Skip to comments.The Top Ten “Birther” arguments against Ted Cruz, and why they are completely wrong
Posted on 03/13/2014 8:34:40 PM PDT by mandrews222
Are you confused about the claim that Ted Cruz is not a natural-born citizen, with all its attendant disinformation? Well, here is your answer.
We have gathered together the top arguments of those who challenge Senator Cruzs eligibility to serve as president, along with exhaustive research and links to original sources, and condensed it all into one, bite-sized yet authoritative piece. We have done all the work for you, assembling a definitive reference you can use any time you hear someone say that Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for and serve as president.
So without any further ado, here are the Top Ten Birther*Arguments against Ted Cruzs eligibility, and the reasons they are completely wrong.
Argument 1 Natural-born citizen (NBC) and Citizen at birth (CaB) have completely different meanings.
Answer No, they do not. They are synonymous. If you think the idea they arent synonymous is silly, you may not need to go on, because unless it is true, the entire debate is over. You would also be in agreement with the Congressional Research Service, which published a paper in 2011 reaching the same conclusion. Trying to argue that they do not mean the same thing is akin to claiming the terms dog and domestic canine mean completely different things. The burden of proof rests with the Eligibility Challengers. I have never heard or read anyone provide any proof whatsoever for the contention these terms have different meanings. There is no case law, and nothing else in the U.S. code or the Constitution itself, lending support to the idea that the two terms have separate meanings. Claims to the contrary are dealt with serially throughout this primer.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernfreepress.com ...
These authors’ contentions are consistent with the text of the Constitution. A Rep. or a Senator may be naturalized or NBC. A President must be NBC
They do not advert to the fact that there is no evidence that Obama was born on U.S. soil. And, since neither of his parents was legally capable of transmitting citizenship, there is no evidence that Obama is a U.S. citizen.
I say if a Kenyan can so can a Canadian that was really born in the states!! Oh yea he was born in Calgary!!!
No need to have a top ten. All birther arguments are equally stupid.
The former Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle (a Republican) confirmed Obama’s birth there: “You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. ... It’s been established. He was born here.”
The state of Hawaii has issued seven official declarations confirming Obama’s birth there and the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution (House Res. 593, 111th Congress) stating that Hawaii was Obama’s birthplace. It passed 378-0.
Finally, 18 court decisions have ruled Obama to be a natural born citizen and no court has ruled to the contrary. For example: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
I don’t get the gist of your remarks. For me Obama is an enabled usurper by others as to his eligibility for the office of POTUSA by reason of unknown and unrevealed birth info. I believe Obama is actually of Indonesian blood not Kenyan though Kenya does play a role in Obama’s childhood and birth deceit. On the other hand Cruz, who I believe is a firm patriot for the USA, has a much more defining public record as to birth, which was in a foreign nation. That does raise questions as to the meaning and force of ‘natural born’. I would hope the questions about Obama’s eligibility and exposure would not be impeded by having to deal with Cruz’s eligibility. As to another post that there is no difference between ‘a NBC’ and a ‘Citizen at birth’ I very much disagree. There is not one iota of corresponding/like words and the CRS report was to justify McCain’s eligibility and a crutch for Obama just in case of challenge on such basis. The declaration had no legal standing in the election.
I finally realized about a year or so ago what natural born and natural born citizen means...
I grew up in Eastern Virginia (quite a few years ago), where many say the local lingo is, or was, still very similar to the Kings English from the Revolution days.
I remember one kid yelling at another, saying, Yo Mommas a thief! Yo Daddys a thief! You a natural born thief!.
(Yes, these were white children. People forget that Southerners, whether black or white, sometimes have a particular patois...)
So, natural born doesnt mean where one was born, but the status of ones parents. A natural born citizen would be someone whose parents are both citizens, then. Too bad all the highly paid lawyers and judges in DC and English professors have forgotten so much of our mother tongue...
FYI, Mark Levin had some good info about this, saying how we can blame John McCain and the RNC for Obama:
McCain wasnt actually born at the US base in Panama. (US bases overseas are usually considered US territory, aiding the argument that one born on them is a citizen.) As the base hospital was being repaired, his mother had to go to downtown Panama City for the birth, making McCain’s birthplace Panama and not the US. Rather than letting the DNC make a big deal of this publicly during the 2008 campaign, McCain and the RNC privately agreed to not EVER make a big deal about Obamas place of birth... Thank you, again, John McCain and the eGOP!
“You would also be in agreement with the Congressional Research Service, which published a paper in 2011 reaching the same conclusion.”
IMO the 2011 NBC CRO report was written specifically to provide cover for Barry in the event that it was discovered that he was born in Kenya. The CRO cites the Marguet-Pillado case which I also believe was instigated and decided as a direct result of Orly’s 2009 case before Judge Carter in CA. In Marguet-Pillado the 9th Circus (of course) declares:
“No one disputes that Marguet-Pillados requested instruction was an accurate statement of the law, in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.”
See my FR vanity thread:
“Obama cites US v Marguet-Pillado. Dicta implies Obama eligible even if born in Kenya (vanity)”
Note that the Congressional Research Service has also jumped to endorse the Marguet-Pillado case as affirming that a foreign born child biologically-related to a US citizen is a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen and thus eligible to be POTUS:
Concerning the contention made in earlier cases that everyone who is made a citizen only by federal statute is a naturalized citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), itmay be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms naturalized and naturalization, as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that someone who is a citizen at birth is not considered to have been naturalized.
Justice Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that this kind of citizenship, that is, under statutes that confer citizenship at birth, was not intended to involve[ ] naturalization, citing current federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(23). The Supreme Court recently recognized in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, that federal law now specifically defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, and thus it could be argued that by current definition and understanding in federal law and jurisprudence, one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship automatically at birth or by birth could not be considered to be naturalized. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized in a recent case that one may be a natural born citizen of the United Sates in two ways: either by being born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the residency requirement. In United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, a case dealing with the propriety of an appeal based on requested jury instructions not given, the court stated:
No one disputes that Marguet-Pillados requested instruction was an accurate statement of the law, in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.
Wrong. The courts ruled "Plaintiff has no standing.", which is what Obama's lawyers argued every time. The courts wouldn't even take the cases.
Obama's lawyers argued that the Constitution says that the Electoral College determines eligibility.
He gamed the system, and the media's still covering for him.
For all of us that must have just fell off the turnip wagon, please show any Constitutional evidence of this “positive” law. Don’t believe I have heard that term previously. Not looking for what you say it means, I would like references to the term’s use as it relates to the Constitution and specifically to NBC.
Interesting chart. You may find my post above interesting, as well.
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... as there are no alternatives
if you were born with more then one citizenship option... you are not a natural born citizen of any country.
it’s just that simple.
terribly sorry if that bit of logic tosses a spanner into the works for those rabidly trying to deflect any proper scrutiny of his eligibility status
Therefore, your chart is BS. Because, Crash, despite being a blithering RINO idiot, is Natural Born and fully qualified as far as the Constitution is concerned.
Given the half-truths, outright lies and paucity of verifiable facts that are available about the origins of the apparently gay, marxist, race-bating islamophile figurehead of the most transparent administration ever, no one can be certain about aka obamas nativity and who he really is.
But it is certain beyond a doubt that aka obama has lied about his lifes story for the purposes of getting elected and has committed criminal identity fraud against the American people and very probably is not a natural born Citizen, either of which should have disqualified him from ever becoming the putative president.
How do we know this? Someone who has nothing to hide, hides nothing (you know, like Ted Cruz with his nativity story). Aka obama, on the other hand, hides or lies about almost everything. For example, he claimed for more than a decade via the summary bio he wrote for his publicist that he was born in Kenya (and did so consistently over the years through three versions of that bio).
So which is it, do we take him at his own word as an honest man that he indeed was born in Kenya (and not a natural born Citizen) or do we condemn him as a pathological liar and as an ineligible criminal identity fraud?
And what then about the “birth certificate” PDF that he had put up on the White House web site? You know, the one that was supposed to be a scan of his long form birth certificate that proved beyond a doubt that he was Hawaiian born? Do we believe proven liar aka obama or the thoroughly reputable Sheriff Joe Arpaio who, after a two year long professional criminal investigation, has unequivocally proven that that PDF never came from an original birth certificate and was merely a freshly fabricated digital criminal forgery that could not be a scan of an existing paper document?
Obots may feign belief, but what fool believes for a second that aka obama, in spite of his pathetic attempts to plausibly distance himself from his obvious participation in the conspiracy to defraud the American people and to pervert the letter of the law with quasi-legal loopholes and technicalities, indeed, what fool believes aka obama did not knowingly and with full criminal intent violate the spirit of the law in order to defraud the American people about his true past?
Do you know of any anchor babies born on US bases abroad?
