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

It’s a yougov poll. It’s self-selected and statistically meaningless. but it is another opportunity for clicks and comments.

notropis on May 27, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Ha! Karma…

libfreeordie on May 27, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Anyone born a dual citizen is not a natural born citizen. Anyone born a natural born citizen who takes on another citizenship later in life loses his natural born citizen status. Period. One way street.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Ted Cruz never renounced his US citizenship. Ted Cruz, like anyone else, cannot change the status of his own birth.

anuts on May 27, 2014 at 8:51 PM

I’m not arguing the “natural born citizen” issue – I’m simply pointing out that Ted Cruz does not have dual citizenship.

Pork-Chop on May 27, 2014 at 8:48 PM

I’m saying that he wasn’t a natural born citizen at birth, since his father was an alien. My point was that you cannot get into that class once you’re out of it.

I would like to be able to vote for Cruz. I like him and think he’s the best one around, by miles. But, he isn’t a natural born citizen and, therefore, is Constitutionally prohibited. Of course, the caveat is that America was killed and buried a few years ago and the Constitution is a dead letter, now. So, there’s that …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 8:52 PM

novaculus on May 27, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Thank you Sir. For some reason for the life of me, I just don’t seem to be able to successfully navigate the tweety thing. So novaculus, does it all mean nothing?

New Hot Air editor @NoahCRothman

Not new HA editor?

Bmore on May 27, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Ted Cruz, like anyone else, cannot change the status of his own birth.

anuts on May 27, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Which was to an alien father, hence, NOT natural born citizen.

This ain’t rocket science.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 8:53 PM

so youre saying someone cant be both hispanic and texan. gotcha.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 8:26 PM

That’s so perfect: That’s the exact opposite of what she is saying

V7_Sport on May 27, 2014 at 8:30 PM

oh really? and i quote:

Also-Ted Cruz isn’t ‘Hispanic’…Ted Cruz is a Texan.
Period.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 7:55 PM

despite self identifying as a hispanic, annoyinglylittlebrain says that ted cruz cant really be a hispanic because he is a texan (one more time so it really sinks in):

Ted Cruz isn’t ‘Hispanic’…Ted Cruz is a Texan.
Period.

annoyinglylittlebrain clearly believes that ‘hispanic’ and ‘texan’ are mutually exclusive.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Ha! Karma…

libfreeordie on May 27, 2014 at 8:49 PM

You misunderstand karma.

Bmore on May 27, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Anyone born a dual citizen is not a natural born citizen. Anyone born a natural born citizen who takes on another citizenship later in life loses his natural born citizen status. Period. One way street.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 8:42 PM

If one has never been naturalized, yet is a citizen, how did they become one? as far as I know, there are only two ways. Naturalization and Natural born. Is there a third?

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 8:55 PM

I’ll be seeing him speak up close next week

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 8:24 PM

you should tell him to his face that you say he is not a hispanic.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 8:55 PM

When one is “naturalized” for citizenship that means they became a citizen at some later point in life. Natural born would mean they became a citizen at what time in their life?
anuts on May 27, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Simplistic and incorrect. Par for the course for you, though.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Which in my above is incorrect? The first sentence or the question?

How can a question be incorrect?

anuts on May 27, 2014 at 8:56 PM

You misunderstand karma.

Bmore on May 27, 2014 at 8:53 PM

True. And there goes the thread. Libfreeordie, I think you mean that turnabout is fair play.

Judge_Dredd on May 27, 2014 at 8:59 PM

The best part of this poll is 5% of Americans think a child born to two citizen parents in the U.S. is NOT a natural born citizen…

LOL…

William Eaton on May 27, 2014 at 8:47 PM

That 5% probably thinks natural born means delivered at home.

slickwillie2001 on May 27, 2014 at 8:59 PM

If one of your parents is American, you’re American.

The problem is children born in this country to people who came here illegally, or who came here “legally” but under false pretenses for the purpose of giving birth in this country and gaining American citizenship for a child. These children should not be automatically granted American citizenship.

novaculus on May 27, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Agree totally. If we could change this one aspect of the current law (i.e., birthright citizenship), it would go a long way toward halting the illegal invasion we’ve been under for the past 30 years.

KickandSwimMom on May 27, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Ted Cruz, like anyone else, cannot change the status of his own birth.
anuts on May 27, 2014 at 8:51 PM
Which was to an alien father, hence, NOT natural born citizen.
This ain’t rocket science.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Our current POTUS was born to an alien father as well. Must be something else then, yes?

anuts on May 27, 2014 at 9:00 PM

as far as I know, there are only two ways. Naturalization and Natural born. Is there a third?

