The Top Ten “Birther” arguments against Ted Cruz, and why they are completely wrong

Western Free Press ^ | 3/13/13 | Greg Contario & Patrick Colliano

[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 Cruz’s 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 Cruz’s 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 aren’t 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.

[chopperman]

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’.

[chopperman]

As soon as you need to cite 17th-century non-citizen scholars, you lose!

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.

[cynwoody]

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.

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?

[cynwoody]

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.

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.

[chopperman]

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.

[chopperman]

There is nothing quirky about Vattel’s definition. It is simple, straight-forward and easy for most to understand.

[Radix]

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.

[cynwoody]

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.

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.

[cynwoody]

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.

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.

[chopperman]

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.

[cynwoody]

Cruz is obviously not Natural Born. But he could get away with it if he hires Obama’s lawyers.

If Cruz needs a lawyer, he can just look in the mirror. Zero's people don't have a clue!

[chopperman]

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.

[Ray76]

Rubio

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".

• Scenario 1 - Stipulating to the prevailing abuse of "jurisdiction", citizenship is acquired by Amend XIV
• Scenario 2 - Citizenship was acquired upon the naturalization of his parents

By either scenario Rubio is, in law, "citizen".

Jindal

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 Jindal’s parents were not U.S. citizens when their son was born, they were both permanent legal residents at the time of his birth. Jindal’s 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".

• Scenario 1 - Stipulating to the prevailing abuse of "jurisdiction", citizenship is acquired by Amend XIV
• Scenario 2 - Citizenship was acquired upon the naturalization of his parents

By either scenario 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".

[USCG SimTech]

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.

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.

[trebb]

Gee...wonder if....Nah....I’m sure ‘Black’ had little to do with manipulating stats.

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?

[GBA]

McCain wasn’t actually born at the US base in Panama.

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.

[MrB]

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.

[iowamark]

Excellent article.

[MMaschin]

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.

Sure.

Here are links to some online legal dictionary websites, I've included links to the definitions of both 'positive law' and 'natural law'.

Positive Law - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Positive+Law
Natural Law - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Natural+Law

Posiitive Law - http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/positive-law.html
Natural Law http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/natural-law.html

Positive Law - http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1552
Natural Law - http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1307

Positive Law - http://www.yourdictionary.com/positive-law
Natural Law - http://www.yourdictionary.com/natural-law

Positive Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law
Natural Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

I've provided a number of links describing the legal definitions of both 'natural law' and 'positive law' - now what about 'natural born Citizen'.

First one of the rules for interpreting the Constitution is Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent which means "words should be interpreted to give them some effect" - http://www.constitution.org/cons/prin_cons.htm. What this is saying is that EVERY word in the Constitution is there for a reason, and can not be ignored.

So, if we looks at the phrase 'natural born Citizen', what does each word mean? First, let look at 'Citizen'. That is fairly obvious, since the 'C' is capitalized, it is a proper noun, and they were talking about a specific type of citizen - a US citizen. The word 'born', is also obvious, and means at or from birth. But what about 'natural'? It needs to provide meaning.

Have you ever gone to a little league game, and seen a child that was much better that the rest, and someone said - "That boy is a natural born hitter!"? What did they mean? I interpret what was said (and I believe you probably do to) as, the child's ability to hit well was innate, and not something that he needed to be helped with by a coach.

Like the natural born hitter, who does not need the help of a coach to be a hitter, the natural born citizen, does not need the help of a man made (positive) law to be a citizen, he is innately a citizen through 'natural' law.

[MMaschin]

'Natural' means that you are naturally a citizen of just one country. 'Native' means your born on that soil. NBC and Dual Citizens are two exclusively separate sub-catagories of 'Native'.

My kids, from the instant of their birth were American citizens, Canadian citizens, and British citizens.

My wife was born in England, immigrated to Canada when she was 8, and became a Canadian citizen in her teens. After college, she accepted a position in the US, and became a US citizen after that - before our kids were born.

When she became a US citizen, she was told that the US does not recognize her other citizenships. She looked into whether she was required to renounce her other citizenships, and Great Britain, said she could not renounce it, and that she would always be British, and Canada basically said we don't care, you can, but you don't need to. Some people have the idea that when you become a naturalized US citizen, you renounce any other citizenship you have - that is incorrect. While you do need to take an oath of allegiance to the US, and renounce all foreign 'allegiances', they do not require you to renounce an citizenship(s) you currently have.

So, at the time of the kids births, she continued to be Canadian, and British, and because of that, the kids became Canadian, and British at the time of their births.

In order to be an NBC, it doesn't matter if you have dual, or in the case of my kids tri-citizenship, it's about how you got your American citizenship.

They became Canadian, and British, because those countries have written (positive) laws granting them citizenship. Therefore they became 'naturalized' citizens of Canada, and Great Britain at the time of their births. For their US citizenship, they required no positive law for their citizenship, and therefore were US citizens by natural law - ergo natural born Citizens.

An easy way to understand what a NBC is, is if you take away every law created by the government granting citizenship, the 14th Amendment, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, every piece of positive law - and you would still be a US citizen, then you are citizen by natural law, ergo an NBC.