Rick Sanchez: Ted Cruz is not a natural born American, and neither am I

Fox News latino ^ | January 12, 2016 | Rick Sanchez

[RC one]

Even if both of Senator Ted Cruz’s parents were American born, it still wouldn’t matter. He was born in Canada. Period. His parents weren’t there because they needed to be. They were there because they wanted to be. Ted Cruz, by the letter and spirit of the law, cannot be president! p>The problem for Ted Cruz is that we know what the spirit and letter of the law says. It says if you want to be an American president, you have to be born on United States territory just like every other man who’s ever held the office was born in the contiguous United States and Hawaii.

But there’s more! This may put to rest any chance Ted Cruz has to somehow convince us he’s not really Canadian, and should be allowed to be president. Some have tried to argue that although Cruz’s parents were in Canada when he was born, they were still U.S. citizens. I guess they want us to see it as an extended work vacation of some sort.

Unfortunately, here’s the problem. According to a new report released by Canadian authorities, Cruz’s mother not only lived in Canada, but she was enrolled as a voter.

In a document uncovered by “Talking Points Memo” and published by Breitbart News, Ted Cruz’s parents were officially named on a Calgary list of electors for Canada’s federal election in July 8, 1974. They are listed as residents of 920 Riverdale Avenue, Calgary, Alberta who are eligible to vote. And here’s the clincher, only Canadian Citizens are allowed to vote in Canada. That’s right, Canadian law restricts federal voting rights to only Canadian citizens. It’s pretty simple, if Eleanor and Rafael Cruz were eligible to vote according to the Canadian election board, that means they were Canadian citizens.

[RC one]

Cited By Justice Gray in the decion of US v. Wong Kim Ark:

The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.

and:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.

and:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.

and:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign..... Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.

and:

Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country." Joseph Story, Conflict of Laws, § 48.

[Helicondelta]

In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under “the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court - an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption - Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a “natural born citizen.”

He added: “Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice for a genuine originalist. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.

“On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors - a ‘living constitutionalist’ who believes that the constitution’s meaning evolves with the needs of the time - Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition.”

Tribe said: “There is no single, settled answer. And our supreme court has never addressed the issue.”

[pepsionice]

Using this logic....then all of these Mexicans who walk in and fake out the country registration folks, and get registered to vote....are automatically US citizens then, if they appear on the voting lists of that county.

[RC one]

I have spent the past few hours reading through United States V. Wong Kim Ark and am left with no doubt that by being born in Canada, Ted Cruz was a Natural Born Citizen of Canada as he was fully entitled to all the rights, protections, restrictions and privileges of any other child born in Canada.

In American law and in the common law, citizenship is determined by soil before blood and that's the dirty little secret that nobody wants to talk about.

The statute of 5 Edw. III recites the existence of doubts as to the right of foreign-born children to inherit in England; and, while it is declaratory of the rights of children of the King, and is retrospective as to the persons specifically named, yet, as to all others, it is, in terms, merely prospective, applying to those only "who shall be born henceforth." Mr. Binney, in his paper above cited, after a critical examination of the statute and of the early English cases, concluded:

There is nothing in the statute which would justify the conclusion that it is declaratory of the common law in any but a single particular, namely in regard to the children of the King; nor has it at any time been judicially held to be so. . . . The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.

Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203. And the great weight of the English authorities, before and since he wrote, appears to support his conclusion. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 17a, 18a; Co.Lit. 8a, and Hargrave's note 36; 1 Bl.Com. 33; Barrington on Statutes, (5th ed.) 268; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; I: ord Chancellor Cranworth, in Shedden v. Patrick, 1 Macq. 535, 611; Cockburn on Nationality, 7, 9; De Greer v. Stone, 2 Ch.D. 243, 252; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 17, 741. "The acquisition," says Mr. Dicey, (p. 741) "of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments."

[RC one]

Ted Cruz’s parents didn’t deceive anybody in Canada. They were domiciled there legally and by their choice alone. They were in full allegiance to the sovereign nation of Canada at the time of Ted’s birth.

[skr]

Source please for Mrs. Cruz’s renouncing of her American citizenship.

[grania]

I thought this is the clearest, simplest, most convincing argument that Cruz wasn’t born a natural born citizen. If it’s true that Cruz’s mother was on Canadian voting rolls in Canada, I fail to see how there’s any element left that by any stretch would make Cruz be a natural born citizen.

[Alberta's Child]

In American law and in the common law, citizenship is determined by soil before blood and that's the dirty little secret that nobody wants to talk about.

