Poll: Majority says child born outside U.S. to one American-citizen parent isn’t a “natural born” citizen

posted at 7:21 pm on May 27, 2014 by Allahpundit

The easiest prediction of the 2016 primaries is that Republicans will have a profound change of heart on who is and isn’t “natural born” once more of them become better acquainted with the circumstances of Ted Cruz’s birth.

For now, though: Disqualified.

out

Fifty-two percent overall and 53 percent of Republicans think you’re not “natural born” if you were born abroad to an American-citizen mother — and yet, when asked point-blank whether Cruz is eligible to be president, 55 percent of Republicans say yes versus just nine percent who say no. When asked the same question of Obama, the split is 31/55 even though the Birther scenario in which O was secretly born in Kenya would put him in precisely the same situation as Cruz (born abroad, citizen mother, non-citizen father). Does that mean the GOP electorate’s destined to turn on Cruz once more of them discover where he was born, fearing that his immigrant parentage and Canadian birth have left his loyalty to the U.S. hopelessly compromised? Er, no. A reversal on this subject is far more likely. After all, you can define “natural born” various ways — by place of birth, parents’ citizenship, or some combo thereof. For example:

nb

As long as you’re born here and have one parent who’s a citizen, most Americans think you qualify as “natural born.” In fact, for a near-majority, being born here is all that matters: 47 percent say that a child born on U.S. soil to two non-citizen parents is “natural born” versus 40 percent who disagree. (Among Democrats the split is 57/30 versus 35/50 for Republicans. Go figure that Dems would be quick to establish citizenship for illegals.) If instead you’re born abroad, per the first graph above, you’re suspect unless both parents are American citizens. The elephant in the room with all those numbers, though, is the Birther accusations that dogged Obama for the first few years of his presidency; lots of low-information voters have encountered the “natural born” question before only in the specific context of O’s birth, and as such, their views of it are infused with partisanship. Once the details of Cruz’s birth become more widely known, that partisan pressure will ease and the public will, I think, start to settle on the view that anyone born to at least one parent who’s an American citizen qualifies for the presidency, regardless of their place of birth. And Cruz’s status in the 2016 field as the conservative di tutti conservatives will speed the process along. The “natural born” requirement is, after all, a safeguard to ensure the president’s national loyalty. It’s easy for critics to question that with a candidate who’s accused of socialist/transnationalist sympathies, not so easy to do it with someone like Cruz.

Exit question: Who are the five percent above who think being born in the U.S. to two citizen parents does not make you a “natural born” citizen? Better yet, who are the six percent who think that being born abroad to two non-citizens does make you “natural born”? Besides Joe Biden, I mean.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Does this mean that Obama can no longer be President? Yea!!!!

cajunpatriot on May 28, 2014 at 8:39 AM

Without enforcement, the Constitution is merely just old paper and ink.

Lourdes on May 28, 2014 at 8:52 AM

oh my god you are insane. you really believe michelle obama is a man?

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 7:44 PM

You really believe Obama is a man?

dominigan on May 28, 2014 at 8:58 AM

Damned good thing that we don’t base our laws on what the “majority say”. 50% of the people are of below median intelligence. All it takes is 50% plus 1 to make a majority.

crosspatch on May 27, 2014 at 9:02 PM

Think of human population as a classroom, of, say, 30 persons.

Of the thirty, two will get an A (soundly and very well understand issues presented to them, have the ability to communicate how they do and why).

Of the remaining 25, five will get a B (do nearly as well as the first two with A performance but will make about five out of fifty errors in their abilities to convey what they understand).

Of the remaining 20, ten to twelve will get a C (understand about half of the material and adequately but not exceptionally communicate that they understand it but lack ability to convey insights as to why they do).

Then the remaining ten to eight will flail and erase and refuse to participate or if participate, will illustrate that they either didn’t listen/read or thought it was all a big joke and just leave most the questions unanswered — five will attempt to copy what others have written or from a cheat-sheet they brought with them).

Lourdes on May 28, 2014 at 9:01 AM

We just went through 5 years debating if Hawaii was American enough…

RockRib on May 27, 2014 at 10:07 PM

No, that’s never been the debate, and not for “5 years” at that.

Lourdes on May 28, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Lourdes on May 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM

No. Not my intent at all. I find it to be unsettled and was merely pointing out one of the issues which you correctly observed. For me the original reading and intent are the point. Why would the framers use plural when referring to the parents/parent. I tend to agree with ThePrimordialOrderedPair. Though RWM has put up a very good argument as well. Take note of my very first comment here on this thread Lourdes.

Bmore on May 28, 2014 at 9:05 AM

it’s certainly difficult to understand how a sitting POTUS in the middle of his 2nd term is ineligible. Can you cite, from the US Constitution, how you arrive at this conclusion?

anuts on May 27, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Barack Obama hasn’t even upheld the Oath of Office he took (twice or perhaps, three times given the first term’s start). Pelosi proved that a political party can mishandle paperwork, so to speak, and get into the Presidency. But they got it, however wrongly, and he’s doing it, however horribly, so we’re stuck with what’s there for now.

Obama’s defied the Constitution time and time again, right down to defying his very Oath of Office (repeatedly). I have no doubts that the man is defying just about everything most of us citizens believe to be right, proper and legitimate. But we’re stuck with him.

Lourdes on May 28, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Bmore on May 28, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Yes, but you quoted a Wiki, which — my point as I already expressed it — is literally proving that the “popular opinion” “rules” issues.

Lourdes on May 28, 2014 at 9:12 AM

I often quote from Wiki. I always try to make that obvious. As I did in this instance.

Bmore on May 28, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Here. An additional source Lourdes.

Bmore on May 28, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Oh my god you are insane. you really believe michelle obama is a man?

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 7:44 PM

.
You really believe Obama is a man?

dominigan on May 28, 2014 at 8:58 AM

.
Barack is a ‘male’, who never earned a “man-card”.

Michelle sometimes (not always) gives me the impression that she is a “man wannabe”, like Hillary.

listens2glenn on May 28, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Do these people who think a child born to a U.S. citizen mother – regardless of where on earth – are not natural born citizens the same people who think Michelle Obama can sign legislation into law?

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/27/liberal-cnn-anchor-thinks-michelle-obama-can-sign-bills-into-law/

Willys on May 28, 2014 at 9:44 AM

All three of my children were born in the Philippines while I was stationed there during the sixties and seventies. I am and American citizen and their mother was a Philippine citizen at the time. They were issued certificates of American citizenship from the US Embassy in Manila. Since Sen John McCain was born in the Panama canal zone and is considered an American by birth, I consider my children American by birth. I see no reason for an person who is considered an American citizen by birth to have to actually be born on US soil to be considered eligible for consideration for President.

GNPSTL on May 28, 2014 at 9:46 AM

But an Anchor Baby is. And their NOT NATURAL BORN parent can get the big welfare check, several EBT cards, food stamps, section 8 housing and Mass Health (Medicaid.)

Fleuries on May 28, 2014 at 9:55 AM

I don’t think much of polls like this.

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
– George Carlin

Owain on May 28, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Here’s the way I look at it. The Framers wanted to make sure the Chief Executive and CINC of the Military had no possibility of divided loyalties. If a person were born eligible to be a citizen of any country other than the US, they are not a NBC in the context of Article II, section 1, clause 5. Therefore…
Obama: not
Cruz: not
Rubio: not
McCain: ?, not sure if he was eligible for Panamanian citizenship.

Dexter_Alarius on May 28, 2014 at 10:02 AM

A person who can claim American citizenship at time of birth is a natural born citizen. End of story.

jya lai on May 28, 2014 at 10:07 AM

First you follow the Constitution; if not covered there, then you follow current laws. Opinions do not count.

