Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Canadian Born Gov. Jennifer Granholm Was Naturalized In 1980. When Did Ted Cruz Naturalize?
Cold Case Posse Supporter | July 21, 2013 | Cold Case Posse Supporter

Posted on 07/21/2013 5:34:04 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter

Since Canadian born Ted Cruz has emerged on the scene in Washington as a future presidential candidate for 2016, attention has turned to whether he is Constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1, the presidential qualification clause. This is what we know. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Many say that disqualifies him to be eligible for the presidency. Enter former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. She was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I came across an interview she did with Fox News's Chris Wallace in February of 2010. During the interview Wallace brought up the fact that since she was born in Canada, she wasn't eligible to be president. Here is the transcript:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/21/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-future-gop/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529

"GRANHOLM: No, I’m totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment. December 31st at midnight is when I’ll stop. So I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.

WALLACE: Yes, that’s true. We should point out Governor Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president.

GRANHOLM: I’m American. I’ve got dual citizenship.”

With that said, I went to the biography of Jennifer Granholm and found that she was born to one American citizen and is indeed a dual Citizen who became 'NATURALIZED' as a U.S. Citizen in 1980 at the age of 21. Now this raises a question. How can a naturalized U.S. Citizen become president of the United States?

Continued below.


TOPICS: Canada; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Florida; US: Kentucky; US: Michigan; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; canada; certifigate; congress; corruption; electionfraud; florida; jennifergranholm; kentucky; mediabias; michigan; naturalborncitizen; obama; randsconcerntrolls; teaparty; tedcruz; texas; vanity; voterfraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 581-582 next last
To: Larry - Moe and Curly
Free, you’re either being dishonest here or you missed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which deleted the words “natural born”.

Larry (Moe and Curly). You're either diilibertly trying to to miss represent my point or you simply missed my point.

The Nat Act of 1790 contradicts two arguments that I've seen here.

It shows some of the founders and their colleagues using statutory law to define the meaning of the term "natural born citizen".

It shows some of the founders and the colleagues using the criteria of the citizenship of only one parent to define natural born citizenship.

281 posted on 07/22/2013 10:17:11 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The act clearly documents the founders and their colleagues "wiping out half of a child's heritiage".

Ohhhh, the horror. You do realize that a woman had so little legal standing that she couldn't even RUN for the office of President during that time, don't you?

Of course I do and my point still stands.

282 posted on 07/22/2013 10:18:28 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

All of which is immaterial to Cruz. US law at the time of Cruz’ birth makes Cruz a naturalized US citizen.


283 posted on 07/22/2013 10:20:08 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

Totally irrelevant.


284 posted on 07/22/2013 10:21:45 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Of course I do and my point still stands.

Yet telling everyone what they already know is no 'point' at all.

So that must make you point-less.

285 posted on 07/22/2013 10:22:47 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as defined by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as defined by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.


286 posted on 07/22/2013 10:48:07 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

“It shows some of the founders and their colleagues using statutory law to define the meaning of the term “natural born citizen”.

It shows some of the founders and the colleagues using the criteria of the citizenship of only one parent to define natural born citizenship.”

I don’t think I missed your point. I think I caught your point exactly, which was to try to convince some unsuspecting, not-so-knowledgeable FReeper that you can create a “natural born” citizen by statute.

Kind of negates the word “natural” don’t you think?

And then, you (giving you the benefit of the doubt) didn’t know about the Naturalization Act of 1795 where many of those same founders and colleagues deleted the words “natural born” in the new act where they repealed the NA of 1790.


287 posted on 07/22/2013 10:50:30 AM PDT by Larry - Moe and Curly (Loose lips sink ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Yes. Your point?


288 posted on 07/22/2013 10:52:56 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
Jeff the Dr. Conspiracy and Fogbow disciple makes a misleading post again. Notice how you obfuscate? You only posted about her father and her paternal grandparents! You elude mentioning anything about her mother. Why?

Why?

Well, if you want to know the truth, I slightly misread the passage and thought it contained information about both of her parents.

The whole thing started, though, when YOU made a BS post. You claimed that Jennifer Granholm has an American parent but still had to naturalize - based on some comment you read on some blog from someone who obviously doesn't know a damn thing about it.

This is the problem with birthers. You don't check your information. And you don't THINK.

Anytime anyone posts any BS that you happen to like, you just pass it on it and claim it's true.

And if anyone tells you the truth, then you call them a "liar."

There are other sites out there that note that Granholm IMMIGRATED TO THE UNITED STATES WITH HER FAMILY from Canada when she was 3 or 4 years of age.

And there doesn't seem to be a single remotely authoritative source anywhere that says she had an American mother.

And no, some random blog, backed up by no reference whatsoever, is NOT an authoritative source.

It is a simple fact that if Jennifer Granholm had had an American parent, she would have been born an American citizen. In that case, she would never have naturalized. There was no need.

So one of three things HAS to be true.

