Kato Tries To Slap Some Sense Into An Unidentified Birther
Ilya Shapiro of The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, busted the chops of the two citizen parents with a recent post on Ted Cruz’s eligibility. Here are a few excerpts:
What’s a “natural born citizen”? The Constitution doesn’t say, but the Framers’ understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents — in a manner regulated by federal law — and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.
There’s no ideological debate here: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson — who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases — co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain’s eligibility. Recall that McCain — lately one of Cruz’s chief antagonists — was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.
In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth — as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later (“naturalizes”) or who isn’t a citizen at all — can be president.
So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens — or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere — citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-president
Of course, Ted Cruz meets those qualifications! Sooo, my hat is off to a fellow Think Tanker for getting it right!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Note 1. The Image. This is Bruce Lee playing the role of Kato in The Green Hornet TV series. I am not sure who the guy in the mask is. Just for what it is worth trivia-wise, the Green Hornet was a relative of The Lone Ranger!
Note 2. Busting Chops. For ESLs, the Free Dictionary defines chops, and busting someone’s chops as:
chops (chps) pl.n.
1. The jaws.
2.a. The mouth.
b. The lower cheeks or jowls.
c. Muttonchops.
3. Slang The technical skill with which a jazz or rock musician performs.Idiom: bust (someone’s) chops
1. To scold or insult someone.
2. To disappoint or defeat someone.
3. To hold a building contractor to the letter of an agreement.
The Image Easter Egg is a word play on the “Oh Hai” Internet meme, and the word “Hai” which is loudly expressed during Karate and Kung Fu strikes. “Hai” means “yes” in Japanese.
The Birther Think Tank 
August 28th, 2013 at 11:47 pm
Well, he kind of blew it when he cited the Nationality Act of 1940.
August 29th, 2013 at 2:22 am
Hi DaveB!!!
True. But at least he got the right answer! He probably picked that 1940 Act off some footnotes in the US Code. An act passed one year gets parts of itself changed over time and he didn’t know that it was better cited as 8 USC§1401(g). But the footnotes will have a little of this act and a little of that act thrown in to show the changes from one year to the next.
Technically, the Code isn’t actually the law, but simply a codification of the law so that it is easier to read in one place. Not that it matters much 99.99999% of the time.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
August 29th, 2013 at 1:00 pm
I sent him an e-mail about it:
Mr. Shapiro,
In your article “Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President,” you stated
“The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens — or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere — citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.”
The provisions of the Nationality Act of 1940 for the citizenship at birth of persons such as Senator Cruz– those born outside the US and its outlying possessions to married parents, one of whom is an alien and the other a citizen of the United States– were superseded by those of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 almost eighteen years before Senator Cruz was born. The requirements to which you refer in your article (“someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen”) are NOT the requirements of the Nationality Act of 1940, but of former Sec. 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; although the INA’s requirement is not for residence, but for physical presence. A person can accumulate physical presence in the US without having a US residence, and a person can be absent from the United States while maintaining a US residence.
Thank you for your attention–
and this morning he promptly and courteously replied to the effect that “the overall structure was established in 1940.” I don’t know why, then, he used the present tense in referring to the NA. I mean, it’s the kind of thing one would expect from, say, Phil Berg, but this seems like a bright young chap.
I do like that last sentence of his article.
August 29th, 2013 at 1:32 pm
DaveB:
In other words, he should have just cited to the code. Nowadays, who is going to read the 1940 Act, particularly when it has been amended numerous times? He lost the point of his article, which was to show how obviously Cruz is eligible, and diverted himself into unnecessary legal niceties.
FWIW, the act is like 38 pages.
Click to access 54%20stat%201137.pdf
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
August 29th, 2013 at 2:24 pm
They were just getting warmed up with that one. The INA’s a real bear!
August 29th, 2013 at 8:30 am
Obviously, the Cato Institute is wrong. 😉