Skip to comments.Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
One citizenship is derived from one parents not ones place of birth. At least that is my view, and my argument for my children of illegals are not natural born citizens. And for why children born abroad of two US citizens in the service of our country or simply temporally away are natural born citizens.
Rafael Cruz didn’t escape from Cuba because at the time he left, PRIOR to the Castro takeover, any Cuban could just pick up and leave whenever they wanted to. Cruz has deliberately misrepresented his father’s history in an attempt to tie him into the flight-from-communism diaspora. He was found out and confronted by an Austin newspaper.
I am sincerely doubtful that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule Cruz eligible. They do not like over ruling a former Supreme court’s holding. See my post at #133.
The following is often used to support Marco Rubio, but the facts disputing the supporting argument can also be applies to Ted Cruz:
The First U.S. Congress included in the 1790 Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department to the fact that Americans born abroad are natural born citizens and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth. They were not granted citizenship via that US statute rather their automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by immigration authorities. They were not citizens by any other means than natural law, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.
This is not a reasonable explanation. It fails to recognize that Congress only has powers over naturalization. Congress has no power to define natural born Citizen, which has nothing to do with naturalization. Furthermore, if Congress wants to tell the State Department something, they dont have to enact legislation to do it.
But more important is that all of the following naturalization acts, 1795, 1802, etc., were also passed to naturalize the children of U.S. citizens born abroad. And the words natural born were repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act and never returned again.
Actually, the courts have never ruled on it. If the issue is ever presented to the courts (i.e. SCOTUS), I expect they will rule that citizenship granted at birth by statute does make one eligible for the presidency.
Such citizens enjoy the same rights as natural-born citizens except there are retention requirements.
At this point who really gives a crap. I’d certainly prefer someone like Cruz to be POTUS then who we have, or McLame, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and a whole host of other RINOs.
Hmm... The U.S. Constitution was adopted in what? September of 1787, I recall? So, wouldn’t Martin Van Buren be covered under both the grandfather clause AND the Natural Born Citizen requirement?
Yes, America is governed by laws and the law is that the voters and their electors rule upon the qualifications of candidates.
If you want to live in a country in which some special elite group gets to decide who can run for president, you should move to Iran where all candidates must be approved by their "Guardian Council." We don't have any Guardian Councils in this country. Presidents are picked by electors and electors are picked by the voters.
If you don't like our system, then amend the Constitution.
Insults are unnecessary.
The courts have never ruled on the issue. Statutory citizens at birth may or may not be eligible for the presidency. There is no definitive ruling and therefore no “Gospel.”
“Hes not a natural born citizen.”
Wrong. If he was born to parents who were citizens and one was overseas on military orders that is still considered natural born.
McCain meets those criteria as he was born in Panama.
Even if both parents are natural or native US citizens, and they while travelling abroad etc have a child, the child may not be a natural born US citizen by virtue of the country of birth.
Only persons abroad on Official US duty are provided that specific relief for a child born overseas in conjunction with that duty.
Simply travelling aboard is not included.
US Immigration laws cover these issues and you can dig in and find the citations if you want to....
Example, McCain was born to US parents who were serving in the Canal zone, so by virtue of that duty, John is a natural US citizen. My son was born in West Germany while I was stationed there, his birth is recorded by the US consulate and he is a natural and native born US citizen by virtue of the same duty as Adm. McCain.
Joe and Sally hanging out in Italy for the summer having a child is not the same.
Actually, McCain wasn’t born on a base. He was born in a Panamanian hospital.
Please see my post #230 for a rebuttal of that erroneous assumption.
I have read and studied enough on this point that I think I can qualify to give as authoritative opinion as exists.
That almost everyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen (yes, that includes Obama) is SETTLED LAW. There is a very good reason why the US Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to review any of the Obama cases that have reached them. It's settled. Children born on US soil are natural born citizens. Their parents' citizenship DOES NOT MATTER.
Legally speaking, Ted Cruz's case is SLIGHTLY more iffy, as there does not seem to have ever been a clear and explicit decision. But the entire weight of legal opinion seems to be that "natural born citizen" is equivalent to "US citizen at or by birth."
Therefore it seems very, very likely that if Ted Cruz were to run and be elected President, he would be declared to meet the Constitutional qualification as well.
Or, to put it more simply: Yes, almost certainly, Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.
Fox propaganda, who’d have thought it?
You are correct. What most people refuse to understand is that at the TIME the Constitution was signed there was NO dual citizenship at all. Not in Great Britain or in the new US. Sorry you all-inclusive people, but that is an absolute fact.
For the under-informed:
AFTER the US Constitution was ratified a law had to be created to deal with children born to US citizens traveling off of US soil. A law (Act) had to be CREATED. The first Act dealing with such allowed that a child born to a US citizen FATHER (I know men don’t have babies, so don’t be stupid) born abroad was a citizen BUT the child had to declare his/her allegiance at the age of 21 - because back then some countries claimed that ANY child born there (unless to an Ambassador) was a subject/citizen of that country. And back then if a alien woman married a citizen man, she took on his character (country). Later legislators changed the language to include that either/or/both parents being US citizens could pass US citizenship to the child. That was done for several reasons-won’t detail now. Keep on mind all of this was done well AFTER the Constitution was ratified. And that child born abroad would still be required to declare allegiance at 21 years of age.