JungleCogs on May 28, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Dexter_Alarius:

The way you look at it is wrong. You have to go into the history of the term and what it meant and then you can understand what the Framers intended.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/ironchapman/2012/05/21/on-this-natural-born-citizen-issue-part-i-from-alexander-hamilton-to-lynch-v-clarke/

Indefatigable on May 28, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Well, it’s a good damn thing this poll isn’t binding.
The law says they are.

brainpimp on May 28, 2014 at 10:34 AM

For me the original reading and intent are the point. Why would the framers use plural when referring to the parents/parent. Bmore on May 28, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Well they also use plural when they refer to “children” born of “parents” who are American citizens. So if you are insisting it has to be “parents” plural – does it ALSO have to be “children” plural? If two U.S. citizens have a “child” rather than “children” born overseas – that child would not be a natural born citizen because the language was plural?

The Constitution only has provisions for three types of U.S. citizen – citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, natural born, and naturalized. Cruz was never naturalized – he is natural born.

Mordaukar on May 28, 2014 at 10:35 AM

John Bigham (who has been called the father of the 14th amendment) made this statement in the House of Representatives in 1866:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen;

Obama and Cruz are both ineligible under this definition.

dbilly76 on May 28, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Wow, I’m like the female Ted Cruz!

I was born in Canada to an American mother (who moved to Canada as an adult) and a Canadian father. I do not have a certificate of naturalization, but a certificate of citizenship, which lists the date of my citizenship as my date of birth, so as far as I can tell I have been a US citizen from birth.

Having said that, mother always told me I could be anything I wanted to be…except president. So I guess my mom was one of the original birthers. :0)

And just in case your blood isn’t boiling yet, I’m also dual. I never had to take an oath since I was born a US citizen, and so never had to renounce my Canadian citizenship (which my coincidentally Canadian-born husband did). So, the US considers me a citizen because of my mother, and Canada considers me a citizen because I was born there. But my mom, wise old sage that she was, admonished me to protect my US citizenship because of its intrinsic value. You’re a Canadian citizen, she said, but don’t ever try to claim it. Don’t vote in Canada, claim Canadian benefits, join the Canadian military (like that would happen). She came home to the US when I was 5 months old, and I’ve never been back to Canada. I’m as American as they come. Seriously, I don’t even root for the Canadian hockey team in the Olympics!

So I’m a US citizen. According to my documents, I have been since the day I was born. Natural-born? I don’t know, but clearly my mother didn’t think so. I do know that I’m an American and a patriot, and when I say I love my country I mean this one. If we went to war with Canada, I wouldn’t feel torn loyalties. And I’d bet Ted Cruz wouldn’t either.

KKinFLA on May 28, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Mordaukar on May 28, 2014 at 10:35 AM

I’m not insisting any such thing. See the (my) very first comment on this thread.

Bmore on May 28, 2014 at 10:38 AM

If a person were born eligible to be a citizen of any country other than the US, they are not a NBC in the context of Article II, section 1, clause 5. Dexter_Alarius on May 28, 2014 at 10:02 AM

So U.S. law and our Constitution is subordinate to the law of every other nation on Earth? So if Ghana makes a law that every American is eligible at birth to be a citizen of Ghana, or makes them all citizens of Ghana automatically – there will be no more natural born citizens of the U.S.A.? Do you realize how silly that is?

This made up criteria has no basis in U.S. law, natural law, or logic. It goes far beyond what even Vattel (who was NOT the basis for the founders view on natural law) was mistranslated as saying. Re: McCain – Vattel was also clear that the children born of soldiers serving overseas were to be treated as if born IN the nation they were serving.

Mordaukar on May 28, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Secdond rate thread bait.

hot air should be better than this

APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 28, 2014 at 10:44 AM

All three of my children were born in the Philippines while I was stationed there during the sixties and seventies. I am and American citizen and their mother was a Philippine citizen at the time. They were issued certificates of American citizenship from the US Embassy in Manila. Since Sen John McCain was born in the Panama canal zone and is considered an American by birth, I consider my children American by birth. I see no reason for an person who is considered an American citizen by birth to have to actually be born on US soil to be considered eligible for consideration for President.

GNPSTL on May 28, 2014 at 9:46 AM

By the way, anyone who is overseas in service to their country shouldn’t even have to wonder if their children are “natural-born” or not. Thank you for your service!

