Posted on 01/08/2016 6:00:09 PM PST by FR_addict
A document uncovered by Breitbart News indicates that the parents of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) were named on a Calgary list of electors for Canada's federal election of July 8, 1974. Ted Cruz parents are listed as Cruz, Eleanor, Mrs. nd Cruz, Raphael, self employed, both at 920 Riverdale Avenue, South West in Calgary, Alberta.
Canadian law restricts (and restricted) federal voting rights to Canadian citizens.
In a statement to Breitbart News—the full text of which follows this article—Jason Johnson, chief strategist for Cruz for President, said that “the document itself does not purport to be a list of ‘registered Canadian voters.’ All this might conceivably establish is that this list of individuals (maybe) lived at the given addresses. It says nothing about who was a citizen eligible to vote.â€
Johnson added: Eleanor was never a citizen of Canada, and she could not have been under the facts or the law. In short, she did not live in Canada long enough to be a Canadian citizen by the time Cruz was born in 1970: Canadian law required 5 years of permanent residence, and she moved to Canada in December 1967—only 3 years before Senator Cruz’s birth. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Ted Cruz IS a Natural Born Citizen. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you MUST have 2 Citizen Parents or that you MUST be born on American soil.
There is NO distinction between “Citizen at Birth” and “Natural Born Citizen”. None whatsoever.
Using your faulty logic, if Cruz isn’t a Natural Born Citizen of the USA, then where is he a Natural Born Citizen of? If you say Canada, then you are making the argument that anchor babies should be classified as Natural Born Citizens since neither of Cruz’s parents were Canadian Citizens at the time of his birth. And if you say Cuba (a place Ted has never been physically to in his whole life), you are making the argument that one parent-citizen living abroad has the ability to transfer their citizenship to their offspring, which makes the case for Cruz’s mother to pass her Citizenship to Cruz.
And here’s something to chew on. If the Founders were so super concerned with Americans living abroad and having children, why do you thnk they put a “measley” 14 year residency requirement to be President? Someone could be born in the USA to 2 citizen parents, move to another country (i.e. Syria) and 55 years later come back to the US, and run for President at 70?
Who poses the greater loyalty risk (which most people believe was the Founders intent of A2 S1 C5?) Someone like Ted Cruz that you waste time trying to convince low-intelligent people that he isn’t a NBC, or the guy that moves to Syria as a child, adopts Sharia law, and eventually comes back to live in the US at Age 55 so they can run for President at age 70?
The question remains as to whether Barack Obama relinquished HIS citizenship and became an Indonesian citizen when his mom remarried and he attended the school where he was enrolled as a muslim.
Well, you have three choices to pick from: Cruz is either a Natural Born Citizen, a Naturalized citizen or an illegal alien...
There is no in-between answer...pick one!
Unless you want to claim Cruz is an illegal undocumented Senator from Texas...!
You evidently don’t want to read them. You have 4 constitutional experts (3 solicitors general & a law professor) stating that Cruz is eligible. None of them like him. Clemens & Olson were solicitor general under GW Bush...Bush doesn’t like Cruz because, as TX solicitor general, Cruz defeated them/Bush before SCOTUS. Katyal was Obama’s solicitor general...do you think he’s a Republican? Laurence Tribe is a well-known liberal constitutional law professor at Harvard who’s argued 36 cases in front of SCOTUS. Your flippant theory is all wet...
THE END OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm
Natural born citizen requirement
You left out Born dual citizen.
When was he naturalized?
Exactly. Or they could have easily put "Born in the USA" into the Constitution.
I’ve read all the cases you cite, and none of them indicate Ted Cruz is not eligible, or that the US follows Vattel.
For example: “Minor v. Happersett declares a natural born citizen as one who is born on the soil to citizen parents”.
Wrong. It said that was one type of NBC, but they had no need to consider the issue further so they did not.
“1898 Wong Kim Ark uses the 14th Amendment to declare that WKA is a citizen from birth, but not a “natural born citizen”.
Wrong again. They spent much of the first few sections showing why WKA did meet the standard for a natural born citizen. WKA includes the longest and most detailed discussion of the meaning of NBC, and it clearly states:
“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality...
...It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
Wong Kim Ark clearly met their test of NBC.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 makes it clear that a “native citizen” and a “natural born citizen” are the same thing.
None of these cases address the question, “Does NBC include children born to US citizens abroad?” However, many cases address the number of classes of US citizen, and there are only two: those born citizens, and those naturalized.
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) equates native born and natural born:
“”We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1...
...This statute proceeds on the impermissible assumption that naturalized citizens as a class are less reliable, and bear less allegiance to this country than do the native born. This is an assumption that is impossible for us to make. Moreover, while the Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause, it does forbid discrimination that is “so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.” Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497. A native-born citizen is free to reside abroad indefinitely without suffering loss of citizenship. The discrimination aimed at naturalized citizens drastically limits their rights to live and work abroad in a way that other citizens may. It creates indeed a second-class citizenship. Living abroad, whether the citizen be naturalized or native born, is no badge of lack of allegiance, and in no way evidences a voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance. It may indeed be compelled by family, business, or other legitimate reasons.”
There has never been a US Supreme Court case dealing with a person born abroad, who is born a US citizen, but who is running for President.
Worst case, if Ted Cruz was elected President and the US Supreme Court decided he was not qualified, his Vice President would take over. However, anyone who reads law cases involving elections knows courts are extremely reluctant to overturn elections. To do so, when the weight of evidence strongly indicates Ted Cruz does qualify would, IMHO, be just cause for armed rebellion. The courts will not risk that.
Cruz supporters can get mad all they want, but the fact remains, this has never been resolved. If it’s not resolved, this will be a sticking point and a distraction if Cruz gets the nomination.
You seem to be one of those whose mind is made up, a doggedly fixated supporter of Ted Cruz, and that’s that. Have a nice day. Truly.
Why is someone a moron who posts something that you don’t like?
Just don’t read it.
.
My mind IS made up on Cruz’s eligibility. That is true of just about everyone who STUDIES the issue, including liberal democrats.
“Troll”
You have a way with words.
Read your about page, you are special.
Marcella
Thank you for the link. I hope everyone understands the difference between black letter law and dicta. I am not taking sides on this debate...wish I had the time to study it. The discussion proves one thing for me. It will be very interesting trying to throw people out of the country. Look at the proof required to show one man’s citizenship. The US has its work cut out!
FYI, here is the Canadian Citizen Act of 1947. The requirements for naturalization are on page 71.
http://www.pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/canadian-citizenship-act-1947
She would have needed to live continuously in Canada for one year before making an application to be a citizen and for four of the previous six years before the date of the application.
So if she moved there in 1967 then she could not have obtained Canadian citizenship before his birth in 1970.
Thanks for those specifics. Good job!
FWIW, here is an article that discusses the SCOTUS cases and why they do not provide us with a definition of NBC.
“Founder historian, David Ramsay, who in his A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) told us that after July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship was preserved only for a child born to U.S. citizens, NOTE: Citizens which means BOTH parents are citizens.”
Sorry, but Dr. Ramsay’s theories on how birthright citizenship was acquired were specifically rejected by James Madison and the House of Representatives in 1789.
Under the SCOTUS decision in Perkins v. Elg a minor child cannot give up their US citizenship nor can the parents give it up for them.
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.