The thing is that there was NO dual citizenship in the US back then. Technically there is none officially recognized now either. Look that up - it’s easy. Although the US does not officially recognize dual citizens, they do not actively discourage it either.
Consider the original wording in Article 2 only required the President “unless he now be a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” That was the exact wording. They felt it was not restrictive enough and so it was changed.
NONE of the post 1787 Acts or laws/amendments was ever intended to change the Article 2 requirement. In fact, it is easily found in the old literature of that time that there were only two types of US citizens, natural or created by statue.
Binney (2nd edition):
OF THE UNITED STATES.
IT does not, probably, occur to the American families
who are visiting Europe in great numbers, and remain-
ing there, frequently, for a year or more, that all their
children born in a foreign country, are ALIENS, and
when they return home, will return under all the disa-
bilities of aliens. Yet this is indisputably the case ; for
it is not worth while to consider the only exception to
this rule that exists under the laws of the United States,
viz., the case of a child so born, whose parents were
citizens of the United States, on or before the 14th of
AND: “The state of the law in the United States is easily
deduced. -The notion that there is any common law
principle to naturalize the children born in foreign
countries, of native-born American father and mother,
father or mother, must be discarded. There is not and
never was any such common law principle. But the
common law principle of allegiance, was the law of all
the States at the time of the Revolution, and at the
adoption of the Constitution; and by that principle the
citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions
before mentioned, such only as are either born or made
so, born within the limits and under the urisdiction of
the United States, or naturalized by the authority of
law, either in one of the States before the Constitution,
or since that time, by virtue of an Act of the Congress
of the United States.”
The thing we must not lose sight of is the meaning at the time of the signing of the Constitution. That is what is important.
Acts have been passed to address children born to citizens abroad that give those children the “same rights” as a natural born citizen, but those rights are assigned through a legal statue, they are not naturally occurring. Again,
“citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions
before mentioned, such only as are either born or made
so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of
the United States, or naturalized by the authority of
You're right, the Supreme Court may not touch the issue unless some other court rules against Cruz along the way. My point is that no one is going to stop Ted Cruz from running for President on eligibility grounds - not the legislature and not the courts.
And the McCain case is different in another way — he was born in Panama, but it was a military base thing; it is somewhat reasonable to treat foreign American military bases as if they are “U.S. Soil”, just as you would treat the Embassy as being born on U.S. soil.
The real issue is that the PURPOSE of having the rule makes little sense in regards to some of these particular cases.
The idea was that they wanted people who grew up in the United States, not people who lived their lives in another country and would be swayed by that country.
And when the country was founded, it would be highly unlikely any woman would be “vacationing” in a different country and have their baby. You really didn’t travel that much.
Today, anybody can hope in a plane, and be around the world tomorrow. And be back the next day.
Did Cruz live any significant time in Canada? Then I would argue he is ineligible by the intent of the constitution.
But certainly if someone was on vacation and had a child, and then brought the child home at the end of the vacation, I’d say that the INTENT of the constitutional law is met.
I also do think the congress would have the right, within limits, to define the parameters of “natural born citizen”.
The problem I had with the Obama questions is this — suppose a woman is single, and has a baby through a sperm bank.
Does that child then have to prove the father was an american citizen to be eligible for President? Some here would argue yes — that BOTH parents must by American. I’m not so sure. I don’t see where the intent (that you don’t have parents who have divided loyalties) would be an issue if the father was unknown.
Imagine if Ronald Reagan, the day before he was sworn in, we found out his mother had actually had an affair with a foreign actor, and Reagan was HIS son. Would he have then been ineligible? I think not.
And that, my friend, should put a stop to this discussion. But it won't.
Here it is: (emphasis added)
>>It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parentS within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.<<
Mccain.was not born on a base.
"Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
your child is a US citizen ....this kind of crappola has got to stop. It makes people look ridiculous AND it weakens any argument that might have been made against The One
This wasn't made an issue for Bill Richardson when he ran for President.
Is it from your mother? Is it from your father?
Is it from the country where you are born?
Is your citizenship a statement of your legal residency? A statement of who claims jurisdiction over you and/or your resources?
Is citizenship a statement of your inner loyalty?
The highest standard, the definition that best combines all those possibilities and offers the best chance for legal and inner loyalty to the country, is that of being born in country to citizen parents.
It doesn't guarantee loyalty, nothing does, but it offers the best hope for that loyalty and no competing or potential legal claims to it.
If you wanted to start a nation in a hostile world after winning freedom from a powerful nation, what standard would you choose for the highest, most powerful single person in charge of that country? You'd choose the highest, most legally clean and pure standard possible.
