If Ted Cruz Was Born in Canada, He Cannot Be President: PERIOD

[Skylar]

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth

Can you prove he was naturalized?

I've proved it already

No, your unsubstantiated claims haven't proven anything.
If you have proof he was naturalized, show it.
Start with the date it occurred. Copies of the paperwork would also be useful.
Pointing to the Constitution and claiming it says things it doesn't is not helping your case.

I have provided nothing but historic case law and statutes in this thread and the other one proving Cruz is naturalized at birth. You provide nothing, absolutely nothing.

There is no statute in the entire USC that says that Cruz was naturalized. Which you know. Which is why you won't quote the United States Code.

Nowhere in the code will you find the term 'natural norn Citizen'. Nowhere! Attempting to conflate 'Citizen' and 'natural born Citizen' is futile. They are not the same.

Your claims is that Cruz was naturalized. I'm challenging you to show us where in the US code that the law recognizes a citizen at birth is naturalized. With the notable exception of Puerto Ricans.

You can't. There is no such law. Cruz was a citizen at birth. Which the USC holds in the same class of citizens as those born on US soil. And holds citizens at birth distinct and separate from naturalized citizens.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth

Can you prove he was naturalized?

I've proved it already

No, your unsubstantiated claims haven't proven anything.
If you have proof he was naturalized, show it.
Start with the date it occurred. Copies of the paperwork would also be useful.
Pointing to the Constitution and claiming it says things it doesn't is not helping your case.

I have provided nothing but historic case law and statutes in this thread and the other one proving Cruz was naturalized at birth. You provide nothing, absolutely nothing.

Steve McGarrett, Conservative White American Patriot of European Heritage

None of your "proof" proves he was naturalized.

Yes it does.

Right, because no evidence is just more proof of how deep the conspiracy goes.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

I've proved it already

No, your unsubstantiated claims haven't proven anything.
If you have proof he was naturalized, show it.
Start with the date it occurred. Copies of the paperwork would also be useful.
Pointing to the Constitution and claiming it says things it doesn't is not helping your case.

I have provided nothing but historic case law and statutes in this thread and the other one proving Cruz was naturalized at birth. You provide nothing, absolutely nothing.

Steve McGarrett, Conservative White American Patriot of European Heritage

None of your "proof" proves he was naturalized.

Yes it does.

Right, because no evidence is just more proof of how deep the conspiracy goes.

There's no conspiracy at all. Cruz isnot eligible. He's eligible to aspire to be president but that's about it. And why would the founders want a person, a lawyer, to be president not knowing he was a Canadian citizen until 2 years ago? There's a reason why the founders removed the term natural born citizen from the 1790 naturalization act and replaced it with citizen in the 1795 act. Now why do you think they did that?

 

[Skylar]

No, your unsubstantiated claims haven't proven anything.
If you have proof he was naturalized, show it.
Start with the date it occurred. Copies of the paperwork would also be useful.
Pointing to the Constitution and claiming it says things it doesn't is not helping your case.

I have provided nothing but historic case law and statutes in this thread and the other one proving Cruz was naturalized at birth. You provide nothing, absolutely nothing.

Steve McGarrett, Conservative White American Patriot of European Heritage

None of your "proof" proves he was naturalized.

Yes it does.

Right, because no evidence is just more proof of how deep the conspiracy goes.

There's no conspiracy at all. Cruz isnot eligible. He's eligible to aspire to be president but that's about it. And why would the founders want a person, a lawyer, to be president not knowing he was a Canadian citizen until 2 years ago?

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us where in the USC it states that a child at birth is naturalized.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, your unsubstantiated claims haven't proven anything.
If you have proof he was naturalized, show it.
Start with the date it occurred. Copies of the paperwork would also be useful.
Pointing to the Constitution and claiming it says things it doesn't is not helping your case.

I have provided nothing but historic case law and statutes in this thread and the other one proving Cruz was naturalized at birth. You provide nothing, absolutely nothing.

Steve McGarrett, Conservative White American Patriot of European Heritage

None of your "proof" proves he was naturalized.

Yes it does.

Right, because no evidence is just more proof of how deep the conspiracy goes.

There's no conspiracy at all. Cruz isnot eligible. He's eligible to aspire to be president but that's about it. And why would the founders want a person, a lawyer, to be president not knowing he was a Canadian citizen until 2 years ago?

There's no conspiracy at all.

If your lack of evidence isn't due to a conspiracy, how do you explain it?

why would the founders want a person, a lawyer, to be president not knowing he was a Canadian citizen until 2 years ago?

Ohhhhh, now you have evidence the Constitution says no dual citizen can be natural born?
Or a lawyer? LOL!

 

[Searcher44]

First of all British Common Law was not beloved by all Founders, George Mason, a little obscure but a hero for some, he demanded the bill of rights and refused to sign the final document because the Constitution had not ended slavery, he said;
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

So a guy who wouldn't sign the constitution vs. the guy that *wrote* it? Not a difficult choice on who would know what they were talking about.

Ask yourself, why did the Founders use the exact term 'natural-born citizen'? It seems rather specific. It wasn't Vattel. It wasn't Law of Nations. Random chance seems highly unlikely.

Easy: 'natural-born' was a specific legal term in British Common Law. With a specific meaning: those born in the allegiance to your nation. Centered exclusively on place of birth. Not parentage.

You're trying awfully hard here to come up with an alternative explanation for something that isn't particularly complicated. And the evidence is all on one side of this issue.

And from a Federalist blog, "Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
"It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their sole allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen".

I direct you again to Madison, in the very conversation we drew the 'place of birth' quote that you dismissed as 'too far' from the discussion. Which again bears fruit in this conversation. Allegiance follows place of birth. You have a 'right of birth' which acknowledges your allegiance follows the community you were born into. This was the assumption the founders were working on, in fact the foundation of their transition from British Subjects to American Citizens:

What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

This is why the founders put such an emphasis on allegiance following *location*. As it was their legal and philosophical basis for their allegiance to the new United States rather than their former British Empire. That the new Americans had allegiance to where they were born first. And why adults who wished to become US citizens and weren't born here had to jump through so many hoops. Because they didn't carry with this this first, fundamental allegiance of 'right of birth' being born into the community to which they would have natural allegiance.

Bingham is irrelevant to any originalist understanding of the meaning of the term. As he's nearly a century too late, with his comments coming in 1866. Not 1766. Bingham wasn't an itch in his grandpappy's pants when Madison and the Founders wrote the constitution.

I've replied to this post already so this is basically a P.S. I'm slightly confused, you seem to be arguing that Ted Cruz qualifies as a "natural born citizen". Yet your posts are arguing that place, (or jus soli), is the only factor we have to take into account to determine who has that citizenship status. For instance you say

"Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other criteria" You include many lines of evidence to support this claim in your posts. All this energy expended to try to prove a person has to be born on U.S soil to be a "natural born citizen" while everybody acknowledges that Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada. So how do you get from here to there? You tried to use the 1790 Naturalization Act but that led nowhere because the 1790 Act was reversed by the 1795 Act. And even if it hadn't been there would be strong argument that a Congressional statute could not override a Constitutional Provision unless it was an amendment. That's a moot point now any way. So do you have a plan "B"? Plan "A" was a pretty weak attempt to neuter a clause which the framers thought important enough to use only once in an attempt to erect an exclusionary barrier to persons who may have through some factor of birth the potential of having or developing loyalty to a foreign power. "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government" As John Jay put it.

Its not in question that the founder's understanding of 'natural born' at the time of the ratification of the constitution was predicated exclusively on place of birth. As Madison argued, the community you were born into and had allegiance to by 'right of birth'. Everyone from the Supreme Court to the State department recognizes that citizenship by blood is not embodied in the constitution. With the Supreme Court recognizing that those born outside the US to US parents and granted citizenship are naturalized.

The only relevant question related to Cruz's citizenship was the one I raised at the end of my post:

Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

Did you even read my post? It's so simple to just go to Wiki and brush up on the facts. As I told you the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the 1790 Act. One of the major changes....

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.....The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen.

As far as I can see you're left with what is essentially Madison's opinion, as I said yes he is important but his opinion is just that, an opinion.

And you brought up the Wong Kim Ark case and now seem to have conveniently forgot all about it.

The issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Justice Gray explained in that case:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

And as I tried to explain British common law involving "natural born subjects"
(not citizens, subjects) is not transferable without interpretation to the citizens of the new republic that was The United States of America. There is a large difference between a citizen of a Republic and the "subject" of a Monarch.

If it goes to SCOTUS they may side with you. If they do it will be interesting to read the opinion.

 

[Searcher44]

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not 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".[28]
While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

The Congress of 1790 screwed up, that's not unusual. They destroyed the exclusionary principle desired by the framers totally. The Congress in 1795 had to block the huge gap the act of 1790 had created.

They WERE the framers. The 1790 Naturalization Act was passed within 2 years of the ratification of the Constitution. This isn't just the same generation. In many cases, these are the same people.

And they didn't know what they were doing? They didn't understand the constitution? I'd argue that they had a far firmer grasp of what the Founders intended than either of us do.

As they were the Founders.

Nonetheless the 1790 Act was overturned by the 1795 Act, as I've mentioned several times.

 

[Searcher44]

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Says who? The 1790 Congress did exactly what you insist can never be done: extended natural born citizenship to those born outside the US.

I'll go with the very first session of congress, 2 years after the ratification of the Constitution......over you citing yourself.

Again and again it's so simple. Wiki is just a click away.

The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen.

 

[Searcher44]

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth

Can you prove he was naturalized?

I've proved it already

Did you prove it? Did the parents file the necessary papers? These procedures are necessary in Canada, I'm not sure if the U.S. requires some kind of proof of the child's provenance or details of birth.


Consular Report of Birth Abroad (FS-240)

U.S. citizen parents may transmit their citizenship to a child born outside of the U.S. Please make an appointment and apply in person, entering at 225 Simcoe Street. Please expect two hours or more of initial in-person processing by the parent(s) and a total of 4 weeks before receiving the documents.

Please note that all documents submitted must be original records, bearing the official seal of the issuing authority. Copies of documents certified by notaries cannot be accepted.

Applications for Consular Reports of Birth Abroad require the parent's and the child's personal appearance at a U.S. consulate or embassy.
You may also apply for a U.S. passport for your child (in lieu of a consular report of birth abroad) at a passport acceptance agency in the U.S. if that is a more convenient alternative.

Document Checklist.

Child's official long-form provincial birth record, showing complete information on the parents. The child's certificate of birth is not always acceptable.
Evidence of U.S. Citizenship of Parent(s) at Time of the Child's Birth. U.S. Passport; Certificate of Citizenship/Naturalization; Consular Report of Birth Abroad; or a U.S. Birth Certificate bearing the impression seal of the Vital Records Office and the date of filing.
Proof of parents' identity: Photo ID.
Original civil marriage certificate of parents.
Documentary evidence of termination of any previous marriages of either parent (i.e. divorce decree, death certificate, etc.), if applicable.
In some cases the U.S. citizen parent may be asked to complete an Affidavit of Parentage and Physical Presence at the time of Application.
Previous CRBAs for other children in the family.
Evidence of physical presence of parent(s) in the U.S. Some examples of evidence of physical presence may include accredited school and university transcripts, employment records, utility bills, etc. Acceptance of this evidence will be at the discretion of the consular officer, and depending on the circumstances, the consular officer may ask for additional material.

