Rand Paul: Ted Cruz is a natural-born Canadian

Hot Air ^ | 1/11/2016 | Allahpundit

[Yosemitest]

Take it up with the Supreme Court of the United States and our Founding Fathers.

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Also notice that the Supreme Court has backed up that definition!

See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV)

Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —
as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

But the fact is,
they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —
in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,
who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” —
he was ALSO “natural born.”

If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”
then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.


The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact found
that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.

Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,
Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.

There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
though.

It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means
“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

Note that again:
Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,
which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”


The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

“Plaintiff claims that
President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
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.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.

So the statement that "natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !

[Mollypitcher1]

There’s also the question of whether or not ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’ were considered to necessarily be the same thing. It’s at least conceivable to me that the term ‘natural born citizen’ had a more restrictive meaning, and meant something more to the founders than merely someone who is a citizen at birth as defined by the current statute.
.................................................................
Thank you for being a thinking person. That is EXACTLY why the restrictive wording was used. The Framers did not want the President-Command in Chief to be a person of divided loyalties.

[Mollypitcher1]

IF you googled the information and were incapable of putting two and two together and getting four, it is beyond the very Saints to inform you about anything.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I googled the US Constitution and I discovered that you were wrong. Or a liar.

What do the very Saints have to do with your error?

Did the Saints make you lie?

Are they stopping you from admitting your error?

[McGruff]

Rand Paul should do Ted Cruz a favor and file a lawsuit to clarify this. If not the democrats will when the time is optimal.

[jpsb]

Trump does not have dual citizenship. The USA does not care what the UK thinks about our naturalization process. Trump was born on soil to two US citizen parent thus he is a natural born citizen as per our constitution.

[jpsb]

At that time citizenship of the couple (and the child) was determined by the husband. A women gained the citizenship of her husband. If the husband was a US citizen then so was his wife and so was his child. So the both thing is kind of unnecessary. Unless of course the woman was not married, not sure what happens to the child if the father does not claim the baby.

[jpsb]

I would not use ice cream, ice cream these days is really ice milk. That is one of my pet peeves.

[jpsb]

"The 1790 law includes a definition of 'natural born citizen' whereas the 1795 law does not."

The 1790 law does not define NBC, all it says is that children of citizens born abroad shall be considered as natural born citizen. That is not a definition. Also note that at the time citizenship of the couple (and the child) was determined by the father. I women gained the citizenship of her husband. If the husband was a US citizen then so was his wife and so was his child.

[jpsb]

There's also the question of whether or not 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' were considered to necessarily be the same thing.

You can not be a natural born citizen of more then one country. Cruz was a citizen at birth of Cuba, since he father was a Cuban citizen when Ted was born. USA since his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth. Canada since he was born in Canada. Now please explain to me how someone who was a citizen at birth to 3 countries is a natural born citizen of the USA. Remember a natural born citizen requires no laws to make them a citizen, they are by nature a citizen of one and only one nation.

[John Valentine]

Trump does not have dual citizenship. The USA does not care what the UK thinks about our naturalization process. Trump was born on soil to two US citizen parent thus he is a natural born citizen as per our constitution.

It is amazing to me how obstinately dense people can be on the subject of dual citizenship.

So once again I will say it: It makes no difference that the USA does not care about what the UK thinks about our naturalization process. It's THEIR decision who they consider a citizen. Always. That's what dual citizenship is, for crying out loud! Don't you get it?

And yes, Trump was born on soil to two US citizen parent thus he is a natural born citizen just as I have said 20 times at least. And by the way this "born on soil to two US citizen parents is NOT "per our constitution". The Constitution establishes no such test.

[Mollypitcher1]

How about Pizza?

[dschapin]

Its confusing because in that Era the citizenship of a woman was a murky area. She often was just considered to take on the citizenship of her husband. However, now that the 14th Amendmnent and the 19th Amendment to the constitution have been ratified it is clear that women are citizens in their own right. So, I don’t think there should be any problems on that account.

[calisurfer]

What is funny is that no one on this thread has even mentioned the Constitution and the very strong possibility that CRUZ IS NOT ELIGIBLE. jJust like children they run around pointing fingers everywhere sooner than admit that CRUZ was a CANADIAN CITIZEN when he was elected to the US SENATE.
__________________________
Cruz is not a natural born American citizen. People ile Levine are full of it by defending Cruz. Levine & Rush won’t even take a look at the reality that Cruz is not eligible.

[mbrfl]

I see your point.

[The_Republic_Of_Maine]

Interesting, thanks, I need to take some time to study it.

[xzins]

Applying US anchor baby rules, Cruz is a natural-born Canadian. He has since dropped that citizenship, but until 2014 run was a natural-born Canadian if one were to apply US rules.
Anwar al Awlaki’s kids can run for the presidency in the USA.

[DoodleDawg]

Rand Paul: Ted Cruz is a natural-born Canadian

And a natural-born U.S. citizen as well. What's his point?

[DoodleDawg]

The irritating irony of all this is that none of Cruz's detractors actually have the balls to file suit to challenge him, knowing that if they win the backlash on the right to their own candidacy would be ferocious and if they lose they'd forfeit this cheap line of attack on Cruz.

None of Cruz's detractors has the standing to sue either.