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:
“Mr. Cruz was not naturally born in the U.S.”
He is a Senator, so he is clearly a citizen. He gained that citizenship by birth, and never needed to be naturalized. So yes, he is indeed NBC.
I came upon the Canadian citizenship statute while researching statutes of the UK & Commonwealth. It appears to apply to Cruz so I posted it.
Judging by reactions it is a touchy subject.
And why wouldn’t foreign law apply to the US born children of foreigners?
Where is the reciprocity?
At the very least there is a conflict of law.
There is no difference in law between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen.
Under the law in effect when Ted Cruz was born, he is a Citizen of the United States At Birth.
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
“A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.”
According to Justice Antonin Scalia with Justice Clarence Thomas concurring in Scalia’s opinion in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998),
“The 14th Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” That’s a quote from US v. Wong Kim Ark.
If you don’t have Scalia and Thomas, you can’t win with a Vattel/Minor theory at the Supreme Court.
No it is not. It never has been re Lynch v. Clarke.
It does, when he’s in Canada.
When he’s in America, we apply American law.
To carry this to an absurdity, let us assume Chad passes a law that the children born to American diplomats while they are serving in Chad are Chadian citizens and are NOT American citizens.
Our response would be, as it should be, “That’s all fine and dandy, Chad. You pass whatever laws you like and apply them as you see fit. But we don’t base our decisions about American citizenship on the laws of a foreign country.”
The USA has always just ignored the issue of dual (or more) citizenship. If I become legally a citizen of Chad while retaining my American citizenship, I may acquire new obligations to Chad, but my rights and duties as an American citizen change not at all.
Unless of course I renounce my American citizenship, but again that is determined by OUR laws, not those of a foreign power.
Extra credit to anybody who gets the obscure SF reference to Chadian citizenship.
But what would you do if he had remained in Canada and got drafted into their army? A country's own laws apply in their own country. If a man cannot be claimed under another nation's laws, he cannot be made to serve in that nation's army.
So are all the plop and drop babies. Are they NBC's too???
Well put.
The 14th Amendment provides citizenship by birth in the US to legally residing, but non citizen parents. (jus soli) Sorry pal, but the 14th amendment did not change the legal understanding of Natural Born Citizenship. It only recognizes another way to become a born citizen (no need to naturalize) other than being a Natural Born Citizen (born in country to citizen parents)
It should be noted that the vast majority of citizens of any country consists of people born in that country to Parents that are it’s citizens. These children are the Natural Born Citizens. (see Minor) The court recognized that there may be the possibly other kinds of, or ways to become a born citizen, but that being Natural Born, born in country to citizen parents, carried no doubt of citizenship.
As far as Article II eligibility requirements for holding the office of President, requiring that a candidate be born in the country to citizen parents (NBC) is no great burden/onus, nor is it in any way unreasonable. It still leaves the vast majority of American citizens eligible.
In fact the requirement of Natural Born Citizenship makes the most sense in outlining the bare minimum eligibility requirements which Article II does.
Your interpretation of the 14th amendment is flawed. In USSC WKA, the first application of the 14th Amendment outside of the children of former slaves, the plaintiff was declared a born citizen with no need to naturalize. What you are misinterpreting is the court’s attempt to prevent the establishment of classes of citizenship in that ruling attributable to the manner in which that citizenship was obtained, when they stated that WKAs rights were AS IF he was a Natural Born Citizen.....note that they were careful NOT say he WAS a Natural Born Citizen, only that the rights of all manner of citizens are equal, hereby avoiding the idea of classes of citizenship. You can try and thake that ball across the goal line, but you’re running in the wrong direction.
Further note that being a natural born citizen carries no cachet other than making one eligible to hold the office of the President.
Ignoring Article II of the Constitution despite it’s clear intent has lead us to the disastrous consequences of the Obama Presidency. To support the continued ignoring of that requirement (NBC) in it’s original meaning, is sheer folly. I am surprised that any self proclaimed Conservative could do so.
BTW its NOT OK when our guys do it.....any more than it was when the Treasonous Democrats did with Obama....
The US citizenship of Mr. Cruz is due to collective naturalization by naturalization statute.
A couple of corrections Here.
1. The Mother's age only applies for Foreign birth; a fact, in the case of Obama, not in evidence.
Did I miss your thread about that? John McCain was born in Panama, not the Canal Zone as many think and etc, etc...
2. John McCain was not born in Colon Panama, he was born at the Coco Solo Naval Hospital in the Canal Zone. That "Colon" birth certificate floating around on the internet is a Obot fabrication intended to call into question McCain's legitimacy. It has outlived it's usefulness and has continued fooling people to this day. John McCain has never released his actual birth certificate.
And for what it's worth, I don't like John McCain and wish he had been defeated in his last Senate run.
“Judging by reactions it is a touchy subject.”
No, the touchiness not the topic, it’s aimed squarely at trolls who eagerly work to stop the advance of the man who is leading the conservative fight FAR more than any other.
Like I said, Canada applies its own laws in its own ways.
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.
That is a contradiction in terms. You can't be a "natural" citizen if they have to make a special law for you. It is the very opposite of "natural."
I have been trying for a long time, but I usually never get any response from a moderator.
From a prior post:
Has Regulation Put An End To Rule Of Law?
Monday, December 27, 2010 11:37:43 PM · 19 of 25
infool7 to Kaslin
Thanks for the Post Kaslin. The way I see it.
The final debauching of America required a test of one of its most fundamental principles. America has proven that on the whole, it no longer comprehends or values any of its initial charter. The constitution is defacto null and void. The elected government and its media enablers are a criminal enterprise. The laws passed in the last several years are but ambiguous vehicles for selective enforcement in support of its crony capitalism or fodder for Madoff style investment scams. November’s election was a good start and America is still in a precariously weakened state however time is running out for them and they are getting desperate. We need to get our buckets ready and prepare to put out the next Reichstag fire.
“Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. “ Winston Churchill
Then why do male resident aliens have to register for Selective Service at 18 years of age in the US?
WHO MUST REGISTER
Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male immigrants living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. It’s important to know that even though he is registered, a man will not automatically be inducted into the military. In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in sequence determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would be examined for mental, physical and moral fitness by the military before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted into the Armed Forces.
Since we have a Kenyan born president we should push this Cruz guy to run for president as a diversion as watch the press get their panties in a wad over it. Then we can remind them of how unimportant it was when the birth of their guy came into question.
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.