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.
I suspect many of those conservatives are birthers. They claim to respect the U.S. Constitution and want to see it applied evenly to political candidates regardless of political affiliation. In truth, birthers would bend or break the Constitution in order to fulfill their agenda of having Obama declared ineligible for the presidency and they would NEVER accept a SCOTUS ruling that declared Obama eligible.
IMHO, there is only one group of citizens whose NBC status cannot be questioned in any way: those born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents. About all others, we can make arguments for and against their eligibility for the presidency. Until the courts rule on whether or not statutory citizenship at birth qualifies as a NBC under the meaning of A2S1C5 of the Constitution, those with an agenda will shoot at any available target.
So we are throwing away all of our hopes of a Cruz’16 run solely on the word of one reporter??? More info is needed, especially since McLame was born elsewhere and was eligable to run.
Take a deep breath everyone. This FR post was the only thing i saw referencing this report.
Do you know if “birth tourism’ has caught on in Canada like it has in the US?
Birth tourism is a ticking time bomb. We haven’t seen the real affects yet.
Not sure I follow you. I’m not “complaining” about anything, just voicing an opinion.
Why do you confuse “American” with “Natural Born Citizen”?
The founders had no trouble distinguishing between the two. That’s why they made a special case for people who lived in the United States at the time the country was founded, and said that all others must be “Natural Born Citizen”.
If you grew up in a foreign country, you might have some allegiance to that country, and they wanted to avoid any possibility that the President would give deference to other countries over our own supremacy.
And whether you think Obama is NBR or not, you can’t argue that he certainly seems to prove the point that if you aren’t solidly raised to love our country, you will betray it as President.
Cruz said yesterday his father was not a citizen yet at the time of his birth. Plus he was born in Canada. Probably people said this already, just getting to the thread.
I suggest you look, instead, at the US State Department application for a Passport. The instructions list the various ways that one may claim citizenship, and those requirements for Citizenship at Birth have changed over the years.
For instance, the laws concerning Birth by One US Parent will require residency in the US, for a certain period of time after reaching the age of majority.
All “Natural Born Citizen” means is that you became a Citizen at the moment of birth, based on the laws in effect at the time of your birth. NOTHING ELSE.
No, I cited a very large chunk of a US Supreme Court opinion.
The common law definition of Natural Born Subject is what created our common law definition of Natural Born Citizen.
There are two ways to be a US citizen - birth, or naturalization. Someone naturalized is allowed to hold any office except President. For President, you must be born a US citizen. And Cruz WAS born a US citizen. As was Obama, sadly. And that is all it takes. If you are a US citizen, and you were not naturalized, then you are a NBC.
Yes, your son can be President.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth and nothing else.
From what I’ve read his mother had not been a citizen long enough or something. I’m late to the thraed, maybe it’s been clarified already.
Cruz lived in Canada until he was 4 years old.
So, was that long enough for him to be tainted by Canadian values?
Well, there are 300 million americans. I think we could find one who could run our country who was actually born and raised in the country.
And they should.
Even if Cruz' circumstance is the same as Obama's, it serves Republicans right for not having the courage of Democrats to fight with every weapon at their disposal.
While I do not relish the thought of this happening, I do want to see the Republicans have their "we didn't do it out of respect" excuses thrown back at them by true political street-brawlers.
Maybe it will knock some sense into the old-timers to step aside and let a more energized generation take over the party leadership.
By your definition of NBC, a member of the British royal family could come to this country and father/give birth to a child, that child would then be eligible for the presidency and the royal thrown at the same time.
Do you really believe the FF were that stupid?
“This is simply not true. Minor v Happersett had one or two sentences that might POSSIBLY have been relevant”
The Courts holding in Minor vs Happersett states that she (Virginia Minor) was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens.
This was because in order to decide if Virginia Minor was eligible to vote the court first had to establish whether she was a citizen. The criteria the court used was born in the US of two US citizens.
We all need to accept that we got zoomed in 2008 by the Democrats who had an ineligible candidate they wanted to run for President. Fortunately for them McStain’s eligibility was questionable. So the GOP and Dems banded together and let both of them run. Now the GOP is eager to continue to put up their ineligible candidates for 2016. In effect they are trying to backdoor re-define the concept of natural born citizen which is the job of the Supreme Court. Sadly SCOTUS is trying to duck their duty so the issue rages on.
How can a legal American mother have a child who is not an American citizen? C’mon Gang, she can’t. As for Rubio, who had parents awaiting citizenship, he was BORN here to parents who were here legally, citizens in waiting. Both are eligible. I am glad that I have the Great One, Mark Levin, on my side.