KKinFLA on May 28, 2014 at 10:44 AM

As a native born Texan, Cruz may ne a natural born American citizen, however he will never be a Texan. //sarc//

Tater Salad on May 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

From all of the many attempts to amend the natural born requirement by politicians – one has to suspect an angle. I mean really, how does it hurt America to leave this one protection in place? And by the way, it is clear that politicians in DC have understood “natural born” to at the very least mean that a person must be born in the US. If the average Joe were to take some time out and actually read some of the older writings instead of just emoting …

Anyway, here is a link to an image which shows an attempt by none less than Barney Frank to get such an amendment through. This sort of thing has been going on for decades. I’ve read most of these resolutions, and it would open your eyes some to see the progression over the years.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3159932/posts

GrandeMe on May 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Big deal – apparently a majority of people once believed Barack Obama about something.

Ray Van Dune on May 28, 2014 at 10:49 AM

I do think there are some real legal questions on Cruz’ eligibility to be president. If it is not absolutely clear then he shouldn’t run as it will only be a distraction.

Tater Salad on May 28, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Oops, sorry – it’s post #37. I am not familiar with how to post individual comments from over there.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3159932/posts

GrandeMe on May 28, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Sorry, but this has been covered more than once and YES they are American citizens. Wake up and stop listening to the liberals rants.

Roselle on May 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM

GrandeMe on May 28, 2014 at 10:52 AM

You should be able to click the comment count or time stamp.Lets see if it works. #37

Bmore on May 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM

It worked GrandeMe. ; )

Bmore on May 28, 2014 at 11:01 AM

, oh ye of annoyingly little brain?

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:09 PM

WOULD

CW on May 28, 2014 at 11:19 AM

….you please grow up?

CW on May 28, 2014 at 11:19 AM

I’m sorry, the CATS out of the bag so to speak, there already is a precedent.

Just cough up a Birth certificate or bribe some state official, and after the Plane wreck, you’re free and clear for 8 years or so.

JayTee on May 28, 2014 at 11:21 AM

OK Ted just get a Connecticut SSN and a fake birthcert saying you were born in Texas. Case solved!

neyney on May 28, 2014 at 11:23 AM

So every military man or woman who married a foreign national and had a child while in a foreign country serving our country is not an American citizen? Yet all these Mexicans, S. Americans, etc who are clamoring for amnesty will be?

I call bs.

neyney on May 28, 2014 at 11:27 AM

This whole Birther nonsense is getting old! If someone wants to challenge Cruz’s citizenship, let them do it in a court of law, polls are meaningless!

Conservative_Hippie on May 28, 2014 at 11:32 AM

This whole Birther nonsense is getting old! If someone wants to challenge Cruz’s citizenship, let them do it in a court of law, polls are meaningless!

Conservative_Hippie on May 28, 2014 at 11:32 AM

This is exactly right. Why are there even polls about this? We don’t poll people to determine whether they “think” (strong word) that murder is legal or not. I understand polls that ask them who they are voting for; but if we start to determine reading of the law/constitution by polling illiterates — that’s a problem.

Cipherprime on May 28, 2014 at 11:41 AM

What’s the point? Do polls determine law? A few years ago I read that no less than seven SCOTUS cases had defined Natural Born as having both parents as citizens at the time of birth. I read each of the decisions and though they did not address the question as a prime factor in each of the cases, they did state clearly that that was the court’s understanding of the law. I do not remember the location of birth being an issue, only the parentage.
The birther issue has always been a red herring that has been happily tossed into the argument by the left each time Obama’s qualifications were questioned. The real issue is and always has been the fact that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. There are very good reasons for the law. One being that the president cannot have divided loyalties.
It is law, not opinion, that matters.

mlimbolimbo on May 28, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Thanks Bmore. Learn something new every day.

For the info of lots of people here that argue the angle from the service person(s) stationed off US soil standpoint, who have a child/children while there – that actually WAS ALWAYS considered a qualifier for natural born. So was/is any issue born to US Ambassadors no matter where they are. ALWAYS has been in our history. That did not require being addressed by any law or act, and was not even mentioned in the Naturalization Act 1790 if I remember correctly.

