Donald Trump Ramps Up Attacks on Ted Cruz’s Eligibility

NY Times ^ | 1/9/16 | Trip Gabriel and Matt Flegenheimer

[patlin]

Please tell me how Ted’s “PARENTS”, both father and mother fulfilled the requirements when Ted’s father chose to renounce his Cuban citizenship & become a Canadian? Where does the US citizenship of the father that a US president IS REQUIRED to have fit into your scenerio? Where is that in the law? It surely isn’t in any US law that I have ever found. And it is NOT in any of the laws that YOU have posted that state that children follow the citizenship of the father, NOT the mother because the mother, the wife ALSO follows the citizenship of her husband.

[patlin]

NO, birth on the US soil does not make one a citizen, a national yes, but not a citizen as all nationals are born on the soil however not all nationals are citizens. The 2 classes of citizens spoken of in the US Constitution are those who at birth were born a citizen of another country that they will have to renounce to become a US Citizen and those who are born with ONLY US citizenship, these do not have to renounce anything as they never owed allegiance to another country and THAT is the difference! One citizenship, one allegiance at birth, that is what makes one a natural born citizen.

[patlin]

What part of IT WAS NOT THE MOTHER who conferred citizenship on the child at birth but the FATHER who conferred the citizenship upon the child at birth in those Acts of Congress you are proffering as proof of your ignorance do you NOT understand? What part of SOLE allegiance to one nation, that of the United States of America, from birth do you NOT understand?

[Sun]

You are clearly trying to prove a negative, even after I gave you a link about the most recent law of all:

http://nation.foxnews.com/sen-ted-cruz/2013/03/11/spokesman-senator-cruz-us-citizen-birth#ixzz2cCNiCjP8

[patlin]

And Ronald Reagan was a democrat for many decades also and so your point is ... you can not refute the truth so you have to resort to Alinsky type ad hominim attacks against a guy who merely point out a fact of truth?

[Sun]

I was referring to your remark when YOU SAID:

“..PROOF that FOXNEWS is nothing but a propaganda mouth piece for the establishment that is hiding the FACT that Cruz DOES NOT qualify: ..”

Everyone knows the GOP establishment, including many who work at Fox News, do not like Ted Cruz, so why would they want to cover up for him????

You aren’t making sense.

[patlin]

Doug, the founding fathers wrote laws that stated in fact that wives and children follow the nationality & citizenship of the husband/father respectively, so how does that make Cruz, who was born to a Cuban father living in Canada and in the process of attaining Canadian citizenship, how does this fit with those laws the founding fathers wrote that you are so quick to point to? Please, do explain this for us.

[sunrise_sunset]

By the standards of the Constitution he is not “natural born”. Under natural law of the time, which the Constitution is based on, you had to be born in the country.

There is no reason to have a premium “natural born” requirement in the Constitution if it can be applied to multiple countries at once.

That being said, by the standards of our time, in a global age, the Supreme Court would probably have a loser definition of natural born

[Sun]

Donald Trump STILL is a Democrat - eminent domain, amnesty, single payer - he’s one of them on so many issues, and when he claims to be on our side, should we believe him?

They all make promises, and Obama, and Trump have voters eating out of their hand with their empty promises.

[sunrise_sunset]

You are quoting the Naturalization Act of 1790.

That was canceled by the act of 1795 which knocked out the words "natural born".

"the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States"

http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

[jonrick46]

Nowhere is Congress granted the power to define “natural born.” That was already defined by the Constitution. If Congress had this power, Congress could unilaterally amend the constitutional requirements for the chief executive, effectively completely eliminating the “natural born” requirement by redefinition, if desired.

[patlin]

It has NOTHING to do with liking him or not, it has EVERYTHING to do with the religo-political agenda of those who remain behind the scenes, yet very much in control of everything that is aired. And as for the GOP establishment covering up for Obama, I gave you a link, however, you obviously haven taken time to check the dozens of reasons why.

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/the-%e2%80%9ccongressional%e2%80%9d-natural-born-citizen-part-ii-shocked-outraged-or-ambivalent/

What would your reaction be if you heard that Congress was set in 2007 to bestow ‘natural born’ citizenship on ALL anchor babies through their Immigration Reform legislation. (110th Congress) S. 1348

(excerpts)

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What if you heard that Congress was moving to change Immigration & Naturalization laws so the every child born overseas to 1 citizen parent & 1 foreign parent would forever be deemed a ‘natural born’ citizen. (101st Congress) H.R. 1380, (99th Congress) H.R. 2535,

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What would your reaction be if you heard that there have been numerous attempts to remove the words ‘natural born citizen’ from Article II of the constitution in regards to Presidential qualifications so that ALL anchor babies could someday become President, regardless if their parents are still here illegally? (93rd Congress)HJ Res 325, HJ Res 880, HJ Res 890, HJ Res 896, HJ Res 993, HJ Res 1051, (94th Congress) HJ Res 33, HJ Res 86 (95th Congress) HJ Res 38 (106th Congress) HJ Res 88 (108th Congress) HJ Res 59, HJ Res 67, HJ Res 104 (109th Congress) HJ Res 2,HJ Res 15, HJ Res 42

[patlin]

Again, Alinksy ad hominim that simply is a tool that one uses when one is actively asserting cognitive dissonance so to turn a blind eye to the truth.

[Yosemitest]

Now The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

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.

As to your MISLEADING QUESTIONS:

"Please tell me how Ted's "PARENTS", both father and mother fulfilled the requirements
when Ted's father chose to renounce his Cuban citizenship & become a Canadian ?"

Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, TED CRUZ's father NEVER became a Canadian.
Next question:

" Where does the US citizenship of the father that a US president IS REQUIRED to have fit into your scenario?"

First, it's not "'my scenario".
It's THE LAW !
You are blind because YOU CHOOSE TO BE, because you do NOT agree with the LAW as it is written.
WHY do you think OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WORDED the LAW regarding children of fathers who were not yet citizens of the United States requiring:

... 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 ...

So, the father who had not yet become a United States Citizen, of a child born "beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States," had to have been a "resident" IN the United States BEFORE the child was born, in order for that child to be a citizen of the United States at birth.

Here is today's THE LAW as legislated and APPROVED BY CONGRESS according to the United States Constitution:

The ABC's of Immigration: Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States
by Greg Siskind
All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States (with the very minor exception of certain children of diplomatic personnel).
This is perhaps the only simple rule of US citizenship.
One of the most complicated areas of US citizenship law involves the passage of citizenship to children born outside the US to one or more US citizen parents.
While naturalized US citizens are treated like natural born citizens, which includes those who are deemed citizens even when born outside the US, in almost every respect, there is one important office that only natural born citizens can hold - - the presidency
(though expect to see efforts in Congress to change this if Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger decides to run for President).
Also, a person who is a citizen from birth cannot be denaturalized (though denaturalization rarely ever occurs).

The rules determining when such children are citizens are extremely detailed, and vary a great deal depending on when the child was born since the laws changed several times in the 20th century.

What are the rules for people born before May 24, 1934?

Persons born abroad before May 24, 1934 to a US citizen father who had resided in the US at any point before the birth are considered US citizens at birth.
The status of the mother did not matter unless the child was born out of wedlock.
There were numerous legal challenges to this rule, claiming that it violates equal protection by treating the children born to US citizen women different than those born to US citizen men.
The issue was never fully resolved by the courts, but in 1994, Congress passed a law retroactively granting citizenship at birth to children born abroad to US citizen women.

In 1940, Congress passed a law making illegitimate children born abroad to US citizen women citizens if the mother had resided in the US.
However, under this law, if the child was legitimated by the foreign national father before his or her eighteenth birthday, the child would not be considered a citizen.
In 1998, the Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the requirement that a child born out of wedlock to a US citizen woman be legitimated before his or her eighteenth birthday.
The decision was reaffirmed in the 2001 US Supreme Court decision Nguyen v. INS which held that differing requirements for out-of-wedlock children of US citizen men versus US citizen women are constitutions.

The US citizen parent must have resided in the US prior to the birth.
This residence can be in the US itself, or in certain US territories after certain dates.
The residence can have been while the parent was a minor, and there is no length of time for which the parent must have resided in the US.

What are the rules for people born between May 24, 1934 and January 13, 1941?

In 1934, Congress passed a law allowing US citizen parents, regardless of their gender, to pass citizenship to their children born abroad.
If both parents were citizens, only one was required to have resided in the US, and as with the previous law, there was no required length of time that the parent must have resided in the US.

However, if one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the child would lose their citizenship if they did not either reside in the US for the five years immediately prior to their eighteenth birthday or, within six months of turning 21, take an oath of allegiance to the US.
These requirements were gradually relaxed between 1934 and 1940.

Illegitimate children born aboard between 1934 and 1941 became citizens under the general provision, and because the child was considered to have only one parent, no requirements were imposed that could result in the loss of citizenship.

What are the rules for people born between January 14, 1941 and December 23, 1952?

As before, children born abroad to two US citizens, with one parent having resided in the US, the child was a US citizen at birth.
No further action was required to maintain citizenship.

When one parent was a citizen and the other a foreign national, however, the rules changed substantially.
To pass citizenship, the citizen parent must have resided in the US for at least 10 years before the birth of the child, and at least five of those years had to be after the parent turned 16.
Because this rule made it impossible for parents under 21 to pass citizenship, in 1946 the requirement was amended to create an exception for parents who had served in World War Two.

