Canadian-born Ted Cruz says “facts are clear” he’s eligible to be president

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ^ | 07/21/2013

[Ira_Louvin]

Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.

President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.

[1rudeboy]

I’d typed exactly what I’d meant to.

[Smokeyblue]

You don’t get to decide what is fair or not.

The NBC is not fair BY DESIGN.

See the article in my post #235. People used to have their BIG BOY AND GIRL PANTIES on and knew that they weren’t eligible.

Now it’s not FAAAAAIIIIIIRRRRRR. Whiners.

[El Gato]

He was naturalized at birth

Exactly. Congress only has power over Naturalization, granted in Article I, section 8

The Congress shall have Power

...

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ...

They were granted the power of changing the definition of Natural born. So, if one is a citizen solely because of a law passed by Congress, then one must be considered naturalized, either at birth by statute, or the more usual way of applying for citizenship, taking the oath, and having a certificate of naturalization, like my sister in law and step niece.

My step niece came here when she was not much over 6 years old.. but she came legally, and eventually got a green card and finally was naturalized, early this year. When I met her, she had the cutest little girl Russian accent, but it was gone in a year.

That's in part why BO and now some Re-pube-licans proposal to grant both amnesty and a path to citizenship to people brought here illegally as children rubs me the wrong way, Amnesty for them, OK, they didn't commit a crime, their parents did. Permanent resident status, yea I'd go for that too, for that restricted class of people. But no citizenship, except by service in the Armed Forces of the US.

[Jeff Winston]

We are no doubt about to be spammed with a lengthy pre-written ramble of twisted data meant to confuse average readers. This being Freerepublic. most of us will be laughing while trying to decide if his foolishness is worth posting rebuttal for.

Obviously, you're referring to my compilation of what our Founding Fathers actually said.

It's generally considered common courtesy to ping someone to a post in which you're talking about them.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to point out ONE "twisted" statement in the entire compilation.

Just one. That's all I'm asking, really.

[MamaTexan]

So then if a mother is a citizen then how is it that a child born to that mother NOT a citizen based on "inheritence by blood"?

It IS inheritance by blood...but it takes more than a mother to make a child, so the wholesale discounting of not only the citizenship of the father, but his very existence is patently ridiculous.

[MamaTexan]

I’d typed exactly what I’d meant to.

In other words, you haven't a clue as to which clauses were pertinent to your contention.

[El Gato]

When did Cruz become naturalized? When did he apply? When was the ceremony?

That's only one form of naturalization. If you are a citizen solely because of a law passed by Congress, then you are naturalized.

Where is Congress given the power to define "natural born"? They weren't they were only given the power to define uniform rules for naturalization.

[Jeff Winston]

Well, well, well, if it isn’t our Fogbow and Dr. Conspiracy disciple who has arrived to obfuscate historical facts about the true meaning of a natural born citizen, born to two U.S. Citizen parents to guarantee full allegiance to the United States of America. Well Jeff, no Cruz did not say that to mean he was eligible.

Jeff also states: “Throughout our entire national history, “natural born citizen” has basically meant “citizen by birth”.

That is a bold face lie fogbower. If true, then what was the purpose of putting both ‘Natural Born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ in the presidential clause?

We've gone over this many, many times. The purpose of including "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" was to allow foreign-born patriots like Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, who had equally risked their fortunes and their lives to help us found our nation, to be eligible to be President.

Nothing more.

And this is agreed on by every real historian in the country.

So go on and indulge in a few more personal attacks, because you have no evidence to support that anything I've ever posted has been in any way misrepresented, and there's nothing you have to say to argue against the actual facts.

Ah, but the truth. We simply can't accept that.

By the way, you've accused me of "a bold face lie."

So prove it, jerk. Prove from the historical documentation that anything I've posted is untrue.

And if you can't, then you might do well to STFU.

[1rudeboy]

Much like you are unaware that there are separate branches of government?

[Diggity]

“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.

Sounds like something Obama would say.

[El Gato]

These are the scab pickers who robbed us of a WH victory.

Give me a break, McCain and "his people" robbed us of a WH victory. The power of incumbency denied Romney a victory.. with a little help from the IRS, etc.

[Jeff Winston]

Whether it be this citizenship issue or something else, we WILL demolish Ted Cruz as a Presidential candidate, just like we did Sarah Palin. The Democrats won’t need to destroy him, we will do it ourselves, as the Dems laugh at our stupidity. And then hello Jeb Bush, then hello President Hillary Clinton. I do believe we have become too stupid to survive. We deserve both Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz saying to hell with us all, we don’t deserve their leadership. And they would be right.

You have posted what I think is the saddest and truest commentary I have read on FreeRepublic in a long time.

[tbw2]

He’s certainly more qualified than Obama ever was.

[El Gato]

A birth certificate is verification of a live birth in a particular place at a particular time. It is not proof of citizenship.

It also serves as proof of parentage, but not of parental citizenship, although that can be determined by parents place of birth, if they were born in the US. Place and parentage determine citizenship, by statue or Nature.