Complete Form DS-2029 (50KB PDF). Do not sign.

I think this is another alternative that might apply to Ted Cruz's situation;

Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship

Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, is filed to obtain a Certificate of Citizenship which serves as evidence of your or your child’s U.S. citizenship. You may file Form N-600 if you were born abroad and are claiming U.S. citizenship at birth through your parents. You may also file Form N-600 to obtain evidence of citizenship if you automatically became a U.S. citizen by operation of law after your birth but before you turned 18 years of age. A parent or guardian may also file Form N-600 on behalf of a minor child.

Please note that USCIS does not issue Certificates of Citizenship in cases where the person became a U.S. citizen based on birth in the United States. USCIS only issues Certificates of Citizenship to those individuals who were born abroad but are U.S. citizens at birth through their parents, or who became citizens after birth but before the age of 18.

 

[Searcher44]

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Where are the naturalization papers ?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Probably he/ mom has them or they're at the U.S. consulate in Canada.

Or they don't exist, as Ted was a citizen at birth.

You know governments....nothing happened unless there's paperwork to prove it.

 

[Skylar]

First of all British Common Law was not beloved by all Founders, George Mason, a little obscure but a hero for some, he demanded the bill of rights and refused to sign the final document because the Constitution had not ended slavery, he said;
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

So a guy who wouldn't sign the constitution vs. the guy that *wrote* it? Not a difficult choice on who would know what they were talking about.

Ask yourself, why did the Founders use the exact term 'natural-born citizen'? It seems rather specific. It wasn't Vattel. It wasn't Law of Nations. Random chance seems highly unlikely.

Easy: 'natural-born' was a specific legal term in British Common Law. With a specific meaning: those born in the allegiance to your nation. Centered exclusively on place of birth. Not parentage.

You're trying awfully hard here to come up with an alternative explanation for something that isn't particularly complicated. And the evidence is all on one side of this issue.

And from a Federalist blog, "Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
"It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their sole allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen".

I direct you again to Madison, in the very conversation we drew the 'place of birth' quote that you dismissed as 'too far' from the discussion. Which again bears fruit in this conversation. Allegiance follows place of birth. You have a 'right of birth' which acknowledges your allegiance follows the community you were born into. This was the assumption the founders were working on, in fact the foundation of their transition from British Subjects to American Citizens:

What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

This is why the founders put such an emphasis on allegiance following *location*. As it was their legal and philosophical basis for their allegiance to the new United States rather than their former British Empire. That the new Americans had allegiance to where they were born first. And why adults who wished to become US citizens and weren't born here had to jump through so many hoops. Because they didn't carry with this this first, fundamental allegiance of 'right of birth' being born into the community to which they would have natural allegiance.

Bingham is irrelevant to any originalist understanding of the meaning of the term. As he's nearly a century too late, with his comments coming in 1866. Not 1766. Bingham wasn't an itch in his grandpappy's pants when Madison and the Founders wrote the constitution.

I've replied to this post already so this is basically a P.S. I'm slightly confused, you seem to be arguing that Ted Cruz qualifies as a "natural born citizen". Yet your posts are arguing that place, (or jus soli), is the only factor we have to take into account to determine who has that citizenship status. For instance you say

"Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other criteria" You include many lines of evidence to support this claim in your posts. All this energy expended to try to prove a person has to be born on U.S soil to be a "natural born citizen" while everybody acknowledges that Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada. So how do you get from here to there? You tried to use the 1790 Naturalization Act but that led nowhere because the 1790 Act was reversed by the 1795 Act. And even if it hadn't been there would be strong argument that a Congressional statute could not override a Constitutional Provision unless it was an amendment. That's a moot point now any way. So do you have a plan "B"? Plan "A" was a pretty weak attempt to neuter a clause which the framers thought important enough to use only once in an attempt to erect an exclusionary barrier to persons who may have through some factor of birth the potential of having or developing loyalty to a foreign power. "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government" As John Jay put it.

Its not in question that the founder's understanding of 'natural born' at the time of the ratification of the constitution was predicated exclusively on place of birth. As Madison argued, the community you were born into and had allegiance to by 'right of birth'. Everyone from the Supreme Court to the State department recognizes that citizenship by blood is not embodied in the constitution. With the Supreme Court recognizing that those born outside the US to US parents and granted citizenship are naturalized.

The only relevant question related to Cruz's citizenship was the one I raised at the end of my post:

Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

Did you even read my post? It's so simple to just go to Wiki and brush up on the facts. As I told you the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the 1790 Act. One of the major changes....

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.....The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen.

And what relevance does that have with the fundamental issue of whether the founders intended natural born citizenship to be embodied exclusively by the constitution or if it could be something extended by congress?

As you're arguing that that for the second time, natural born status was within the realm of congress to extend or deny. The first time being the Naturalization Act of 1790, when they *did* extend natural born citizenship. As elegant a demonstration that the founders intended natural born citizenship to be within the realm of Congress to grant. As the First Congress IS the Founders.

You've insisted its a 'mistake'. But your assessment doesn't magically transform history, change the text of the 1790 Naturalization Act, nor eliminate the Founders establishing that natural born citizenship is well within the authority of Congress to extend. That all still happened.

As far as I can see you're left with what is essentially Madison's opinion, as I said yes he is important but his opinion is just that, an opinion.

We're having two different discussions. The first is on the founder's conception of natural born citizenship at the time of the ratification of the Constitutoin. And for that I've cited Madison's opinion, Wong Kim Ark, British Common Law, and the very concept of cause preceding effect in dismantling your claims regarding Vattel and the Law of Nations. And you've essentially abandoned your every claim on that front, I can only assume we now agree.