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 8:55 PM

The class of dual citizens is a third class that didn’t exist at the time of the writing of the Constitution – since the Founders didn’t allow for American dual nationals. This issue of dual citizenship became front and center in the run-up to the War of 1812.

It used to be that naturalizing Americans were required to renounce and abjure all other citizenships and allegiances and become just Americans. Therefore, one born to two Americans had no other citizenship issues to deal with. Once American dual citizenship was allowed all of these dynamics were changed. But, the class of natural born citizen did not change. It is what it was and that doesn’t include anyone born to an alien parent.

Now, if someone wants to claim that the class of dual citizens is not a third class of citizenship, then let them find out how ddifferent that class is when something happens and people decide they want to leave this nation. Dual citizens always have an out – another nation that they are citizens of to go to. Plain Americans are stuck here. Whether one thinks that they might ever need to leave this nation is irrelevant. The fact is that dual citizens don’t depend on this nation as much as plain Americans (natural born citizens, naturalized, or those who have given up other citizenships) and that is a MAJOR difference which should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that dual citizen is a distinct class.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 9:01 PM

I’m not arguing the “natural born citizen” issue – I’m simply pointing out that Ted Cruz does not have dual citizenship.

Pork-Chop on May 27, 2014 at 8:48 PM

I’m saying that he wasn’t a natural born citizen at birth, since his father was an alien. My point was that you cannot get into that class once you’re out of it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Okay. But, once again, my comment was only directed at those who are throwing out the “dual citizenship” claims.

I will leave the “natural born citizenship” question to those who are better qualified to argue the issue – such as Mark Levin:

“MARK LEVIN explains that Ted Cruz IS a natural born citizen’

http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-explains-that-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/

Pork-Chop on May 27, 2014 at 9:02 PM

bill richardson says ted cruz isnt really hispanic and conservatives through a fit.

annoyinglylittlebrain says ted cruz isnt really hispanic and conservatives rejoice.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:02 PM

throw a fit

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:02 PM

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

How can a question be incorrect?

anuts on May 27, 2014 at 8:56 PM

Many different ways. Do you still beat your wife?

A question that forces an incorrect answer – or that allows for an incorrect inference from a correct answer – is an incorrect question.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 9:03 PM

If one has never been naturalized, yet is a citizen, how did they become one? as far as I know, there are only two ways. Naturalization and Natural born. Is there a third?

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 8:55 PM

native born. child born on us soil to non citizen parents. anchor babies naturalized by law upon birth due to location.
naturalized, citizens of other countries who become citizens through immigration and naturalization laws.
natural born, child of two us citizens. Jus Sanguinis

dmacleo on May 27, 2014 at 9:05 PM

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:02 PM

Last time I checked-Ted Cruz was the junior senator from TEXAS.
Ted Cruz is a Texan. Ted Cruz is an AMERICAN.
He is not a ‘hyphen’.
It’s not surprising that you don’t understand that.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 9:05 PM

Our current POTUS was born to an alien father as well. Must be something else then, yes?

anuts on May 27, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Oy. barky is ineligible, in addition to being unqualified and un-American in every sense. On top of all that, he’s an imbecile.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 9:06 PM

In other news…. The majority of people are stupid.

Listen, you child gets your citizenship. Period. If my wife and I are in china and she goes into labor the child is not a Chinese citizen. I know, that’s what we do here and that should change. It’s the only thing that makes any sense so the child can live with its parents.

dougless on May 27, 2014 at 9:07 PM

It’s the word parent…..parents in a strict reading so Ive heard. The tense it would seem is what makes this a sometimes tense issue to discuss here at HA..

Bmore on May 27, 2014 at 9:07 PM

The class of dual citizens is a third class that didn’t exist at the time of the writing of the Constitution – since the Founders didn’t allow for American dual nationals. This issue of dual citizenship became front and center in the run-up to the War of 1812.

So Cruz meets the standard set forth in the Constitution as ratified. The advent of dual citizenship, which came later, is the basis for your contention. Have the courts weighed in on this? Has the Constitution been amended to address this? This is starting to sound a lot like one man’s opinion.