GrandeMe on May 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Yawn…

jimver on May 28, 2014 at 1:01 PM

GrandeMe on May 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM

You’re welcomed. We both learned something.

I call bs.

neyney on May 28, 2014 at 11:27 AM

It would be hard to square. Never let that stop em! ; )

Bmore on May 28, 2014 at 1:09 PM

jimver on May 28, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Nap time over there? Mine is still a wee bit from now.

Bmore on May 28, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Two kinds of citizens: natural-born and naturalized. If you were a citizen when you were born, you’re a natural-born citizen. If you became a citizen later through naturalization, then you’re not a natural-born citizens. I hope that’s clear. enough.

J Baustian on May 28, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Lotta noobs in this debate.

davidk on May 28, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Winston Churchill could not be reached for comment.

emz35 on May 28, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Two kinds of citizens: natural-born and naturalized. If you were a citizen when you were born, you’re a natural-born citizen. If you became a citizen later through naturalization, then you’re not a natural-born citizens. I hope that’s clear. enough.

J Baustian on May 28, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Stated about as clearly and to the point as it gets.

Long story short: Cruz is eligible.

Bob Davis on May 28, 2014 at 2:45 PM

I like the poster who said that his own flesh and blood is not natural born due to being born in the U.S. to a natural-born parent and a green-card parent. Too bad he isn’t man enough to say that to their faces.

Christien on May 28, 2014 at 3:16 PM

I don’t care how much one likes a candidate. The constitution
and rule of law is the only thing that separates us from the barbarians.

Amjean on May 28, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Time for another leftwing poll result since there is so little other things to write about on a Conservative website…or something.

Bleed_thelizard on May 28, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Well, fortunately, the Constitution is not up for election. So Ted Cruz, Rubio, Obama are eligible. Some of these birther nuts would even try to debate the point that George Washington is not a president as the United States as ratified by the constitution did not exist when George Washington was born. But I’ll leave it up to the rantings of the Orly Taitz and Alex Jones wackos to sort that out

Brock Robamney on May 28, 2014 at 3:43 PM

When I first heard of this “debate” a few years ago I was curious, because it never occurred to me to wonder who “qualified”.

So, I read the contentious on-line debates in comment threads. Then I read some of the reference materials both sides plastered on those threads.

Then I began to branch off to reading more period writings because I came to find them very interesting. I read, and read, and read. I LOVE the old writings even if they are difficult to follow at times. So, in these old books and records you find references. Not often, but there are references. Mostly if you study about allegiance circa 1700, 1800. You will find that even back then certain types wanted to open the Presidential eligibility up to immigrants.

What I find troubling is that even if one simply asks, “what does it mean from a historical sense?” you will get piled on by the birther bashers. Far from being reasonable, they insist every “birther” thinks obama was born in Kenya. I find them more obnoxious and disingenuous than most birthers. I can ignore or overlook birthers for holding onto a unsubstantiated old claim that obama was born in Africa, but I have a much more difficult time understanding why people won’t even bother to wonder why the Constitution was worded that specific way. Or realize that it was written as a PROTECTION.

The more you read the more you learn just how important allegiance was to people back then, and when I read those Art. 2 amendment resolutions I realized that those modern day politicians have the knowledge that one must be born on US soil/to an Ambassador/parents in service stationed away. Over and over they stated that, and over and over they fight to change that. They specifically say that they don’t want a persons birthplace outside of the US to be a disqualifer any longer.

GrandeMe on May 28, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Poll: Majority says child born outside U.S. to one American-citizen parent isn’t a “natural born” citizen

Too bad he wasn’t a Democrat claiming to have been born in Hawaii.

Shucks.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 28, 2014 at 4:01 PM

The Supreme Court has already ruled on what the definition of the term-of-art natural born Citizen is. In Minor v Happersett. The plaintiff argued that the state in denying her the right to vote, was also denying her status as a Citizen, and that the newly ratified 14th Amendment declaring her a Citizen, meant that the state now had to recognize her right to vote.

In the case, the court ruled that the State was not denying her Citizenship when it denied her the right to vote, because it couldn’t. It couldn’t because the Constitution explicitly stated that she was a Citizen. It did this by construing the term ‘natural born Citizen’ from the Constitution, and declaring her as one. Therefore is said, the 14th Amendment did not change her status as a Citizen at all, because she was already a natural born Citizen. In the case, the court said –

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.

Usually when this is noted, people who want to deny it’s significance will claim this is mere dicta and not part of the holding. That is untrue, I know that because that exact part of the holding was cited in another Supreme Court case Lockwood Ex Parte which state the following –

In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities.

The Supreme Court has already addressed the issue of who is a ‘natural born Citizen’, and the answer is a person born of Citizen parents in the jurisdiction of the United States.

Mashman on May 28, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Summary: Don’t let the squids run the ship, people are ignorant and stupid.

Tard on May 28, 2014 at 4:12 PM

To add to my previous post, this is exactly why the Supreme Court does not want to touch this issue, if they do, they will need to either uphold the prior holding, or explain where it is deficient – which might be difficult, because it’s not.

Mashman on May 28, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Idiots listen to polls.

There isn’t any doubt of Cruz’ eligibility any more than there was of McCain’s. It is for fools to debate and discuss.

BUT anything that keeps the conspiracy nutters busy so they don’t screw up something else is fine with me.

Adjoran on May 28, 2014 at 4:18 PM

“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.” Mashman on May 28, 2014 at 4:10 PM

You truncated the quote to leave out that the author was not determining that this was the ONLY category of natural born citizens; you then go on to base your argument on the assumption that it was. Way to go.

So if Cruz was not a native or natural-born citizen; he was an alien or foreigner?

Here is the remainder of the quote that destroys the assumption your argument rests upon.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Mordaukar on May 28, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Talk to me about this poll after Maobama is removed from office.

RWRFAN on May 28, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Not reading the previous three pages, but to the poll: I don’t care. Can he govern responsibly and reign in government?

Othniel on May 28, 2014 at 4:36 PM

reign = rein. Oops.

Othniel on May 28, 2014 at 4:36 PM

You truncated the quote to leave out that the author was not determining that this was the ONLY category of natural born citizens; you then go on to base your argument on the assumption that it was.

That is incorrect, I left it out because it’s irrelevant to the definition of natural born citizen, and to Ted Cruz, unless you are arguing that he was born ‘within the jurisdiction’. The part you seem to be talking about is this –

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Notice the court said – “include as citizens“, not “include as natural born citizens”, which is what they would have written if that is what they meant.

You also ask –

So if Cruz was not a native or natural-born citizen; he was an alien or foreigner?

Congress is granted the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”. If you read the Immigration and Nationality Act (http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html) you will find the law that conferred US Citizenship to Ted Cruz at the time of his birth, it’s in Title III Chapter 1 Act 301, and is titled INA: ACT 301 – NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH. Do you know what the title of the chapter that contains that code is? CHAPTER 1 — NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION

Ted Cruz was made a Citizen by a law passed by Congress, who was given the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” by the Constitution. That law established a class of persons who were collectively naturalized at the time of their birth.

Ted Cruz, like anyone else was made a Citizen by a law passed by Congress, is a naturalized US citizen, and not a natural born Citizen.

Mashman on May 28, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Do you consider a child born outside U.S. to two foreign parents to a natural born U.S. citizen?

According to AP’s chart, 6% actually said “Yes”.

Seamus on May 28, 2014 at 5:01 PM

What I don’t really understand about this argument is that the same people who are most willing to look beyond any technical issues Ted Cruz may have regarding eligibility, are the same people who get most upset when a liberal judge rewrites a law to his liking. They hold up the Constitution as the foundation of our Country, that is all important, and must be followed – that is, until it becomes inconvient.

Mashman on May 28, 2014 at 5:04 PM

I got your 16% *right here*.

Christien on May 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM

What if one of your parents was an Alien from outer space, while the other was a citizen?

Or what if your Citizen Father was from the future…who came back to warn your non-citizen mother, pregnant with you, that her unborn son was needed for the upcoming war against the terminators?