[MamaTexan]

Much like you are unaware that there are separate branches of government?

I've already acknowledged that there are, but the fact has nothing to do with the question-

Where...EXACTLY.... is the Constitutional authority to define natural-born citizen?

[El Gato]

How is somebody who is naturalized at birth not a "natural born citizen"? Definition: Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth:

Under the Constitution Congress only has power over naturalization. So if a person is a citizen at birth because of a statute passed by Congress, she/he must be considered naturalized at birth. BTW, here's another, legal, definition:

The process under federal law whereby a foreign-born person may be granted citizenship.

Here's another, from 1856.

NATURALIZED CITIZEN. One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.
2. He has all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that of being eligible as president or vice-president of the United States. In foreign countries he has a right to be treated as such, and will be so considered even in the country of his birth, at least for most purposes. 1 Bos. & P. 430.

[Jeff Winston]

Congress does not have Constitutional authority to write legislation effecting the citizenship of a U.S. Citizen.

I think what you meant to say was that Congress does not have Constitutional authority to write legislation affecting the NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP status of a US citizen.

That is only partly true.

By the common law rule of citizenship that was in effect at the time the Constitution was adopted, Congress does not have authority to declare that persons born on US soil to either citizen parents, or to non-citizen resident parents are not natural born citizens, unless the child's non-citizen resident parents meet one of the very few limited historical exceptions.

In other words, if you were born on US soil, and your parents lived here, unless your parents were foreign royalty, foreign diplomats, or members of an invading foreign army, you are a natural born US citizen, and Congress has no power to declare otherwise.

Congress DOES have the Constitutional authority to state some conditions, however, under which you might LOSE your natural born citizenship.

In other words, Congress has the power to say that if you go and become a Cabinet member of the government of North Korea, you are no longer a US citizen (natural born or otherwise).

Congress ALSO has the Constitutional authority to determine the conditions by which a person born abroad is to be considered a citizen at or by birth, and therefore a "natural born citizen."

That Congress DOES have this power is clear first from the legal precedent in the common law. Parliament had previously possessed, and did possess at the time the Constitution was adopted, the similar power to declare which children born to English subjects abroad were also to be counted as natural born subjects.

That Congress has this Constitutional power is ALSO clear from the action of the First Congress, which (with President Washington) included 40% of the Signers of the Constitution.

They promptly passed a law declaring that the children born overseas to US citizen parents were also to be considered as "NATURAL BORN CITIZENS" (and therefore, eligible to be President).

If Congress had not possessed this power, in the judgment of 40% of the men who signed the Constitution, they would not have passed such a law.

[FreeReign]

So then if a mother is a citizen then how is it that a child born to that mother (is) NOT a citizen based on "inheritence by blood"?

It IS inheritance by blood...but it takes more than a mother to make a child, so the wholesale discounting of not only the citizenship of the father, but his very existence is patently ridiculous.

Well of course it takes more than a mother to make a child. That's not the point. Using your phrasing, a child should "inherit by blood" their citizenship from their mother.

I would think that Common Law and Natural law would certainly recognize the close bond between mother and child.

Being "patently ridiculous" is to deny such a natural and commonly understood link.

[Jeff Winston]

Thank you for that detailed explanation of laws concerning NBC.

You are very welcome. It's the product of about 2 years of reading everything available on the subject, including all the major court cases and all the arguments on both sides, and sorting those out.

It would be really nice to have the matter addressed by the Supreme Court. As the foreign born population increases in the US, I expect this question to come up more frequently.

It would be. I would love to have the US Supreme Court stand up and say, "This is the definition of natural born citizen for Presidential purposes," including all the issues of people like Ted Cruz.

However, it's not going to happen, at least not until and unless someone like Cruz runs for President, is sued, and the case reaches the Supreme Court.

And part of me is not sure it would matter if they did issue such a proclamation. Every major legal scholar including every known conservative legal foundation, is agreed that you don't have to have citizen parents in order to be eligible for President, as long as your parents lived here in the US and you were born here.

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, for example - a Reagan appointee - said that Obama, born in Hawaii, was "clearly" a natural born citizen because of that fact alone. Like Obama or hate him, that's the Constitution. That's the law.

Early legal scholar William Rawle was equally clear.

That still hasn't stopped an unfortunate number of people from adamantly claiming otherwise. Nor has it stopped them from extending their hatred of Obama (which I have no problem with as I frankly hate him too!) to folks like Ted Cruz.

[gusty]

The other two were Washington and Madison. The French Assembly declared them French citizens as they like Jefferson were idolized by the French revolutionaries. Adams was not, he was considered pro-British by the French, thus hostile to their revolution. You could add James Monroe, as he was a firm supporter of the French Revolution, and I believe, thou could be wrong without looking through references, participated in debates in the French Assembly. Granted membership in that body was a very loose concept. Anybody of consequance could walk into the chamber and debate. However Monroe was not as well known as the other three during the 1789-92 time period when the Assembly granted citizenship to all their heroes world wide.