Here is Ted Cruz certificate of birth. It says he was a Natural Born Canadian, not a Natural Born American.
Posted on 01/19/2016 8:55:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Cruz could have put an end to it when Trump suggested it in the WaPo interview.
Or even better, the *brilliant-minded* Cruz could have had the smarts to ANTICIPATE this to be a problem and taken care of it before running for POTUS!
The fact that he didn’t leads to to suspect it wouldn’t be that easy, and it would indeed be a problem for his eligibility, and he hoped he could skate by without vetting.
Some of the Trump followers would not have a problem with totalitarianism; many of them right here on FR have stated that would like for Trump to be a dictator so that he can 'make America great again'.
At the time of his birth, Cuba had exactly the same claim on Ted that the US did. Born abroad of one citizen parent. As far as I know, Ted is still a naturalized citizen of Cuba, for real.
Everyone is getting upset at Trump over this, but the Democrats have this issue locked and loaded and ready to go if Cruz is the nominee. They would of turned up the heat on Cruz a thousand degrees. I state this in the past tense because I have a gut feeling the damage has already been done to the Cruz campaign on this, and your statistic of 28% of the American people believing he’s not eligible to run is too high to dismiss as non-problematic. I blame Ted for all of this because he failed to see how big a problem his NBC status might do to him before he announced for the presidency.
The mere fact that a debate this lively would occur on FR, a place where most generally support Ted, proves my point as to just what Liberal Federal Jurists who are out to torpedo him would do if he were actually elected.
Provide explanation.
We’ve already got a president with a mysterious background. It would be hypocritical to put forth our own. If Cruz has nothing to hide he should welcome getting this cleared up.
You mean criminal?
Read the rest of the thread. Explanation contained therein.
Let’s see Cruz’s CRBA.
Why hasn’t he released it?
^^^^^^ This is the ONLY thing that will establish Cruz’s US citizenship once & for all.
NBC is impossible.
Only 1 citizen parent (Maybe. Depends on the CRBA. If his mother had renounced her US citizenship, could there even BE a CRBA?)
Not born on US soil/ territory.
AND
Dual citizenship- not only of Canada, but also Cuba if citizenship passes through the father. Rafael, Sr was still a citizen of Cuba, unless he had renounced before Ted was born.
The whole point of natural born was to eliminate the possibility of foreign loyalty. Basically, conflict of interest. Ted Cruz is up to his ears in conflict of interest in every way.
It is arguments such as this that right now, I am in the undecided side of the GOP 2016 election year in regards to Cruz and Trump.
Particularly because nothing that I've learned since contradicts it.
[ Problem is that the 1790 act stipulates “parents†plural, which would not apply to Cruz. The notion that one parent, and especially the mother, passes on natural born citizenship is a much later innovation that wasn’t around at the time of the Founders. ]
Problem is if you are citing the 1790 act (not in the constitution but a bill and not an amendment either) then aren’t you also acknowledging that all subsequent acts supersede it and according to the 1952 act Cruz is eligible?
There is the fact of this matter, and Trump said so himself in the debate.
Thus all the legislation around the 2nd Amendment being moot...except for the so-called President, the Congress and the Courts.
The question isn’t if he is * qualified*, it’s a question of whether or not he’s *eligible.* And it will be disputed until the end of time.
The opening, with the unknown author claiming that those who question the meaning of “natural born citizen’ and its application to Sen. Cruz don’t know what they’re talking about is a total turn off. What are his credential to make that assertion? I don’t think there’s a person on earth who can legitimately make the assertion. There are highly qualified legal minds who argue both sides, not least Sen. Cruz’s Harvard Law professor.
Every case is just a little bit different. The ‘Cruz Case ‘ needs a hearing
"No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with. . . ." United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S. 472, 243 U. S. 475 (1917). See United States v. Ness, 245 U. S. 319 (1917); Maney v. United States, 278 U. S. 17 (1928). And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent.Neither are we persuaded that a condition subsequent in this area impresses one with "second-class citizenship." That cliche is too handy and too easy, and, like most cliches, can be misleading. That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not "second-class."
How the author figures Bellei is an NBC is a mystery.
I think the author is deliberately misleading the reader, and the author is in the category commonly referred to as "lying piece of hackery."
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.