Because that would be the test as to whether a base is US territory.
Some people on this thread are forgetting that the principle behind natural born Citizenship is continuous sole allegiance from birth. Ceremonial or honorary citizenship tribute or one-sided citizenship claims made by foreign countries that are not recognized as legitimate true citizenship by either the USA citizen in question or the USA itself are illegal and bogus as far as the USA is concerned and have no effect on sole citizenship. Imagine that because of some such ridiculous one-sided claim of citizenship, some foreign nation tried to impress one of our citizens into the service of its military. We would go (and indeed have gone) to war to stop such nonsense. That anyone would seriously bring up such drivel in an attempt to fabricate precedent to legitimize aka obama or other usurper wannabes just reeks of desperation and panic.
When an alien becomes a naturalized citizen, he or she must swear (more than once, if not mistaken) *sole* allegiance to the USA, their new country. This solemn oath legally breaks all bonds to any other country as far as the USA is concerned. It doesnt matter what some other country still claims. Those born here to two such naturalized citizens become natural born Citizens and would be defended by our government as such, regardless of any ongoing claims from the former lands of the parents.
We as a nation started getting into trouble with split allegiances when automatic derivative citizenship through marriage was dropped in the early part of the last century as a misguided part of the effort to bring equality to women (since we are a dimorphic species, strict equality is an impossibility and nothing more than a leftists wet dream - but I digress). The point is that this perversion of citizenship status has led to the odd situation where the children of foreign born, naturalized citizens can be more purely American than the children of nominally American hybrids, even after several generations.
The cure to this nonsense is, of course, to require that all such split citizens swear an oath of sole allegiance to the USA upon reaching the age of majority or lose their citizenship altogether. This should have been part of the same law that dropped derivative citizenship.
McLame is a borderline case because, even though foreign born, he was very probably born with no conflicting allegiances, i.e., born free of USA recognized claims of Panamanian citizenship. If so, then I believe he would indeed be a natural born Citizen and fully eligible to be president.
Given the Constitution, the only way to decide such a question is to have an election and count the electoral votes.
Of course, McCain didn't lose on that. He lost because the Sheeple preferred the genuine article to a facsimile in name only.
As far as the law goes, the only definition of Natural Born that will fly is, entitled to be a US citizen by birth, as opposed to naturalization. It's a bright line. McCain and Obama (and Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley) qualify. Kissinger, Schwarzenegger, Granholm, etc., do not.
As soon as you need to cite 17th-century non-citizen scholars, you lose!
For the last time,
he was not born on a base, period.
I believe that McCain claimed to have been born either on a base or the Canal at the time was an American territory or protectorate. I don’t think it was never challenged in court, but if it was, his lawyers would also have claimed ‘Plaintiff has no standing’.
I believe that you may be referring to that 18th Century author of 'Law of Nations'. You know, the book which our Founding Fathers relied upon at that Constitutional Convention. The same book Washington never returned to the New York library. He used it for guidance for how to conduct himself as President.
Doesn't matter. McCain's natural-born-ness is due to his parentage. He might as well have been born on the other side of the Moon, for all it matters.
As far as the Canal, if it was American soil, then any baby dropped on it was automatically American. If it wasn't, then not. How many Canal anchor babies are there?
No one is saying the Founders were not well-read.
But if Vattel's quirky definition mattered, they'd have enunciated it properly in the Constitution.
But they didn't, and the country went on to solidify the current definition, for better or worse, with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Again, I remind you that ‘Natural Born’ means you are naturally a citizen of just one country. McCain had no other citizenship claims at birth and was able to make that claim.
Obama admitted being a dual citizen.
There is nothing quirky about Vattel’s definition. It is simple, straight-forward and easy for most to understand.
Correct. Location does not matter.
If geography was a factor then theoretically the King of England could become President if he were born in a US hospital or any other American site. That is a ludicrous notion but it would be consistent with the argument that being born on our soil is all that matters.
So, how would you sort out the claim of a McCain vs, say, Cruz? Other than by holding a national election and counting the votes?
If you want to do it in court, with any legitimacy, you need a bright line.
Schwarzenegger, Austrian born, nope! McCain, military brat, he's qualified! Zero, born in Hawaii, only in America! It's up to the Sheeple!
Bottom line: you can't count on the Constitution to prevent electing an anti-American president.
Sir Winston's mother was American. Too bad he never ran for President. He'd have made a far better one than the Doofus on the Dime, not to mention the incumbent.
Cruz is obviously not Natural Born. But he could get away with it if he hires Obama’s lawyers. I really believe that Cruz would represent my beliefs more than any of the others. But he is not an NBC.
If Cruz needs a lawyer, he can just look in the mirror. Zero's people don't have a clue!
Zero’s lawyers knew what they were doing. All they argued was ‘Plaintiff has no standing’ and they got the courts to not even look at the cases.
Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, May 28, 1971, to Mario Rubio and Oria Garcia, both Cuban citizens who naturalized as US citizens on Nov. 5, 1975. Relevant law May 28, 1971 is Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(a)(1). Rubio is, in law, "citizen".
Piyush "Bobby" Jindal was born June 10, 1971 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to Amar and Raj Jindal. Amar and Raj Jindal entered the United States Feb 1, 1971 as permanent legal residents. Bobby Jindals parents were not U.S. citizens when their son was born, they were both permanent legal residents at the time of his birth. Jindals mother became a U.S. citizen Sept. 21, 1976, and his father became a U.S. citizen on Dec. 4, 1986. Relevant law June 10, 1971 is Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(a)(1). Jindal is, in law, "citizen".
The law could have been written such that these persons were, in law, "natural born citizen" as was done in 1790. That law was repealed in 1795. They are, in law, "citizen".
That whole word "parents", which is PLURAL meaning both the mother AND father is the key. Words mean things exactly as they are constructed in a sentence.
Having just one parent, mother OR father as a US citizen at the time of a child's birth disqualifies that child for the presidency.
Argument number 3 is invalid because the author does not understand the exacting meaning of the words of the English language.
My Dad's parents came from Poland in '28. They became citizens. He was born here in '30. Was he a natural born citizen? How about me? My daughter was born in Italy while I was stationed there. Is she a natural born citizen?
I was lead to believe he was and, in my ignorance, I now feel shame for having violated my oath and duty as a citizen by voting for an ineligible candidate.
As a Christian, I forgive him and his ego.
As an American, I see him as below contempt and complicit in our current destruction. In this context, forgiveness will need to follow justice and justice is nowhere in sight.
I will not make that mistake again, no matter which cult of personality is telling me it's okay.
Rationalizing violating the Constitution as the means to save it is the wrong sort of justification.
I’d say the #1 reason to dismiss all “birther” claims against Cruz
is the utter lack of concern over the origins of the current pResident.
You here appeal to the SCOTUS and invoke a general principle of interpretation employed in some cases, yet you either are unaware or are consciously disregarding that the SCOTUS has indicated the interpretive principle to be used when construing the very phrase at issue -- "natural born citizen."
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark the Court stated:
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."
* * *
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
So rule of interpretation laid down by the SCOTUS was NOT "look at each word in the phrase and determine its significance," but rather "understand 'natural born citizen' in light of the principles and history of the (English) common law." The Court then proceeds in Parts II and III of the lengthy opinion to analyze the jus soli meaning of the English common law term "natural born subject" and show how that same rule as to birth status was carried forward into the colonies and under the original Constitution through the American common law phrase "natural born citizen."
That means that "natural born citizen" carries with it the common law jus soli principle of England, NOT the continental rule suggested by Vattel. The latter was the interpretive rule urged in the Wong case by the U.S. government and the dissenting justices. It's the position that lost.
Because of their parents citizenships, your kids could have those issues.
If our Founding Fathers knew how much this country has deteriorated by their oversights, I guarantee that had both NBC and 'marriage' been defined, we'd have a more civilized society and less corrupt government today.
Specifically, we wouldn't have a traitor in the White House.
That means that "natural born citizen" carries with it the common law jus soli principle of England, NOT the continental rule suggested by Vattel.
Our Founding Fathers rejected English interpretations in favor of Vattel's every chance they had.
The Constitution doesn't use the term "marriage" at all.
The issue raised in the post to which I replied is which rule of interpretation should be used as to specific Constitutional language. Why you think some other term not found in the Constitution is relevant in this context escapes me.
This idea of natural law vs positive law makes little sense when applied to citizenship matters, as all political entities are created by men through laws. Therefore, all questions of citizenship of those political units MUST be determined by laws created by men who also create the political unit.
There can be no natural born citizen except one recognized by the laws of that political unit, so ALL citizenship is granted through laws.
This is different from ideas of free speech or self-defense, which do NOT require the existence of any political unit.
I am sure that our Founding Fathers are turning in their graves due to the corruption of our values.
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.