If Chris Christie or Jeb Bush had the same birth circumstances, neither FOX nor Ann Coulter would be waving the ineligibility flag. Now Jeb Bush, THERE is a guy, like his brother, who seems to yearn to be President of Mexico. There are plenty of natural born Americans, like Jeb, with dual loyalties. Bob
You need to acquaint yourself with the concept of Judicial Review in the United States.
That’s “throne”, but good point! LOL Bob
See my post #253.
Note: Congress does not have the Constitutional power to change the U.S.Constitution, not do they have the Constitutional power to declare someone a ‘Natural born Citizen”. See U.S.Constitution, Article V.
Disagree, and I’ve consulted lawyers regarding this issue as it affects my son who was born overseas while I was stationed there.
I don’t believe the Founders were stupid at all. They originally would have allowed naturalized citizens to run for President, and then increased the restriction to being born a US citizen. That is a low threshold, as is being 35 years old, but they actually believed the people should get to choose...
And here is a quote from the DISSENT in WKA (1898):
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
There it is, clear as a blue-sky day. NBC is the counterpart to citizen at birth. Cruz satisfies the condition as his mother was a US citizen at his birth. It's not that hard to grasp.
That is EXACTLY. DAMN. RIGHT.
And from the mouth of the United States Supreme Court itself.
That had to be embarrassing, to be so opinionated but not to know about the whole grandfathering thingy.
They are...so are Brazilians etc.
Yup. One Amendment written by the Victorious Republicans after the civil war, ostensibly to punish the South, and ratified at the point of a gun, has defacto re-written article II such that it no longer possesses any real meaning.
Also, the Cable act of 1922 and the Women's citizenship act of 1934 were necessary too. Without them a women couldn't transfer citizenship at all.
Of course the newer laws are retroactive back to 1787. Everybody knows that the meaning of something written long ago changes completely with newer legislation which redefines the original meaning. This methodology is far easier than getting a constitutional amendment.
We have become Idiocracy.
Also, I think they were in Canada on a job...not as immigrants.
I think Cruz had a US birth certificate from birth...
but only the Shadow knows for sure!
To be an NBC, then all must be true, mom and dad citizens of the country where the child is born.
If one isn't true, then not a NBC.
No matter what anyone's or country's laws may be, no matter where one thinks citizenship comes from, soil or either parent, all agree about the citizenship of that child.
That is the purest definition of natural born citizen. Nothing else. Everything else is a lesser standard that opens the door to other claims to that individual, given how citizenship had been defined in the historical record the FFs would have had to study.
That's all I'm saying and why I think that's what the FFs would have meant by stating such in the eligibility requirement. It's the only office so defined and I believe that's why.
My friend, like me, is middle aged, so, no, it’s not recent. Canada has much more lenient immigration laws than the US.
Senator Cruz and your Bahama baby would probably still be a natural born citizen according to the original intent of the Framers, so long as both parents were US citizens, the child did not retain any dual citizenship loyalties, and the parents had at some point resided in the United States. Here is how the First Congress defined "natural born citizen" in the Naturalization Act of 1790:
And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That person heretofore proscribed by any State, shall be admitted as a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed
Many "birthers" say that you have to be both born in the US and be born to two US citizen parents in order to be natural born citizen. That your parents should be US citizens is clear, but it is not clear that you must be born in the territory of the US to be a natural born citizen. This uncertainty arises from short-sighted Congresses making changes to the US Constitution without clearly specifying how those changes may affect to other parts of the Constitution in unintended ways.
Before the adoption of the 14th amendment in 1868, there were only two ways to become a US Citizen. The first was through the bloodline of your parents (i.e. natural born citizens)as mentioned above. The only other way to receive citizenship before 1868 was through Naturalization. When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, it introduced a new third method for a person to become a US citizen which had not been mentioned in the Constitution. This new type of citizenship is called "ius soli" or the "law of the soil." This principle states that a person becomes a citizen by being born in a geographical area rather than by inheriting citizenship from their parents' bloodlines. It's relationship to natural born citizenship has been argued ever since.
The boys’ birth certificates were issued at the Army hospital. My daughter’s was issued by the U.S. Consulate in Liverpool, UK.
Yes, from what you describe and according to U.S. law, your children are U.S. citizens at and from the time of their birth and are NBCs and eligible to hold any office in the US including POTUS.
That's incorrect. U.S. military installations abroad are not considered U.S. soil for the purposes of citizenship. The following text is from the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual.