The second discussion is if the founders intended the intended natural born citizenship to be embodied exclusively by the constitution or if it could be something extended by congress. In that I haven't cited Madison as he has nothing to say on the topic.

So I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. If you're referring to our first discussion, I've obviously cited far, far more than 'Madison's opinion'. Making your claim inaccurate. And if you're referring to the second discussion, I haven't cited Madison's opinion as evidence. Making your claims inaccurate.

Pick one.

And you brought up the Wong Kim Ark case and now seem to have conveniently forgot all about it.

The issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Justice Gray explained in that case:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

And as I tried to explain British common law involving "natural born subjects"
(not citizens, subjects) is not transferable without interpretation to the citizens of the new republic that was The United States of America. There is a large difference between a citizen of a Republic and the "subject" of a Monarch.

That's what you've claimed. But the quote of Wong Kim Ark you just offered simply didn't say that. Or even mention 'subjects'. And in terms of the application of the standards of British common law with the founders in their understanding of the term 'natural born citizen', its a difference with no significant distinction. As 'natural-born' subject and 'natural-born' citizen are effectively interchangeable in a discussion of the meaning of 'natural-born'.

As Madison's comments make ludicrously clear.

If it goes to SCOTUS they may side with you. If they do it will be interesting to read the opinion.

I've not only read the opinion, I've actually cited that exact passage. In this thread, I believe. As far as the founders original conception of natural born, its obvious that citizens born outside the US weren't included. Which I've stipulated......perhaps 4 times. That's actually my argument, one that I've cited Wong Kim Ark for, British Common Law for, James Madison for, what I've dismantled your claims regarding Vattel over.

The founders based natural born status on PLACE of birth. Not parentage. I don't know how much clearer I can be on the topic.

However, we're also discussing if the founders intended the natural born citizenship to be embodied in the constitution alone. Or if its something that can be extended by Congress. With the latter case obviously involving a conception of natural born citizenship AFTER the ratification of the constitution and beyond their understanding of the meaning of the term.

And as the 1790 Naturalization Act, passed in the first session of congress, signed by George Washington himself demonstrates, yes, that's what they intended.

Wong Kim Ark doesn't address this topic specifically. Given the current state of the USC on the topic, I think that the Supreme Court today would find 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' to be explicitly analogous. But this is thoroughly debatable. Our first discussion on the founders original meaning of 'natural born' and where they derived the term.....much less so.

 

[Skylar]

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Where are the naturalization papers ?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Probably he/ mom has them or they're at the U.S. consulate in Canada.

Or they don't exist, as Ted was a citizen at birth.

You know governments....nothing happened unless there's paperwork to prove it.

Paperwork verifying Ted's citizenship? Of that I have no doubt. Paperwork indicating that he was 'naturalized'?

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Searcher44]

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not 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".[28]
While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

First of all British Common Law was not beloved by all Founders, George Mason, a little obscure but a hero for some, he demanded the bill of rights and refused to sign the final document because the Constitution had not ended slavery, he said;
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

And from a Federalist blog, "Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
"It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. y.

Thomas Jefferson- while he was President- was a dual citizen of the United States and France.

You would think he would be aware what the 'founders considered 'improper and dangerous'

Now you've confounded me, I thought I knew a lot about Thomas Jefferson but I've never heard that he was a citizen of France. You sure about that? I have my doubts. I know he was a big supporter of the French revolution and he was in France as Minister during the Constitutional Convention, but a citizen? Are you pulling my leg? Eh? Also I'm sure you're aware that the Founders neatly covered themselves with the "grandfather clause" in Section 1 of Article 2....

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.

 

[Skylar]

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

The Congress of 1790 screwed up, that's not unusual. They destroyed the exclusionary principle desired by the framers totally. The Congress in 1795 had to block the huge gap the act of 1790 had created.

They WERE the framers. The 1790 Naturalization Act was passed within 2 years of the ratification of the Constitution. This isn't just the same generation. In many cases, these are the same people.

And they didn't know what they were doing? They didn't understand the constitution? I'd argue that they had a far firmer grasp of what the Founders intended than either of us do.

As they were the Founders.

Nonetheless the 1790 Act was overturned by the 1795 Act, as I've mentioned several times.

Gloriously irrelevant.

As both the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts demonstrate that natural born status is within the authority of Congress to extend or deny. How they exercised that authority in the 1700s is effectively immaterial. That Congress has the authority to weild is the question at hand. And both naturalization acts demonstrate that yes, they do.

Once we recognize that natural born status is within the power of Congress to extend or deny, as the Founders did in the 1st and 3rd sessions of congress, then the founder's original conception of natural born status isn't particularly important in establishing its meaning today. What would be important is what the laws of congress TODAY imply about natural born status.

And I think its a small leap from 'citizen at birth' to 'natural born citizen'. Especially when current laws on citizenship make citizenship at birth and naturalization distinct and seperate classification of citizens. They've even created a unique 'naturalized at birth', only for Puerto Ricans. Further establishing the distinction between those who are citizens at birth.....and those who achieved their citizenship through naturalization.

 

[Skylar]

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

First of all British Common Law was not beloved by all Founders, George Mason, a little obscure but a hero for some, he demanded the bill of rights and refused to sign the final document because the Constitution had not ended slavery, he said;
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

And from a Federalist blog, "Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
"It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. y.

Thomas Jefferson- while he was President- was a dual citizen of the United States and France.

