RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

REFORMING US IMMIGRATION LAW: WHY TRUMP IS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE CRUZ's CITIZENSHIP QUALIFICATION TO BE PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF

Print
Written by Caleb M. Pilgrim   
Sunday, 24 January 2016 08:56
REFORMING U.S IMMIGRATION LAW: WHY TRUMP IS RIGHT TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF CRUZ'S CITIZENSHIP QUALIFICATION TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF

I still remember a cool morning in September 1972 when I first arrived in Paris. A French immigration officer, rather peremptorily, stamped my documents Boston/Paris/Boston and refused me entry. I had opted to participate in the Tufts Year Abroad Program in Paris. The then Dean of the Program had advised me that I did not require a visa to enter France. My late mother, Hazel C. Pilgrim (nee Neblett), born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, American, by birth and nationality, had similarly advised me that I did not need a visa. After all, she had once made a brief visit to Paris, with my father, a Barbadian national. She recalled that she did not need a visa to enter France!

As a result of the French immigration officer's refusal to allow me entry, I then had to seek alternatives. Should I go to Germany and apply for a French visa there? Or, should I go to London, and pick up a visa there? I subsequently hopped a flight to London - after all, they spoke English; I spoke no German. God knows what my experience might have been in Germany - to get a visa from the French Embassy, to enable my return to Paris.

Fortunately, in the interim, Professor Michel Fabre, the then Tufts Program Director in Paris, a friend (and, I believe, Executor of the Estate) of Richard Wright, the late, great American writer exiled in Paris, had taken the initiative, and called the French Embassy in London, and alerted them to my plight. Professor Fabre, a humanitarian, was a ray of sunshine on a potentially dark, dismal and gloomy day, immediately preceding the start of the 1973 academic year.

The French Embassy promptly issued me a visa. I took another black taxi back to Heathrow, hopped a plane, and soon arrived back in Paris.

Notwithstanding the fact that my biological mother was American born and bred - Cambridge, Mass, it was either the magic, the plasticity and resilience of US immigration law, or the (in)discretion of some consular official that had determined that I was NOT an American citizen. The implications were, to say the least, unforeseen, unforeseeable and interesting.

Senator Cruz claims that, having been born to an American mother, he is a "natural born" citizen, eligible to seek the Presidency and, if elected, to serve as Commander-in-Chief! But, it was not my personal experience that mere birth to an American mother automatically made one a "natural born" citizen qualified for anything! Far from it!

It seemed to me rather, that from an "immigrant's" perspective, one could even be arbitrarily and unilaterally stripped of one's right to American citizenship. One could be required to apply for a holiday (B-2) visa? Or, to apply for a F-1 student visa, and, as a consequence, even then, be ineligible for various types of financial aid, a slightly important factor for most students? Or, one could even be required to apply for a permanent residence/green card visa (I-151)? And, then one day, even, have to complete his or her Form N-400 and apply to become a naturalized citizen? Imagine a citizen (ab initio) having to apply to become a naturalized citizen!

It was several decades later that a fair minded and decent immigration officer in Hartford, Connecticut, upon reviewing my file, indicated to me that my application for derivative citizenship ought to have been approved decades earlier. Too late!

No one knows whether Senator Cruz's seemingly easy access to the category of "natural born" citizen was based, in part or in whole, on his race! He appears white! I am black. I do not say that the consular officials in my case were motivated by racial consideration. I simply do not know!

I merely note in passing that sometime in March 2002, some immigration officials had approved a visa for Mohammed Atta and others some 6 months after they had flown American Airline Flight 11 into the World Trade Center. It might therefore have been a simple case of serial, or selective, bureaucratic incompetence and confusion, as permanent as bureaucracies themselves!

Senator Cruz is a much vaunted, former Texas Solicitor General. He has argued several cases before the United Supreme Court (SCOTUS). With splendid detachment, he has adjudged himself a “natural born citizen” of the United States, pursuant to Article II, Section I, Clause V; “settled” law, he claims, based on which he is qualified to seek the Presidency! (Perhaps, we live in strange times. As a legal scholar, he is well acquainted with the maxim nemo iudex in causa sua, "no man should be a judge in his own cause")! Professor Larry Tribe, the well-known Constitutional Law expert, who reportedly taught both President Obama and Senator Cruz at Harvard Law School, has stated that the matter is not settled law.

Is Senator Cruz’s "derivative citizenship" the same as his "natural born" citizenship? We know of no unified, consistent opinion of immigration law experts, as regards Cruz’s situation, and the US Supreme Court has not decided this particular matter. All we can reasonably say at this juncture is that his fellow Senator, Dr. Rand Paul, is correct in designating Senator Cruz as "a natural-born Canadian"! He is "a son of the soil" born in Canada; his case, legally, possibly a matter of first instance, clearly distinguishable from cases like erstwhile Republican Presidential candidates, George Romney and John McCain.

To conclude, in this Orwellian world in which we live, it is clearly the case that not all children of an American mother are created equal. Bottom line, Trump is right to suggest that Cruz should seek a declaratory judgment from the Supreme Court, or some federal court, taking into account jurisdiction and venue, rather than face subsequent litigation, (see the recent Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) case, Newton Boris Schwarz et al v. Ted Cruz a/k/a Rafael Edward Cruz, Case 4:16-cv-00106 filed 1/14/16), as initiated by some who, like litigants before, questioned President Obama's citizenship.

In another vein, Senator Cruz has garnered substantial Christian Evangelical support. Perhaps, Cruz and some evangelicals have forgotten the mandate ... "Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt" ... Deuteronomy 10:19. They may also have forgotten Paul's teachings obliterating the distinction between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, etc. Colossians 3:11, Galatians 3:28. They may also have forgotten Paul's Letter to Philemon. Cruz, a Cuban, a Canadian, an American, seems so curiously unforgiving. So strident, so ultra-divisive, although Princeton and Harvard trained, yet, perhaps reflecting an epic, polished bigotry. No "Amazing Grace" conversion for Senator Cruz! He would not even allow those illegals who left, to return legally. The plank in his eye boggles the mind! He should withdraw rather than pursue an office for which he is so clearly unqualified.

Caleb M. Pilgrim
Ph.D (Cantab.), JD (Yale)
159 Hemlock Rd
New Haven, CT 06515

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN