In his own words: Ted Cruz on his U.S. citizenship

No, I haven't. I assume you have. What has he said about his love for America? I know he didn't choose to become an American citizen until just a few years ago.

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/23/ted_cruz_dad_is_even_more_frightening_than_ted_cruz/

Salon doesn't like him. Says he is a "conservative evangelic force to be reckoned with." and full on crazy because he believes Obama wants to turn our nation into a communist nation. Cruz's dad doesn't sound like a commie sympathizer to me.

Here's a quote from the article (I wouldn't want to give Salon a hit for it either):

"The Obama administration has been talking about freedom of worship. Most of us don't see anything wrong with that. [But] freedom of worship and freedom of religion are two entirely different things. Freedom of worship is what you do in a house of worship. In all communist countries you have freedom of worship...Obama is trying to restrict our freedom of expression in the marketplace. That is not America. America is the only country on the face of the earth that was founded on the word of God. Don't believe this garbage from Obama that this is not a Christian nation, this country was founded by Christians; was founded as a Christian nation."

Here's some more of Cruz's dad: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/07/the-six-craziest-quotes-from-ted-cruz-s-father-rafael-cruz.html#

"We have our work cut out for us," he said. "We need to send Barack Obama back to Chicago. I'd like to send him back to Kenya, back to Indonesia." He went on to say, "We have to unmask this man. This is a man that seeks to destroy all concept of God. And I will tell you what, this is classical Marxist philosophy. Karl Marx very clearly said Marxism requires that we destroy God because government must become God."

From the same article he has the right attitude on the media:

"Rafael Cruz told Glenn Beck that the U.S. has its very own "ministry of misinformation" that governments in communist countries like Cuba employ to spread their messages. That propaganda machine, he said, is the liberal media. "They just tell us what they want us to hear. They are rewriting history...because they have an agenda. And unfortunately the agenda is an evil agenda. It's an agenda for destroying what this country is all about," he said.

From what I have seen of his son Ted; I'd say Rafael Cruz did a good job teaching his son who the enemies of America and it's liberty are.

"But fact of the matter is, the power to NATURALIZE is the jurisdiction of Congress. And if Congress doesn't naturalize anybody, the constitution tells us who are citizens, and who are not."

"The power is to make a 'uniform rule of naturalization', so the only type of citizenship they CAN confer is naturalized."

With a ratified amendment 14, the definition of "natural born citizen", whatever it may have been before, essentially became anyone who is a citizen at birth, because there are only 2 cases: natural or naturalized.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside

Related law is under the purview of Congress:
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790
Titled: "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
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.

This law was subsequently changed multiple times. Of course the abolition of slavery, granting the women the right to vote, and many other changes have had a practical effect that is not beyond the "original intent". The original intent was for Congress to decide who is a citizen and which are citizens at birth versus naturalized. Those are the only two categories of citizens. Notice the date of the above act. Did any of the founder express a problem with Congress finally getting around to its Constitutional duty? No. And neither should you. And a Constitutionally written act enacted into law just a year-and-a-half after the Constitution was signed, makes it clear that children born to American citizens while those citizens are outside of the country are natural born citizens.

If you do not think Cruz is a natural born citizen, do you think he is no citizen at all? Do you think he naturalized? Is there some other status you have imagined? Do you suppose that the act in 1790 was unconstitutional?

-- If you do not think Cruz is a natural born citizen, do you think he is no citizen at all? Do you think he naturalized? Is there some other status you have imagined? Do you suppose that the act in 1790 was unconstitutional? --

In the case of Rogers v. Bellei, Mr. Bellei had a fact pattern similar to Mr. Cruz. Born abroad, citizen mother, alien father. Bellei obtained US citizenship pursuant to "the same" statute that Cruz did, albeit and older version with different details, but the differences are immaterial for the first part of this discussion.

In that case, Bellei was labeled a naturalized citizen, by SCOTUS. So, to answer your first question, I think Cruz is similarly naturalized. His citizenship depends on a statute, and without the statute, he is not a citizen.

Irrelevant aside, the statute that Bellei was under had a residency requirement for Bellei. He didn't meet it. He lost his citizenship. That what he sued over, he said it was unconstitutional to take his citizenship away. The court held that is not unconstitutional. Do you think it is constitutional for Congress to pass a law that strips citizenship from a natural born citizen?

As for the 1790 act, its constitutionality isn't relevant, because it was repealed and replaced. I do think, had it been put to a test, that analysis would proceed as it did under the Rogers v. Bellei case, or on an analysis that looks to the constitution for the source of US [natural born] citizenship, which was, at the time, being born a citizen of one of the several states. Article IV, section 2.

In case you haven't noticed, I've also posted that I think the correct legal conclusion is an academic curiosity, and has no control over the outcome. The public is being conditioned to believe that Cruz is an NBC. That conditioning will be successful, so for operational purposes, Cruz is NBC. It matters not what the constitution says. What matters is what you believe.

Do you suppose that the act in 1790 was unconstitutional?

Did I say it was?

The 1790 act was repealed by the 1795 act, which makes it a dead law.

The 1795 act stated such children naturalized under that act were citizens of the United States. The children in both acts were still naturalized citizens, that's what Naturalization Acts do.

When comparing the language of the two acts with the language of the Constitutional clause - Natural born citizens, or citizens of the United States at the time of its adoption it's clear these two acts were passed in order to create a time frame to denote the Constitutional 'adoption' window.

The claim that the 1790 Act continues to make natural born citizens of children when they're born overseas to citizen parent(s) is bogus according to documents over 100 years later.

-----

North Noonday Mining Co vs Orient Mining Co found in The Federal Reporter, page 527, Copyright 1880.

All persons born or naturalized In the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. A person born in a foreign country out of the Jurisdiction of the United States whose father is not a citizen of the United States can only become a citizen by naturalization.

Wong Kim Ark, 1898

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,..

Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad, By United States. Dept. of State, Page 141, 1906

A person born in a foreign country, out of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose father is not a citizen of the United States, can only become a citizen by naturalization. The foreign born son becomes a citizen by being himself naturalized, or by the naturalization of the father during the minority of the son.

----

Cruz is a naturalized citizen. Natural born citizens do typically have to be born in their native country.

Both of you posted earlier that Congress only had authority to confer naturalized citizenship and that natural born citizenship was exclusively defined by the Constitution. Now both of you are trying to switch the topic to some other test.

I showed you conclusively that Congress can and does define the terms of “natural born citizen” because the same people who drafted and ratified the Constitution, carried out the intent of the Constitution by setting these standards in 1790.

Have those laws changed? Yes. But that is a different issue. The same Constitution allowed slavery and excluded women from voting. Amendments (and a war) changed this.

Whether Congress can pass an act to determine who receives citizenship at birth AND who can get it by naturalization IS the salient point. It is the crux of the matter. There is no need to amend the Constitution in order to confer this power to Congress. It is within the purview of Congress.

Once we can agree on this basic fact, we can have a fruitful discussion as to what law applies currently to Cruz. But get rid of this nonsense about original intent and Congress only being able to have a say over naturalization but not who is a citizen at birth, because “natural born” is citizen at birth. It is a settled matter, and if you do not grasp it yet, you need to re-read it until it sinks in.

-- Now both of you are trying to switch the topic to some other test. --

You and I are using different frameworks to analyze the issue. You have adopted a framework that will yield the outcome you want, and it works pretty good for that. You are in good company, the popular press uses the same framework you have adopted.

_ But it is not the only framework, as one sees looking at Rogers v. Bellei.

You are also not the only person who reads Rogers v. Bellei for the opposite of what it says about what label to put on a person board abroad to one citizen parent where the citizenship depends on a statute.

When asked to show, "where in the constitution, does is define NBC," I offer to actually look at the constitution, read its words, and decide first what the constitution says a citizen is. I think using the constitution to understand this issue is the most direct way to analyze the issue. If the question is "what does the constitution say ...", then let's look at the constitution.

-- It is a settled matter, and if you do not grasp it yet, you need to re-read it until it sinks in. --

You can believe whatever you want. Really. It doesn't matter. The con law analysis is an academic exercise. If enough people believe Cruz is NBC, then he is, for all working purposes.

But you will never get me to budge from my conclusion that Cruz is not NBC under the constitution. I am a reasonably good "logician," have a decent grasp on the law (by education and experience), and am using steely-eyed analysis - I have no emotional stake vested in the outcome of the legal analysis.

I've shared how I get there, I will never persuade you or others. I don't urge you to reread and reconsider. I merely observe that you are firm in your position too, and I observe that solely because you told me.

Both of you posted earlier that Congress only had authority to confer naturalized citizenship and that natural born citizenship was exclusively defined by the Constitution.

No, I said Congress only has the ability to confer naturalization and that natural born was enumerated in the Constitution. I never said it was defined by it.

---

I showed you conclusively that Congress can and does define the terms of â€œnatural born citizenâ€

No, you showed the 14th Amendment...which says 'born in the jurisdiction of the United States'. Cruz was NOT 'born in the jurisdiction of the United States', he was born in Canada.

----

Whether Congress can pass an act to determine who receives citizenship at birth AND who can get it by naturalization IS the salient point.Whether Congress can pass an act to determine who receives citizenship at birth AND who can get it by naturalization IS the salient point.

Except naturalization and citizenship at birth are the same thing.

---

Once we can agree on this basic fact, we can have a fruitful discussion as to what law applies currently to Cruz.

No, once you understand some simple terms, there will be no need for discussion.

---

It is a settled matter, and if you do not grasp it yet, you need to re-read it until it sinks in.

My, that's an arrogant attitude considering the legal cites stating a child born overseas can ONLY become a citizen by naturalization showed it WAS a 'settled matter'...just not in the way you wanted it to be.

Maybe you should back off your arrogant high-horse an educate yourself as to what the words 'limited authority' actually mean.

Until then, you have a nice day.

“You and I are using different frameworks to analyze the issue. “

Your framework is based on the idea that naturalization is any citizenship conferred by statute. This is trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

A year-and-a-half after the ratification of the Constitution, an act became law that specified who were natural born citizens and how others could become citizens. Unless this act is supposedly unConstitutional, it demolishes your premise.

Under that act, Cruz would have been a natural born citizen (citizen at birth). If, in that status, he never lived in the USA and remained a resident in Canada, his children would not have been natural born citizens, even though he was himself. But he would have been a natural born citizen by statute.

If this law was written today, you could reasonably argue that the authors did not understand the wording or intent of the Constitution, but the fact it was written by the founders immediately after ratifying the Constitution, makes such a rationale implausible. It represents backflips in logic to reach a predetermined outcome.

-- Your framework is based on the idea that naturalization is any citizenship conferred by statute. --

That is correct. That is the framework that SCOTUS uses, and it works the same way and produces the same result one gets by resort to ONLY the words in the US constitution.

-- Under that [1790] act, Cruz would have been a natural born citizen --

It's a legal technicality, but the words of the 1790 Act are "shall be considered as natural born Citizens." Linguistically, this is different from saying the described person is a NBC.

You get the last word. I don't want to irritate you, and I don't want to correspond with you.

“I never said it was defined by it.”

Regardless. You are denying that Congress has the authority to define who is a “natural born citizen” because of original intent, as if the concept of natural born citizen was something written by God in tablets of stone and everyone, everywhere knew exactly what it meant. What is means is “citizen at birth” because a process is not required to become a citizen. (This is not the same as applying for a birth certificate.)

“No, you showed the 14th Amendment...which says ‘born in the jurisdiction of the United States’. Cruz was NOT ‘born in the jurisdiction of the United States’, he was born in Canada.”

That is not all I showed. You ignored the most important thing. I showed Congress can decide who is a citizen at birth (and thus “natural born citizen” in their own words, not mine) by citing the first law specifying this which was enacted a mere 18 months from the ratification of the Constitution.

“Except naturalization and citizenship at birth are the same thing.”

Ridiculous. Naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen. The act in 1790 makes this very clear. It also defines the class of citizens that does not need to be naturalized, which are citizens from the moment they are born and, thus, do not need to be naturalized.

“My, that’s an arrogant attitude considering the legal cites stating a child born overseas can ONLY become a citizen by naturalization showed it WAS a ‘settled matter’...just not in the way you wanted it to be.”

Stating facts is not being arrogant. There may have been a time when, if Cruz had been born in Canada with only his mother being a citizen, he would not have been a natural born citizen at that time. That is irrelevant. What must first be decided is whether Congress can even decide who is a natural born citizen, because everything else hinges on that. If not, then no subsequent laws matter. If so, then they all matter. I showed the first law in which Congress determined who is a “natural born citizens” was enacted a mere 18 months from the ratification of the Constitution which gave them this authority. If we can agree on this, then we can explore which exact laws were in force when Cruz was born. If we cannot even agree that Congress has this authority, then we are at an impasse.

You have not made a case that Congress does not have this authority. Nor have you agreed explicitly that they do. You have simply ignored the issue. Except, in post 72, you essentially stated that Congress cannot decide who is a natural born citizen. You can retract that, or stand by it, or clarify it. But you have not supported it in your answer regarding the act in 1790.

“I don’t want to correspond with you.”

Then why bother saying so?

“it works the same way and produces the same result one gets by resort to ONLY the words in the US constitution.”

Those words grant Congress the authority to write more words which do have legal authority.

“It’s a legal technicality, but the words of the 1790 Act are ‘shall be considered as natural born Citizens.’ Linguistically, this is different from saying the described person is a NBC.”

It may be linguistically different, but it is not legally different, unless you want to argue that Congress does not have Constitutional authority to define who is a natural born citizen. In the eyes of the law, if Cruz is “considered” a natural born citizen, then he is, which means he meets this test for president.

There is no natural law which automatically puts a stamp on a baby’s posterior to identify him or her as a citizen. A citizen is a legal construct. If a person is “considered” by law as something, it is that for all practical purposes. It is not as if Congress said dirt shall be “considered” water. They do not have the power to alter reality. They do have the ability to write laws. Some are Constitutional, and some are unconstitutional. To argue that this one was unconstitutional would be very weak, as I think you already realize. That might be a reasonable position to take on a law written in 2015. It is not a reasonable position for a law enacted 18 months from the ratification of the Constitution. So, instead, you have chosen to parse words to distract from the essential fact. Congress decided in 1790, who needed to naturalize in order to get the privileges of citizenship, and those who already had them from birth.

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.