Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen... of Canada?

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:



TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: certifigate; chat; eligibility; naturalborncitizen; tedcruz; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 361-369 next last
To: DiogenesLamp

Any person regardless of nationality can be compelled by the nation state in which they are physically located to serve in that nations armed forces. This is because that person is within their dominion. While uncommon, unwise and rarely done, it has been done by nation states. This is because the nation state can force the individual to serve or suffer punishment.

If Mr Cruz were to be “compelled” by Canada and is not within their dominion, he can renounce his citizenship and then Canada would no longer be able to force his service as they would not be able to enforce their laws.

Again, US law governs US citizenship. Looking at any other nations laws is speculation of a hypothetical.


161 posted on 05/21/2013 3:39:00 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

It is still US law, not Canadian law that determines US citizenship.


162 posted on 05/21/2013 3:40:59 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

The difference between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen is that the first can be so by naturalization statute while the latter requires no statute.


163 posted on 05/21/2013 3:41:37 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

I don’t know of a single legal scholar who has advocated for a different point of view from the one expressed in the majority opinion in 1884’s Elk v. Wilkens: “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”


164 posted on 05/21/2013 3:44:13 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all cases under the Constitution. Whether you or I like their ruling or not is beside the point. You can gripe about it or work to change it, but it’s the law. Absent a ruling, there are just conflicting claims.


165 posted on 05/21/2013 3:46:43 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Interesting that in Ark Gray rejected Elk when he himself wrote the majority opinion in Elk.


166 posted on 05/21/2013 3:46:47 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Ted Cruz was born in Canada.


167 posted on 05/21/2013 3:47:40 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
The difference between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen is that the first can be so by naturalization statute while the latter requires no statute.

In other words, one is defined by law and the other is not. "I know it when I see it" isn't much of a legal standard.

168 posted on 05/21/2013 3:48:22 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

If Canada possesses legitimate legal jurisdiction over Ted Cruz, then there’s no way he’s eligible. That’s a big “if.”

Why anyone believes that this country would have ever given another country jurisdiction over our affairs via legal power over the President and Commander-in-Chief of the entire US military is beyond me. It would have been a nightmare and still would be.

The People would be at the mercy of an unelected third party with access to the military, veto power, Executive Order... it’s just wrong on so many levels. And dangerous. Such an individual would be disinterested at best in the good of the nation.

Come to think of it, isn’t this exactly what we’re seeing and experiencing right now?


169 posted on 05/21/2013 3:48:39 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" in a binding ruling to anyone, ever. They have discussed the term a few times in the dicta of cases that did not turn on natural born citizenship.

170 posted on 05/21/2013 3:51:15 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

“I know it when I see it” isn’t much of a legal standard.

Please clarify.


171 posted on 05/21/2013 3:53:34 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
You're fairly new to this debate, I take it? "The Constitution does not at words say who shall be natural born citizens..." doesn't ring any bells? The legislature cannot just pass laws overriding the Constitution, either. There is well-founded logic and reasoning behind that statement you're dismisding, as well as case law and precedent to support it.

What do you have, that indicates an ability of Congress to make any legal determination as to the meaning of the term?

172 posted on 05/21/2013 3:55:12 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
*I* cannot be compelled to fight for Canada.

If you reside in Canada, thereby subjecting yourself to Canadian laws, you can if Canadian law says so. Look into the history of the Vietnam-era draft, when non-US citizens could be and were drafted. Even today, immigrants are required to register for the draft. See Registration Information from the Selective Service System itself.

You make two assumptions: First, that non-citizens cannot be drafted as a general rule, which is false. Second, that Canadian law should determine US citizenship status, which is absurd.

173 posted on 05/21/2013 4:01:43 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6
Puerto Ricans are citizens from birth.

Yes.

But they are collectively naturalized.

They were collectively naturalized in 1917. No one born in Puerto Rico after that day has been or has needed to be. Black people and American Indians were also collectively naturalized at different points in American history. Are all members of those groups not natural born citizens?

So citizen at birth does NOT equal natural born Citizen. This some made up definition.

Yes. You made up a definition.

174 posted on 05/21/2013 4:08:53 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

And US law should determine Canadian citizenship status? Cruz was born in Canada, not the US.

His father was Cuban, his mother a US citizen. Canada, Cuba, and the US could all make claim.

The top of the thread shows the law declaring Cruz a natural born citizen of Canada. The US could claim Cruz is in a class collectively naturalized. I haven’t investigated the laws of Cuba.

What is clear is that Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the US. Without statute he wouldn’t be a citizen at all.


175 posted on 05/21/2013 4:10:36 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

It doesn’t determine citizenship status, a naturalized citizen has the same rights and obligations as a native born citizen, who has the same rights and obligations as a natural born citizen. Statutes governing US citizenship make no such distinction among citizens. The Constitution, however, does.

There are numerous restrictions placed upon those who would be eligible for various national offices, which are increasingly restrictive as the level of authority increases. Do you argue about age restrictions not determining citizenship? Do you argue about length of residency requirements not determining citizenship? No, you don’t because these Constitutional eligibility restrictions do not restrict citizenship, they place preconditions upon individuals who would be eligible to various offices.

The natural born citizenship requirement is the same.


176 posted on 05/21/2013 4:11:20 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
You're fairly new to this debate, I take it? "The Constitution does not at words say who shall be natural born citizens..." doesn't ring any bells? The legislature cannot just pass laws overriding the Constitution, either.

Let me see if I have this straight. Your argument is that, because the Constitution does not define the term, it would be unconstitutional for it to be defined? By anyone? Ever?

What do you have, that indicates an ability of Congress to make any legal determination as to the meaning of the term?

Its existence as a legislative body. The Constitution is filled with terms intentionally left vague, because the Framers knew lawmakers would, you know, make laws.

177 posted on 05/21/2013 4:14:02 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
And US law should determine Canadian citizenship status?

No.

His father was Cuban, his mother a US citizen. Canada, Cuba, and the US could all make claim.

No claim other than the US's is relevant.

What is clear is that Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the US. Without statute he wouldn’t be a citizen at all.

The statute defines who is a US citizen at birth. To claim that he would not be a citizen without that statute -- and that there is some class of "naturals" who would be -- is to assume a definition that is not in the law or the Constitution. You can invoke natural law, and so can anyone, on anything; Nature hasn't handed down any statutes.

178 posted on 05/21/2013 4:17:46 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

John Mc Cain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. He was eligible but he didn’t win enough Electoral votes.

The US Code Title 8, Section 1401:
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...


179 posted on 05/21/2013 4:19:00 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

American Indian sovereignty accounts for the difference.


180 posted on 05/21/2013 4:21:36 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 361-369 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson