Patterico's Pontifications

If he ever does run, watch the left become ‘birthers’ in a heartbeat.

Icy (a81239) — 5/7/2013 @ 10:16 am

If he ever does run, watch for the left to become ‘birthers’ in a heartbeat.

Icy (a81239) — 5/7/2013 @ 10:17 am

Why, Patterico? I still don’t understand the special appeal of Ted Cruz…

Leviticus (2aa4e6) — 5/7/2013 @ 10:46 am

Ted Cruz needs to stop bullying Harry Reid. Heh!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2013 @ 10:51 am

and then who would do what he is doing now in the Senate? We don’t need Cruz in the White House to run the country right, we need more Cruz’ers in the Congress to return the nation to a government of, by and for the people.

crazy (d60cb0) — 5/7/2013 @ 11:01 am

So the Canadian thing doesn’t bother you? Do you actually believe that “natural born citizen” means the same thing as “citizen at birth, by whatever means”? Or have you reached the point where if the Democrats don’t care about the constitution why should we let it stand in the way of supporting an otherwise-excellent candidate?

I have two reasons not to support Cruz for president:

1. His Canadian birth

2. He hasn’t been a governor or mayor. I think presidents ought ideally to have that executive experience. In a pinch, CEO of a major corporation might substitute, but no length of time being a legislator is in any way preparation for being president. The jobs are completely different, and 0bama, like Kennedy before him, proved that.

There are some excellent governors coming up, and I hope to be able to support one of them.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/7/2013 @ 11:05 am

Hello, Milhouse. Cruz’s parents were U.S. citizens. He could have been born on Mars and still be a natural born citizen of the United States.

I’m not pleased that he’s Hispanic, but half-Cuban is better than Mexican I guess, unless he’s Castro’s Manchurian in which case it might make sense that Martian UFOs abducted his parents in Calgary and genetically engineered him which is why Harry Reid hates him because Harry Reid is from Nevada and knows all about Area 57 where we have locked up all the mutations from the nuclear tests of the ’50s because they have PSE and would bankrupt the casinos that everyone knows are run by the Mafia after Castro kicked them out of Havana.

nk (875f57) — 5/7/2013 @ 11:25 am

Leviticus, you’re not a conservative, so naturally you wouldn’t be expected to see the appeal of Cruz.

You’re like a vegetarian saying, “Hey, what’s the appeal of the porterhouse steak at Chasen’s ??!!”
🙂

On the other hand, if even James Carville can see the appeal of Cruz…

Elephant Stone (e8548f) — 5/7/2013 @ 12:13 pm

Ted Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen. He was born in Canada and although his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth, his father was a Cuban exile: Rafael Sr. didn’t become a US citizen till 2005. Ted’s a US citizen but not a natural born citizen.

To qualify as a natural born citizen both parents must already be US citizens and the birth must be within the USA or within the confines of its jurisdiction. Ted doesn’t qualify and neither does Barack Obama.

ropelight (c79b78) — 5/7/2013 @ 1:28 pm

Hogwash

JD (283b0e) — 5/7/2013 @ 1:50 pm

Hogwash indeed.

Leviticus (2aa4e6) — 5/7/2013 @ 2:01 pm

Conjunctive and Disjunctive are two different things.

Leviticus (2aa4e6) — 5/7/2013 @ 2:02 pm

“Leviticus, you’re not a conservative, so naturally you wouldn’t be expected to see the appeal of Cruz.”

– Elephant Stone

Yeah, but I’m looking for someone who can see it to explain it. Hopefully without an analogy to red meat.

Leviticus (2aa4e6) — 5/7/2013 @ 2:04 pm

Apt as that may be.

Leviticus (2aa4e6) — 5/7/2013 @ 2:05 pm

Cruz is the conservative messiah of the month Mr. Leviticus. Roobs had the baton then Roobs handed it off to Dr. Ben Carson who stumbled so Cruz picked it up and pointed his finger to the sky and now they’re trying to disqualify him.

happyfeet (c60db2) — 5/7/2013 @ 2:06 pm

To qualify as a natural born citizen both parents must already be US citizens and the birth must be within the USA or within the confines of its jurisdiction.

No, that’s not true. You can be a natural born citizen if you are born in the US even if neither of your parents are citizens. You can be a natural born citizen if you are born abroad and one of your parents is a citizen.

Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 5/7/2013 @ 2:15 pm

He’s not blanc mange, he’s not a particular strident speaker, as befits his arguments before the Court, we could do worse, likely will.

narciso (3fec35) — 5/7/2013 @ 2:23 pm

i still like governors more better than senators generally speaking Mr. narciso but then the committee spits out a Romney and I’m all like nonono that’s not what I mean do-over do-over and they’re all like no can do you shoulda been more specific

it’s depressing

happyfeet (c60db2) — 5/7/2013 @ 2:40 pm

Leviticus,

Here’s why I like Ted Cruz:

1. He’s an articulate spokesman for conservative ideas, and that’s important in this media-driven era.

2. He’s a lawyer and has tried cases before the Supreme Court. I know this doesn’t appeal to everyone, but we’re also living in a lawsuit-driven era so it’s important for politicians to be familiar with the law.

3. He understands the Constitution and believes it is important and relevant. Too many politicians don’t seem to have a clue about the Constitution.

4. He’s not beholden to the establishment of either Party, and he’s not afraid to take them on. He proved this when he took on and defeated the establishment candidate in Texas (and he did it, even though he was significantly outspent). He also proved this in Washington by showing that he doesn’t believe he has to remain silent or avoid controversy just because he’s a newcomer to the Senate.

5. He is proud of support from the Tea Party and willingly thanked Sarah Palin for her help. A moderate would have moved away from both after being elected but Cruz didn’t, and I think it’s because he is remaining true to his convictions. Similarly, he supported Rand Paul’s filibuster, even though it could well have backfired. I think it’s because he thought it was the right thing to do.

6. He’s the son of a Cuban immigrant who faced great hardship to come to America, and I believe that helped him understand why America is truly a land of opportunity. I also like him because he’s a Texan.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/7/2013 @ 2:44 pm

That he’s also civil and polite, even when others attack him, is icing on the cake to me.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/7/2013 @ 2:47 pm

Thanks, DRJ.

Leviticus (2aa4e6) — 5/7/2013 @ 2:52 pm

Well, he stands for the right things, i must admit as a fellow paisan, I have reason to be proud, the fact that Sarah endorsed him, is also a plus, as well as his acknowledgement of same, even with Rubio, he’s respectful of the difference of opinion,

narciso (3fec35) — 5/7/2013 @ 2:54 pm

The progressive republicans will give Mr. Cruise the Allan West treatment.
No political cover, no money , and NO RESPECT.

mg (31009b) — 5/7/2013 @ 4:23 pm

Milhouse, nk & ropelight in a three-way tie.

Icy (a81239) — 5/7/2013 @ 4:43 pm

You can be a natural born citizen if you are born in the US even if neither of your parents are citizens.

Yes.

You can be a natural born citizen if you are born abroad and one of your parents is a citizen.

No. The term pretty clearly derives from Blackstone’s “natural born subject”, which he explains is because a person naturally owes a special loyalty to the sovereign under whose protection he was born. Thus everyone is a natural born subject of the sovereign of wherever he was born, except for children of “the King’s embassadors”, who are still under the King’s protection in their foreign postings.

So McCain is a natural born citizen because he was born on a US base to an active military father who was stationed there. The laws that protected him in that hospital were not Panamanian, they were USAn. George Romney was protected at his birth by Mexican law, so he was not an NBC, and the same goes for Cruz, whose newborn safety came courtesy of Her Majesty Elizabeth II, to whom Blackstone would therefore say he has a natural debt of loyalty.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/7/2013 @ 4:43 pm

DRJ, those are all excellent reasons to like him. I wish he were my senator.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/7/2013 @ 4:45 pm

enuf w/the fussiness about his birth!

cruz appears fearless
articulate straight-forward
good combination

Colonel Haiku (e3ac12) — 5/7/2013 @ 4:55 pm

and anyone who gives Reid a sh*t hemorrhage is aces in my playbook.

Colonel Haiku (e3ac12) — 5/7/2013 @ 4:56 pm

Cruz is serving on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Given his academic background, I have a feeling Cruz has carefully studied the Senate rules and realizes they can be an effective way for a Senator to make a difference — especially a Senator whose Party is in the minority. Based on the recent comments by Majority Leader Reid regarding Cruz’s suggested amendments, Reid seems increasingly unhappy that Cruz is knowledgeable about Senate processes and the Rules of the Senate.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/7/2013 @ 5:40 pm

The purpose of the natural born citizen provision is to ensure our Commander-in-Chief is free from foreign influence. If our President or one, or both, parents owed allegiance to a foreign nation questions of divided loyalty might arise in time of crisis.

Consequently only if both parents be US citizens and the birth occur in the US or within the confines of its jurisdiction have we met the Constitutional requirements.

ropelight (c79b78) — 5/7/2013 @ 5:53 pm

Milhouse –

Are you seriously arguing that the founders meant that nobody born outside the U.S. (with a few special exceptions) could be a U.S. citizen? So because I, the son of two U.S. citizens, was born in Papua New Guinea, I would not count as a “natural born citizen” of the United States? Hogwash! The operative question is never where someone was born, but which country would count him or her as a citizen from birth. (In other words, under which country’s laws would he be protected, to update Blackstone’s formulation to a time when few nations are ruled by sovereign monarchs any longer.) Sometimes that country’s laws state “If you are born here, you are a citizen” and so the question of birth can become relevant: you can become a U.S. citizen even if neither parent was a citizen, simply by being born on American soil. (Whether this is a wise policy is a question for another time.) But you are also counted as a U.S. citizen if at least one of your parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth. So although I was born in Papua New Guinea, it is not PNG that claimed me as a citizen at birth, but the United States, because both my parents were U.S. citizens at the time I was born. (And they still are, though that’s not really relevant to the current discussion.)

Your understanding of the “natural born citizen” rule is faulty. Cruz was, at birth, a citizen of the United States because at least one of his parents were. This makes him a natural born citizen, regardless of where he was born.

Robin Munn (c6c5d4) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:01 pm

Yes, the fearsome Canadian Menace, Alberta chapter, raises it’s head.

narciso (3fec35) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:05 pm

Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/7/2013 @ 4:43 pm 26.

Blackstone is worth quoting on the English common law but he is by no means the supreme or exclusive authority. Further, by describing one path of natural citizenship he was not excluding others. For example, the king he was born under, George I, and his successor, George II, were both born outside of England, and reigned for most of his lifetime. As were a bunch of other English kings before that. I doubt that he intended treason. (Although I suppose a king is not strictly speaking a “subject” ;).

I think the way to get to the heart of “natural born” is “does the child have to do anything to become a citizen, i.e. naturalized”. If the answer is “no” then it is a natural born citizen.

nk (875f57) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:08 pm

Cruz appears fearless but inside he’s just as scared of you as you are of him the best thing to do is not make eye contact and to grab a branch and hold it over your head to make yourself look bigger

most likely he’ll just amble away

happyfeet (c60db2) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:08 pm

P.S. A minor correction to my post. Citizenship of someone born outside the U.S. if only one parent was a citizen isn’t quite automatic: the American parent must have lived in the U.S. for at least five years (five continuous years? I don’t recall) after the age of eighteen, and have been a U.S. citizen for at least ten years, for them to be able to pass citizenship on to their child at the time of the child’s birth. This is why the question of Obama’s birth certificate even came up in the first place way back when, because his mother, Anne Durham, was just 18 when he was born and thus had not fulfilled the “living in the U.S. for at least five years after age eighteen” requirement. Since Obama was born in Hawaii, though, the question was moot because he qualified under the “born on U.S. soil” requirement. Hence why so many people were claiming (or wishing) Obama’s birth certificate to be fraudulent — because if it were fraudulent, then he would not have been qualified to be President.

However, none of these points apply (to my knowledge) to Ted Cruz. If anyone has evidence that his mother hadn’t been a U.S. citizen for at least 10 years, or hadn’t lived on U.S. soil for at least 5 years, prior to his birth, nobody’s mentioned it so far. So assuming that his mother satisfies the length-of-stay and length-of-citizenship requirements, then Cruz is just as much a natural-born citizen as I am.

Robin Munn (c6c5d4) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:14 pm

That makes sense, nk #33.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:47 pm

Heh.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:49 pm

Cruz likes sarcasm as much as Patterico does.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:50 pm

Cruz knows the rules of the Senate. Can he be a GOP version of another Texas Master of the Senate?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:54 pm

I’d rather be represented by a very junior Senator from Texas than a very senior Senator from Nevada, especially one that knows how to use the rules. Plus, Cruz will be a great influence on Cornyn.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/7/2013 @ 6:57 pm

I loved Cruz telling Feinstein that he did read the Heller decision … not least because he had filed an amicus brief in the case.

