According the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, Ted Cruz was considered a Natural Born Citizen of Canada by virtue of having been born in Canada after the passage of the act:
Posted on 02/04/2016 5:20:20 PM PST by conservativejoy
To say this in a general way “A right is not a right if someone has to give it to you”.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he did that. This election year is crazy and we haven’t seen anything yet.
Thanks for the name. I recognize it now that I see it. Hats off to your memory as mine fades.
Oooh. That’s good. Really good.
“So it seems natural born would be, in fact, transmitted from the mother regardless of the location, and never granted by naturalization law, because naturalization law simply does not have jurisdiction over natural born status.”
No, that is quite impossible. The ancient purpose of citizenship or nationality laws is to determine what position, obligations, and rights a person has in relation to the group into which they are born and the foreigners, whose group the person does not belong. Over the thousands of years of human history and prehistory there are many different means by which this membership in the human groups have been determined. Parentage and place of birth are two of these many means, and they are sometimes used in combination with each other and with other means of determining membership in the group. In the years just prior to the Naturalization Act of 1541, the child born abroad from England with an English father was born as an alien, unless the child was a royal or other person enjoying diplomatic immunity. This foreign born child of an English father could not inherit the real property or other properties of the deceased father, due to the birth being outside the jurisdiction of England. Parliament enacted a statutory law that created a legal fiction to recognize the foreign born child of the English father would be henceforth be permitted to enjoy many but not all of the rights and obligations enjoyed by the child actually born in England. The legal jurists of the time and Sir Edward Coke in Calvin’s Case 1608 described this legal fiction as being a subject-made versus an actual subject-born. Because the child born in the jurisdiction of England is thereby born within the sovereign jurisdiction of the English sovereign with English parents, the child could not naturally acquire any citizenship or nationality of other than English nationality or citizenship in modern parlance. That is what makes the natural in the phrase natural born. In other words, the nature of the birth allows the duty of obedience and allegiance by birth to be owed to the parents of the sovereign to whom the parents owe allegiance and the sovereign in whose jurisdiction the birth took place. Because no other foreign sovereign has a natural claim to the child’s duty of obedience and allegiance, that duty naturally defaults to the domestic sovereign.
In the case of the naturalized subject and naturalized citizen, the determination of membership in one and only one sovereign jurisdiction is not possible due to the acquisition at birth of more than one duty and obligation of allegiance to two or more sovereigns a the same time. Since by the natural circumstances of birth the child acquired obligations to two or more sovereigns at the same time, a manmade and therefore unnatural statutory law is used to assign the legal fiction of certain legal rights and obligations of citizenship to one of the two or more overlapping sovereigns. English law did not permit the child born abroad and made a subject by the Naturalization Acts to hold a very broad array of public offices ranging from the Privy Council down to being an English military officer. The Founding Fathers considered using these same traditional exclusions of the foreign born children in the Constitution, but they ultimately settled on excluding the foreign born children only from the Offices of the Vice President and the Office of the President, using the natural born citizen clause to do so.
In the case of Ted Cruz, he was born in the foreign jurisdiction of Canada and with a duty of obedience and allegiance to sovereign Canada. Ted Cruz was also born with a duty of obedience to his father and his father’s duty of obedience and allegiance to sovereign Cuba. Ted Cruz was also born with a duty of obedience and allegiance to his mother’s duty of obedience and allegiance to the United States, until and unless Ted Cruz did not comply with the residency requirements for naturalized at birth U.S. citizens before 1994, by which time Ted Cruz would have forfeited his naturalized U.S. citizenship.
Also note, if the proposition that a child born abroad with one or two U.S. parents was an actual natural born citizen, there never would have been a need to enact this statutory law that naturalizes at birth such a child born abroad with citizen parent or parents. Such a naturalization law would have been superfluous and never would have been considered or enacted. The very existence of this naturalization law to make a child born abroad with U.S. citizen parent or parents is proof such a child is not and cannot possibly be a natural born citizen. And, so it said in that Supreme Court statement quoted earlier recognizing a child born abroad can acquire U.S. citizenship only by naturalization.
There's the difference between England and the United States - the location of sovereignty. Technically, because of the structure of negative rights and the subjectivity of the government to to people, in the US the government is the subject and the people are sovereigns. And so, per your example, sovereigns from England never lost their natural born status no matter where they were born, as it was derived from their bloodline/parents. Thus, in the United States, such natural derivation would be maintained for the sovereigns, I.e. the people. So because his mother was a sovereign citizen of the United States, Cruz too would inherit that sovereign status naturally, even though he was born in Canada, in the same way he would if he was a royal. Which means, just as a royal, he never would have been a Canadian citizen either, but only eve a natural born sovereign citizen of the United States per the peculiar sovereignty structure of our laws towards the people in relationship to our government.
