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.

[AFret.]

All this handwringing and trying to invent ways for people without 2 US parents to run is going to be acedemic in a couple weeks. Once Trump wins Iowa its a moot point for this cycle. We should codify exactly what NBC means though before the next nominating season.

You are correct

---

Well stated. As I watch this unfold, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Cruz knows that we know and is looking desperately for a gracious exit. He has stalled and deflected answering direct questions and sealed his US birth documents. (He insists he is NBC,... if he wanted to settle this in his favor, he would release all documents).
It’s plausible that in one of the meetings between Cruz and Trump, Ted came clean, asked Trump to turn up the heat and create enough doubt with the voters to cost him Iowa.Ted can graciously bow out, the consolation prize being a seat on the SC. Far fetched?...maybe. But plausible.

[Cboldt]

--There wasn't any scenario under which Gore was going to become president. --

IIRC, if FL sent its electoral ballots naming Gore and whatever nimrod was his running mate, and those ballots were not challenged in the joint session, Gore wins.

[Rona Badger]

The standard has always been to be born in America, and have two American parents at the time of birth.

---

Corrretion: two American citizen parents. The parents can be naturalized citizens, they don't need to be natural born citizens.

[RC one]

I think Born on US soil is a consistent theme throughout everything I have read.

[Alberta's Child]

Yes, but Florida wasn’t going to do that. The FL Secretary of State had already certified the results for Bush. So either the state’s electoral votes would have been cast for Bush, or they wouldn’t have been cast at all.

[AFret.]

Proof that Ted Cruz did not become a US citizen at birth

---

Interesting article and comments..

Did Ted enroll at Harvard as a foreign student? Did he register for the Selective Service? Why won’t he release his CRBA? What documents did he use to obtain a US Passport?...drip, drip..

[Rona Badger]

AFAIK, it’s a little murky as to when Ted’s father became a Canadian citizen. Was it before or after Ted’s birth? I think he might have been a Cuban citizen at the time of Ted’s birth. There are a few months of discrepancy as far as I can tell. Anyone know for sure?

[samtheman]

It’s plausible that in one of the meetings between Cruz and Trump, Ted came clean, asked Trump to turn up the heat and create enough doubt with the voters to cost him Iowa.Ted can graciously bow out, the consolation prize being a seat on the SC. Far fetched?...maybe. But plausible.

---

Interesting theory.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.

I'm clearly on record on being a Donald Trump admirer, but a staunch Ted Cruz campaigner.

The other night Donald Trump said he would NOT pursue legal action against Ted Cruz, now Donald has changed his mind.

Sadly, I now admit to being "wrong" about the Cruz-Trump "dust-up" as political theater.

Apparently, Donald Trump's ego can NOT deal with being second in Iowa ... that is a BAD sign.

So sad.

Not even George S. Patton, Jr. believed he was ENTITLED to WIN every battle.

.

[Rona Badger]

Thanks for the link to this article. Very interesting and answers a few of the questions I had. It states, “There is currently no proof available to show he (Ted) ever became a US citizen.”

[Behind the Blue Wall]

I don’t know for sure. We really need to see Cruz’s American immigration paperwork, if there is any. A lot of the facts could then be established at least.

[MamaTexan]

Thanks for the link! :-)

That creates a rather stinky little pickle, though. If he was purely Canadian, and renounced his Canadian citizenship, what it he?

[Bidimus1]

20 CFR 416.1856 - Who is considered a child.

So they really are not children they are just legal fictions pretended to be children. Under your interpretation of language within the law.

[Cboldt]

That is actually a great example. Code of Federal Regulations 20 CFR 416.1856

(2) You are under 22 years old and you are a student regularly attending school or college or training that is designed to prepare you for a paying job;
(b) You are not married; and
(c) You are not the head of a household.

That is a child. A person who has been able to vote for about 4 years, can drink, can enter in contracts, is emancipated, full and free person.

The regulation says that is going to be considered to be a child, for purposes of the regulation.

Is that person a child, in fact?

[Cboldt]

Crickets .... post 53 had a question for you. A couple other posts too, like NBC born of alien parents born to residents of the Virgin Islands.

[bushpilot2]

[thecodont]

How many of these “legal experts” voted for BO and are trying to retroactively justify their decision?

[exit82]

Thanks for that clarification, Rona.

[Bidimus1]

I notice you dropped legal fiction....

[Cboldt]

What a pedant you are. Pathetic loser. If it makes you feel any better, that regulation establishes a legal fiction that a 22 year old, adult as a general proposition, is a child. An adult shall be considered to be a child. That is the essence of the regulation. It is a statement of truth? No. It is a legal fiction.

Just like the legal fiction in the 1790 act. The fact of the matter is that a 22 year old is not a child, and a person born abroad of citizens is not an NBC.

Lots of people don't "get it." I'm just the teacher, you don't have to "get it."