SPQR (768505) — 5/7/2013 @ 7:31 pm

Milhouse –

Are you seriously arguing that the founders meant that nobody born outside the U.S. (with a few special exceptions) could be a U.S. citizen?

No, I am saying that they would not regard such people as natural born citizens.

So because I, the son of two U.S. citizens, was born in Papua New Guinea, I would not count as a “natural born citizen” of the United States?

That’s right.

Hogwash!

What’s your basis for rejecting it?

Robin, when you were born, whose laws protected you? Not those of the USA. They were doing you no good at all, because you weren’t under their jurisdiction. Whose laws deterred anyone from strangling you in the hospital? Betty Windsor’s laws. So as the framers of the constitution (following Blackstone) saw things, she is the first person to whom you owed loyalty for that protection.

More than that — the Sprouse twins were born in Italy, which does not automatically grant citizenship just for being born there, so they have never had any citizenship but that of the USA. Nevertheless, it was the Italian Republic that first protected them; had anyone harmed them he would have been arrested by Italian carabinieri, tried before an Italian court, and punished under Italian law, so their natural loyalty would be to Italy. This way of seeing things doesn’t make much sense to us, but it was the way late 18th century Englishmen saw things, so they would have said you and the Sprouses were both ineligible to the presidency.

Blackstone is worth quoting on the English common law but he is by no means the supreme or exclusive authority.

The reason he’s so important in interpreting the USA constitution is not because he’s the supreme or exclusive authority on the common law, but because at the time the framers were studying the subject he was regarded in the colonies as the most important such authority, and therefore he was the most important influence in how they understood it.

For example, the king he was born under, George I, and his successor, George II, were both born outside of England, and reigned for most of his lifetime. As were a bunch of other English kings before that. I doubt that he intended treason.

I’m at a loss to understand how this would be treason. German George was born under the protection of his uncle George William, so he was his natural born subject. George II was born under the protection of his grandfather, Ernest Augustus, and was his natural born subject. Why would Blackstone have thought this strange?

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/7/2013 @ 7:51 pm

I loved Cruz telling Feinstein that he did read the Heller decision … not least because he had filed an amicus brief in the case.

I can well imagine Feinstein (if she were a lawyer) not bothering to read the decision in a case in which she had filed a brief.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/7/2013 @ 7:52 pm

Sigh. It would have been treason for Blackstone to argue about George I and II what you are arguing about Cruz. Neither George William nor Ernest Augustus were British sovereigns so neither George I nor George II were born in lands under a British sovereign; their connection to the English throne was only by blood, not by geography?

nk (875f57) — 5/7/2013 @ 8:20 pm

R.I.P. Ray Harryhausen, stop-motion special effects master

Icy (4b226c) — 5/7/2013 @ 8:42 pm

On what planet are Candian and American interests not in harness?
Closer to parity than Kenyan and American interests, at the very least.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 5/7/2013 @ 8:43 pm

Canadian – Sorry for leaving out an “eh” there Canucks.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 5/7/2013 @ 8:46 pm

On what planet are Candian and American interests not in harness?

How is that relevant?

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/7/2013 @ 9:16 pm

Damn, Icy… I just watched a slew of his old stop action masterpieces over the last 2 weeks.

Someone strike (or slap) milhouse, poorly phrased…

Colonel Haiku (1ed237) — 5/7/2013 @ 9:24 pm

What about Chicken George, Milhouse?!?!

Colonel Haiku (1ed237) — 5/7/2013 @ 9:26 pm

Milhouse –

Got to run to an appointment, but I’ll try to answer quickly:

What’s your basis for rejecting it?

My sense that this is not what “natural born citizens”: a) means, b) should mean, and c) would have meant to Blackstone (as an originalist, I do need to care about this one as well). I’ll only argue c) for now since my appointment is in fifteen minutes.

