A Counterfactual: US Citizenship, according to the Democrats --

An alternate history thought-experiment:

On December 8, 1941, the Empire of Japan invaded and occupied the US territory of Hawaii. During the following months, Japan stationed 100,000 soldiers and sailors in the islands, along with 5,000 Japanese civilian administrators.

At the time of the hard-fought US Liberation of Hawaii on July 4, 1944, there were living in Hawaii:
- 33,000 Japanese POWs;
- 4,000 Japanese civilian former administrators;

- 6,000 dependents of those civilian former administrators;

- including 1,000 who had been born in Hawaii.

According to the logic of the Democrats concerning the 14th Amendment, those 1000 Japanese children born in Hawaii are US citizens, and are not merely US citizens, but are indeed natural born US citizens, and thus eligible to be US President in about 35 years. And, moreover, they and their parents cannot be repatriated to Japan, For, after all, they were born in the de jure territory of the USA, irrespective of the illegality of their mothers being in US territory at the times of their births.

Obviously, this is absurd.

Likewise, the Democrats' assertion about "birthright citizenship" for "anchor babies" is absurd.

California Woman Sent to Prison Over Chinese Birth Tourism Scheme

I have written about "Chinese Birth Tourism" (i.e. Communist Chinese "anchor babies") as it relates to natural born citizenship before, noting that the US federal government prosecutes and imprisons persons who organize or facilitate such "birth tourism".  This post will focus on the absurdity of the leftist pretense that "anchor babies" are indeed US citizens.

The linked article reports that a "California woman" and her husband, who had "helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to give birth so that their children would have automatic United States citizenship", were "both convicted of conspiracy and money laundering".  

Obviously -- definitionally -- if the US federal government is prosecuting, convicting, and imprisoning the organizers of "birth tourism" schemes on conspiracy charges, then it is the "birth tourism" itself which is the underlying crime at issue.  I mean, really! Literally everyone knows that only Donald Trump can be prosecuted for "conspiracy" to not commit a crime.

Think about this -- the (pregnant) Chinese women who make use of these (illegal) "birth tourism" schemes are in the US legally when they give birth.  Is giving birth in the US illegal?  Is giving birth in the US when one is not a US citizen illegal?  Obviously, the answer to both questions is a resounding "No".  So then, where is the illegality?  It is in trying to steal US citizenship for one's child (and thereby benefit oneself in the future). IF -- as the Democrats and other leftists assert -- the 14th Amendment mandates that *all* persons born in US territory (*) are by that mere fact US citizens, irrespective of the citizenship and legal status of the parent(s), THEN prosecuting the persons who facilitate those births is absurd.

As explained below (*), despite the 14th Amendment, until 1924, and even though born in US territory, and even though born to parents who likewise had been born in US territory, most American Indians were not US citizens because their parents were not citizens/subjects of the US sovereignty, but rather were citizens/subjects of different sovereignties; to wit: their tribal nations.

Now, IF the US Constitution did not extend US citizenship to American Indians or the children of American Indians -- to a class of persons who had for many generations been resident within the territory of the USA -- due to the fact that their parents were not already US citizens, THEN how can the Democrat/leftist assertion that the Constitution automatically confers US citizenship on the child of someone who had crossed the border five minutes ago possibly be true?  It is absurd!

Consider what is more typically meant by the term "anchor baby". There are two classes --

1) Those born to non-citizen parents who are in the US legally. This includes such persons as Barack Obama -- allegedly born in the US, with no real proof given, to a non-citizen father -- and Marco Rubio, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Kamala Harris;

2) Those born to non-citizen parents who are on the US illegally. This is currently the more numerous class, and the more contentious, as the Democrats and other leftists aim to use them to cheapen the value of US citizenship, and hope to use them to cement in permanent leftist control of the US government;

The Democrats and other leftists assert that the US Constitution confers US citizenship on the two classes of persons noted above. And moreover, they assert that the Constitution confers not mere citizenship, but natural born citizenship (which, as Mrs Olson says of Folger's Coffee, is "the richest kind").

But, as the examples of both the prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment of those who facilitate "birth tourism", and of the citizenship status of American Indians show, the leftists are wrong. They are, in fact, lying.

If, despite the criminal prosecutions of those who facilitated such "birth tourism" births, the children born in the US to "citizens" of Communist China are indeed US citizens, why does the US government allow their mothers to take them back to China, to a life of slavery in-all-but-name and life-long indoctrination in hatred of America?

Or what? Does the act of trying to steal US citizenship for one's child (and thus to benefit oneself in the future) become a crime only if one has "conspired" with and paid money to a third party, such that those who "free-lance" it to drop an "anchor baby" get a pass (and get the citizenship)?

=======

(*) I have also mentioned this fact before (though perhaps not in a post on this blog) -- 

After ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, and after the US supreme (**) Court's 1898 Kim Wong Ark ruling (which Democrats and leftists love to misrepresent), most American Indians *still* were not US citizens until passage of the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924".

This is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment --

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Notice that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not explicitly deny US citizenship to (most) American Indians.  And yet, they were not extended US citizenship either by the 14th Amendment itself nor by the supreme Court's Kim Wong Ark ruling.

Clearly, the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause does not mean what the Democrats and other leftists like to assert that it means.  Here is the Wickedpedia article's introductory paragraph on the Act --

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, (43 Stat. 253, enacted June 2, 1924) was an Act of the United States Congress that declared Indigenous persons born within the United States are US citizens. Although the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that any person born in the United States is a citizen, there is an exception for persons not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the federal government. This language was generally taken to mean members of various tribes that were treated as separate sovereignties: they were citizens of their tribal nations.

Attend to this: (most) American Indians -- even if born in US territory and even 56 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment -- were not US citizens because their parents were not citizens/subjects of the US sovereignty, but rather were citizens/subjects of different sovereignties.

So, since the US Constitution did not extend US citizenship to (most) American Indians, how is it that they became US citizens in 1924 by a mere Act of Congress? By the fact that the Constitution reserves to Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". That is, the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924" is a naturalization law: the US Congress enacted a law stating that all non-citizen American Indians were thenceforth naturalized US citizens, and thus that their (US-born) descendants would be natural born US citizens.

Clearly, the right to claim US citizenship is not merely a matter of 'jus soli' ("right of soil"). That is, it isn't merely the fact of being born on US soil which confers US citizenship. 

Similarly, the right to claim US citizenship is not merely a matter of 'jus sanguinis' ("right of blood"). That is, one is not a US citizen merely because one's parents (note the plural) are US citizens -- it is for this reason that children born overseas to US citizen parents are not accorded US citizenship unless their parent(s) with US citizenship submit requisite paperwork as established by US naturalization law before the child's 18th birthday.

(**) "supreme Court" capitalization as per the US Constitution.

California Woman Sent to Prison Over Chinese Birth Tourism Scheme

EDIT (2025/02/12): Chip Roy Raises Issue Of Birth Tourism During Discussion Of Birthright Citizenship

Nikki Haley's "Gotcha" Moment

So, the leftists are having a pretend melt-down because the RINO Nikki Haley -- who, by the way, is not a natural born US citizen (*) -- gave the "wrong" answer to a "gotcha" question about the "cause" of the so-called (**) US Civil War.

Here is the truth about the "cause" of the so-called US Civil War --

Slavery wasn't the cause of the "Civil War". 

The *cause* of the (falsely named) Civil War was the federal government's refusal to allow the Southern States to secede from the Union, as was their right to do, and to take all those sweet, sweet tax monies with them.

The main reason, though not the only reason, the Southern States wanted to secede was over slavery.  But secession is a wholly different matter from the war. 

(*) How odd is that?  Not a peep from anyone, much less the leftists, over the fact the Haley is Constitutionally barred from occupying the office of the presidency.

(**) The US "Civil War" was not actually a civil war.  In a civil war, two or more entities are fighting for control of the government of the same region.  The US “Civil War” was – like the American “Revolution” – a war of attempted separation.