This is simply not true. Minor v Happersett had one or two sentences that might POSSIBLY have been relevant, and those sentences were interpreted by a later Supreme Court to mean that the Minor Court was NOT "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment."
The purpose 14th Amendment was to ensure equal application of the rule for who was and was not a citizen by birth, i.e., a natural born citizen.
So in essence, the later Court quoted Minor v Happersett to make a point that was AGAINST the two-citizen-parent claim, NOT in favor of it.
The case that actually established the existing precedent was US v Wong Kim Ark, in 1898. That precedent is that pretty much any child born on US soil is a natural born citizen. And that is settled law. No credible authorities on either side of the aisle give any credence to claims otherwise.
Canada does grant citizenship based on birth. A friend I grew up with was born in Montreal because her US parents were working there that year. Not only does she have a Canadian as well as a US passport, but her children, who have never been to Canada have Canadian passports.
No, it isn’t. See post 214 for details.
Birthers still believe they're only one lawsuit away from Obama being dragged out of the White House in handcuffs, deported to Kenya and every action he took as president nullified.
Just as soon as Orly figures out how to properly file a brief.
Constitutional fixes in the here and now is what is needed...not some opinion from a book!
Here, I think, Fox is the tool. Hillary2016 or Johnsey Grahamcain is behind this; they might have even sent minions about to stir things up.
Thank you!!!! I like Jindal too, but he is not eligible. What happened with Obama was an abomination that must be brought to light and rooted out.
“Look, this entire NBC thing is not the cornerstone of America.”
let me think for a moment.
Oh, I got it!
It’s ok to throw out the parts of the Constitution that WE don’t like or want to bypass to further our interests, but .
. when the other side does exactly that, that’s “subverting the Constitution!” and should not be permitted, eh?
If the Constitution isn’t “the cornerstone of America”, what is?
When I was a baby I lived in a boiler shed.
That Don't make me a piece of coal or homeless.
It was a transitional time. My parents were building a house, they had allegiances to the neighborhood. Some asshole wagging his finger and saying you had no address at age 2 mos does not make me not an American.
Yeah, they're real experts, all right.
And you're correct. They have absolutely nothing to support the position from case law or the writings of the Framers.
It all began when people started twisting the Constitution because they didn't like Obama. Unfortunately, that was tolerated.
Their Constitution-twisting never hurt Obama in the least, but now it threatens to hurt us.
How could George Washington be a naturalized citizen if he was born before the nation?
Which is exactly what Vattel said in § 215. - 'By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular'.
Coincidentally (or not) the laws of the Republic of Kenya say pretty much the same-
Chapter 6 - Citizenship - Section 87
Persons who became citizens on 12th December, 1963
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on llth December. 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963: Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.
Obama, being a natural born British subject, was 'grandfathered' into the Republic of Kenya with his father....just as the Founders were 'grandfathered' into our own Constitution!
Honestly, I don't know if the Founders would laugh or just shoot us for how we've taken a very simplistic concept and convoluted it almost beyond recognition.
Natural born citizenship is independent of location and strictly hereditary ....you get it from your parents. If they are both not citizens at the time of your birth, you are NOT 'natural born'.
Yes, it certainly is.
I'm not saying all of the birthers are trolls trying to exploit a division in conservative ranks, but I'll bet a lot of them are.
It's a myth that if SCOTUS ruled once and for all on the meaning of "natural born citizen", it would satisfy the birthers. It absolutely WOULD NOT satisfy them and they would claim conspiracy (John Roberts got death threats was a common one in the aftermath of the ACA ruling) or else jury nullification.
Nothing will satisfy the birthers because they know the issue sows dissension. Just like liberals never want workable solutions to any of the crises they're always screaming about. They want the problems to stay front and center so they can use them for political power.
Technically they couldn’t have been nbC simply because their parents, although born in this country, were born subjects of England.
If you had read the constitution, you would know that there is a section that specifically addresses the issue of tjose born before the creation of the United States.
I liked what I saw of Ted Cruz during the filibuster--more impressive than Marco Rubio. His father came to the US in 1957, 13 years before he was born, and eventually became a US citizen, but I don't know when that happened. If it was after 1970, the Democrats are sure to claim that Cruz is not eligible to become President.
You know? I quite honestly would not begrudge my neighbor of Mexican roots the presidency if he was a conservative that believed in the ideals of the Nation and declared himself proudly an AMERICAN.
This is my test.
Obama failed this test miserably.
This past national election cycle, my State of Washington had at least two foreign nationals on the ballot as candidates for President. No way was either eligible.
I firmly believe that the eligibility requirements for national offices - House of Representatives, Senate, President and Vice President - must be addressed at the state level. All aspiring candidates must PROVE they meet the Federal Constitution’s eligibility requirements. Otherwise we will continue to see our sovereignty hacked away by Progressives and Globalsists.
No, actually they are too.
So are Eskimos, Mexicans, Central Americans and South Americans.
I'd be willing to take that bet as well.
My information has it that Cruz’s father was a Cuban living in Canada when Ted was born and who actually supported Castro for a time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.