Doug Miller wrote in
:

John McCoy wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote in
:

The only relevant thing is what the actual
law is: children born abroad, with at least one parent a U.S.
citizen, are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e.
"natural-born".

The law doesn't say that. What the law says is children born
as you describe are "native citizens". The law doesn't anywhere
define what a "natural born" citizen is.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...f-natural-born
-citizen/

Um, the only actual law referenced in that article is the
naturalization act of 1790, which has long since been
superceded. As far as I know, there is no current law
which defines "natural born citizen" (and I think if there
was, the current discussion about Cruz would not be
happening).

The relevant current law, as far as I can tell, is
8 USC 1401.

Note that I'm not asserting Cruz isn't a natural born
citizen. Just that the term is not explicitly defined
under current law.

(just as an aside, under the act of 1790 Cruz would definately
not be a natural born citizen, so it's good for him that it
no longer applies).

John

On 1/20/2016 9:12 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
:

John McCoy wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote in
:

The only relevant thing is what the actual
law is: children born abroad, with at least one parent a U.S.
citizen, are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e.
"natural-born".

The law doesn't say that. What the law says is children born
as you describe are "native citizens". The law doesn't anywhere
define what a "natural born" citizen is.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...f-natural-born
-citizen/

Um, the only actual law referenced in that article is the
naturalization act of 1790, which has long since been
superceded. As far as I know, there is no current law
which defines "natural born citizen" (and I think if there
was, the current discussion about Cruz would not be
happening).

The relevant current law, as far as I can tell, is
8 USC 1401.

Note that I'm not asserting Cruz isn't a natural born
citizen. Just that the term is not explicitly defined
under current law.

(just as an aside, under the act of 1790 Cruz would definately
not be a natural born citizen, so it's good for him that it
no longer applies).

John


I think to sum all of this, is he or isn't he speculation, you can
probably rest assured that if he was not, the opposing party would have
come up with undeniable defined and clear proof that he was not.
But as our leaders and law makers have always done and will continue to
do they leave the waters just muddy enough so that they can interpret
their laws and rules the way they choose.

On 20/01/2016 8:25 AM, Leon wrote:
On 1/20/2016 9:12 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
:

John McCoy wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote in
:

The only relevant thing is what the actual
law is: children born abroad, with at least one parent a U.S.
citizen, are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e.
"natural-born".

The law doesn't say that. What the law says is children born
as you describe are "native citizens". The law doesn't anywhere
define what a "natural born" citizen is.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...f-natural-born
-citizen/

Um, the only actual law referenced in that article is the
naturalization act of 1790, which has long since been
superceded. As far as I know, there is no current law
which defines "natural born citizen" (and I think if there
was, the current discussion about Cruz would not be
happening).

The relevant current law, as far as I can tell, is
8 USC 1401.

Note that I'm not asserting Cruz isn't a natural born
citizen. Just that the term is not explicitly defined
under current law.

(just as an aside, under the act of 1790 Cruz would definately
not be a natural born citizen, so it's good for him that it
no longer applies).

John


I think to sum all of this, is he or isn't he speculation, you can
probably rest assured that if he was not, the opposing party would have
come up with undeniable defined and clear proof that he was not.
But as our leaders and law makers have always done and will continue to
do they leave the waters just muddy enough so that they can interpret
their laws and rules the way they choose.


The birthers are strangely quiet at the moment! Their chickens have come
home to roost!
Graham

--
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid
people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
-John Stuart Mill

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:bL-dnVxD4LJjOwLLnZ2dnUU7-
:

But as our leaders and law makers have always done and will continue to
do they leave the waters just muddy enough so that they can interpret
their laws and rules the way they choose.

Considering the number of times Congress had the opportunity
to clarify things, and chose not to, I think you have that
one 100% right :-)

John

John McCoy wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote in
:

John McCoy wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote in
:

The only relevant thing is what the actual
law is: children born abroad, with at least one parent a U.S.
citizen, are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e.
"natural-born".

The law doesn't say that. What the law says is children born
as you describe are "native citizens". The law doesn't anywhere
define what a "natural born" citizen is.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...f-natural-born
-citizen/

Um, the only actual law referenced in that article is the
naturalization act of 1790,

That is incorrect. The article also referenced the British statutes which form the basis of
American common law in this respect, and (although without citing or quoting it) the later
Congressional act(s) which superseded it.

which has long since been
superceded.