EDIT (2024/01/04):

I suspect that there are two main reasons for Nikki Haley's ignorance of the cause(s) of the "Civil War":
1) Even most people of my generation are ill-educated, and would unthinkingly give the "right" (which is to say, factually wrong) answer. How much worse educated is the typical person of her generation?
2) It's quite possible that she never paid much attention to anything having to do the "Civil War", that she saw it as having nothing to do with her, as she is an Indian (dot, not feather) without roots in America.

Allow me to illustrate that last suspicion:

The last IT job I had before deciding to retire was in a 1.5-2 hour drive from home.  Since I didn't want to spend that much time on the road every day, I rented a hotel room on a monthly basis and came home only on the weekends.  Three or four years later, the hotel was sold to an Indian man (dot, not feather) in his 30s or 40s.  I presume he grew up in the US, as he sounded like any mid-western American. Though, his parents had thick Indian accents.

About a year later, he bought the property next door to the hotel. It had a business on the ground floor and an apartment on the upper.  He asked me to relocate to the apartment, as he thought my hotel room would earn him more money as a normal hotel room than as a long-term rental.

When he was showing me the apartment, he apologized for the swastika his mother -- a Hindu -- had drawn on the kitchen counter with some red substance. By the way, I was never able to fully scrub it off.  Now, as he was apologizing, it was clear that he didn't understand *why* Americans consider swastikas offensive.  He apparently thought it has something to do with the black-white racial divide; he said something to the effect that since I wasn't black, perhaps I wouldn't be as offended by it.

So, why did he not understand what a swastika signifies to Americans?  Why did he think a black American would be more offended by the image of one than a white American? The reason is that he doesn't see that history as having anything to do with him, and so he never paid much attention to it.

Amusingly, black Americans are the group *least* likely to take offence at the image of a swastika.  I, on the other hand, am in the group to take second-most offence -- an Evangelical Christian with Jewish ancestry.  I'm also not ignorant; I well understand that the swastika long pre-dates the mid-century mass-murderer with a funny mustache.

Again, with the "Natural Born Citizen"

 It's getting to be that time again, when politicians who are not legally entitled to seek the US presidency will nonetheless seek the US presidency.  It is up to *you*, as US citizens and electors, to understand why these politicians are ineligible and to *refuse* to support them in their illegal quests.

The US Constitution *requires* that the President and the Vice-President of the USA be natural born US citizens.

But, what does "natural born US citizen" mean?  What requirement or requirements does one have to meet in order to be a "natural born US citizen"?

Some people -- generally Democrats or other leftists, but also GOPers who want to obfuscate the fact that their favorite politician is not a natural born US citizen – will say, “The Constitution does not define the term ‘natural born US citizen’”, as though that means anything; and with the generally unspoken assertion that the term therefore means nothing, or they will explicitly say that therefore we cannot know what it means.  Same difference.  But, this pseudo-argument is absurd in at least three ways:

1) The US Constitution defines almost none of the terms it uses. One of the few terms it does define is ‘treason’, and that is because it is redefining the term more narrowly than it had been understood since 1066.

2) To say that since the Constitution doesn’t define some term it uses, and thus that the term’s meaning is unknown or obscure, is to say that the Framers mindlessly put things in the document without knowing what they meant by those terms.  You know, sort of like Nancy Pelosi’s infamous “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it”.

3) To say that since the Constitution doesn’t define some term it uses, and thus that the term’s meaning is unknown or obscure, is to say that *all* terms used in the document are of unknown or obscure meanings.

Some people – much the same people as above, and for much the same reasons – will say that "natural born US citizen" means *anyone* born in the USA.  But, does that assertion stand up to scrutiny?  Are “anchor babies” natural born US citizens, and thus legally able to occupy the offices of President and Vice-President?  Are “birth-tourism babies” natural born US citizens, and thus legally able to occupy the offices of President and Vice-President?  I don’t know whether it’s still common, but some years ago it was popular with the more affluent subjects of (Communist) China to travel to the US just before their babies were due to be born, so as to take advantage of an at-the-time relatively recent supreme Court (capitalization intentional, as per the Constitution) re-interpretation of the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. 

