This election cycle, the topic of “natural born” citizenship has been the subject of great discussion. The entry of multiple candidates whose “natural born” status is questionable has stoked the flames of a raging debate regarding the definition of “natural born”, its references and implications in the Constitution, and the sine qua non of a president of the United States.
One candidate in particular who has sparked this heated discourse is Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX). Rafael Eduard “Ted” Cruz was born on December 22, 1970, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to an American citizen (maternal). Many insist that, because he was not born in the United States, Senator Cruz is not a “natural born” citizen and is, ergo, ineligible (or, as Marco Rubio would loudly proclaim, “disqualified”) for contention in the presidential election. In short: many believe “natural born” can be directly equated with “born in the United States”.
The natural born citizen clause, located in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, reads, “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”. The Constitution goes no farther in outlining its preconditions for the citizenship status of the president. The phraseology is indecisive and unclear.
It is obvious here that the Constitution does not say that a president is required to be born in the United States. It is only written that a president must be “natural born”; no further explanation is proffered. Those who insist that “natural born” means “born in the United States” are arguing so with no basis for their claims. The Constitution does not define “natural born” this way; in point of fact, it does not define it at all.
But that’s not to say that American law does not offer some clarity. The Naturalization Act of 1790, passed only a year after the ratification of the Constitution (by the states who had been forwarded the approved document by the Congress), reads in part, “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….”. In 2011, the Congressional Research Office released a report that states, in part, “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth’, either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’.” It is clear, then, that in both the minds of the men who penned the Constitution and the Congress that passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 only a year later, and in the minds of recent Congressional researchers and scholars, a “natural born” citizen can indeed be one born outside the jurisdiction of the United States (Note: the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 did not eliminate the Naturalization Act of 1790 as is frequently touted; rather, it only abolished certain specific racial and ethnic qualifications for citizenship).
Furthermore, though it does not carry the weight of law, it is interesting to note that English politician William Blackstone wrote in his commentaries, “Yet the children of the king’s [a]mbassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects .... But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes….”. The British Blackstone recognized these same realities as the politicians of yesterday’s America and those of today’s. It seems, then, that “natural born” may mean “a citizen from the time of birth”. This would mean that every child born to a U.S. citizen at any time, in any place is a natural born citizen.
But let’s pretend, for a second, that “natural born” does mean “born in the United States”. How does this apply to military babies born overseas; are the children born to active service members in hospitals off of U.S. soil not naturalized citizens? And what about the children of ambassadors and foreign diplomats?
Here’s a bit of trivia: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, and John Tyler were the first ten presidents of the United States of America; none of them were born in the United States. That’s right, the first sixty-nine years (1776-1845) of our nation’s existence were spent under the authority and leadership of those who had not been born in the motherland. Why? Because until 1776, there was no United States into which to be born. All of the men previously listed were born before the Declaration of Independence was issued (1776) and the Constitution drawn up (1787-1789); therefore, they were born in British territory and foreign provinces under British rule. Because of this fact, one who insists that the natural born citizen clause indicates that only those born in the United States are eligible for presidency must concede that the first ten presidents of the United States of America took office illegally and unconstitutionally. According to this definition of “natural born citizen”, we are forced to conclude that our first ten Commanders in Chief had no legal right to run for office.
Unless, of course, we tweak this definition of “natural born" slightly; if we want to justify the first ten presidencies, and yet still cling to the notion that “natural born” means “born in the United States”, we could theoretically alter the natural born citizen clause to denote: “all presidents must be born in the United States, with the exception of those born before the United States was founded; those men get a free pass”. Is this what the Founding Fathers and Framers intended? Hardly.
Bear in mind that every single legislator who played a role in writing and drafting the Constitution of the United States had been born in foreign territory. All fifty-five men who contributed to the very document that defines our nation were not, according to this definition, natural born. If, by “natural born”, the Founding Fathers meant “born in the United States”, these men believed the following: those who built and constructed the nation and dreamed up the office of the presidency are not required to be natural born, yet those who take the office created by foreigners must be so. This would mean that those who crafted our nation were not held to the same standards and did not face the same requirements as those who held the offices and took the positions that the Framers designed. It is here that the assimilation of “natural born” with “born in the United States” begins to unravel, and we see that it is neither consistent nor plausible. Did the Founding Fathers truly believe that the prerequisites for those who molded and shaped the nation and its laws should be different than those who governed under the authority of those laws?
Ultimately, a new and different definition of “natural born citizen” is in order. And unfortunately, the Framers were not clear in what they meant by “natural born”; the language in the document they penned is vague and ambiguous. What does “natural born citizen” mean? Some assert that a natural born citizen is one born to parents who are both citizens, regardless of his place of birth. Others argue that, in order to be “natural born”, only one parent must have status of citizenship. Another commonly voiced opinion is that a president doesn’t have to be related to citizens at all; he must simply go about the process of obtaining naturalized citizenship.
The truth is, we don’t know precisely. Later American law seems to indicate that a citizen can be considered natural born even if he is not born within the borders of the United States, yet we still cannot know exactly what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the natural born citizen clause. Because of the manner in which the Constitution was written, we are left, more or less, to deduce what exactly the Constitution means when it says “natural born”. This is no easy task. However, in light of clarifying American law passed after the ratification of the Constitution, the status of those who penned the original document, and position of the first ten presidents who governed in accordance with it, it is clear that “natural born” does not mean “born in the United States”.
Need Evidence?
Fact Check: Naturalization Act of 1790 (http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1790_naturalization_act.html)
Fact Check: McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 (http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1950s/McCarran_52.html)
Fact Check: William Blackstone political commentaries (http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/)
Fact Check: Birthplace of presidents 1-10 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/01/14/where-every-president-was-born-in-1-map/)
This is a good read and a pretty strong argument for its own points. I offer these two criticism in a positive way.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't true that because the Constitution doesn't define "natural born citizen" we have no idea what the founders meant. To the contrary, the term is likely based upon a very close cousin, "natural born subject," in the common law. Under the common law cases, that term was usually interpreted to mean born in British territory, which supports the argument in favor of "born in the United States." Thus, while I think you make good arguments, you have failed to address head on the strongest argument against your position.
Second, your discussion about the first 10 presidents appears to overlook constitutional language. The Constitution took into account the fact that the country did not come into existence until later, and thus "natural born" could not be used as a qualifier. That is why to be President one had to be a natural born citizen OR: "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." That qualified the first several Presidents though they could not be "natural born citizens." Thus, I don't think that argument supports your "natural born citizen" position at all.
It will be interesting to see how the Court deals with this issue if Cruz wins. I think it is a very close call, constitutionally speaking.
-Bluto
Bluto,
DeleteThank you for your feedback!
As demonstrated in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the Congressional research report released in 2011, the definition of "natural born" in the Constitution as outlined by the Founding Fathers is clearly NOT the same as the "natural born" we sometimes encounter in common law. I say "sometimes encounter" because, even cases regarding common law, "natural born" is not always a consistently defined term (e.g. the commentaries of William Blackstone cited). Clearly, according to the same Congress that drew up the Constitution in 1789, "natural born" did not mean, exclusively, "born in the United States". We can, therefore, only attempt to deduce what precisely the Framers intended, based on later clarifying law.
As to my point regarding the first ten presidents, what I am trying to demonstrate is that, for the Founding Fathers to believe that the creators of the law and designers of a nation did NOT have to be born in the United States, but those who acted under the law created by effective foreigners ARE required to meet this qualification is neither consistent nor plausible.
Again, thanks for your comment! Your input is appreciated.