The Clause Of Conversation
Today I will speak on this weird phenomenon of people on the right getting rabid over the whole Article II natural-born Citizen question as applies to Cruz. Are they noticing that the most anti-Conservative media and bloggers and Cruz haters are willing to quietly accept that a man who was born in Canada, who had such citizenship at the instant of his birth, whose mother had to take the step of registering his birth at the American consulate in order to extend her citizenship to him, causing Cruz to be a dual citizen in fact only after that exercise – are they noticing how quiet the left is on this?
You all knew it was coming. Cruz announces and the anti-Birthers start popping off like Mexican jumping beans in a frenzy. Conservative people mostly, so presumably Constitutionalists. Listen, Cruz swears that he didn’t have any idea that he had Canadian citizenship – although he has a Canadian birth certificate. Yet the left is giving him a pass on that obviously ignorant and disingenuous claim.
Now, we all have been exposed to the LIV who are happy to accept the word of a couple of lawyers who claim that they understand the issue, and so have decided that any person who derived some form of US citizenship thru a US citizen parent, at birth, meets the Article II requirement. Even though it is not “settled” in any court or session of Congress. Quite the opposite.
So, I decided that I would veer off from looking for the “definition” and instead look for historical understanding of American citizenship. And naturalization. While a clear, unambiguous definition from the US Supreme Court, or even from Congress (heh), at some point in our history being decided and declared is not available, the common understanding of citizenship at the time of the signing, and for generations forward, should give us a clearer and better understanding of what was meant when our Constitution was signed.
Horace Binney, The Allegiance of the United States, 1853:
The state of the law in the United States is easily deduced. The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not and never was any such common law principle. But the common law principle of allegiance, was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution, and at the adoption of the Constitution; and by that principle the citizens of the Untied States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution, or since that time, by virtue of an Act of the Congress of the United States.
The question remains, what is the present effect of Acts of Congress, on the subject of naturalization; for it is unnecessary to advert to the long-extinct authority of the States.
The first Act upon this subject was passed on the 25th March, 1790. After enacting, that any alien, being a free white person, who had resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, might be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any year at least, on making certain proof and taking certain oaths, provides, 1st, that the children of such persons, so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 2dly, that the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens–with a proviso, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons who had never been resident in the United States.
***since the common law did NOT confer automatic citizenship to children born outside of the country – the children born out of the limits were provided for by passing a naturalization law to address their condition.
Horace was a BFD in his day… a renowned attorney amongst other accomplishments.
His grandson later wrote a biography on Horace, where he mentions the book written on allegiance – or should I say he explains why Horace felt compelled to write it so late in life, and not even being a “writer”.
screenshot, click to enlarge:
More to come. I am tired now. OOPS! I forgot to mention that this post is mostly for the Article II geeks. If you have any question about why I posted this, or what this material means and how it is significant, please drop me a question in comments. If you are new here your question will go into moderation before being answered.
My Very Own Point of View 
Our country has a growing problem — a great many of our citizens are now carrying dual citizenship into adulthood. This is because of modern loopholes that became common with the passage of the Cable Act of 1922 when wives no longer acquired derivative citizenship upon marriage. There are other loopholes that give rise to dual citizenship, the most egregious being the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment that confers citizenship by “magic dirt” (i.e., anchor babies).
Note that the problem is not that some other country may randomly foist citizenship claims upon our citizens, for our government rightly would not recognize such folly. The problem is that officially recognized dual citizenship is allowed to persist into adulthood. This creates a cohort of unnatural hybrid citizens of split allegiance and questionable loyalty. Civic bigamy is perhaps the best description for it. We could (and should) require all dual citizens, upon reaching the age of majority, to take the same oath of allegiance as required for naturalization.
Unlike these hybrid limbo citizens, when a complete alien naturalizes as an American citizen they must take an oath of exclusive allegiance to the USA and officially renounce all prior allegiances. Their status from that point forward as recognized by the USA is 100 percent American and nothing else. It is obvious that a normal natural Citizen has this status without naturalizing, that is, without any process or law. It is obvious that a natural born Citizen must have this status from birth on.
How can anyone in their right mind think that it is acceptable for a president to have ever had a weaker (hybrid) citizenship status than a naturalized citizen freshly minted out of a former alien (that is, now 100 percent American and nothing else)?
In an attempt to justify that mere “born citizen” == “natural born Citizen” those attempting to weaken the Constitution often try to reference the British term and concept of natural born subject.
Natural born Citizen is NOT the same as natural born subject. The founders very specifically rejected the idea of natural born subjects, a term implying an irrevocable fealty to an elite sovereign. Natural born subject was a term of ownership and was used, among other things, to justify impressing as many able bodied, but otherwise unwilling “subjects” into his majesty’s royal service as possible (typically as sailors). For this reason (gathering up as many able bodies as possible), qualification as a natural born subject was like a logical OR operation, thus being born of either of the blood of a subject or within the king’s realm was qualification enough.
The founders thoroughly rejected this idea and considered every citizen as sovereign — we were founded as a nation of sovereign Citizens, none higher than any other. Politicians, even up to and including the president, were intended to be the servants of We the People, the exact opposite of the system natural born subjects suffer under. The founders were familiar with the term and concept of “natural born subject” and they rejected it in its entirety.
Furthermore, it is ludicrous on its face to assume that the founders, who were articulately deliberate and elegantly succinct in their writings, inserted an entirely superfluous word into the phrase “natural born Citizen.” If they had meant only “born citizen” that is exactly what they would have written, but they did not. As Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in Holmes v. Jennison (1840):
The purpose of the presidential eligibility requirement was to ensure that those born with a naturally divided allegiance be excluded from ever becoming our commander-in-chief. For this reason, qualification as a natural born Citizen was like a logical AND operation, thus one must born one hundred percent exclusively American, both of blood (of two citizen parents) and of dirt (within our territorial jurisdiction).
The circular and unsubstantiated argument of the confused (I am being kind) inevitably lands in a thump, “It doesn’t really matter ’cause we can’t ask those men what they meant. And besides, we are more “global” now anyway. ”
I hate those people. I hate especially the ones who say, “well, obama gets away with everything, it’s time our side break some rules.”
It is why I am pursuing the historical meaning as understood by the average man, as well as the men in power. There is no clear case in law, that has yet been uncovered, which states exactly was the meaning of the term was at the time it was used in the Constitution. So, screw the lawyers and their opinions – those are based on the research of those who hope to have the requirement amended!
Obviously it was always clear that at the very least native birth was required, yet in just seven short little years even that fact is clouded in a fog of deception and unsupported assurances that “smart lawyers” promote.
Where is Cruz’s magic dirt? For we cannot continue to have this both ways. Anchor babies, Canadians, and what next?
From the Alienigenae of the United States referenced by Horace’s grandson above:
“But the common law principle of allegiance, was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution, and at the adoption of the Constitution;
and by that principle the citizens of the United States are, with the
exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made
so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United
States, or naturalized by the authority of law, either in Qne of the
States before the Constitution, or since that time, by virtue of an
Act of the Congress of the United States.”
Note:
“…born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United
States, or naturalized by the authority of law,”
This makes it clear – out of country is considered naturalized.
Absolutely
The first natural born American citizen Presidents were #9 and #10, Van Buren and Tyler, respectively. Van Buren is a technicality because he was born in 1782, a year prior to the Paris Treaty. NY was till considered a “colony” where as when Tyler was born circa 1790, via the Paris Treaty, 1783, Virgnia was recognized as a Commonwealth/ State. These are historical facts that lend proof as to the meaning of “natural born” American citizenship and the Office of the US Presidency.