Are these people – Chinese “citizens”, born to Chinese “citizens”, reared in Communist China -- *really* natural born US citizens and legally able to occupy the offices of President and Vice-President?  Of course not, that’s absurd!

So, if merely being born on US soil does not suffice to make one a natural born US citizen, what does?

Here are the conditions that one’s birth must meet to in order to make one a natural born US citizen:

1) One must be born under the *sole* jurisdiction of the USA;

2) One’s parents (note the plural) must be US citizens at the time of one’s birth;

2a) which implies that one’s parents must be married to one another, as bastards “have no father”.

Concerning “birth tourism” babies and “anchor babies”, while indeed born in the USA, they fail on both counts.

Concerning Nikki Haley, Kamala Harris, Marco Rubio, while indeed born in the USA, they also fail on both counts.

Concerning Ted Cruz, he also fails on both counts – he was not even born in the USA, his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth, and, get this, he wasn’t even legally a US citizen until he was 16 years old.

Concerning Barack Obama, we don’t know *where* he was born; he himself has given conflicting accounts.  But, we *do* know that his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth.  Thus, Barack Obama is *not* a natural born US citizen, and his occupancy of the office of US President was unconstitutional, and thus illegal.

EDIT: 2023/12/28 (the following is a response I made to on GAB to someone's question about the natural born US citizenship status of certain politicians) --

Cruz's mother was a US citizen; his father was not. Cruz's US citizenship was conferred as a matter of US naturalization law -- he is a *naturalized* US citizen. And, in fact, he wasn't legally a US citizen until his mother submitted the requisite paperwork pursuant to US naturalization law when he was 16 years old.

When the Constitution was written, a (married) woman's citizenship was *automatically* the same as her husband's; this was under the legal doctrine called 'Coverture'. In the early 20th Century, the citizenship status of a married woman was de-linked from that of her husband. Had Cruz been born previous to this de-linkage, his mother wouldn't have been able to petition for automatic naturalization for Ted, as being married to a non-citizen, she would no longer have been a US citizen.

To the best of my knowledge, even to this day, US naturalization law makes a distinction between children born overseas to parents both of whom are US citizens in the first case, and to a US citizen man and non-citizen woman in the second case, and to a US citizen woman and non-citizen man on the third.

Now, in the case of Obama (presuming he actually was born in the US), even though he was (allegedly) born in the US, to a US citizen mother and to a father legally in the US, he was not born under the *sole* jurisdiction of the US, as his father was the subject of a foreign sovereign state. Thus, as he was not born under the *sole* jurisdiction of the US, he is not a natural born US citizen.

In the cases of Harris, Rubio, Haley and Ramaswamy -- neither of the parents of any of them were US citizens at the times of their births. Thus, even though born in the US to parents who were legally in the US, as their parents were not US citizens, they were not born under the *sole* jurisdiction of the US, and thus are not natural born US citizens.

In the case of Tulsi Gabbard, she was born in American Samoa to parents both of whom were US citizens. Now, as the US is the *sovereign* over American Samoa, even though A.S. in not a US State, she was indeed born under the *sole* jurisdiction of the US, and thus she is a natural born US citizen.

 

From the US supreme Court Venus (1814) and Wong Kim Ark (1898) decisions

Following is a recent post I made at 'Blog and Mablog' concerning natural born citizenship

Now, to go into some technicalities of the matter --

The US supreme Court, the Venus (1814) decision, quoting Vattel in its decision -- "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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

In this quote, Vattel uses "natives or indigenes" to refer to natural born citizens.

That is, in this early supreme Court decision, the Court reiterated the commonly understood meaning of the phrase 'natural born citizen' to be "those [citizens who are] born in the country of parents who are citizens" and, as under the doctrine of 'coverture', a woman's citizenship followed from her husband's, the Court also reiterated that "... those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights"

The above was part of a lengthier discussion concerning natural born citizenship, starting here [edit: trying to supply links to sub-threads there is way tricky; I can't get it to work as I intend. I don't know whether this will be true in five minutes, but scrolling UP from the first link I gave presents (most of) the sub-thread, whereas this link doesn't]


EDIT 2016/07/28 --
From the Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702, 703 (1898) decision --

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.