Originally, for children born during this period to retain US citizenship, they had to reside in the US for five years between the age of 13 and 21.
However, an exception was made for children of US citizens who were employed abroad by the US government or a US company.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother who met the residence requirements were automatically citizens, and they retained US citizenship even if legitimated by the foreign national father.
For a child born out of wedlock to a US citizen father, to obtain US citizenship the child must have been legitimated before the age of 21.

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14.
An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.

While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship, amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child.
Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.

What are the rules for people born on or after November 14, 1986?

Children born abroad to two US citizen parents, one of whom has resided in the US prior to the birth of the child, continue to be US citizens at birth, and need take no special actions to retain citizenship.

Children born to one citizen parent and one foreign national will obtain citizenship at birth if the citizen parent resided in the US for five years before the birth, with two of those years after the age of 14.
The child does not need to take any special action to retain US citizenship.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother will be US citizens if the mother resided in the US for one year prior to the birth of the child.
Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father will acquire US citizenship if the following conditions are met:


• There is an established blood relationship between the father and the child,
  
  
• The father was a US citizen at the time of the birth,
  
  
• The father has agreed to financially support the child until it is 18, and
  
  
• Before the child is 18 it is legitimated, or the father acknowledges paternity in a document signed under oath

While these are general rules, Congress has continually amended and revised many laws relating to citizenship, particularly those dealing with the requirements for retention of citizenship.
If a person believes that they have a claim to US citizenship, they should consult with an attorney for a full examination of that possibility.

[doug6352]

You raise an interesting point. The 1790 law stated “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”. So Ted Cruz would have been a natural born citizen by that statute, as long as his mother was considered a citizen (his father had been resident in the USA before taking the job in Canada). I’m no expert on this legal topic, but from what I have found in a quick online search, American women in 1790 were considered citizens, but without the same rights as men.

Donald Trump has many great ideas, fantastic blue-collar support, and may well carry New York State if he were the nominee. So I really wish he would start acting like a President, and stop sometimes acting like the playground bullies I learned to despise as a boy.

[cynwoody]

But Cruz didn't even bother to come up with a Hawaiian birth certificate. His campaign released a birth certificate from Canada. This is unprecedented. This will dominate the Cruz campaign. The dark cloud is not going away.

So Ted doesn't have a Hawaiian BC? You want a Canuck BC? Well, here you go ...

[Yosemitest]

"Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, TED CRUZ's father NEVER became a Canadian."

CORRECTION: "Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, TED CRUZ's father, renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 ...

...His father, 74-year-old Rafael Bienvenido Cruz.
"I came to this country legally," Cruz's father says.
"I came here with a legal visa, and ... every step of the way, I have been here legally."

In an interview near his home outside Dallas, the elder Cruz says that as a teenager, he fought alongside Fidel Castro's forces to overthrow Cuba's U.S.-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista.
He was caught by Batista's forces, he says, and jailed and beaten before being released.
It was 1957, and Cruz decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.
Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.

"Then the only other thing that I needed was an exit permit from the Batista government," Cruz recalls.
"A friend of the family, a lawyer friend of my father, basically bribed a Batista official to stamp my passport with an exit permit."

The Rafael Cruz that his son Ted portrays is a kind of Cuban Horatio Alger - - arriving in the U.S. with only $100, learning English on his own and washing dishes seven days a week for 50 cents an hour.

"Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father,
"and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."

Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born.
His father went there AFTER having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. WHEN his student visa ran out.
He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen.
The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.

"I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says.
"And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."

The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen ...

I can only guess as to the reason it took so long, but probably to keep Cub a from being able to recall him.

[patlin]

In ALL of that which you posted, what part of “whose fathers” do you not understand? And as for the 1934 legislation, that had NOTHING to do with Article II qualifications, it had to do with “naturalization” laws as those are the ONLY citizenship laws that Congress as plenary power over. Congress does not get to decide who the natural born citizens are, that unalienable right belongs to the fathers who citizens. The definition of Article II natural born was fixed at the time of the Constitution was ratified and at that time, wives and children held the same citizenship as that of the husband/father respectively. It isn’t complicated, it is the way the laws of nature that nature’s God ordained at creation. Congress can pass all the legislation they want, however,, that ALL that legislation pertains to immigration and naturalization, PERIOD.

[patlin]

You are reading the law wrong, the fathers the law is speaking of are fathers who are US citizens and we know this because the law states that wives and children follow the citizenship of the husband/father. Where the husband/father was not a citizen, neither were the wives and children, therefore, a child born to a Cuban residing in Canada in 1790 would have been a Cuban/Canadian in the eyes of the United States courts because the wife would also have been considered to be a Cuban.

As far as Trump is concerned, does it really matter? As long as the legal American citizenry remains utterly ignorant of the real citizenship laws by pandering to the misapplication of those laws; as long as the real American citizenry remains ignorant of the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment by pandering to the misapplication of it; this nation will NEVER be great again. No matter how many times Trump trumps it.

[bushpilot2]