“There’s the difference between England and the United States - the location of sovereignty.”
No, that is exactly contrary to the historical experience. The child born abroad with a English father was not a natural born English subject or citizen. To remedy the problems of property inheritance the English Parliament enacted the Naturalization Act of 1541 to confer a form of unnatural subject status upon the child born abroad with an English father. Likewise with the United States, a child born abroad with a U.S. citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother was not born as a natural born citizen of the U.S., because the child was born without any U.S. citizenship of any kind. It was not until the Congress enacted and repealed the naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, that a child born abroad with a U.S. citizen father and mother could acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth or after birth. After 1802, such a child once again was born without any kind of U.S. citizenship, until the late 19th Century with the enactment of new naturalization law that once again naturalized such children at birth and after birth. At no time has a child born abroad ever acquired natural born U.S. citizenship, except when enjoying diplomatic immunity. This fact is confirmed by several Supreme Court decisions, including their previously quoted statement observing a child born abroad can only be a naturalized citizen.
“Technically, because of the structure of negative rights and the subjectivity of the government to to people, in the US the government is the subject and the people are sovereigns. And so, per your example, sovereigns from England never lost their natural born status no matter where they were born, as it was derived from their bloodline/parents.”
No, that is incorrect. Royals enjoyed diplomatic immunity due to their duties as a lord and sovereign towards their subjects. Royals and other persons normally enjoying diplomatic immunity and other special powers lost their diplomatic immunity, their rights before a court of law, and the protection of the sovereign, if an when they were adjudged guilty of treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors that were contrary to their obligation of duty to their subjects and lords. Acquisition and the maintenance of membership in the sovereignty were conditioned upon faithful allegiance, with parentage and place of birth only being natural and unnatural methods of determining that allegiance and the burdens and benefits of that allegiance. You are attempting to infer that U.S. citizens are co-sovereigns, and therefore must have a natural diplomatic immunity due to their jus sanguinis inheritance of their parent’s citizen rights. This fails due to the fact U.S. citizens do not enjoy diplomatic immunity abroad until and unless the U.S. State Department negotiates bi-lateral relations with the foreign sovereign to recognize diplomatic immunity for each individual recognized as having such diplomatic immunity. It was the same in 1541 and earlier. Royalty or not, the foreign sovereign had to agree to confer diplomatic immunity upon the person.
“Thus, in the United States, such natural derivation would be maintained for the sovereigns, I.e. the people.”
Again, that is entirely wrong, because not even royals enjoyed diplomatic immunity until and unless the foreign sovereign conferred that diplomatic immunity on the royal or other person.
“So because his mother was a sovereign citizen of the United States, Cruz too would inherit that sovereign status naturally, even though he was born in Canada, in the same way he would if he was a royal.”
The Government of Canada did not confer diplomatic immunity upon the father of Ted Cruz, Rafael Cruz, or the mother of Ted Cruz, Eleanor Cruz. Quite the contrary, Rafael Cruz made himself subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada before the birth of Ted Cruz by becoming a Permanent Resident of Canada and later by becoming a naturalized citizen of Canada. Eleanor Cruz also made herself subject to the jurisdiction of Canada before the birth of Ted Cruz, so in no way did Ted Cruz or his parents enjoy diplomatic immunity when he was born in Canada. Ted Cruz was born with naturalized Canadian citizenship at birth and with U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth due to his mother’s alleged U.S. citizenship.
“Which means, just as a royal, he never would have been a Canadian citizen either, but only eve a natural born sovereign citizen of the United States per the peculiar sovereignty structure of our laws towards the people in relationship to our government.”
It is an established fact that the Government of Canada made Ted Cruz a naturalized citizen of Canada. His parents had to sign papers volunteering to adopt Canadian citizenship for Ted Cruz, due to the fact both parents were alien citizens with respect to Canadian law. Such a Canadian born child with alien parents could not acquire naturalized Canadian citizenship unless at least one or both parents had requested and acquired Permanent Resident approval from the Government of Canada. Ted Cruz formally renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014. Given the fact Ted Cruz was not conferred with diplomatic immunity by the Government of Canada, he was born within the jurisdiction of Canada, outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and acquired Canadian, United States, and perhaps Cuban citizenship only by naturalization. Due to the fact Ted Cruz was not born within th exclusive jurisdiction of any one and only one sovereign, Ted Cruz is not and cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of any sovereign state.