You would think he would be aware what the 'founders considered 'improper and dangerous'

Now you've confounded me, I thought I knew a lot about Thomas Jefferson but I've never heard that he was a citizen of France. You sure about that? I have my doubts. I know he was a big supporter of the French revolution and he was in France as Minister during the Constitutional Convention, but a citizen? Are you pulling my leg? Eh? Also I'm sure you're aware that the Founders neatly covered themselves with the "grandfather clause" in Section 1 of Article 2....

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.

Yeah, I'd like to see the information on Jefferson being a French Citizen too. I haven't heard a thing about it. He and Franklin spent huge amounts of time in France. But of the two of them, it was Franklin that was the french-o-file. Jumping into their decadent culture with both feet.

If ever the nickname of 'The Plumber' was due a founding father, it was Franklin. As the man effectively fucked our country into existence.

 

[Searcher44]

First of all British Common Law was not beloved by all Founders, George Mason, a little obscure but a hero for some, he demanded the bill of rights and refused to sign the final document because the Constitution had not ended slavery, he said;
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

So a guy who wouldn't sign the constitution vs. the guy that *wrote* it? Not a difficult choice on who would know what they were talking about.

Ask yourself, why did the Founders use the exact term 'natural-born citizen'? It seems rather specific. It wasn't Vattel. It wasn't Law of Nations. Random chance seems highly unlikely.

Easy: 'natural-born' was a specific legal term in British Common Law. With a specific meaning: those born in the allegiance to your nation. Centered exclusively on place of birth. Not parentage.

You're trying awfully hard here to come up with an alternative explanation for something that isn't particularly complicated. And the evidence is all on one side of this issue.

And from a Federalist blog, "Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
"It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their sole allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen".

I direct you again to Madison, in the very conversation we drew the 'place of birth' quote that you dismissed as 'too far' from the discussion. Which again bears fruit in this conversation. Allegiance follows place of birth. You have a 'right of birth' which acknowledges your allegiance follows the community you were born into. This was the assumption the founders were working on, in fact the foundation of their transition from British Subjects to American Citizens:

What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

This is why the founders put such an emphasis on allegiance following *location*. As it was their legal and philosophical basis for their allegiance to the new United States rather than their former British Empire. That the new Americans had allegiance to where they were born first. And why adults who wished to become US citizens and weren't born here had to jump through so many hoops. Because they didn't carry with this this first, fundamental allegiance of 'right of birth' being born into the community to which they would have natural allegiance.

Bingham is irrelevant to any originalist understanding of the meaning of the term. As he's nearly a century too late, with his comments coming in 1866. Not 1766. Bingham wasn't an itch in his grandpappy's pants when Madison and the Founders wrote the constitution.

I've replied to this post already so this is basically a P.S. I'm slightly confused, you seem to be arguing that Ted Cruz qualifies as a "natural born citizen". Yet your posts are arguing that place, (or jus soli), is the only factor we have to take into account to determine who has that citizenship status. For instance you say

"Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other criteria" You include many lines of evidence to support this claim in your posts. All this energy expended to try to prove a person has to be born on U.S soil to be a "natural born citizen" while everybody acknowledges that Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada. So how do you get from here to there? You tried to use the 1790 Naturalization Act but that led nowhere because the 1790 Act was reversed by the 1795 Act. And even if it hadn't been there would be strong argument that a Congressional statute could not override a Constitutional Provision unless it was an amendment. That's a moot point now any way. So do you have a plan "B"? Plan "A" was a pretty weak attempt to neuter a clause which the framers thought important enough to use only once in an attempt to erect an exclusionary barrier to persons who may have through some factor of birth the potential of having or developing loyalty to a foreign power. "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government" As John Jay put it.

Its not in question that the founder's understanding of 'natural born' at the time of the ratification of the constitution was predicated exclusively on place of birth. As Madison argued, the community you were born into and had allegiance to by 'right of birth'. Everyone from the Supreme Court to the State department recognizes that citizenship by blood is not embodied in the constitution. With the Supreme Court recognizing that those born outside the US to US parents and granted citizenship are naturalized.

The only relevant question related to Cruz's citizenship was the one I raised at the end of my post:

Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

Did you even read my post? It's so simple to just go to Wiki and brush up on the facts. As I told you the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the 1790 Act. One of the major changes....

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.....The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen.

And what relevance does that have with the fundamental issue of whether the founders intended natural born citizenship to be embodied exclusively by the constitution or if it could be something extended by congress?

As you're arguing that that for the second time, natural born status was within the realm of congress to extend or deny. The first time being the Naturalization Act of 1790, when they *did* extend natural born citizenship. As elegant a demonstration that the founders intended natural born citizenship to be within the realm of Congress to grant. As the First Congress IS the Founders.

You've insisted its a 'mistake'. But your assessment doesn't magically transform history, change the text of the 1790 Naturalization Act, nor eliminate the Founders establishing that natural born citizenship is well within the authority of Congress to extend. That all still happened.

As far as I can see you're left with what is essentially Madison's opinion, as I said yes he is important but his opinion is just that, an opinion.

We're having two different discussions. The first is on the founder's conception of natural born citizenship at the time of the ratification of the Constitutoin. And for that I've cited Madison's opinion, Wong Kim Ark, British Common Law, and the very concept of cause preceding effect in dismantling your claims regarding Vattel and the Law of Nations. And you've essentially abandoned your every claim on that front, I can only assume we now agree.

The second discussion is if the founders intended the intended natural born citizenship to be embodied exclusively by the constitution or if it could be something extended by congress. In that I haven't cited Madison as he has nothing to say on the topic.

So I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. If you're referring to our first discussion, I've obviously cited far, far more than 'Madison's opinion'. Making your claim inaccurate. And if you're referring to the second discussion, I haven't cited Madison's opinion as evidence. Making your claims inaccurate.

