Posted on 05/21/2013 9:52:10 AM PDT by Ray76
Ted Cruz was born "Rafael Edward Cruz" December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
His mother is US citizen Eleanor Darragh.
His father is Cuban citizen Rafael B. Cruz. (naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2005)
Eleanor Darragh and Rafael B. Cruz were residents of Canada for at least four years from 1970, possibly earlier, until 1974. They conducted business there as Rafael B. Cruz and Associates, Ltd.
Where they "permanent residents"?
Is Ted Cruz a "natural born citizen" of Canada?
Revised Statutes of Canada 1970:
Now if Canada attempted to force him into its army, he might be able to claim exemption on the basis that he was also an American citizen. But whether that would be accepted or not depends on Canadian law, not American law.
Canada could force him into their army if they so chose. They could not force me into their army. There is no recognized body of law which would allow them to do it. Ted Cruz? He owes them allegiance.
My money is on the courts going with what follows when Ted Cruz’s eligibility status is adjudicated. It is also likely that the Senate will pass a Sense of the Senate Resolution clearing him to run like the one they passed for McCain.
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...”
US Code, Title 8, Section 1401
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Or do you disagree?
We do not know this guy is "born in Kenya" and the evidence I have seen so far argues strongly against it.
My opposition may have no bearing on the ultimate recreation of this nation as a socialist slave state, but that is beside the point. Rubio might be considered as a natural citizen, but it's iffy. Cruz is simply a bridge too far.
Rubio is at least a 14th amendment citizen. He might be considered to be a "natural citizen" if you stretch the definition pretty far. Had his father naturalized before he was born, it would be a slam dunk, but his father apparently hadn't yet given up hope of going back to Cuba.
Besides, we're talking about Cruz, not Rubio.
Didn’t read the law, did you?
5.2: A person who is a Canadian citizen under paragraph 1(b) ceases to be a Canadian citizen upon the expiration of three years after the day on which he attains the age of twenty-one years unless he:
Either is living in Canada or files a declaration of intention to retain Canadian citizenship.
Since it is likely neither applies to Cruz, he has no citizenship status with Canada.
This law is from 1946, and it is at least possible the law has been changed since.
BTW, this issue of dual citizenship applied to Winston Churchill, who was a dual citizen of the US and UK till his 21st birthday.
I make this prediction now. Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee. Not even the Democrats are that stupid.
I made no such statement, merely pointed out the law concerning them. I’m opposed to conscription on its face.
I am telling you that you misunderstand. I KNOW what I said and I KNOW my intentions. You PRESUME otherwise.
Until Legislation controls the laws of nature, this assertion will remain untrue.
It is CRAZY to believe that congress has the power to re-write the meaning of terms in the US Constitution. All other topics aside, why on God's Earth would you even WANT that?
If the Republican Party is stupid enough to run one of its Constitutionally-challenged candidates for POTUS, the Democrat Party candidate Nomatter Whoitis will win in a landslide.
The 14th Amendment does not mention Article II.
You are mistaken to believe that the 14th Amendment “further defined” Article II.
He is a naturalized citizen. He does not.
Again, you have a law of congress controlling the meaning of a constitutional term. You are just trying to finesse the point.
*I* cannot be compelled to fight for Canada. Cruz CAN be compelled to fight for Canada. Can YOU be compelled to fight for Canada? Now do you understand the distinction?
If the Republicans nominate an ineligible candidate it protects not just Obama but also his agenda. Why are the currently hyped potential Republican candidates all ineligible or of questionable eligibility? That question might qualify this thread under “conspiracy”, but it wasn’t the original question. The original question was “is Cruz a natural born citizen of Canada”
So far I’ve seen a lot of Republican pom-pom waving but very little to dissuade that Cruz is not a natural born citizen of Canada, and a naturalized US citizen.
My money is on the courts having the same sort of judgement about this that they have about Roe v Wade, or Plessy v Fergusson. They will do the incompetent, but politically expedient thing.
Will you STOP introducing the courts into a discussion about Accuracy? It's a given that the courts are boobs, and no citation of them serves any useful purpose in this discussion. The courts will always give us the "Wong" answer.
The Courts deserve ridicule and contempt, not deference.
If it's a law, I most certainly didn't bother to read it. No law can affect the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" so it is a waste of time to look at any which purport to do so.
That is immaterial to the point being discussed. If a nation can lawfully compel you to fight against the United States, you are not a natural citizen of the United States.
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.