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Last time I checked-Ted Cruz was the junior senator from TEXAS.
Ted Cruz is a Texan. Ted Cruz is an AMERICAN.
He is not a ‘hyphen’.
It’s not surprising that you don’t understand that.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 9:05 PM

i never said cruz isnt a texan. i never said he isnt an american. i also never said he isnt a hispanic. unlike you, i believe he can be all three things simultaneously.

you however seem to think that being a texan and being an american precludes him being a hispanic, as you previously stated:

Ted Cruz isn’t ‘Hispanic’…Ted Cruz is a Texan.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 7:55 PM

also, precisely how many hyphens are there in the term ‘hispanic’, oh ye of annoyingly little brain?

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:09 PM

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:09 PM

His ethnic background is not germane to ANYTHING. It’s not important.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 9:13 PM

Pleas, KochForBrains. May I prevail upon you to not visit QOTD tonight? You’re incredibly tedious/repetitive/insipid/a ton of adjectives, all bad.

Judge_Dredd on May 27, 2014 at 9:14 PM

Judge_Dredd on May 27, 2014 at 9:14 PM

KochCott?

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:15 PM

His ethnic background is not germane to ANYTHING. It’s not important.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 9:13 PM

then why did you go out of your way to deny him of it?

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:16 PM

I’ll say once again that there shouldn’t be any difference between a natural-born citizen and a naturalized citizen. Potential loyalty to another country may be a problem but you can bring it up during the campaign.

PBH on May 27, 2014 at 9:16 PM

The advent of dual citizenship, which came later, is the basis for your contention. Have the courts weighed in on this? Has the Constitution been amended to address this? This is starting to sound a lot like one man’s opinion.

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:07 PM

You don’t have to believe me. This is my view of the issue. You can make your mind up about what you think is correct. But, you should keep in mind that naturalizing Americans still have to take this oath (starting with):

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

which means that they have to give up all citizenships BEFORE they become American citizens. The courts (and everyone else) like to just make them take this oath and then totally ignore it, keeping their other citizenships.

Make of it what you will but it’s pretty clear that our courts and government have worked overtime to destroy all immigration law, even to the point of allowing naturalizing Americans to violate their oath of allegiance as their first act as Americans. Yeah … I had a big argument with some of the douchebags over at volokh over this years ago and the best defense those morons could come up with was to say that a naturalizing American takes that oath honestly … and then changes his mind and decides to keep his other citizenships. LOL. That is how the legal aspects of all this are being worked out. It’s a farce. A total farce.

Natural born citizen must be born to two American citizens and just American citizens. But, that whole section of law has been made such a mockery of that no one even wants to treat any of it as if it could ever have had real meaning, since it would mean that many naturalized Americans (who kept other citizenships) have violated their oaths and their citizenship is null and void, really.

You can make up your own mind about it but it’s all pretty clear and simple. It’s just that our government and courts have worked so long to destroy this body of law and tradition … and they have been pretty successful.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 9:17 PM

oh really? and i quote:

Also-Ted Cruz isn’t ‘Hispanic’…Ted Cruz is a Texan.
Period.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 7:55 PM

So that gets your panties in a wad yet “If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, period” doesn’t.

annoyinglylittlebrain clearly believes that ‘hispanic’ and ‘texan’ are mutually exclusive.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 8:53 PM

“Mutually exclusive” You might be conflating that, Why not a hierarchy? Would that make your head explode? If she were to imply that there is something special about being a Texan, would that give you the excuse you are begging for to feel sanctimonious? To wag your finger and presume to lecture?
I don’t think your moral preening here is going to keep her up at night.

V7_Sport on May 27, 2014 at 9:18 PM

also, precisely how many hyphens are there in the term ‘hispanic’, oh ye of annoyingly little brain?

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:09 PM

You didn’t capitalize Hispanic as a sign of respect you filthy little racist.

V7_Sport on May 27, 2014 at 9:19 PM

How can a question be incorrect?
anuts on May 27, 2014 at 8:56 PM

Many different ways. Do you still beat your wife?
A question that forces an incorrect answer – or that allows for an incorrect inference from a correct answer – is an incorrect question.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 9:03 PM

That doesn’t make sense to me but moving on…

Our current POTUS was born to an alien father as well. Must be something else then, yes?
anuts on May 27, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Oy. barky is ineligible, in addition to being unqualified and un-American in every sense. On top of all that, he’s an imbecile.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 9:06 PM

Imbecility and un-American aside (I agree), 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

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Deny? No-I’m focusing on what’s important. His being half-Cuban is NOT important. His being all Texan IS important!

You’re not intelligent enough to understand what I’m saying. I get that.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 9:20 PM

KochCott?

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:15 PM

I’ll admit the guy is fun to play with sometimes but last night people responding to it with real arguments kind of wore me out.