I think my objection to your Blackstone-based argument boils down to a difference over the question of what being “protected” by a country’s laws means. While in PNG, my parents were subject to PNG law, and could have been prosecuted by the country of PNG if they had, say, robbed someone at gunpoint. But American law had not relinquished its claim on them either. If PNG had had no laws whatsoever other than the “law of the jungle”, and my parents had decided to branch out into armed robbery, the U.S. would have felt completely justified in arresting and trying them for those violations of U.S. law, albeit committed on foreign soil. Most of the time, this privilege is never exercised, because most things that are crimes in one country are crimes in another country and so it would be redundant. But U.S. law still covered my parents, and also covered me at birth since I was a citizen by birth.

So why am I talking about this when the discussion is over the word “protected”? Because of my sense that Blackstone wouldn’t have separated the concepts of protection and authority in his mind. If an English couple, subject to the British crown, had spent a year living in Paris, during which time they conceived and bore a son, and then went back with their three-month-old baby to live in London, where they spent the next twenty years — which monarch would claim the child’s fealty? I doubt, in that scenario, that Blackstone would argue that the French king would claim the child’s fealty under the mere fact of the child being in France at his birth. I believe Blackstone would have said that since the child’s parents were subjects of the king of England, it was the English monarch who was “protecting” them (in other words, who was their liege lord — remember, in the feudal system loyalty flowed upwards while protection flowed downwards, and a breach of one would legitimize a breach of the other) no matter where they were in the world.

In other words, you and I disagree on how we see the word “protecting” in Blackstone’s argument. You see it as “whose laws would prosecute your murderer?” whereas I see it in the sense of the old feudal system, where protection from the king demanded loyalty from the subject. A subject’s loyalty did not transfer when overseas — that is well-established — and so neither did his king’s protection. I believe that this is the correct way to read Blackstone, and that your reading of Blackstone’s “protection” is too modern.

And now I’m late for my appointment, which was on the half-hour. I’d better run.

Robin Munn (c6c5d4) — 5/7/2013 @ 10:31 pm

What we really need is a constitutional amendment (the only thing that would have the same force as the text of the Constitution; a mere law wouldn’t be enough) defining what “natural born citizen” means. If Amendment 28 said “Anyone who is a citizen of the United States from birth shall be considered a natural born citizen” (or some better wording than this dashed-off-in-thirty-seconds sentence) then this whole argument would be unnecessary.

Robin Munn (c6c5d4) — 5/7/2013 @ 10:40 pm

I really don’t understand this kerfuffle.

It’s simple:

Was the person born in the United States? If yes, then citizen.

Was the person born outside the United States with at least one parent a citizen? If yes, then citizen.

This is not hard.

Ag80 (19f299) — 5/7/2013 @ 10:45 pm

The citizen at birth concept seems simple enough to me, why complicate it with references to foreign monarchs and allegiances. As nk pointed out and Robin reinforced, did the individual have to take any additional steps to claim citizenship or not? The rest is gobbledygook.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2013 @ 11:18 pm

How is that relevant?

Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/7/2013 @ 9:16 pm

I think you accidentally stepped in the point I was laying down.
Now be sure to wipe it off your shoe, or you’ll track it around the house.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 5/7/2013 @ 11:59 pm

Comment by Robin Munn (c6c5d4) — 5/7/2013 @ 10:40 pm

Best defenestration of Milhouse evah!

askeptic (932a68) — 5/8/2013 @ 4:52 am

Sigh. It would have been treason for Blackstone to argue about George I and II what you are arguing about Cruz.

How so?

Neither George William nor Ernest Augustus were British sovereigns so neither George I nor George II were born in lands under a British sovereign;

That’s right. And nobody ever thought otherwise.

their connection to the English throne was only by blood, not by geography?

Not even that. Their connection was that when Queen Anne’s children died, and it was clear she wasn’t going to have any more, Parliament advertised the vacancy, and negotiated a contract with German George for his mother’s services. As it happened, Anne outlived Sophie, so when she died George got the job. There was no pretense that either Sophie or George were British. Nobody expected it of them.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/8/2013 @ 2:32 pm

There was no pretense that either Sophie or George were British. Nobody expected it of them.

The important thing was that they were Protestant, also a descendent of James I I think.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/8/2013 @ 3:13 pm

Do not click this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZxzJGgox_E

nk (875f57) — 5/8/2013 @ 3:19 pm

But American law had not relinquished its claim on them either. If PNG had had no laws whatsoever other than the “law of the jungle”, and my parents had decided to branch out into armed robbery, the U.S. would have felt completely justified in arresting and trying them for those violations of U.S. law, albeit committed on foreign soil. Most of the time, this privilege is never exercised, because most things that are crimes in one country are crimes in another country and so it would be redundant.

