I'm just asking what the policy rationale was in the early case for the 5 years after age 14 restriction, and one hasn't really been given. Not one that makes any sense.
I am assuming that you will actually read all of these, rather than relying on my interpretation of what they say.
Politifact: Ted Cruz says it's always been that babies born to U.S. citizens abroad are citizens from birth. Mostly trueIn August, Jeb Bush apparently claimed that Ted Cruz was a beneficiary of the 14th Amendment. As you might know, Cruz was born in Canada, to a US-citizen mother and a father who at the time was a Cuban citizen. Cruz's mother was in her late 20's, and had graduated from Rice, and therefore satisfied the 5-years-after-age-14 requirement. So Cruz was a US citizen from birth.
Jeb Bush appears to confused, or was conflating different issues. The only article I found was in the
New York Times, which was sympathetic to Bush, and suggested that his love for his Mexican-born wife colored his views. Ted Cruz responded that it was always true that babies born to U.S. citizens abroad were USA citizens. The Politifact analysis concluded that this was "mostly true" citing the historical exceptions.
The Politifact analysis cited a number of legal articles. Particularly interesting was
Derivative Citizenship: Its History, Constitutional Foundation, And Constitutional Limitations. While not directly addressing the issue you have raised, it does provide a thorough background of derivative citizenship. Derivative citizenship is citizenship derived through the parents.
The article is focused on the level of scrutiny that the SCOTUS should apply to naturalization laws passed by Congress.
I have hypothetically interviewed the hypothetical persons in your example, and determined that the 16-YO gave birth out of wedlock, and the father, if known, is not a US citizen. As it so happens, her twin brother was also involved in a liaison with a foreign women, who gave birth to a child, who the 16-YO brother acknowledged paternity.
When the 16-YO daughter returned to the US, she returned with her US citizen child. Her 16-YO brother also returned with his child (it is complex, but he did have legal custody). But, unlike his cousin, this child under US law is not a US citizen.
The question then is does the 14th Amendment equal protection apply, since US law treats male parents different from female parents in this particular situation. This hinges in part on the basis of Congress legislating derivative citizenship.
The article then goes into a history of citizenship. Covering 14th Amendment birthright citizenship, they provide two footnotes,
24 and 25, to articles arguing that birthright citizenship does not apply to offspring of illegal aliens. Since this article is not focused on birthright citizenship, it does not delve deeply into the issue.
Initially, Congress only provided derivative citizenship through the father, and also required that the father have had been resident in the United States prior to the birth of the child. I think I mentioned this before, but at one time, but a US citizen female, who was married to a foreign male, and domiciled in his country, was deemed to have abandoned her US citizenship (the modern interpretation is that you can not forfeit your US citizenship by non-hostile action, whether voting in foreign elections or marrying a foreigner and living in marriage in a foreign county, but can be stripped of citizenship by becoming an enemy combatant).
In 1934, Congress equalized the law with respect to children born outside the US to one US citizen parent and one alien parent. This appears to have been done in the spirit of the 19th Amendment. Prior to passage of the 19th Amendment, the SCOTUS had ruled that voting was not a constitutional right, and therefore not subject to equal protection, thus necessitating a constitutional amendment to require that women be permitted to vote (if that were the desired policy).
By 1940, the law required that the US citizen parent have been resident in the US, including 5 after age 16. It also required the child to reside in the US for 5 years between the ages of 13 and 21.
It made exceptions if the US citizen parent were a diplomat or otherwise working for the government, or was gainfully employed by an educational, scientific, philanthropic, religious, commercial, or financial organization headquartered in the US. In a sense this was a type of projected US residency (my term).
The article did not explain why there was a residency requirement, but I suspect it had to do with balancing concerns about children having US citizenship without much of a connection to the US, and perhaps avoiding conflict with foreign countries who might consider the US to be interfering in their citizenship laws.
There would be concerns about a child being born in the US, returning with her parents to their home in a foreign country when she was 5, who would begin producing US citizen offspring 15 to 35 years later, having never attended US schools or knowing a word of English. These offspring might demand entry to the US decades later through the accident of birth.
The residency requirement has gradually been liberalized, but demands at least some exposure to an American education.
The article then discusses the constitutional basis of congressional authority to legislate on the matter.
Three alternatives are:
(1) Naturalization clause (Article 1, Section
, one of the enumerated powers of Congress is to provide for naturalization. The initial naturalization act of 1790 provided for a process of naturalization for aliens within the US; and also recognized US citizenship for certain persons born outside the US. The article argues that the two sections of the 1790 act were by different authority. And that if persons born abroad were naturalized, even if at the time of birth, they would not be natural-born citizens - and therefore Ted Cruz could not become president.
(2) Implied power over foreign relations. This is an essential authority of a national government. The author prefers this basis. If this is the basis, the author believes this would make 14th Amendment equal protection apply to the case of children born out of wedlock to one US citizen parent regardless of sex. I don't pretend to understand this.
(3) 14th Amendment. This somehow is based on an interpretation of "born or naturalized in the United States", and how to interpret the word "in".