Now, again, here the supreme Court is not setting a precedent, it is merely stating a fact of the matter. And that fact of the matter has not changed between 1898 and 2016 -- Ted Cruz holds US citizenship due to an Act of Congress which gave his (citizen) mother the legal right to claim US citizenship for him, via naturalization, on his behalf. Had he been born prior to 1934, she'd not have had that legal right and he'd have had to apply for naturalization himself once he attained his majority.


Ted Cruz is --
1) "A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States"
2) the "foreign-born child[ of a US]citizen"
3) a person whose US citizenship was acquired pursuant to an "enactment[ of the Congress] conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens" ... that is, via naturalization

ERGO: Ted Cruz is a naturalized US citizen and is thereby prohibited by the US Constitution from occupying the Office of US President.

====
EDIT (and off-topic) --
Wow! The misplacement of "only" has a distinguished pedigree. "A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized" should properly be "A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can become a citizen only by being naturalized"

Man Without a Country

A YouTube video: Still Report #823 - TNALC Analysis - Cruz is a Man Without a Country

George Washington Adams

With respect to the unbridled ambition of Ted Cruz to illegally follow in the illegal footsteps of the Obamanation, consider George Washington Adams (lived 1801-1829) --

Could Ted Cruz, born Dec. 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, be constitutionally ineligible for the presidency? If he were alive today, one of America's most distinguished presidential historians, J.J. Perling, would say yes.

We know that because he made that very judgement about another very distinguished American who was in the pipeline for the White House. He made it in the book, "The Presidents' Sons: The Prestige of Name in a Democracy," published in 1947 by The Odyssey Press, New York.
...
Now, here is the tale. It is just one example from history, the story of another, would be president, who was disqualified over the so called "birther issue." ...

He was born on the 4th of July [Ilíon: I don't know whether the quoted author has made a factual error or is speaking metaphorically, as in "Yankee Doodle"]. He graduated from Harvard University and studied law under Daniel Webster. His name was George Washington Adams. Both his father and grandfather were presidents of the United States.

Yet, according to the belief of legal experts at the time he could never be president himself. Why? He was born in Berlin, Germany while his father served in the American diplomatic corps as the U.S. minister to Prussia.

Keep in mind, both his mother and father were U.S. citizens. His father would soon become ambassador to the court of St. James. He would become secretary of state and not just any secretary of state, but the one who would craft and conceive of what became known as the Monroe Doctrine, the most enduring foreign policy position in American history.

H[is father] would later become the sixth president of the United States and his mother, Louisa Catherine Adams, would become one of our greatest first ladies.

John Quincy Adams ruled his son's life from a distance, sending letters ordering every moment of the day.

Louisa, the mother, took great solace in the fact that her firstborn, George, would not have the pressure of presidential expectations. He couldn't.

Their correspondence reveals their belief that the Constitution did not allow him to be president because of his birth in Germany.

...

Writes J.J. Perling, "George Washington Adams could never have been an occupant of the Presidential chair: the Constitution of the United States restricted that office to native born citizens, and George Washington Adams had been born in Germany."

Constitution Society Presidential Eligibility

1947, J.J. Perling, The Presidents' Sons: The Prestige of Name in a Democracy, Odyssey Press, New York — George Washington Adams could never have been an occupant of the Presidential chair: the Constitution of the United States restricted that office to native born citizens, and George Washington Adams had been born in Germany [on April 12, 1801 in Berlin, the son of John Quincy Adams, then on the diplomatic team to Prussia]. [Understanding of scholars at the time.]

So, I turns out that I was mistaken about how the Founders understood "natural born citizen"; that is, their understanding was far more restrictive than I had understood it to be. By the understanding of the Founders -- and after all, that *is* what matters with respect to understanding the US Constitution -- John McCain was *also* not a natural born US citizen, as I had previously believed.

And, even into the mid-20th Century, it was commonly understood, by everyone, that persons such as Barack Obama (and Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio) are not natural born US citizens -- when I was a child, I learned from my mother the core understanding that formed the basis of my rejection of Obama's, and now Cruz', (false) claim to be a natural born US citizen.

If the son and grandson of US presidents is not, and cannot be, a natural born US citizen because he was born in a foreign land -- while his father was serving as a minister in the US diplomatic corps -- then by what twisted logic does the bastard son of an alien (Obama) or the son of an alien born in a foreign land become a natural born US citizen? What? Because it's too much bother either to understand the truth of the matter or to uphold and enforce the US Constitution.

Have we not seen these past seven years what failure to uphold and enforce the US Constitution leads to?

Irony!

Quite accidentally, I happened to notice a comment (in this thread) on 'The Other McCain' blog made by 'Wombat_socho' (who has 'moderator' authority on the blog) --

His problem is going to be going somewhere else if he keeps up this nonsense. Birthers are obnoxious no matter what party they belong to.

to explain: 'Wombat_socho' is telling someone else that he is going to ban me from commenting on that blog ... because he doesn't like me presenting arguments (to the extent that one can do such in the commbox of a blog so organized) that Ted Cruz is not a natural born US citizen.

Now, what's ironic about this is two things:
1) At this very moment, 'The Other McCain' himself has become a minor cause célèbre amongst those who consider themselves to be conservative over having been banned from Twitter for presenting rational arguments against feminism, based on quoting what feminists actually say and do;
2) A number of the regular commenters on that blog have been quite vicious in their denunciations of me and in their "refutations" (you do see me rolling my eyes, don't you?) of my arguments -- you know, acting just like leftists almost always do when they encounter ideas that they do not wish even to rationally examine -- and 'Wombat_socho' has never once said anything about *that*.

Here is the response I posted to 'Wombat_socho' --

Two points:
1) How ironic is it that you threaten to ban me for stating truths -- and presenting arguments to support those truths -- that you do no wish to hear?
2) I am not a "birther"; I am a Constitutionalist.
====
But, go ahead and ban me if that's really what you need to do to create or maintain your safe space.

In fact, I'll probably save him the trouble, because I don't have time for fools.

=========
On the bright side, I now have a free slot on my blogroll.

That's all very well ... but you've overlooked something

Tony M, at What's Wrong With the World, has a three-part series on his attempt to untangle the question of whether Ted Cruz is or is not Constitutionally qualified to occupy the office of US president --
Part 1: Natural Born Citizen
Part 1I: Natural Born Citizen, Part II
Part II1: Third Time's the Charm, Naturally

Here is the text of a response I emailed to him:

A partial quote of what you wrote (to stand in for all of it) –

(J) Current statutory law makes only 1 distinction in citizenship types, and that regards those who are “citizens at birth” versus those who are naturalized(tm). And does not require of a child born abroad that both parents or the father be American citizens, only one parent.

Does Congress -- or the supreme Court, for that matter -- have Constitutional authority to redefine the terms used in the Constitution? To put it another way, does Congress (or the supreme Court) have the legal authority to modify the Constitution on the fly?

I do trust that you will say, emphatically, “Of course not!” For, if you do not, there is no more the two of us can say to one another.

Now, the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ... throughout the United States". The Constitution *also* explicitly declares that Congress has only those powers explicitly granted it in the document.

ERGO: Congress does not have the legal power to change the meaning either of "citizen" (this is why it required a Constitutional Amendment to grant the franchise to women) or of "natural born citizen".

Now, as these laws to which you appeal concerning the US citizenship of the children of aliens born in the US (in the case of Obama, Jindal, Rubio or Nikki Haley) or of citizens and non-citizens born outside the US (in the case of Cruz) are Acts of Congress, if they are indeed Constitutional, then that is so by right of Congress' power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ... throughout the United States". THAT IS, either: these are laws dealing with naturalization ... or else they are unConstitutional.

SO, either:
1) these Acts of Congress *are* Constitutional, in which case Ted Cruz is a naturalized US citizen, and thus Constitutionally unqualified to occupy the office of US president;
OR 2) these Acts of Congress are unConstitutional, in which case Ted Cruz is in no wise at all a US citizen.

Mario Apuzzo - Natural Born Citizen

For anyone who may be interested in the subject, I've added a blog I learned of the other day to my blogroll (*): Natural Born Citizen



(*) which now seems to be at the point that if I wish to add another, I'll have to begin removing some of the defunct ones.

Natural Born Citizen Definition

Doo Doo Economics Blog: Natural Born Citizen Definition

Here is a comment I posted in response --

As you correctly, though indirectly, point out, being a natural born citizen is not about *where* a person is born.

At the same time, while this is true -- “This is the simple and indisputable definition: Two citizens who have a child, naturally create a new citizen. This is a Natural Born Citizen” – it’s actually the case that it is true because natural born citizenship is inherited from the father; this is what the Founders understood and meant by the term.

These days, as people want to pretend that sexual egalitarianism is the truth about nature and about society – if one can even get them merely to admit that the above is what the Founders understood and meant by the term – people will tend to assert that natural born citizenship can be inherited from either parent … never mind that no law (*) has ever been enacted to so change the meaning of the term. BUT – and what such people will then *refuse* to acknowledge – if that were the case, then a person so born of citizens of two different countries would be a “natural born citizen” of two different sovereignties, which is a logical impossibility: or, as you put it, a “mule”.


(*) I question whether Congress even has the power to make such a change to the meaning of the term, absent a Constitutional amendment.

Trick question

Was George Washington a natural born US citizen, or was he a naturalized US citizen?

Answer -- he was *neither*, which is *why* the Constitutional provision setting forth the required citizenship of the president (and vice-president) was written exactly as it was written --

Article II, Section 1: "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; ..."

One can be a non-naturalized US citizen and *still* not be a natural born US citizen.

Chester Arthur vs Barack Obama

The is the content of a note I sent a co-worker explaining why Bobby Jindal (*) is not Constitutionally qualified to occupy the office of US President --

Jindal isn’t a natural born US citizen for the same reason that Obama isn’t - at the time he was born, his parents were not US citizens.

In the case of Obama, what is commonly accepted (*) as the truth about his birth almost mirrors what the Democrats alleged about Chester Arthur when they wanted to disqualify him from being Vice-President (and President).
* Both Arthur and Obama were the sons of men who were originally subjects of the British Crown;
* Both Arthur and Obama were the sons of women who were (natural born) US citizens, each from a long line of citizens;
* Both Arthur and Obama were alleged to have been born outside the territory of the US - not that this matters to the issue of being a natural born citizen:

- In the case of Arthur, it was his political enemies who alleged it;
- In the case of Obama, it was he himself, and his wife, who have alleged it … when it served his purpose;

* A major difference:

- Obama’s father never was a US citizen, therefore, Obama is not, and never can be, a natural born US citizen;
- Arthur’s was a naturalized US citizen - the point of dispute, the point on which the Democrat’s case to disqualify Arthur hinged, was whether Chester Arthur’s father was naturalized before or after Chester’s birth:
. that is, if, as the Democrats alleged, Arthur’s father was naturalized after his birth, then Arthur was not a natural born US citizen, and thus was Constitutionally ineligible to be either Vice-President or President;
. on the other hand, if, as Arthur alleged, his father was naturalized before his birth, then Arthur was indeed a natural born US citizen, and thus was Constitutionally eligible to be both Vice-President and President;

(*) Since he refuses to make the actual records available, no one outside a small circle even knows where he was born … and *where* never was the issue, anyway.

(*) and Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz ... and Barack Obama

Mrs Obama is a 'Birther'

For the second time recently, Bob Prokop, a leftist from Victor Reppert's blog, who has mysteriously taken to reading and commenting here (and who is constantly amused by his own witticism of equating my opposition to the imposition of leftist tyranny upon free-born Americans with advocating "Hell's Own Constitution"), has questioned whether I am a "birther" (*).

I am not.

However, Michelle Obama is a "birther" -- I have seen at least two videos of her expressing her "birtherism" before the Democratic Party handlers taught her to shut up about the matter.

Here is a video of Mrs Obama, in 2008, addressing the Perversion Caucus of the Party of Perversion (and Death), referring to Kenya as Barack Hussein Obama's "home country" (see the :40 to :47 mark) --

Think about this: back in 2008 -- before he and his handlers realized that they'd better change the issue -- BHO's own wife, who had, as she says, "lived with him for twenty years", *believed* and *said right out in public* that Kenya was his "home country".

Now, as I've pointed out multiple times, *where* Barack Hussein Obama, Jr, was born is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether he meets the Constitutional requirements to occupy the office of President of the United States. Nevertheless, the Democrats had tried, and so far succeeded, to use the issue of *where* he was born as a red-herring to deflect attention from the real issue: Is Barack Hussein Obama a natural born US citizen? (hint: no, he is not, and his failure to be a natural born US citizen has nothing to do with his birth-place) and to tar those who point to the *real* issue as "birthers", on par with "911 truthers".

The Republican Party and their shills have been happy to cooperate in this Democratic Party red-herring ... for they want someday to run Mario Rubio or Bobby Jindal or Ted Cruz -- none of whom are natural born US citizens -- for the presidency without having to worry about the pesky Constitutional requirement.

This is how Republics die.

======

(*) The second instance of B.Prokop accusing me of being a "birther" is here.

The first instance of B.Prokop accusing me of being a "birther" is here. NOTE: I had explained to him at that time, now nearly four months ago, that I am not a "birther"; I had explained to him at that time *why* I refer to the Obamanation as an 'alien' (regardless of where he was born); I had explained to him at that time *why* (though, there is more I could have said) the Obamanation is not Constitutionally able, thus not legally able, to occupy the office of President of the United States.

But, B.Prokop is a leftist ... so none of that matters. All that matters is protecting the brand; or, as in this case, protecting the face that represents the brand ... so long as that face still looks useful.

A one-liner from Bob Parks

Bob Parks: The B_and_R Monday Skim

He links to this -- Abortion Rights Community Has Become the NRA of the Left
and comments -- "Guns don’t kill people, abortionists do"


======
Mr Parks also links to this --MSNBC Claims Birther Bombshell; Natural-Born Citizen Issue Not Settled (I'm not at a computer/network which allows me to view it)

Of course the issue is settled ... just not in the way the "liberals" (including all the establishment "conservatives") have been pretending lo these many years -- That man is not, and logically cannot be, a natural born US citizen. THEREFORE, he is not legally the US president.

A simple Constitutional litmus test

My thesis in this post, Gentle Reader, is quite simple: any US citizen who is not a "birther" is, ipso facto, an enemy of Constitutional government and an enemy of and traitor to the Republic.

The dismissive term "birther" isn't applied merely to those who claim to know that alleged-President (*) Obama is not a natural-born US citizen, but also to those, such as myself, who point out that we do not, in fact of matter and law, know that he *is* a natural-born US citizen -- and therefore, we do not know that he meets the Constitutional requirements to occupy the presidency, and therefore, we do not know that he really is the President of the US.

Therefore, anyone -- whether "liberal" or supposedly conservative -- who will not acknowledge the simple truth that we, the citizens and electors of the US, do not know whether it is true that alleged-President Obama meets the Constitutional requirements to occupy the presidency, and thus we do not know that he *is* the President (and human nature being as it is, thse folk generally denigrate those of us who point out these plain facts) is an enemy of Constitutional government and an enemy of and traitor to the American Republic.

There can be no compromise, nor backing-down, on this issue. Anyone who will not acknowlege the simple truth that we do not know that Obama legally occupies the presidency, anyone who attempts to evade the real Constitutional question by invoking "democracy" (which the United States isn't!) or the result of the 2008 election, has chosen to be a traitor to the Constitution and thus to the United States and thus a traitor to our fathers and our children.

(*) alleged-President Obama -- I have explained elsewhere why I refer to him as such.