1. Either she doesn't have an American parent, or

2. She didn't naturalize, or

3. She went through the naturalization process erroneously because she was already a US citizen and didn't realize it.

The latter, of course, is extremely unlikely. Especially given that she has widely been reported as being a naturalized citizen and therefore ineligible. If matters had been otherwise, someone would surely have corrected that.

So you tell me. Which one of the three was it?

289 posted on 07/22/2013 10:54:29 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

Please cite a US Legal source that defines ‘natural born” and a LEGAL definition that defines it in such a way as to exclude anyone born to only 1 US born parent.

Like it or not there is not one which is why we ended up with that POS 0dumbo.


That is not why we ended up with 0bastard. They all knew for years the actual meaning of NBC and that is why it was being looked into for years before he ran for president; and attempts were made/talked about to change the “definition” of NBC but didn’t pan out.

They know the definition, and they all know he isn’t one, even with the mythological life, what to speak of his real parentage etc.

They all know what a NBC is, and that 0thugga is not one. The real point is they broke the law (many laws actually), they know it, the Rs know it, everyone knows it. So we have a coup, no opposition, and they constnatly break the laws without a single peep from any “opposition” in deecee.

They had a revolution, and no one fought back.

The rule of law is now over, kaput, broken, the Constitution is some old irrelevant thing written by dead white male slave owners.

The question we should all be asking is - how to get back the rule of law? FOR EVERYONE????

That’s what we should be asking.


290 posted on 07/22/2013 11:10:39 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

That is completely wrong. 8 U.S.C. §1401 has consistently been used to establish the natural born citizenship of Barack Obama and Senator McCain. If Senator Cruz ever decides to run, it will be used to confirm his natural born citizenship as well.


Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

Voeltz v Obama, Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.’ Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”—June 29, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint

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 Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0

Rhodes v MacDonald, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0


291 posted on 07/22/2013 11:11:30 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Do you have a specific cite where §1401 has been used to establish the natural born citizenship of Barack Obama and McCain?


292 posted on 07/22/2013 11:16:06 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

You summarize it quite nicely

and to answer your question about how to we get back to the rule of law AND intent of our Constitution sadly I don’t think we can.
It would likely take a constitutional amendment to define Natural Born and restate it as a requirement for Pres and VP
Just like we missed the opportunity to make English our official language and we missed to opportunity to repeal the anchor baby statute
we probably have missed on this as well

The ballot box, electing principled conservatives is our best hope now


293 posted on 07/22/2013 11:24:25 AM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

My point is that Senator Cruz is a “National and Citizen of the United States
At Birth.”

Here are the qualifications for being a Citizen of the United States At Birth while being born outside of the U.S. to a citizen parent and a non-citizen parent who are married:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=32dffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=32dffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

Those are NOT the qualifications for being a nationalized citizen. The qualifications for naturalization come under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. (Which is included in the U.S. Code of Laws).


294 posted on 07/22/2013 11:42:56 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Blah, Blah, Blah. Inferior court decisions are just that, Inferior. Common sense tells you what is correct and court decisions do not change the Constitution unless we allow it, so far we have allowed it.

I hold out little hope that sanity will prevail in this issue or any other important portion of the Constitution, since most politicians ignore it in any case.

295 posted on 07/22/2013 11:46:18 AM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Concur. High overlap between them and Romneybots.


296 posted on 07/22/2013 11:47:53 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (RINOS like Romney, McCain, Dole are sure losers. No more!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

The problems with elections are as follows:

1. Massive coordinated election fraud. Massive. Which brings us to point 2:

2. Rs are either on the gravy train until the wheels fall off, liberals themselves, or fearful little eunuchs. The very few with principles and guts can do nothing against the vast majority.

3. There isn’t time to gradually, over a decade or so, try to turn this thing around.

4. I think the next box will be forced upon us by them using it against us.


297 posted on 07/22/2013 11:49:20 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

I think we are tearing ourselves up over this and the only people who will benefit from it will be our enemies, the enemies of our republic.

Being a conservative, I tend to take a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the law. But, the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”, is not well-defined in law. We can and must go back to the founders’ intent for guidance. I really hope that I can find some way to prove that Cruz is eligible for the office of president. However, I would not vote for him to that office until I can resolve that issue in my mind. I am a Texan and I think Cruz would make an excellent president, but I don’t want to be guilty of the same expediency that supporters of Obama used to get their man with questionable status elected.


298 posted on 07/22/2013 11:55:15 AM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

A “nationalized citizen”?

//

Cruz is a citizen at birth by statute.

On the page you linked “USCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens” explains the authority for each scenario. For Cruz, INA 301(g) is cited.

Naturalization statute may assign citizenship at any point. It may be at birth; or upon the naturalization of the parent(s); or, for those after 18 years of age, upon completion of a process.

Cruz is naturalized by INA 301(g) at birth.


299 posted on 07/22/2013 12:01:29 PM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

BTTT

The fear of Cruz is strong. Once again, let him file with the Secs of State and see who objects and use that objection against zero.


300 posted on 07/22/2013 12:02:49 PM PDT by txhurl ('The DOG ate my homework. That homework, too. ALL my homework. OK?' - POSHITUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 581-582 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson