Ted Cruz Campaign Releases Mother's Birth Certificate to Satisfy Unsatisfiable Crazy People

Slate ^ | January 8, 2016 | Jim Newell

[Finny]

Ann is once again on a pedestal. She's just getting warmed up. Look out below you cackling cruz cows...

The behavior of a candidate's supporters speaks volumes about the candidate.

Trump sure looks like a loser's candidate.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

It brings nothing to the discussion, what so ever, other than to shine a light on the silly lengths you’ll go to undermine Cruz.

[grania]

I think everyone agrees that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" are different. The writers of our founding documents wouldn't bother using "nbc" if they weren't. Does Obama or Cruz being born a dual citizen make them natural born citizens? Is Cruz's case even more questionable since he was born outside the US.

I'm only asking the questions the dems would use to stifle Cruz's campaign. We need a definition; it should've happened when that problem was exposed after Obama's first run for President.

[grania]

CW, what we need is a definitive definition of natural born citizen. The dems aren't going to be as pathetic as establishment 'pubs. They'll use the issue to thwart a Cruz presidency.

Come to think of it, what would be the harm in Cruz waiting four years and getting this settled? He's confident it will be settled in his favor, so get it done in the four years, beyond any legal possibility of challenge. I don't know why Cruz hadn't done that earlier.

[Cboldt]

-- Location of that mother only maters if she is not there legally. --

I don't think it does, under 1401(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

That just says "outside the US." IIRC, State Department regulations impose a condition that the country of birth recognizes the marriage relationship between the parents.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

LOL. Great headline.

[Cboldt]

-- CW, what we need is a definitive definition of natural born citizen. --

It's ironic that this chore should be easy. It's been made difficult due to the presence of statutory citizenship that grants citizenship at birth, the passage of time, etc.

But imagine if you will, there aren't any citizenship laws other than natural law, what citizenship one would more or less "naturally" assign to a person.

I'm not saying that how the decision will be made by the deciders, just saying that's a better mind set than rhetorical gymnastics and relying on statutes.

[Finny]

Watch it.

(whining) ... Aw ... do I have to?

Can't I watch Foghorn Leghorn instead?

*ducking*

[elhombrelibre]

Yes, Trump knows he’s losing ground, big time. He’s becoming more, and more irrelevant to the debate and now can only muddy the waters. Hence, the goofy red herrings.

[Yosemitest]

"The real question is
whether citizenship is the same as the framer's definition of natural born citizen."

Look closely at that definition by The Naturalization Act of 1790, .
Pay close attention to the last paragraph.

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,

That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
Provided, that
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Now, as Hans von Spakovsky wrote in his Commentary "An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":

... The Constitution, federal law, and the historical understanding of the Framers, as well as prior British legal traditions and law, all support this view.
In a recent article in the Harvard Law Review, two former U.S. Solicitor Generals, Paul Clement (who served under President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (who served under President Barack Obama) stated:

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning:
namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth
with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that,
subject to certain residency requirements on the parents,
someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Thus, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be eligible to run for president
because the Austrian native had to go through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen.

Certainly the Framers of the Constitution held this view of “natural born” citizen.
They had a deep understanding of British common law and applied its precepts, particularly as explained in Blackstone’s Commentaries, throughout the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama (1888) recognized that
“the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that
its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law,
and are to be read in the light of its history.”

Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States
if the American people make that choice.

One of those precepts of British law was
that children born to British citizens anywhere in the world,
even outside the dominions of the British Empire,
were “natural born” citizens of the Empire
who owed their allegiance to the Crown.
This historical understanding is explained in great detail by the Supreme Court in a well-known 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

The First Congress, which included many of the Framers of the Constitution, codified this view of a natural born citizen.
A mere three years after the Constitution was drafted, they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790,
which specified that the children of U.S. citizens born
“out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
The modern version of this Act is found at 8 U.S.C. §1401.
It contains a list of all individuals who are considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
Paragraph (g) includes:

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. 

Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970;
his mother, who was a U.S. citizen by birth from Delaware, was in her 30s at the time.
She met Cruz’s father, who was born in Cuba, as a student at Rice University.
These facts show that
Cruz’s family background clearly meets the standard set out in the federal statute for being a natural born citizen who did not have to go through any naturalization process to become a citizen.;
That was also the case for Senator Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state,
and Governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico.

The bottom line is that Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States if the American people make that choice.
The same is true of my wife, who was born in Manila.
Her father, whose family had been in America since shortly after the Pilgrims got to Massachusetts,
was temporarily working abroad for an American company—just like Ted Cruz’s father.

My wife is not likely to run for president,
but there is no question that she—like Ted Cruz, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain—is eligible to be president
and to swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”


Hans A. von Spakovsky is a a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department lawyer. 
He is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk”(Encounter 2012)
and  “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside 2014).

[Timber Rattler]

Your concern is duly noted.

[TheCipher]

Leftists are likely covering for Obama. Trump, if elected, will release the truth around Obama's birth. They want the fact he was born out of the U.S. to not matter.

Which is why when they cite 8 USC Code 1401(g), they continue to cite the wrong version ( even Levin cites the wrong version ). The part that they cite:

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:

would include Obama. Under this, if he was born outside the US, he inherited citizenship. They say since he inherited citizenship at birth, he is a natural born citizen. However, that part only applies to those born after November 14, 1986. The part that applies to Obama and also Cruz is this :

... 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.)

Under this , which is the law that applied at the time, he didn't inherit citizenship because his mother was only 18. The only way to get citizenship was to become naturalized. This is the real reason for the hiding of the BC. Contrary to what the press reports, they know the correct version of the statute. If they believed the current version was the one that applied, they would have no problem admitting he was born in Kenya.

[21twelve]

“...what citizenship one would more or less “naturally” assign to a person.”

Well, I know a lesbian couple that have kids together. Egg from one gal, fertilized, then implanted into the other gal. A year later they did the same but vice versa. So the term “naturally” gets screwed up pretty quickly. (Which one is the “real” mother?) Although I guess in their case the citizenship might be clear - both moms are American, and the children were born here.

Although - the status of the father/donor is unknown. What if it was/is a foreign citizen father?

What about the muslim invaders? Mom and dad are illegal in the country, have a child born on U.S. soil, raised and indoctrinated in the mosque? (Well - pretty close with that scenario at the present moment.)

[r_barton]

So he has a note from his mother to run for President. ;-)

[Cboldt]

-- Well, I know a lesbian couple that have kids together. --

In all of humanity's history up to the time of this country's founding, there were two ways to determine citizenship. One is by place of birth, the other is by citizenship of the father. It does get tricky when the father isn't know, if the rule applied is citizenship of the father.

Today, there are statutory rules that apply to children born of donor sperm.

English common law was that citizenship is determined by the place of birth.

[iontheball]

So, it is decided now that wherever a child is born and whatever the other parent’s bone-fides may be, just one U.S. citizen parent makes the off-spring a “natural born citizen.” I believe the framers are rolling over in their graves.

[Cboldt]

-- What about the muslim invaders? Mom and dad are illegal in the country ... --

Under law of nations, the rule of citizenship by birth in the invaded country doesn't operate. The child is not a citizen of the country being invaded (unless the invaders prevail and make the country theirs, then they make the laws).

US law would turn on how the phrase "and under the jurisdiction" (in thee 14th amendment) is construed. I'm of a mind that the phrase means the person is legally present but not a foreign diplomat. The prevailing view, the one expressed by SCOTUS in Wong Kim ark, is that the phrase means anybody present 9except diplomats), because anybody present can be arrested, has to follow traffic laws, etc.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

He didn’t release a birth certificate, it’s a cookbook!

[grania]

But imagine if you will there aren't any citizenship laws other than natural law, what citizenship one would more or less "naturally" assign to a person

I like your point. I've never liked dual citizenship, basically you've just put words to why. A person's loyalty should be to one country. Cruz at birth, I'd think, was "naturally" a Canadian citizen, probably eligible to be a citizen of the US or Cuba instead. Under that definition, Obama's question is not just where he was born, but that mom was a minor.

This is definitely a case where inept establishment Republicans put off something, I guess because they wanted to save Obama, and now in a situation where the dems won't return the favor.

[Oklahoma]

For the sake of this discussion there are only two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized. According to the law at the time of Cruz’s birth he is a natural born citizen. Case closed.