Judge_Dredd on May 27, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Judge_Dredd on May 27, 2014 at 9:14 PM

if you dont like what i half to say your more than welcome to scroll past it without reading it. nobody is forcing you to read me.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:21 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Thanks for the lively debate. We may disagree, but at least we both give a shit!

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Tea Paty Rockin it!!!

http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/dewhurst-on-runoff-260856021.html

44Magnum on May 27, 2014 at 9:22 PM

So Cruz meets the standard set forth in the Constitution as ratified. The advent of dual citizenship, which came later, is the basis for your contention. Have the courts weighed in on this? Has the Constitution been amended to address this? This is starting to sound a lot like one man’s opinion.
KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:07 PM

It’s worse than that. It sounds like emanations and penumbras.

anuts on May 27, 2014 at 9:23 PM

’ll admit the guy is fun to play with sometimes but last night people responding to it with real arguments kind of wore me out.

Judge_Dredd on May 27, 2014 at 9:20 PM

I’m over him/her.

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:23 PM

William A. Jacobson – Legal Insurrection:

I believe Ted Cruz to be a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be President. Here’s why:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/

Pork-Chop on May 27, 2014 at 9:23 PM

His being all Texan IS important!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 9:20 PM

cruz is not a natural-born texan.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:23 PM

Tea Paty Rockin it!!!

http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/dewhurst-on-runoff-260856021.html

44Magnum on May 27, 2014 at 9:22 PM

yes!!!!!!!!

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:24 PM

44Magnum on May 27, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. *evil laugh*

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 9:24 PM

This is for the court to decide.

John the Libertarian on May 27, 2014 at 9:25 PM

if you dont like what i half to say your more than welcome to scroll past it without reading it. nobody is forcing you to read me.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:21 PM

That’s just it. When you’re long-winded I do scroll past you. It’s when others respond as if you were a real person worth real responses that gets me.

Judge_Dredd on May 27, 2014 at 9:25 PM

It’s worse than that. It sounds like emanations and penumbras.

anuts on May 27, 2014 at 9:23 PM

He has his beliefs. I like his passion. We need passion.

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. *evil laugh*

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 9:24 PM

LOL!

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:26 PM

cruz is not a natural-born texan.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:23 PM

Nor am I. I’m a former Chicagoan.
So what.

Texan. Is. An. Attitude.
Texan. Is. A. State. Of. Mind.

I have a FB friend who like Cruz-was born in another country(not to US citizens) who arrived in Texas as a small child.
She IS a true Texan!
So is Ted Cruz!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 9:28 PM

Thanks for the lively debate.

Thank you.

We may disagree, but at least we both give a shit!

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Well … I used to. The Weeping Boner and the GOP have pretty much beaten any hope out of me.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 9:28 PM

Well … I used to. The Weeping Boner and the GOP have pretty much beaten any hope out of me.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 9:28 PM

Yeah. There is that….

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Well … I used to. The Weeping Boner and the GOP have pretty much beaten any hope out of me.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 9:28 PM

little known fact..ted cruz used to be The Weeping Boners lawyer. look it up.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:30 PM

He has his beliefs. I like his passion. We need passion.
KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Absolutely on all accounts. I don’t begrudge that poster one bit.

anuts on May 27, 2014 at 9:31 PM

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).

No, it’s not the same situation.

The reason Obama HAD to be born on US soil to be eligible is because of the age of his mother. Otherwise, the law at the time of his birth would have disqualified him from being a natural born citizen because his mother, Ann, was only 18 years old. She had to have lived in the US for 5 years after reaching the age of 14. Which means that at age 18, Ann was a few months short of being the 19 years of age needed for Obama to be automatically be born a US citizen, even if he had been born in Kenya. (Ann also had to be married. I assume she would be qualified as being married, because she did not know at the time that Barack’s father was already married and Ann’s marriage was therefore invalid.)

Ted Cruz’s mother was in her 30’s at his birth. Well above age 19. Cruz was born a US citizen.

Secondly, Obama’s Muslim Indonesian step-father renounced Obama’s US citizenship when he was a boy. That would not take effect unless Obama confirmed this renunciation of his citizenship after he turned 18 yrs old. There has always been a question about whether Obama did this because his college transcripts have been sealed. No one knows if he went to college or graduate school on a foreign student scholarship or admission quota.

Elisa on May 27, 2014 at 9:31 PM

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 27, 2014 at 9:30 PM

We have a saying that like attracts like.

Are you coolrepublica’s husband?

Judge_Dredd on May 27, 2014 at 9:32 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Ummm… Where do you even get your view on NBC from?? From the way they felt at the time?? B/c… they didn’t define NBC in the constitution and then they did define it in the Naturalization Act of 1790, but they defined it differently than you…

I didn’t finish the second page of comments… sorry if this was already discussed…

blockchords on May 27, 2014 at 9:36 PM

Pork-Chop on May 27, 2014 at 9:23 PM

I like Levin and Jacobson, but I disagree with both of them on this.

This letter from John Jay to George Washington (July 1787) explains a good part of the reason behind the requirement (though not the definition, as it was taken as known, clearly):

John Jay
New York
July 25, 1787

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

It was a matter of limiting the influence of foreigners (those who are not really American, in nature) on our particularly unique form of government, in addition to the very serious desire to not allow such a person to control the army and force.

As with all law, this became a rule of thumb that included many people who had no business in the Presidency and excluded many people who would have made perfectly good Presidents. But, that’s how things go.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 9:38 PM

Also OT , but yet another Tea Party WIN!!

http://www.wfaa.com/news/elections/results/state?raceName=Attorney+General+Republican&t=35

Ken Paxton beats Dan Branch for Attorney General nomination. Ken Paxton was backed by Ted Cruz.

Feel the inertia…..

44Magnum on May 27, 2014 at 9:39 PM

44Magnum on May 27, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Nice!

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:40 PM

44Magnum on May 27, 2014 at 9:39 PM

I’m bummed that Christian got beaten by Sitton for RR Commission.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 9:41 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 9:41 PM

Take a victory lap! Never gonna get them all. Won a couple of biggies.

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:43 PM

and then they did define it in the Naturalization Act of 1790, but they defined it differently than you…

blockchords on May 27, 2014 at 9:36 PM

No, they didn’t. They wrote that “children of citizenS” (plural – BOTH PARENTS) shall be considered natural born citizens, which is exactly what I have been arguing is a requirement.

But the point is moot, anyway, because Congress doesn’t have the power to define first-level Constitutional language. If it did, then Congress could amend the Constitution through redefinition whenever it felt like it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 9:45 PM

No, they didn’t. They wrote that “children of citizens” (plural – BOTH PARENTS) shall be considered natural born citizens, which is exactly what I have been arguing is a requirement.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 9:45 PM

Heh. Good point.

But really, the meaning of ‘children of citizens’ isn’t strictly limited to couples that are both citizens, since if there is more than one couple w/ only one citizen then there are citizens – plural.

Really to drive your point home, it should refer to a ‘child’ – singular – of ‘citizens’, b/c then it is clearly referring to the micro and not the macro. But that’s just to drive your point home. I might be out on a limb here.

Thanks though. I’ll run through and think about this again.

blockchords on May 27, 2014 at 9:56 PM

blockchords on May 27, 2014 at 9:56 PM

Good point.

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 9:57 PM

As Crazy Cat said to Running Bear, “Where the Heckawi?”

Judge_Dredd on May 27, 2014 at 8:37 PM

You woke up a memory. In upstate Norwich, New York there is a creek called “Canastawakta Creek”. The name came from the 1700′s era natives’ understanding/pronouncement of a question asked by English settlers – whose way of asking the depth of the water was: “Canst thou walk the creek?”

GGMac on May 27, 2014 at 10:02 PM

This is one situation where the saying “the masses are asses” rings true.

bluegill on May 27, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Only one situation? You forget Odumbass was re-elected. When it comes to amerikans, “the masses are asses” is a patent truth.

earlgrey on May 27, 2014 at 10:05 PM

You woke up a memory. In upstate Norwich, New York there is a creek called “Canastawakta Creek”. The name came from the 1700′s era natives’ understanding/pronouncement of a question asked by English settlers – whose way of asking the depth of the water was: “Canst thou walk the creek?”

GGMac on May 27, 2014 at 10:02 PM

That’s nothing! The word “Yankees” came from the Dutch in NYC way back when. The English hated the Dutch. So much they referred to them as “John Cheese” after their love of cheeses. The Dutch turned it around on them and called them the same in their own language – “Yan Kees”. Paul Harvey told us that years ago. And now you know….The rest of the story.

Judge_Dredd on May 27, 2014 at 10:06 PM

To bad none of this matters, only the law matters and there is only one legal definition of “natural born us citizen”:

The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “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”.

If someone takes it to court this will be the only clause that matters. Cruz is “natural born” enough for the law. Not enough for me though. We just went through 5 years debating if Hawaii was American enough, now I have to think about Calgary? Cruz is enough of a hispanic mess as is. Rand Paul cures it all.

RockRib on May 27, 2014 at 10:07 PM

If Obama was born in Kenya I didn’t believe he was a natural born citizen and, to be consistent, I don’t believe Cruz is either.

huckleberryfriend on May 27, 2014 at 10:12 PM

RockRib on May 27, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Rand the panderer-son of Her Doktor?
I’ll pass.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 10:12 PM

huckleberryfriend on May 27, 2014 at 10:12
It doesn’t matter what you believe.
Both Cruz and Jindal are eligible to be President.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 27, 2014 at 10:14 PM

This question was asinine – it’s like asking people if they understood the infield fly rule. The rule is the rule, it doesn’t matter if people understand it or not.

Tom Servo on May 27, 2014 at 10:20 PM

Go on republicans, spend 2 years arguing this subject. Meanwhile, the democrats will be coalescing while they laugh at how easily they can manipulate the other side.
They got barry elected, now they will convince everyone Cruz is not eligible, even if he is.

lonestar1 on May 27, 2014 at 10:23 PM

That’s nothing! The word “Yankees” came from the Dutch in NYC way back when. The English hated the Dutch. So much they referred to them as “John Cheese” after their love of cheeses. The Dutch turned it around on them and called them the same in their own language – “Yan Kees”. Paul Harvey told us that years ago. And now you know….The rest of the story.

Judge_Dredd on May 27, 2014 at 10:06 PM

Raised in New York, and never heard of that one. Too, too funny. The family will all get a charge – thanks.

GGMac on May 27, 2014 at 10:46 PM

I guess the Naturalization Act of 1790 is still present in these peoples’ minds. In that Act, the child would be a citizen only if the father had, at some point visited the United States. The citizenship of the mother made no difference if the father had never visited the United States.

That law was the first to use the term “natural born” to refer to children born of citizens outside the territory of the United States.

This first Act was quite lenient in terms of a residency requirement for citizenship — two years in the United States, and one year in the State in which the citizenship application was made. Both the State and the United States had to agree on the moral character of the person considered for citizenship.

Said immigration law has been superceded many times since 1790. But I’d love to know why 5% think that a child born in the United States to two citizen parents is not automatically a citizen….

unclesmrgol on May 27, 2014 at 10:56 PM

These children should not be automatically granted American citizenship.

novaculus on May 27, 2014 at 7:42 PM

There are a lot of ways of determining citizenship, and the one the United States uses is clearly understood, and is Constitutional as well. The Constitution is mute on what makes one a citizen, and we draw the phrase “natural born citizen” purely from the first immigration law ever passed by Congress. Indeed, it is certainly possible for Congress to pass a law restricting citizenship exactly as you describe, but the possibility of that passing depends on the possibility of a Nazi-like party gaining governing power in the United States.

I like the concept that everyone born in the territory of the United States is a citizen. It means that things like what happened to my brother in law can never happen here — born in Japan, raised in Japan, a Japanese speaker, but never a citizen of Japan for his father, who had been born in Japan, raised in Japan, and a Japanese speaker, was considered by the Japanese to be Portuguese, because in the very distant past, a Portuguese visitor to Japan had entered his genealogy. Indeed, the descendents of Portuguese visitors are not the only ones with this problem — the descendents of Korean laborers forcibly imported to Japan during the runup to WWII are also non-citizens.

Such an arrangement (jus sanguinis) allows for the creation of a hereditary underclass which is born and raised in their country of birth but are not entitled to any of the benefits of citizenship.

That’s a necessary side effect of jus sanguinis — which, by the way, the United States Constitution does not codify. It would certainly be possible for the United States to pass a law which codifies, like 5% believe, that the child of two citizens born in the United States is not automatically a citizen.

We have codified forms of jus soli and jus sanguinis in our laws, and they are not part of the Constitution.

Be careful of that which you wish, for it may come true in ways you don’t want.

unclesmrgol on May 27, 2014 at 11:17 PM

Good thing the legally illiterate majority don’t actually run the country then, eh?

Diluculo on May 28, 2014 at 12:52 AM

unclesmrgol on May 27, 2014 at 11:17 PM

Pfftt…. opposition to birthright citizenship is not nazi-esque. True, the Constitution does not compel opposition to it, but neither does the 14th Amendment compel its practice, as is the precedent set by SCOTUS.