Varchild on May 28, 2014 at 5:27 PM

oh my god you are insane. you really believe michelle obama is a man?

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Well, if it tics you off……..yeah! 乂⍲‿⍲乂

avagreen on May 28, 2014 at 5:32 PM

I left it out because it’s irrelevant to the definition of natural born citizen

It is not irrelevant – the FULL quote says nobody doubts that those born in country to two citizen parents are natives or natural born citizens as opposed to aliens or foreigners – and that some authorities include OTHERS as citizens rather than as an alien or foreigner.

That they droped the native or natural born does not mean that they are sayign they are ‘just a citizen’ – or a ‘naturalized at birth citizen’.

That should be obvious because the FULL quote goes on to say …”It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens”

Obviously the quote you mangled and misinterpreted is using citizen as a shorthand after the initial “native or natural born citizen” after differentiating them from a “foreigner or alien”.

Mordaukar on May 28, 2014 at 5:34 PM

You notice how the Krispy Kremers are going berserk about Cruz running? They try to to twist the constitution but he is eligible

Brock Robamney on May 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM

It is not irrelevant – the FULL quote says nobody doubts that those born in country to two citizen parents are natives or natural born citizens as opposed to aliens or foreigners – and that some authorities include OTHERS as citizens rather than as an alien or foreigner.

That they droped the native or natural born does not mean that they are sayign they are ‘just a citizen’ – or a ‘naturalized at birth citizen’.

That should be obvious because the FULL quote goes on to say …”It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens”

Obviously the quote you mangled and misinterpreted is using citizen as a shorthand after the initial “native or natural born citizen” after differentiating them from a “foreigner or alien”.

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you really a complete idiot?

Ted Cruz is a naturalized US citizen. He is a US citizen, because Congress created a law that made him a citizen. If you think the left wing media is going to ignore that, you are a moron!

Mashman on May 28, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you really a complete idiot?

Ted Cruz is a naturalized US citizen. He is a US citizen, because Congress created a law that made him a citizen. If you think the left wing media is going to ignore that, you are a moron!

Mashman on May 28, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Now all I can think of is Shawshank Redemption

“How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?”

lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vN-e-PwHEc

Elisa on May 28, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you really a complete idiot?

Ted Cruz is a naturalized US citizen. He is a US citizen, because Congress created a law that made him a citizen. If you think the left wing media is going to ignore that, you are a moron!

Mashman on May 28, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Seriously, though, people can argue eligibility and what the term “natural born citizen” meant to the founders or in the constitution or what it means today, after various laws about citizenship have been passed over the last couple centuries.

But no one is a “naturalized citizen” because of any law passed BEFORE their birth. A law can be passed after their birth making them naturalized. But Cruz was born after any of the applicable laws. He was a US citizen at birth. He was never “naturalized.”

If that doesn’t mean “natural born citizen” to some, that is fine. But you cannot correctly say he was ever “naturalized.”

PS Per Wikipedia (yes, Wikipedia, you wanna make something outa that? Lol):

“The first naturalization Act (drafted by Thomas Jefferson) used the phrases “natural born” and “native born” interchangeably.”

Elisa on May 28, 2014 at 8:42 PM

When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, the term “natural born citizen” was understood to mean born on U.S. soil o two U.S. citizen parents. The legal meaning has not changed, even though people like to believe it has.

On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1862, Congressman John Bingham — the “father of the 14th Amendment” — stated, “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”

In 1866 Bingham stated, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Bingham’s definition was never disputed by other Congressmen. (Note: Obama supporters — including attorneys filing briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court—have omitted the words “of parents” when quoting Bingham’s statement, in a shameful and intentional effort to mislead.)

Colony14 on May 28, 2014 at 9:38 PM

United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 defines Natural Born citizen. Since Ted Cruz was born naturally and not in a test tube he qualifies. It’s odd that the birthers were ok with McCain but not Cruz. Why is that? The only difference between the two is that Cruz is a Hispanic conservative. So what is it that these Krispy Kremers have against Cruz?

Brock Robamney on May 29, 2014 at 5:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3