years by the time Barack was born, committed a crime of bigamy during that time, and would never have been considered for permanent resident status had he sought it, given his crime.

hopkinstom12
hopkinstom12

@andybuzz2u @JimNiner Obama has never never presented a Birth Certificate! He has presented a Certificate of Live Birth. They do not have equal standing in Hawaii. Furthermore, twenty five forensic document experts have proven Obama's Certificate of Live Birth to be a poor forgery. So tell us what kind of citizen presents forged birth documents? 


THE ONLY DEFINITION THE SUPREME COURT HAS EVER USED FOR "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" IS: ALL CHILDREN BORN IN THE COUNTRY OF CITIZEN PARENTS! PERIOD! That has been law for atleast 135 years.


Surly Curmudgen
Surly Curmudgen

@JimNiner @RestlessNativ @pugilist66 

Your continuing efforts to legitimize Obama's usurpation of the office clearly labels you as a Democrat law breaker who sees nothing wrong with throwing the constitution in the trash. Neither Obama nor Cruz nor McCain nor Romney nor Rubio nor Jindal nor Santorum are qualified for the office of president.