If birthright citizenship were ever done away with, I’m sure there would be sad cases that would draw my sympathy. But as it is, its contributing to the destruction of our society.

blockchords on May 28, 2014 at 1:12 AM

If birthright citizenship were ever done away with, I’m sure there would be sad cases that would draw my sympathy. But as it is, its contributing to the destruction of our society.

blockchords on May 28, 2014 at 1:12 AM

In the days when transportation to America from overseas was difficult, dangerous, and expensive, it would have been overwhelmingly prescient for anyone to imagine that people would come to the US just to give birth and then take the child back to the original homeland of the parents rather than staying here and becoming naturalized themselves, or that people would come to the US from the southern continent just to work (or do — other things) without ever intending to become citizens.
So the current deleterious “unintended consequences” of non-citizens raising born-citizens were truly unforeseen, not just unintended-but-clearly-predictable, as is true of so many other government actions.

AesopFan on May 28, 2014 at 1:29 AM

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”?

There are Low-Information-Voters, and then there are Really-Low-Information-Voters.

AesopFan on May 28, 2014 at 1:31 AM

AesopFan on May 28, 2014 at 1:29 AM

You make an interesting point about the practical aspects of birthright citizenship given the means of production of a certain era. But, I’m making a Constitutional argument. I’m pretty sure that SCOTUS has interpreted the 14th Amendment as granting birthright citizenship to a child with two non-citizen parents. I’m just saying they made the wrong decision. Unclesmrgol is wrong about Congress. Congress couldn’t abolish birthright citizenship b/c of how the Court has ruled.

I don’t have all my sources in a row, but I recall I get my constitutional position on this from the former judge Michael W McConnell. IMO the plain language of the 14th Amendment doesn’t really guarantee birthright citizenship to children of noncitizens, as SCOTUS has held.

blockchords on May 28, 2014 at 1:45 AM

Birth tourism.

Akzed on May 27, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Bump

blockchords on May 28, 2014 at 2:00 AM

The Constitution is mute on what makes one a citizen, and we draw the phrase “natural born citizen” purely from the first immigration law ever passed by Congress.

The Founder’s clearly understood Natural Law and the Laws of Nations, and as such, no definition of what constitutes “natural-born” citizen was necessary – a child born of two citizen parents.

Such an arrangement (jus sanguinis) allows for the creation of a hereditary underclass which is born and raised in their country of birth but are not entitled to any of the benefits of citizenship.

What happens in Japan cannot happen here because we have a naturalization process that allows immigrants to become naturalized American citizens, and thus their offspring become natural-born citizens. Your example, unclesmrgol, is irrelevant.

ThePainfulTruth on May 28, 2014 at 6:09 AM

I would gladly concede that Ted Cruz is not a natural-born citizen if the left would concede Barack H. Obama is also not a natural-born citizen, as the Founder’s understood the phrase when writing the Constitution – a child born of two citizen parents.

ThePainfulTruth on May 28, 2014 at 6:15 AM

I figure anybody educated in the US schools exclusively in English from the person’s first introduction to school is pretty close to being a natural born US citizen. Anybody even born in the US of two citizen parents who was educated exclusively in a foreign country is likely not truly loyal to the US and should not qualify as natural born. Living in the US and educated in US run schools taught in English is pretty likely to be a good citizen and suitable leadership material even if the person’s arrival into the US was not by birth.

We do need a law to spell this out. Tie it to any “amnesty” or “DREAM” act and it’d be worth the shame of amnesty (and the justice of DREAM.) Refine the above and add some other details to the picture and such an act would have my support.

As it is “amnesty” appears to be inevitable. So extract some good from it in this manner. I’d include loss of naturalization status on commission of a felony and no grant of automatic citizenship merely for being born in the USA with the above ideas.

{^_^}

herself on May 28, 2014 at 7:32 AM

When I went to school, I think we learned about civics in the 8th grade. I recall being taught a Natural Born Citizen was a person born of two parents who were citizens of the United States at the time of the person in questions birth. The reason being there would be no chance of loyalty to another nation. A cititen was either natural or naturalized, but to distinguish between a natural and a natural born citizen was the requirement of both parents being citizens at time of birth. That requirement is for one office only. The reason, which who we have in the White House currently becomes oxymoron.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on May 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Best summary here, that ^^.

And, I think Ted Cruz can do the most good for sanity and the USA from Congress.

Lourdes on May 28, 2014 at 8:14 AM

The Const.itution and Constitutional language is not open to popular vote. Natural born citizen has a meaning (known certainly to those who wrote the Constitution and the people of the time) that does not change just because society gets stupid.

Also very accurate statement but, unfortunately, the Constitution only exists when it’s applied and enforced, despite “popular vote”e or popular opinion.

I acknowledge, however much I disagree with this, that the US Constitution has become, in practice (as it’s applied or not and how), that distasteful, Leftwing thing called “a living document.” Because the Leftwing screams louder than others, whether they’re citizens or not. This or “that” is becoming the US-way, popular opinion yelled, screamed, stompy-footed Leftists being indulged vs. what’s in the Constitution.

Lourdes on May 28, 2014 at 8:19 AM

When did it become such a difficult concept?

“Natural born citizen”…how can that possibly mean anything other ‘a citizen at the moment of birth’?

anuts on May 27, 2014 at 8:17 PM

It’s a case of HOW citizenship is defined. Thus, the belief by many of us that one isn’t a US citizen if born here to a parent in the country illegally (or both parents are here illegally).

The Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t written to bestow US citizenship on anyone geographically born here if their parent/s weren’t legally here, or here as citizens themselves.

It’s been MISREPRESENTED for a while now as not meaning what it means, however, and therein lies the problem: that the 14th Amendment has been misrepresented and misapplied to bestow citizen ship *if and only if* a person is born in the USA despite parental lack of citizenship or legality.

Lourdes on May 28, 2014 at 8:25 AM

When one is “naturalized” for citizenship that means they became a citizen at some later point in life. Natural born would mean they became a citizen at what time in their life?

anuts on May 27, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Even I know this one.

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 8:39 PM

And THAT represents or illustrates the rule of and by popular opinion.

Meaning, since that’s what is popularly-believed, then, it’s the “rule” or definition or whatever, how things should be.

But it may not be Constitutionally intended or declared.

At this point, the popular-opinion standard or method of defining-what-is can’t really be argued with because popular-opinion will ruin, or try to, those who disagree. Bans, attacks, whatever works to secure the ‘rule by popular opinion’ and thus, the US Constitution becomes subservient to popular opinion, deemed “rewritten because of cultural (popular) dominant opinion.”

Lourdes on May 28, 2014 at 8:33 AM

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

cajunpatriot on May 28, 2014 at 8:39 AM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2014 at 8:42 PM

If one has never been naturalized, yet is a citizen, how did they become one? as far as I know, there are only two ways. Naturalization and Natural born. Is there a third?

KCB on May 27, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Primordial is right (there and in other comments here).

To KCB, you’re inaccurately defining “born in US geographically” with the phrase, “natural-born citizen.”

Natural-born citizen doesn’t refer to being born in the US geographically, not in the Constitutional use (and introduction) of the phrase. It was used in the US Constitution drawing upon reference material from what the Founders (writers of the Constitution) used academically, intellectually.

They were REFERRING to, conceptually, someone born TO the US by birth to two US citizens: therefore, therein by being “born by nature to the nation” through citizenship, loyalty to the nation itself, not compromised by dual or acquired ideas (or, “heart” if you will).

Unfortunately, that level of concept in — yes the English — language IDEA of loyalty to the nation has been largely denigrated if not kicked to a curb, so to, by the demands of “many cultures, many loyalties,” by the multicultural notions that liquefied the solidarity of the founding fathers’ language concepts.

Lourdes on May 28, 2014 at 8:43 AM

Source Wiki

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the requirements to hold office. A president must:

be a natural-born citizen of the United States;[note 1]
be at least thirty-five years old;
have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

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 foreign 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.[1]

Bmore on May 28, 2014 at 8:46 AM

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

cajunpatriot on May 28, 2014 at 8:39 AM

Obama’s not sound as President and most of the US who are citizens recognize that. But he’s there and we’re stuck with him. At least until his second term ends. But then the nation is stuck with him and his horrible notions and foolish ideas on the “cultural circuit”.

No one stood fast to prove who Obama was before he took the White House. No one enforced the Constitution and I doubt anyone will again. Pelosi’s gaming of the paperwork-trail worked, at least to forge the way.

Lourdes on May 28, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Bmore on May 28, 2014 at 8:46 AM

And that, also, represents or illustrates the “rule” of and by popular opinion. Ye opou cite, copy and paste, from a Wiki. It’s what the “popular opinion” wants the Constitution to mean, i.e., it illustrates the dominance of popularity-deeming what-what means, not what the original source means but what it’s “wanted” to mean.

So we can all now settle on rule by what opinion appears in Wiki. Okay, then.

Lourdes on May 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3