7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF IN THE UNITED STATES
c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
With all due respect BuckeyeTexan; I believe you are incorrect in your interpretation of that manual. What that manual is addressing are the children of foreign nationals, i.e. non U.S. citizens who work at U.S. military installations or U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad or who otherwise give birth to children on the grounds of a U.S. military base or U.S. embassy or diplomatic facility. Such children of foreign nationals born on the grounds of a U.S. military or a U.S. diplomatic facility are not considered having been born on U.S. soil for purposes of being considered born an American citizen as they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
As Ax and his spouse were BOTH U.S. citizens at the time of their childrens birth AND Ax was an active duty U.S. military service member, his children meet the requirements of U.S. citizen at birth; his children are considered to be U.S. citizens from the time of their birth, no different if they had been physically born on U.S. soil, regardless of what country Ax was serving in at the time and whether or not they were born on a U.S. military base or not. There is a requirement to register the birth through the U.S. consulate but that is AFAIK routinely done for U.S. service members whether their children are born on base or even off base in a private non-U.S. military hospital. Their physical place of birth is not the determining factor here, it is the citizenship of the parent or parents and other factors such as how long one or either of the parents resided in the U.S.
Please read this BuckeyeTexan as the last FAQ addresses the very same question that the manual you referred to was addressing:
Q: I was born to a non-American mother inside a US embassy compound during civil strife in my home country. Am I an American citizen?
A: No. US diplomatic or consular facilities abroad and US military installations abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire US citizenship by reason of birth there.
In other words, the a child of a foreign national who may happen to be born on the premises of a U.S. facility overseas while their non-U.S. citizen parent(s) are present there and provided they do not meet any of the requirements of U.S. citizenship, i.e. having at least one U.S. parent etc., such as in the case of a foreign national(s) working there as an employee, there seeking refuge in due to political strife, or there in the process of requesting asylum in the U.S., is not considered to be born an American citizen by virtue of having been born on a U.S. facility overseas as this is not the same as having been born on U.S. soil. This is very much quite different however from Axs and his childrens situation as my previous link explains it quite clearly.
The same sort of rules apply to the children of foreign diplomats serving in the U.S. the children of foreign diplomats born to them while they are serving in the U.S. in the capacity of being registered foreign diplomats, are not considered U.S. citizens at birth by virtue of them having been born on U.S. soil and neither are children born of parents on temporary visitor visas (vacationers) as they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The same applies to U.S. citizens temporarily travelling or working abroad. If I, for just one example, am a U.S. citizen working for a U.S. company overseas working on a DOD contract for instance, I have not applied for or established permanent residency there, nor have I applied for citizenship in that foreign country, any of my children born overseas are U.S. citizens at birth providing I have met the U.S residency requirements and I register the birth of my child at the U.S. consulate, that child born overseas is a U.S. citizens from birth and no different as if they had been born in Lancaster PA.
The same would apply if I was a U.S. citizen vacationing in France on a temporary visitor visa and gave birth to a child while I was there. As long as I had met the U.S. residency requirements and registered the birth with the U.S. consulate, my child would a U.S. citizen at birth and not a French citizen.
I have debunked this a dozen times, yet still people don't get the message. You are wrong. McCain was indeed born *ON* the American base in the Panama Canal zone.
To answer your question: Yes, I certainly can.
Please note: I have said before, accurately, that Vattel was influential IN THE REALM OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
So, to repeat the question I asked you before:
The actual text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution says:
The Congress shall have Power... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations...
The "law of nations" was NOT simply defined by Vattel. Although he was an influential writer on the subject, there were a bunch of others.
The reference to the "law of nations" in the Constitution is a reference to the law of nations. It is NOT a reference to Vattel's book on the topic.
In fact, the Constitution speaks of "OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS."
Did you know there was another book, FAR more widely read and used than Vattel, that has a chapter on precisely that topic, with a title that is almost verbatim to the phrase as used in the Constitution?
The author was quoted by the Founding Fathers SIXTEEN TIMES more often than they quoted Vattel.
And his book's chapter is titled, "OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS."
That being the case, and given that he was quoted by the Founders SIXTEEN TIMES more often than Vattel, and given that I can certainly show where the notably thrifty Founders spent precious public funds to purchase his work for use in the Senate, would you not now agree that this book, which specifically treats "Offenses Against the Law of Nations," and not Vattel's, is likely the source of the phrase "Offenses against the Law of Nations," as used in our Constitution?
*IF* he was born outside of the United States. She was too young to confer citizenship *IF* he was born outside of the United States.
For some reason, people keep leaving off that qualifier.
Respectfully, claiming citizenship via passport application is irrelevant to one’s eligibility for the presidency, which is the thread topic.
With regard to being eligible for the presidency, the State Department stipulates that being a natural born citizen by statute does not necessarily make one eligible for the presidency. We don’t have a definitive ruling to go by.
As you know, there are only two classes of citizenship: citizen at birth and naturalized citizen. However, being included in the former is not an automatic guarantee of eligibility for the presidency. Some who are granted citizenship at birth have retention requirements placed upon their citizenship. Those born on U.S. soil have no such conditions placed upon their citizenship status.
So there is legal precedent demonstrating that all “citizens at birth” do not share the same status.
It wasn't just to protect this country from someone that had loyalties to another country but to protect other countries from a president making a claim to the throne(how's that) of another country.
It kept the US out of the constant wars that were taking place between countries in Europe when one ruler made a claim to another countries throne based on birth right.
NBC means being born an American citizen and only an American citizen at the time of your birth.
If a person is born in this country to two parents who are not citizens of this country but neither parent can pass citizenship to the child from the country of their origin, then the child would be a NBC of this country.
If the parents cannot pass citizenship to the child, their citizenship becomes irrelevant as to the child's citizenship.
“Before the adoption of the 14th amendment in 1868, there were only two ways to become a US Citizen. The first was through the bloodline of your parents (i.e. natural born citizens)as mentioned above. The only other way to receive citizenship before 1868 was through Naturalization. When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, it introduced a new third method for a person to become a US citizen which had not been mentioned in the Constitution. This new type of citizenship is called “ius soli” or the “law of the soil.” “
You are completely wrong. There was no “two citizen parent’ requirement, not at the time of the Constitution, and never since. And in fact, the Supreme Court has said that NBC and the 14th are restatements of the same principle, in effect during colonial times, and never changed.
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
There is NO DIFFERENCE between a NBC and a 14th Amendment citizen - they embody the same people “by the fewest and fittest words”...
Oh good grief!!!
"Cruz was born and spent the first four years of his life in Calgary before his parents returned to Houston. His father was jailed and tortured by the Fulgencio Batista regime and fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution but "didn't know Castro was a Communist" and later became a staunch critic of Castro when "the rebel leader took control and began seizing private property and suppressing dissent."
Cruz's father was never a Communist and infact, is a Soutern Baptist minister in the Dallas area!
I am claiming that the U.S. Constitution delegates powers to many persons and entities. A local jury in a criminal case can decide in a criminal case that the facts do not warrant a conviction no matter how strong the prosecution's evidence and no matter what any judge might think the jury should have found. That may seem unfair to you, but that is our system. The Congress can declare war against another nation even if all the judges think that the decision involved a misunderstanding of the facts by the Congress. That is our system. The President can veto a law even if every judge in the country thinks he is doing so because he is mistaken as to some important facts. Again, that is our system.
You seem to be concerned that the voters and their electors might make a factual mistake in deciding whether or not a candidate meets constitutional qualifications. Of course, they might make a mistake. Everyone who is granted the power to make a decision in our country might make a mistake. People might disagree as to what the facts are and what the facts mean, but that does not mean that every decision is reviewable by a court. That's just our system.
The Supreme Court is not granted any power by the Constitution to pick our presidents. The voters and their electors are quite capable of resolving questions concerning qualifications.
Do you at times wonder why the Supreme Court has not accepted any invitations to rule on the factual questions concerning Obama's qualifications? Well, now you know why.
Do you think Ann Dunham gave birth to Ted Cruz?
Yes, it's a mystery how people can read and learn things.
Baffling, it is.
"Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?
...Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;
...But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.
...a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;
That's a misunderstanding. There was never a question about whether she was a citizen or not; nobody claimed she wasn't. The court wasn't trying to establish that at all.
Cruzs father was also a US citizen at the time of his birth.
He wasn’t but it doesn’t matter. Cruz was born an American citizen by virtue of his mother’s U.S. citizenship.
OK couple of Q’s
1. What nationality was his father ???
2. What was Mom doing in Canada ???
3 how long did Mom live in Canada ???
4 how old was Ted when he immigrated to the US from Canada ???
5. When did such a ready convenient status of being called an American citizen regardless of birth begin ???
I look at the situation of my 2nd great grandfather, Guy, who was born in Canada...
Guy’s father was born in Canada, the son and grandson of American citizens, born in Albany and New Rochelle NY...thus his father was an American citizen...
Guy’s mother was born in Vermont again the child and grandchild of American citizens...thus his Mom was also an American citizen...
So Guy was an American citizen at birth...
Yet when my gg grandfather was a teenager and left New York for Melbourne, Australia and the goldfields about 1850 he was listed as a “British subject” on the ships manifest...
Like Ted Cruz, Guy should have been eligible to be POTUS...
IN FACT HE WAS MORE ELIGIBLE THAN TED..
You are simply wrong.
There are only two forms of Citizenship, in the United States:
1.) Natural Born
The only intent of the Founders was to make sure that Naturalized Citizens could not become President.
If you became a Citizen at the moment of birth, you are, by definition, a Natural Born Citizen.
No legal expert in the entire country disagrees with me on this point.
Ted “lightning Rod” Cruz.
I hope he jumps in head first, the sooner the better.
Let’s see what he can do.
Why don't you just come clean and admit you don't care to have any requirements at all? If the shadow of an American fell on them at some time in their life, that is all that is necessary for you to regard them as qualified.
You bring absolutely nothing of any value to this conversation.
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.