Skip to comments.Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen... of Canada?
Posted on 05/21/2013 9:52:10 AM PDT by Ray76
click here to read article
Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen... of Canada?
Why ..... has Cruz indicated his intent to run for some elective office in Canada. If not why the interest? Is this a favorite topic of yours?
Post #25, for anyone reading this who wants to know Ted Cruz’s position on his own citizenship.
James Madison 22 May 1789:
I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentleman is eligible to a seat in this house or not, but it will depend on the decision of a previous question, whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United-States or not....
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
It is of interest only because Mr. Cruz is touted as a possible candidate for President.
touted as a possible candidate for President.
An until that tout becomes reality it means nothing but fodder for argument.
El wrongo. The constitution mention aliens, natural born citizens, and citizens. The terms were not defined and were left to congress to define through legislation.
If you are a citizen, and you didn’t have to get naturalized, you are NBC.
In zeal to catch Obama, many try to imply a 4th type of citizenship. You are a citizen, but never had to be naturalized, but you are not natural born.
So we get treated to bizzare opinions as to how the mother must be 18, or rabbit trails through Canadian law, etc.
Cruz is NBC.
Besides, that bridge has already been crossed. Now he doesn’t even have to show a birth certificate to serve.
He cannot be require to pass any test for office that obama did not.
So the citizenship of the father has not bearing? How very modren and liberal of you.
The correct questions is: Do Canadian laws in any way effect or affect US citizenship? The answer is no.
I think people should look at this way. If a female Airman who is married to a Canadian businessman gives birth while serving in the USAF in England, the child would nbC.
“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???
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. Novembers 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.
There is no reciprocity. You may have heard it expressed as “the world isn’t fair”.
Japan puts up incredible trade barriers to American rice imports. We allow their products straight in.
We offer Mexicans free welfare when they come illegally, and allow them to buy houses, etc.
They arrest Americans who try to live there permanently, and it’s very difficult for you to buy property.
I know it’s amazing, but our immigration laws are not synchronized with other nations. Some recognize dual citizenship, others do not, still others will arrest you for treason for being dual.
Welcome to earth.
And this part is pretty much true. It's self evident that neither the Courts or any other authority cares what is the accurate and correct meaning of the term. This, however, is an academic discussion, and I (speaking for myself) am not at all interested in subsequent points of law or this or that ruling. I am interested in determining what is the Actual truth, which I count as a very different thing than merely the Uneducated Opinion of the courts or the legislature.
The Courts will merely insist on giving us the "Wong" answer.
Your argument has no bearing of the ultimate outcome; Rubio is nbC.
I like Cruz. He has an admirable record of accomplishment. He is intelligent and principled, and can articulate those principles. He defends the right of the unborn to their life, he supports border control and immigration enforcement, he supports Austrian economics. None of that has any bearing on Article II eligibility.
So were Slaves and Indians, but they didn't get citizenship until congress passed special laws for them. Again, you can't have "natural" citizenship if someone has to pass a law to give it to you.
Only in the minds of people who do not know better.
I don't think it's impacting Cruz's U.S. citizenship but raising the possibility of dual citizenship. Many people argue that Obama is ineligible on those grounds alone.
FYI: My son was born in England, and has a British father. I took him to the US Embassy in London when he was a month old to get him registered as a US Citizen. I was given a
The words "natural born" do not occur on any of the explanatory information that I was also given about his situation. My understanding has been that he could not run for POTUS, just as my husband could not play rugby for Wales. But that is not explicitly written anywhere on the official info given to me that day.
And Cruz is exactly right, there only two kinds of citizens...born and Naturalized.
A Natural Born Citizen IS a born citizen,
Cruz can claim born citizenship due to his birth to a citizen mother. He cannot lay claim to Natural Born Citizenship due to his foreign place of birth and his foreign citizen father.
Natural Born citizenship is a quality of born citizenship. One that is required for Holding the office of the President. Cruz does not qualify.....no worries, there are millions and millions more that do.
Rubio meets and passes the test regardless.
His parents were not
1. Foreign heads of States or Diplomats
2. Illegal Foreign occupiers or at war with the US
3. Born on a reservation
4. Committed acts of treasons
That’s just what Hillary Clinton is counting on.
What if Congress passes a law which naturalizes anyone born to a mother with green eyes? Does this make their children "natural born citizens"?
(And please do not come back with "congress would never pass such a law." That is beside the point. Congress HAS the power to pass such a law. The point is whether or not Congress can make "natural born citizen" mean whatever it wants to. )
Each sovereign nation is exactly that ... sovereign. No reciprocity except by agreement between the two parties.
Yes, until legislation excludes them, the anchor babies are unfortunately eligible. I don’t like it a bit. But they are under the jurisdiction of the USA, and are born here. And this is reason number 681 that we need border enforcement.
Were you this concerned with Obama’s citizenship?
Had Congress not passed the citizenship act of 1934, Cruz would have no claim on American citizenship.
It is ridiculous to believe that a term which was codified in 1787 could be modified by a law passed in 1934.
The 14th amendment just makes him a "citizen", not a "natural born citizen." The 14th amendment didn't even work on Indians until congress passed the "Indian citizenship act of 1924." Obviously there are some serious holes in your theory.
Article II specifies “citizen” at the time of adoption of the constitution, and “natural born citizen” thereafter.
Citizen necessarily encompasses naturalized citizen as well as natural born citizen. If a naturalization statute creates natural born citizens then there is no need for Art. II’s grandfather clause, citizen would have sufficed.
Cruz is a US citizen by US naturalization statute.
Yes. Since September 2008.
Cruz is not a US natural born citizen.