I know the USA has developed a peculiar view of the extraterritoriality of its laws, but that is not the general view among nations, and even within the USA a state would not prosecute one of its citizens who committed a crime in another state, even if that state openly said it had no interest in prosecuting, e.g. a lyncher in the South in the ’40s.

my sense that Blackstone wouldn’t have separated the concepts of protection and authority in his mind.

On the contrary, in the worldview prevalent at the time, a sovereign’s authority over people derives from the protection he gives them. The reason you must obey the king’s laws is because he is protecting you. Since it was HM’s law in PNG that was protecting you when you were born, that is the law that had authority over you, and you would owe HM a natural fealty for it.

If an English couple, subject to the British crown, had spent a year living in Paris, during which time they conceived and bore a son, and then went back with their three-month-old baby to live in London, where they spent the next twenty years — which monarch would claim the child’s fealty? I doubt, in that scenario, that Blackstone would argue that the French king would claim the child’s fealty under the mere fact of the child being in France at his birth.

On the contrary, if that were so why would he need to specifically except the foreign-born children of “the king’s embassadors”? It’s because the French-born children of other Englishmen were not protected by the English king but by the French one.

remember, in the feudal system loyalty flowed upwards while protection flowed downwards, and a breach of one would legitimize a breach of the other

The feudal system was long gone from English law by the 18th century. And the feudal system never included non-armigers. It was purely an arrangement between knights and nobles of different ranks.

If Amendment 28 said “Anyone who is a citizen of the United States from birth shall be considered a natural born citizen” (or some better wording than this dashed-off-in-thirty-seconds sentence) then this whole argument would be unnecessary.

If you’re going to amend the constitution then why not just get rid of the requirement in the first place? Nobody nowadays thinks that way. You might want to replace it with a requirement that a president must have spent his childhood, say from 5 to 15, in the USA. That’s far more likely to have had an effect on the values he absorbed. Or just get rid of it entirely and rely on the 14-year residence requirement.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/8/2013 @ 3:30 pm

I really don’t understand this kerfuffle.

It’s simple:

Was the person born in the United States? If yes, then citizen.

Was the person born outside the United States with at least one parent a citizen? If yes, then citizen.

This is not hard.

Actually that’s not true. The US citizen parent must have been born in the USA, or have lived here for five years after the age of 18. And until recently, if the US citizen was the father then he had to have filed for the child’s citizenship before the child reached (I think) 21. I think Congress only recently changed that rule.

More importantly, why are you evading the fact that this discussion is not about who is a citizen, but about who is a natural born one? Everyone agrees that someone born overseas to a US parent (as defined above) is a US citizen, because Congress has said so. If Congress were to change its mind tomorrow, then such people would not be citizens. And if Congress were to declare everyone in the world a US citizen then that would be the case too.

The question here is whether the test for “natural born citizen” is “when you were born, did Congress consider you a citizen? If so, you are a NBC, if not you are not”, or is it something else? I maintain that it’s something else, that it’s “were you born under the jurisdiction of US law”, and my basis for that is Blackstone.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/8/2013 @ 3:39 pm

The citizen at birth concept seems simple enough to me, why complicate it with references to foreign monarchs and allegiances.

If you’re going for simplicity, then the “place of birth” concept is even simpler. And it has the advantage of being consonant with Blackstone’s definition of natural born subject. Tell the truth, when you were first taught the NBC requirement, weren’t you taught that it meant born in the USA?

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/8/2013 @ 3:41 pm

Comment by Robin Munn (c6c5d4) — 5/7/2013 @ 10:40 pm

Best defenestration of Milhouse evah!

Huh? How does proposing a constitutional amendment defenestrate me?!

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/8/2013 @ 3:42 pm

“The question here is whether the test for “natural born citizen” is “when you were born, did Congress consider you a citizen?”

Milhouse – Exactly. Why do you keep confusing the matter by raising other irrelevancies?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2013 @ 4:26 pm

The Naturalization Act of 1790 clearly states that children born overseas to U.S. citizens shall be considered natural born citizens regardless of the jurisdiction in which they were born:

“And 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”

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was superseded by Naturalization Act of 1795, which, though it no longer uses the term “natural born citizen” clearly carries forward the same intent in its Section 3:

“and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States”

There is no nonsense about jurisdictions or under the protection of the U.S. as Milhouse claims.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2013 @ 4:44 pm

“I love Ted Cruz.”