There is a difference between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen. There is a fundamental difference between the relationship and the status between the constitutional people and the government, which is not the same as the relationship between the government and statutory persons as defined by the 14th Amendment. While statutory law does not reach, nor generally acknowledge, the people of the constitution, that does not mean it doesn’t have a relationship with them, generally defined by the lack of jurisdiction. Nor is sovereign status limited solely to performance, but also is anchored in bloodline per se. Certainly it is impossible to differentiate between sovereignties in England and the Untied States when the government itself, through founding documents, in both countries, declares itself derived from that sovereignty. To dismiss, out of hand, therefore, any possible sovereign natural born status from birth alone is to deny the very essence of sovereignty itself, and thus is an invalid argument.
The unspoken fact here is that in the United States there are two completely separate types of lawful human being - a natural unincorporated sovereign of the people, versus an incorporated person or individual subject to statutory law relying for their status upon the granting of citizenship by the government to which they are, in fact, subjects. Ignoring these fundamental differences hides the issue being contested here. I am associating natural born to the former, and original, constitutional reference. You are addressing the latter, statutory construct included in the 14th amendment. The flipping of the relationship between the human being and the government, of necessity limits the application of English law in America to general concepts as adapted to circumstance, and disallows straight comparison. English common law has no equivalent to the people of the original Constitution, nor does English law include a doctrine of negative rights, all citizens being subjects.
That of course was the essence of the radicalism of the American revolution, not just breaking with England, but declaring all Americans sovereign to the level of superior to their own governmental power, which derived from the consent of those governed. Whether or not such status is acknowledged under the current statutory system (it is not) is irrelevant - because it did exist, without alternative, at the time of the founding of the country. And therefore it is the only possible status for the interpretation of natural born. Any other statutory definition from that time would be of necessity limited to narrow applications such as military births in foreign countries during service. But lacking such previously acquired status, the common American would have no restrictions on their personal sovereignty during that time, no matter where they travelled.
This cannot be otherwise, because without these distinctions there is no foundational definitions for negative rights at all.
“There is a difference between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen.”
Yes, and that is exactly what I have repeatedly said so many times. Yet you are digressing from the facts with many false assumptions. You also disregarded the obvious irrational conflict Cruz creates by attempting to claim he is a natural born citizen at the same time as acknowledging he was born as a Canadian citizen. To see what I am talking about, answer these questions one step at a time.
Step 1. A natural born citizen cannot be naturalized as a naturalized citizen, because a natural born citizen is already a citizen and you can only naturalize a person who is an alien. True or False?
bttt!
The constitution is simple enough on the subject of citizenship. Art IV, Sec. 2, and 14th amendment. All citizens are listed in those clauses. Citizens of a state, born in the US, or naturalized. The constitution doesn't have a "born of citizen parent" entry, although that entry does appear in the broad category of "naturalized," with that category being defined by rule of naturalization defined in Acts of Congress.
Wow. It will be like the second coming.
No need to read beyond that statement.
If the author doesn't understand that our world is at war with islam (a war inherent in islam) then he nothing he will say can be in context.
Cruz is a bright guy, but he doesn't appear to get it either. Nor Rubio.
Muslim are MOST dangerous when they assimilate because they are hidden in plain sight.
I certainly hope you are right, and I believe you are right. But the fact is that Herbert Hoover - for his time - set records for government spending. A record upon which FDR built, even as he made his presidential career out of blaming Hoover for FUBARing the economy so that nobody could have fixed it. Well, FDR was right - nobody who insisted on doubling down on the same disastrous economic policies as Herbert Hoover could have fixed the economy. FDR did worse than Hoover, of course - but Hoover got the ball rolling.If you like listening to Obama whining about “Republicans driving the economy into a ditch and then demanding the keys to the car again,” you would have loved FDR. And if Trump’s demands for “beating” everyone he deals with leads to a tariff war and an intractable - because caused by policies favored by both parties - recession, you will love the next Democrat POTUS, who will not be long in coming in such case.
At best, electing a new POTUS is always a bit of a crap shoot. Electing a Democrat is an even bigger gamble than electing a Republican. But Trump is not your father’s Republican POTUS, and the trouble is that he could turn out to be your great grandfather’s Republican POTUS. Who, as it turns out, was also a renowned businessman.
Any politician that votes for TPP is a TRAITOR — aiding and abetting the demise of the United States.
According the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, Ted Cruz was considered a Natural Born Citizen of Canada by virtue of having been born in Canada after the passage of the act:
It is incomprehensible to me why the framers would have inserted the language: “Natural born citizen” unless they intended it to mean born on the soil of the newly born nation.
Can anyone seriously contend they meant to include people born in the British Empire (Canada)—which was still our most dangerous enemy, in that brief lull between The War of Independence and the War of 1812 (when the Brits burned Washington) under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES?
Cruz’s argument now is so hypocritical as to be laughable. It speaks volumes about his character that he can forget all his alleged constitutional principles for the sake of personal ambition.
Note, it is a Citizenship Act legislated by the Canadian Parliament. What does that fact tell you about the type of law it constitutes?
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.