Pick one.

And you brought up the Wong Kim Ark case and now seem to have conveniently forgot all about it.

The issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Justice Gray explained in that case:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

And as I tried to explain British common law involving "natural born subjects"
(not citizens, subjects) is not transferable without interpretation to the citizens of the new republic that was The United States of America. There is a large difference between a citizen of a Republic and the "subject" of a Monarch.

That's what you've claimed. But the quote of Wong Kim Ark you just offered simply didn't say that. Or even mention 'subjects'. And in terms of the application of the standards of British common law with the founders in their understanding of the term 'natural born citizen', its a difference with no significant distinction. As 'natural-born' subject and 'natural-born' citizen are effectively interchangeable in a discussion of the meaning of 'natural-born'.

As Madison's comments make ludicrously clear.

If it goes to SCOTUS they may side with you. If they do it will be interesting to read the opinion.

I've not only read the opinion, I've actually cited that exact passage. In this thread, I believe. As far as the founders original conception of natural born, its obvious that citizens born outside the US weren't included. Which I've stipulated......perhaps 4 times. That's actually my argument, one that I've cited Wong Kim Ark for, British Common Law for, James Madison for, what I've dismantled your claims regarding Vattel over.

The founders based natural born status on PLACE of birth. Not parentage. I don't know how much clearer I can be on the topic.

However, we're also discussing if the founders intended the natural born citizenship to be embodied in the constitution alone. Or if its something that can be extended by Congress. With the latter case obviously involving a conception of natural born citizenship AFTER the ratification of the constitution and beyond their understanding of the meaning of the term.

And as the 1790 Naturalization Act, passed in the first session of congress, signed by George Washington himself demonstrates, yes, that's what they intended.

Wong Kim Ark doesn't address this topic specifically. Given the current state of the USC on the topic, I think that the Supreme Court today would find 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' to be explicitly analogous. But this is thoroughly debatable. Our first discussion on the founders original meaning of 'natural born' and where they derived the term.....much less so.

Okay, keep citing that 1790 Act that was repealed 5 yrs. later and keep treading that Madison mill. You're entitled to your opinion just as Madison was. If you ever find relevant info to support that opinion let me know. Until then I'm going to keep my opinion that the Framer's inserted the "natural born" clause into the sparsely worded Constitution because it had overwhelming import to them and should not be trifled with for superficial reasons. You keep claiming "place" is the only qualifier it signified and yet have abandoned even that narrow interpretation for some reason for which you haven't demonstrated any necessity let alone the overarching necessity it would require to tear out a constitutional clause and throw it away. I don't like the 2nd Amendment, it's too murky in meaning, old fashioned and used by too many people to justify events like we just witnessed in Oregon with a bunch of lunatic anti-American "militia" who are nothing but descendents of slave patrols and the Klu Klux Klan with some girly-boy need to dress up like pretend soldiers while death-threatening officers of the law, so in my opinion you should tear that out and burn the ******* thing. No reason necessary just my opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

First of all British Common Law was not beloved by all Founders, George Mason, a little obscure but a hero for some, he demanded the bill of rights and refused to sign the final document because the Constitution had not ended slavery, he said;
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

And from a Federalist blog, "Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
"It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. y.

Thomas Jefferson- while he was President- was a dual citizen of the United States and France.

You would think he would be aware what the 'founders considered 'improper and dangerous'

Now you've confounded me, I thought I knew a lot about Thomas Jefferson but I've never heard that he was a citizen of France. You sure about that? I have my doubts. I know he was a big supporter of the French revolution and he was in France as Minister during the Constitutional Convention, but a citizen? Are you pulling my leg? Eh? Also I'm sure you're aware that the Founders neatly covered themselves with the "grandfather clause" in Section 1 of Article 2....

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.

Yeah, I'd like to see the information on Jefferson being a French Citizen too. I haven't heard a thing about it. He and Franklin spent huge amounts of time in France. But of the two of them, it was Franklin that was the french-o-file. Jumping into their decadent culture with both feet.

If ever the nickname of 'The Plumber' was due a founding father, it was Franklin. As the man effectively fucked our country into existence.

Well I blush a little- I had heard about Jefferson being a citizen- and acted like a Birther- and just assumed it was correct.

Now- not to say there isn't a reference that says Jefferson was a citizen of France, but its hardly definitive.

A general abridgment and digest of American law

And this from Dr. Conspiracy

According to Empire of Liberty: A history of the Early Republic 1789-1715 by George S Wood, France bestowed honorary French citizenship on Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison about 1792. The related information at the link is also interesting. In the book The Age of Democratic Revolution: The Struggle by Robert Palmer, it seems to say that Jefferson was not made a French citizen, but that Washington, Hamilton, Paine and others were. The Formative Years: The second administration of Thomas Jefferson, 1805 … edited by Herbert Agar says that Jefferson was awarded French Citizenship in 1792 also. The political works of Thomas Paine By Thomas Paine introduction says Jefferson was made a French citizen.

So not absolutely certain- but certainly suggests that Jefferson was a French citizen.

 

[Skylar]

First of all British Common Law was not beloved by all Founders, George Mason, a little obscure but a hero for some, he demanded the bill of rights and refused to sign the final document because the Constitution had not ended slavery, he said;
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

So a guy who wouldn't sign the constitution vs. the guy that *wrote* it? Not a difficult choice on who would know what they were talking about.

Ask yourself, why did the Founders use the exact term 'natural-born citizen'? It seems rather specific. It wasn't Vattel. It wasn't Law of Nations. Random chance seems highly unlikely.

Easy: 'natural-born' was a specific legal term in British Common Law. With a specific meaning: those born in the allegiance to your nation. Centered exclusively on place of birth. Not parentage.