You have good taste, man-crush or no.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 5/8/2013 @ 8:43 pm

“The question here is whether the test for “natural born citizen” is “when you were born, did Congress consider you a citizen?”

Milhouse – Exactly. Why do you keep confusing the matter by raising other irrelevancies?

Because you have given no reason at all to suppose that that is the test. None. You just keep asserting it. I have given a reason why I think it is not the test, quite apart from the fact that we were all taught it was not the test until it became a political issue.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/8/2013 @ 10:57 pm

The Naturalization Act of 1790 clearly states that children born overseas to U.S. citizens shall be considered natural born citizens regardless of the jurisdiction in which they were born:

“And 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”

Um, there’s one rather important word in the second paragraph that you omitted in the first. I wonder why you did that.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/8/2013 @ 10:59 pm

“You just keep asserting it. I have given a reason why I think it is not the test, quite apart from the fact that we were all taught it was not the test until it became a political issue.”

Milhouse – A complete load of hogwash. You have merely asserted what you believe the test is not and have kept repeating it. I believe citizenship of the child follows the citizenship of the parents.

Don’t tell me what I was or was not taught. You have no clue. I supported my position by reference to two 18th century laws with direct quotes.

If you claim I left a word out, reveal that word and how it changes any meaning of what I wrote.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/9/2013 @ 12:42 am

“… children of citizens … “

Citizens implies plural. Meaning both parents. Not both butt buddies. Real biological people, not a decanted specimen born from a laboratory, but a real a mother and father. No way Barack Hussein Obama meets that test.

Let’s fire up the impeachment wagon. Get it rolling. The first bastard president.
Probably don’t need to impeach. I mean when the president is there under illegitimate circumstances probably just rule it null and void.

Do we get a do over on the last five years?

papertiger (c2d6da) — 5/9/2013 @ 1:52 am

“You just keep asserting it. I have given a reason why I think it is not the test,

Milhouse – A complete load of hogwash. You have merely asserted what you believe the test is not and have kept repeating it.

Stop saying that. I gave my reason clearly. Blackstone is strong evidence of what the framers meant. You have given nothing.

I believe citizenship of the child follows the citizenship of the parents.

Citizenship does, now, because Congress says so. If and when Congress changes its mind it won’t. But what has that got to do with natural born citizenship? Congress hasn’t (and can’t) change the definition of that.

. I supported my position by reference to two 18th century laws with direct quotes.

One law, which you misrepresented. The other one you cited, you couldn’t even pretend was relevant.

If you claim I left a word out, reveal that word and how it changes any meaning of what I wrote.

Just compare the two paragraphs – your representation of what the 1790 law says, and your quote of that same law. The missing word is glaringly obvious, and your omission of it shows that your representation is incorrect.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/9/2013 @ 8:53 am

“… children of citizens … “

Citizens implies plural. Meaning both parents.

No, it means either parent. As opposed to just the father.

Let’s fire up the impeachment wagon.

Yes, but not for this.

The first bastard president.

Is he? I doubt it. Surely there have been bastards who have become president before. In any case, bastardy is not a disqualifier for the presidency.

when the president is there under illegitimate circumstances probably just rule it null and void.

Do we get a do over on the last five years?

No. There was a senator who was only 29 years old, and nobody made a fuss over it.

Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/9/2013 @ 9:12 am

“Citizenship does, now, because Congress says so. If and when Congress changes its mind it won’t.”

Milhouse – Congress did in 1790 and 1795 as well.

“The missing word is glaringly obvious, and your omission of it shows that your representation is incorrect.”

Stop playing games and answer the question I raised in #69.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/9/2013 @ 9:17 am

@ Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 5/9/2013 @ 9:12 am

No. There was a senator who was only 29 years old, and nobody made a fuss over it.

Holy crap. We have pretence to legally get rid of the both of them!

Heh

papertiger (c2d6da) — 5/9/2013 @ 10:30 am

5/7/2013

Ted Cruz on Being Criticized

74 Responses to “Ted Cruz on Being Criticized”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out