Yes, by a law with an even more expansive definition of birthright citizenship.

*superseded

As far as I know, there is no current law
which defines "natural born citizen" (and I think if there
was, the current discussion about Cruz would not be
happening).

The relevant current law, as far as I can tell, is
8 USC 1401.

Note that I'm not asserting Cruz isn't a natural born
citizen. Just that the term is not explicitly defined
under current law.

(just as an aside, under the act of 1790 Cruz would definately
not be a natural born citizen, so it's good for him that it
no longer applies).

The article explicitly states the contrary; did you actually read it?

"Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz
would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790. "

Doug Miller wrote in
:

Yes, by a law with an even more expansive definition of birthright
citizenship.

I see your problem here. You are assuming birthright
citizenship is the same as natural born citizen. There
is nothing in the law that says that (altho it's not an
unreasonable assumption). There is considerable reason
to think the founding fathers did not consider them to
be the same thing.

(just as an aside, under the act of 1790 Cruz would definately
not be a natural born citizen, so it's good for him that it
no longer applies).

The article explicitly states the contrary; did you actually read it?

"Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United
States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even
under the Naturalization Act of 1790. "

It was my understanding that Cruz's father did not reside
in the US until after Cruz's birth. Apparently I'm mistaken
in that (it appears, having looked up the info on Cruz's
father, that he's a religious loon of the first order. Not
something particularly desirable in the family of a
presidential candidate, unfortunately).

John

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:33:35 +0000, John McCoy wrote:

It was my understanding that Cruz's father did not reside in the US
until after Cruz's birth. Apparently I'm mistaken in that (it appears,
having looked up the info on Cruz's father, that he's a religious loon
of the first order. Not something particularly desirable in the family
of a presidential candidate, unfortunately).

Boy, is he - news to me. He makes his son look like a liberal :-).


--
It's turtles, all the way down!

John McCoy wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote in
:

Yes, by a law with an even more expansive definition of birthright
citizenship.

I see your problem here. You are assuming birthright
citizenship is the same as natural born citizen. There
is nothing in the law that says that (altho it's not an
unreasonable assumption). There is considerable reason
to think the founding fathers did not consider them to
be the same thing.

Quite the contrary, actually -- leading me to ask, again, if you actually read that Harvard Law
Review article, which discusses _at_length_ the considerations that informed the founding
fathers.

Doug Miller wrote in
:

Quite the contrary, actually -- leading me to ask, again, if you
actually read that Harvard Law Review article, which discusses
_at_length_ the considerations that informed the founding fathers.

Well, I have some free time, so let's go thru this:

1 - The Harvard Law Review is a very prestigious journal. It
is not, however, law. The authors are highly respected, but
they are not writing law, they are writing their opinions.

2 - They say "All the sources routinely used to interpret the
Constitution confirm that the phrase 'natural born Citizen'
has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen
at birth". Note that they do not cite a law giving that
definition, they say the Constitution is "interpreted" to
have that meaning.

3 - they then argue that "British common law" defines the
term (and then confuse the issue by refering to statutes of
the 1700s). Common law refers to the practice of courts being
bound by prior decisions, not to laws enacted by a legislature;
in this case it means that, when a US law or precendent does
not exist, courts are bound by British precedent. The British
statues (and common law precendent) are largely concerned with
primogeniture and inheritance, and are of dubious relevance
to the question here - dubious enough that a court would have
to pass judgement.

4 - then then declare the Naturalization Act of 1790 is a
clear indication of the Framer's intent, because it does
define "natural born citizen". However, the Act of 1795
removed that, which might be equally well be interpreted as
the Framers realizing that it was a mistake, and intentionally
deleting it (alternatively, it may have been removed by
accident - again, something a court would have to rule on).

5 - then they suggest that the intent of the Framers is clear
from their other writings. This seems to be a stretch, if
anything is clear it is that the Framers were concerned about
foreign influence in government (as in the quote from John
Jay in the article).

6 - finally they conclude by tacitly assuming that their point
is proven, and therefor all candidates in question are to be
considered "natural born".

It is not a badly written article. It is not definitive, and
all it's points could be argued in a court of law. And, it
does not change the fact that there is no law which defines
"natural born citizen", because if there was the article would
never have been written in the first place.

John