You're trying awfully hard here to come up with an alternative explanation for something that isn't particularly complicated. And the evidence is all on one side of this issue.

And from a Federalist blog, "Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
"It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their sole allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen".

I direct you again to Madison, in the very conversation we drew the 'place of birth' quote that you dismissed as 'too far' from the discussion. Which again bears fruit in this conversation. Allegiance follows place of birth. You have a 'right of birth' which acknowledges your allegiance follows the community you were born into. This was the assumption the founders were working on, in fact the foundation of their transition from British Subjects to American Citizens:

What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

This is why the founders put such an emphasis on allegiance following *location*. As it was their legal and philosophical basis for their allegiance to the new United States rather than their former British Empire. That the new Americans had allegiance to where they were born first. And why adults who wished to become US citizens and weren't born here had to jump through so many hoops. Because they didn't carry with this this first, fundamental allegiance of 'right of birth' being born into the community to which they would have natural allegiance.

Bingham is irrelevant to any originalist understanding of the meaning of the term. As he's nearly a century too late, with his comments coming in 1866. Not 1766. Bingham wasn't an itch in his grandpappy's pants when Madison and the Founders wrote the constitution.

I've replied to this post already so this is basically a P.S. I'm slightly confused, you seem to be arguing that Ted Cruz qualifies as a "natural born citizen". Yet your posts are arguing that place, (or jus soli), is the only factor we have to take into account to determine who has that citizenship status. For instance you say

"Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other criteria" You include many lines of evidence to support this claim in your posts. All this energy expended to try to prove a person has to be born on U.S soil to be a "natural born citizen" while everybody acknowledges that Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada. So how do you get from here to there? You tried to use the 1790 Naturalization Act but that led nowhere because the 1790 Act was reversed by the 1795 Act. And even if it hadn't been there would be strong argument that a Congressional statute could not override a Constitutional Provision unless it was an amendment. That's a moot point now any way. So do you have a plan "B"? Plan "A" was a pretty weak attempt to neuter a clause which the framers thought important enough to use only once in an attempt to erect an exclusionary barrier to persons who may have through some factor of birth the potential of having or developing loyalty to a foreign power. "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government" As John Jay put it.

Its not in question that the founder's understanding of 'natural born' at the time of the ratification of the constitution was predicated exclusively on place of birth. As Madison argued, the community you were born into and had allegiance to by 'right of birth'. Everyone from the Supreme Court to the State department recognizes that citizenship by blood is not embodied in the constitution. With the Supreme Court recognizing that those born outside the US to US parents and granted citizenship are naturalized.

The only relevant question related to Cruz's citizenship was the one I raised at the end of my post:

Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

Did you even read my post? It's so simple to just go to Wiki and brush up on the facts. As I told you the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the 1790 Act. One of the major changes....

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.....The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen.

And what relevance does that have with the fundamental issue of whether the founders intended natural born citizenship to be embodied exclusively by the constitution or if it could be something extended by congress?

As you're arguing that that for the second time, natural born status was within the realm of congress to extend or deny. The first time being the Naturalization Act of 1790, when they *did* extend natural born citizenship. As elegant a demonstration that the founders intended natural born citizenship to be within the realm of Congress to grant. As the First Congress IS the Founders.

You've insisted its a 'mistake'. But your assessment doesn't magically transform history, change the text of the 1790 Naturalization Act, nor eliminate the Founders establishing that natural born citizenship is well within the authority of Congress to extend. That all still happened.

As far as I can see you're left with what is essentially Madison's opinion, as I said yes he is important but his opinion is just that, an opinion.

We're having two different discussions. The first is on the founder's conception of natural born citizenship at the time of the ratification of the Constitutoin. And for that I've cited Madison's opinion, Wong Kim Ark, British Common Law, and the very concept of cause preceding effect in dismantling your claims regarding Vattel and the Law of Nations. And you've essentially abandoned your every claim on that front, I can only assume we now agree.

The second discussion is if the founders intended the intended natural born citizenship to be embodied exclusively by the constitution or if it could be something extended by congress. In that I haven't cited Madison as he has nothing to say on the topic.

So I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. If you're referring to our first discussion, I've obviously cited far, far more than 'Madison's opinion'. Making your claim inaccurate. And if you're referring to the second discussion, I haven't cited Madison's opinion as evidence. Making your claims inaccurate.

Pick one.

And you brought up the Wong Kim Ark case and now seem to have conveniently forgot all about it.

The issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Justice Gray explained in that case:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

And as I tried to explain British common law involving "natural born subjects"
(not citizens, subjects) is not transferable without interpretation to the citizens of the new republic that was The United States of America. There is a large difference between a citizen of a Republic and the "subject" of a Monarch.

That's what you've claimed. But the quote of Wong Kim Ark you just offered simply didn't say that. Or even mention 'subjects'. And in terms of the application of the standards of British common law with the founders in their understanding of the term 'natural born citizen', its a difference with no significant distinction. As 'natural-born' subject and 'natural-born' citizen are effectively interchangeable in a discussion of the meaning of 'natural-born'.

As Madison's comments make ludicrously clear.

If it goes to SCOTUS they may side with you. If they do it will be interesting to read the opinion.

I've not only read the opinion, I've actually cited that exact passage. In this thread, I believe. As far as the founders original conception of natural born, its obvious that citizens born outside the US weren't included. Which I've stipulated......perhaps 4 times. That's actually my argument, one that I've cited Wong Kim Ark for, British Common Law for, James Madison for, what I've dismantled your claims regarding Vattel over.

The founders based natural born status on PLACE of birth. Not parentage. I don't know how much clearer I can be on the topic.