You may be right, but there's a big problem with that. Let's look at two people with the following characteristics:

Person A: Born in the U.S. to an American mother and a foreign father who were not married. Moves to a foreign country in Asia as a child without his mother and is raised as a Muslim by a stepfather. Comes back to the U.S. and changes his name multiple times. Makes his way onto the U.S. political scene with all kinds of unfilled gaps in his background.

Person B: Born in Canada to two married parents who are both U.S. citizens, while his father is on a temporary work assignment north of the border. Spent almost his entire life in the U.S., and can account for just about every day he's lived on this earth.

For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that Barack Hussein Obama was actually born in Hawaii. Based on the case you've presented, he would be eligible to serve as the President of the United States but this hypothetical "Person B" would not.

This is where legalities clash with reality.

[Alberta's Child]

In American law and in the common law, citizenship is determined by soil before blood and that's the dirty little secret that nobody wants to talk about.

Also ...

Using this logic, then some guy from Uganda who happened to be born in the U.S. 45 years ago while his parents were here on a six-month work assignment would be eligible to be President, but Ted Cruz would not.

The basic premise here about "soil over blood" doesn't make any sense at all.

[cynwoody]

Now along comes Senator Ted Cruz who seems to be saying, “I know I wasn’t born here, but guess what — I want to change the rules, I want it all.”

The rule is, you're natural born if you are entitled to citizenship by birth. Ted Cruz qualifies, even though he was born outside the US. As does John McCain. As did Barry Goldwater (born in Arizona before it became a state). As did George Romney, who was born in Mexico of American parents. They all qualify, despite being born outside the soil of the admitted States of America.

Now, Ricky Sanchez was born in Guanabacoa, Cuber, a township of Havana. His parents got him here as soon as they could, but, sooo sorrry, that's not good enough under the Constitution!

[RC one]

Person B's father became a nationalized citizen of the United states in 2005 and was not on a temporary work assignment north of the border. he lived and worked in Canada and was a citizen of Canada and his son was born in full allegiance to Canada and renounced his own Canadian citizenship 9 years after his father when it became clear to him that it would complicate his campaign to be POTUS.

This has nothing to do with Ted Cruz's character which I'm sure is unimpeachable. This is about the law and it's about the reason we have the law. Deeper than that, it's about establishing a precedent for violating this law.

[cynwoody]

In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under “the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court - an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption - Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a “natural born citizen.”

Please be aware that Laurence Tribe is a big Lefty.

[Alberta's Child]

Sorry the confusion ...

Person B wasn't intended to be Ted Cruz. It was just a hypothetical example to make the point.

[cynwoody]

If it’s true that Cruz’s mother was on Canadian voting rolls in Canada, I fail to see how there’s any element left that by any stretch would make Cruz be a natural born citizen.

If true, that would mean Canada's voting rolls were not clean. Better call the Sgt. Preston!

[Alberta's Child]

The citizenship issue comes up a lot in international hockey. Hall of Famer Brett Hull was a dual citizen of the U.S. and Canada simply because he qualified for citizenship in both countries. He was a Canadian citizen because his parents were Canadian. He was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the U.S. while his father -- the legendary Bobby Hull -- played in Chicago.

As a citizen of both countries, Brett Hull could have played in international hockey tournaments (Olympics, World Championships, etc.) for either country. The International Ice Hockey Federation, though, has an important rule that only allows a player to compete for one country in his lifetime. So once Hull decided to compete for Team USA, he was permanently ineligible to compete for Team Canada.

It seems practical for a U.S. law -- or even an amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- to be drafted in a way that contains some kind of clarification for presidential eligibility.

[RC one]

The argument could be made that he was eligible. He would have to move back here and be a resident for 14 years before at the very least. Regardless, United States v. Wong Kim Ark is pretty clear on the subject: All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens and Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.

[RC one]

Where is that rule stated in any legal code applicable to the United States?

[cynwoody]

Deeper than that, it's about establishing a precedent for violating this law.

At the Supreme Court, they call it stare decisis:

[Lib-Lickers 2]

Cruz’s daddy wasn’t a US citizen btw.. just sayin

let’s say an American woman(who is married to a non American) gives birth to a child in Canada and they live there for 40 years NEVER stepping foot in the USA and the 40 year old son says one day I don’t know squat about the USA and even though I have always loved Canada and always will I want to be President of the United States so I’m going to leave Canada and move my residency to the USA for at least 14 years and then run for President, now according to conventional wisdom that would be perfectly legal

[RC one]

Then I would think that a strong argument could be made that the temporary nature of the work assignment would mean that he was still in complete allegiance to the United States and his child was, therefore, a NBC.