However, we're also discussing if the founders intended the natural born citizenship to be embodied in the constitution alone. Or if its something that can be extended by Congress. With the latter case obviously involving a conception of natural born citizenship AFTER the ratification of the constitution and beyond their understanding of the meaning of the term.

And as the 1790 Naturalization Act, passed in the first session of congress, signed by George Washington himself demonstrates, yes, that's what they intended.

Wong Kim Ark doesn't address this topic specifically. Given the current state of the USC on the topic, I think that the Supreme Court today would find 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' to be explicitly analogous. But this is thoroughly debatable. Our first discussion on the founders original meaning of 'natural born' and where they derived the term.....much less so.

Okay, keep citing that 1790 Act that was repealed 5 yrs. later and keep treading that Madison mill.

You're not even reading what you're replying to, are you? Let me repeat...and please read this time:

We're having two different discussions. The first is on the founder's conception of natural born citizenship at the time of the ratification of the Constitutoin. And for that I've cited Madison's opinion, Wong Kim Ark, British Common Law, and the very concept of cause preceding effect in dismantling your claims regarding Vattel and the Law of Nations. And you've essentially abandoned your every claim on that front, I can only assume we now agree.

The second discussion is if the founders intended the intended natural born citizenship to be embodied exclusively by the constitution or if it could be something extended by congress. In that I haven't cited Madison as he has nothing to say on the topic.

So I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. If you're referring to our first discussion, I've obviously cited far, far more than 'Madison's opinion'. Making your claim inaccurate. And if you're referring to the second discussion, I haven't cited Madison's opinion as evidence. Making your claims inaccurate.

Did you catch it that time?

You're entitled to your opinion just as Madison was. If you ever find relevant info to support that opinion let me know.

As has been pointed out earlier and often, I have British Common law, the term 'natural-born' being a specific legal term within it, there being no other credible source for the meaning of the term, and the Wong Kim Ark decision.

And ALSO the father of the constitution explicitly and clearly making my argument for me.

You've got......nothing. Not even Vattel. You've essentially conceded the discussion on the founders original meaning of the term 'natural born'.

Until then I'm going to keep my opinion that the Framer's inserted the "natural born" clause into the sparsely worded Constitution because it had overwhelming import to them and should not be trifled with for superficial reasons. You keep claiming "place" is the only qualifier it signified and yet have abandoned even that narrow interpretation for some reason for which you haven't demonstrated any necessity let alone the overarching necessity it would require to tear out a constitutional clause and throw it away.

I haven't 'abandoned' the Founders understanding of Natural Born. I've argued that they intended the term to be within the realm of Congress to extend. Can you recognize the distinction?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This just in:

A U.S. citizen at birth doesn't require "naturalization" to "become" a United State's citizen. Cruz, for example.

 

[Searcher44]

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

First of all British Common Law was not beloved by all Founders, George Mason, a little obscure but a hero for some, he demanded the bill of rights and refused to sign the final document because the Constitution had not ended slavery, he said;
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

And from a Federalist blog, "Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
"It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. y.

Thomas Jefferson- while he was President- was a dual citizen of the United States and France.

You would think he would be aware what the 'founders considered 'improper and dangerous'

Now you've confounded me, I thought I knew a lot about Thomas Jefferson but I've never heard that he was a citizen of France. You sure about that? I have my doubts. I know he was a big supporter of the French revolution and he was in France as Minister during the Constitutional Convention, but a citizen? Are you pulling my leg? Eh? Also I'm sure you're aware that the Founders neatly covered themselves with the "grandfather clause" in Section 1 of Article 2....

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.

Yeah, I'd like to see the information on Jefferson being a French Citizen too. I haven't heard a thing about it. He and Franklin spent huge amounts of time in France. But of the two of them, it was Franklin that was the french-o-file. Jumping into their decadent culture with both feet.

If ever the nickname of 'The Plumber' was due a founding father, it was Franklin. As the man effectively fucked our country into existence.

Well I blush a little- I had heard about Jefferson being a citizen- and acted like a Birther- and just assumed it was correct.

Now- not to say there isn't a reference that says Jefferson was a citizen of France, but its hardly definitive.

A general abridgment and digest of American law

And this from Dr. Conspiracy

According to Empire of Liberty: A history of the Early Republic 1789-1715 by George S Wood, France bestowed honorary French citizenship on Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison about 1792. The related information at the link is also interesting. In the book The Age of Democratic Revolution: The Struggle by Robert Palmer, it seems to say that Jefferson was not made a French citizen, but that Washington, Hamilton, Paine and others were. The Formative Years: The second administration of Thomas Jefferson, 1805 … edited by Herbert Agar says that Jefferson was awarded French Citizenship in 1792 also. The political works of Thomas Paine By Thomas Paine introduction says Jefferson was made a French citizen.

So not absolutely certain- but certainly suggests that Jefferson was a French citizen.

i had read that Jefferson travelled on a French passport signed by Louis XVi when he left France, assumed it was a move by Louis to ingratiate himself to the popular Jefferson. I don't know now that I think about it if that has citizenship implications. Looking into it a bit I did find this;

"In recognition of their services to liberty, the Legislative Assembly in August 1792 bestowed French citizenship on three Americans, Madison, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton—the last two of whom did not respond to the award—as well as on a number of European supporters of the French Revolution (Archives Parlementaires, 1st ser., xlix, 10)"
I.found no similar mention of Jefferson being given that honor.but it does make it more likely. Madison in his correspondence indicated some gratitude for the honor. Washington and Hamilton both diplomatically seemed to regard it as a non-event. I wonder if Honorary citizenship is like being awarded an Honorary PHD in Mathematics, it looks good on the wall but doesn't get you any closer to solving Goldbach's conjecture.