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.

[Kenny Bunk]

When they succeeded in diverting attention away from the place of Obama's birth to the citizenship of his father, they had defused the entire issue by turning it into a technical argument that is both irrelevant and unwinnable. And that, probably, was the plan.

Or, as is quite possible, the opposite is true. And confusion was obviously the game plan. IOW, if Team Obama isn't already paying Dr. Taitz, they damn well ought to be.

[0.E.O]

Because by including those who DO need naturalized, those who DON'T are excluded by default.

Oh really? I don't think that's correct. Congress has played around with determining those who don't quite a bit, from the very beginning in fact. In 1790 Naturalization Act said that a person born oveseas of a citizen father was a citizen, provided the father had at one time resided in the U.S. A couple of years later they changed it. Later still they extended it to mothers who were U.S. citizens. And in and around all that, Congress played with the length of time the citizen parent had to have lived in the U.S. prior to the brith and also when that period had to have occurred. But with all those changes the one common thread was that those Congress did not identify as natural born citizens had to be naturalized. And that ability has never been struck down by the courts.

Yet the power is to make a uniform Rule for people TO be naturalized, not to 'identify those who don't.'

Again, how do you identify one without first identifying the other?

[4Zoltan]

“He’s talking about expatriation there, something that English Common Law did not allow, at all, for anybody.”

There was considerable discussion about whether or not expatriation was allowed in the United States. In fact, there were several cases which discussed the question.

In Talbot v. Jansen, Justice Iredell wrote,

“This involves the great question as to the right of expatriation, upon which so much has been said in this cause. Perhaps it is not necessary it should be explicitly decided on this occasion, but I shall freely express my sentiments on the subject.”

“That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another, are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognize.”

“The only difference of opinion is as to the proper manner of executing this right.”

“Some hold that it is a natural unalienable right in each individual; that it is a right upon which no act of legislation can lawfully be exercised, inasmuch as a legislature might impose dangerous restraints upon it; and of course it must be left to every man’s will and pleasure to go off when and in what manner he pleases.”

“This opinion is deserving of more deference because it appears to have the sanction of the Constitution of this state, if not of some other states in the Union.”

“I must, however, presume to differ from it, for the following reasons:”

He then cites 5 reasons that “expatriation” is not a natural right but one that must be defined by the legislature.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/133/case.html

In the Case of Isaac Williams, Chief Justice Ellsworth (a Framer) wrote,

“The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution. The present question is to be decided by two great principles; one is, that all the members of a civil community are bound to each other by compact; the other is, that one of the parties to this compact cannot dissolve it by his own act. The compact between our community and it’s members is, that the community shall protect it’s members, and on the part of the members, that they will at all times be obedient to the laws of the community, and faithful in it’s defence.”

In the case of the United States v. Gillies (1815) Justice Washington wrote,

“I do not mean to moot the question of expatriation, founded on the self will of a citizen, because it is entirely beside the case before the court. It may suffice for the present to say, that I must be more enlightened upon this subject than I have yet been, before I can admit, that a citizen of the United States can throw off his allegiance to his country, without some law authorising him to do so.

It wasn’t until 1868 that the right of expatriation became law in the United States.

BTW, if you reread Justice Iredell’s statement in Talbot v. Jansen, he appears to be saying that citizenship is based on place of birth.

“That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere,”

[Hostage]

> ““Rule of naturalization” means Congress decides who is and who is not a natural born citizen.”

I think you have confused natural born citizen with naturalized citizen. And then there is a different definition for citizen by birth.

I never said English Common Law lays precedent to the US Constitution. The only influence I have seen where English Common Law comes into play are in definitions to resolve meaning and usage that were used by the Founders.

The phrase ‘natural born’ refers to a birth from two parents having no allegiance to any other nation or jurisdiction, meaning two citizen parents.

Whether a child was born on US Soil, I have always seen the condition that a child be born on US Soil or in its possessions. A US embassy is a US possession. A US base established outside US jurisdiction is a possession.

I appreciate your comments.

[taxcontrol]

Your “requirement” that a child be born on US Soil is incorrect. While being born on US soil does grant US citizenship, it is not a requirement.

I am very aware of the difference between Natural Born (citizen by birth) and Naturalization (process of granting citizenship). There is only ONE time Congress has used the term “natural born citizen”. It is in the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1st Congress 2nd Session).

In specific, it says”

“... 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:...”

That law was signed by none other than George Washington and shows that the founding fathers did not require a US Citizen be born on US soil, US possession or US Jurisdiction. A child born from a US Citizen (regardless of where) at the time of there birth confers citizenship at birth if the parent(s) meet the requirements established by the laws of the US at the time of that birth.

Therefore, your assertion that the founding fathers used English Common Laws is demonstratively incorrect.

[Hostage]

Once again I never said a child was required to be born on US soil.

Anyone that can read can see for themselves that what I wrote is that the requirement applied to US Soil and to its possessions and this is how it is written into policy today.

So I am not sure why you are arguing unless you are confusing me with someone else.

[Jim Scott]

From what I know of him, it wouldn't surprise me if it's not a maneuver to turn the tables on the libs. They really, REALLY don't want him in the Oval Office, but if they squawk 'ineligible', they'll be hoisted on their own petard.

Very astute observation. I hope it proves true.

[Jim Scott]

Our own political expediency is not the basis upon which we should uphold our laws. It is unfortunate that these circumstances exist, because Ted Cruz might very well be a very good choice for President.

At this point, if he can secure the nomination, I would vote for him, though I am certain his candidacy violates both the spirit and the letter of the law.

Frankly, despite all the arguments on this thread, I'm not sure - and stated that in my original post. However, I, too, would vote for Ted Cruz should his eligibility (NBC) pass constitutional muster. If not, we're likely to get Hillary Clinton, who will finish what Obama started - the economic gutting of the U.S. economy and destruction of the American middle class. Well - and I mean this seriously, not as sarcasm - at least we won't be guilty of political expediency and will have honored the constitution. There is that consolation - and, in my view - it should not be considered insignificant to conservatives.

[Jim Scott]

I’m sorry you find following the Constitution strident.

I'm sorry that you deliberately misread what I actually posted. I stated that the arguments against Cruz's constitutional eligibility to be president were sometimes strident. The 500+ preceding posts verify that observation.

Too bad Cruz couldn’t have stated the fact the he is INELIGIBLE. Instead, he wants to ignore the USURPER in the White House and lend him legitimacy.

He’s a politician looking out for himself not the Constitution. You know, the job’s he’s paid to do.

Cruz is an enabler of THE ONE.

That is an inane comment. It clearly infers that Ted Cruz, one of the most genuinely conservative members of the senate, is some kind of leftist plant. Absolute rubbish.

Debating the eligibility of Cruz to meet the constitutional requirement for serving as president is fair game but bashing an authentic conservative politician who serves his constituency well is typical of leftist trolls masquerading as über conservatives and bedrock constitutionalists on politically conservative website message boards. There really is such a thing as overplaying one's hand.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

The Naturalization Act Of 1790 was repealed in 1795. Did you know this?

[taxcontrol]

And the 1795 Act was superseded by the 1798 Act. etc etc

Which all goes to my point that Congress is enumerated by Article 1 Section 8 to set the rules of Naturalization.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

The bottom like is 8 USC 1401 only makes Cruz a U.S. statutory Citizen. He is not a Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen eligible for the presidency. Nowhere in 8 USC 1401 will you find the specific term ‘natural born Citizen’.

[taxcontrol]

Sorry sir, you are incorrect. The starting sentance of Section 1401 is: “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:” A person who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen as there is no need to be naturalized.

Subsection G then lists one of the criteria by which a person can qualify to be a US citizen at birth. It reads:

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

Mr. Cruz’s mother meets the requirements of section G and thus qualifies as a citizen who can impart citizenship to her children. Thus Mr. Cruz was a citizen at his birth and does not require naturalization. Thus he is a natural born citizen.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

“A person who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen”

That is a lie. Show me the exact term in 8 USC 1401 or anywhere in the 14th Amendment where the term ‘natural born Citizen is used. Just copy and paste it in your answer.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Here is what a ‘natural born Citizen’ is defined by the father of the 14th Amendment, Rep John Bingham, before Congress.

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Rafael Cruz owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty named Cuba. That negates Ted Cruz from being a true natural born Citizen born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well those are some good questions but you know he’ll just post a WALL OF TEXT and then twist it to whatever he want’s it to be.

Baffle them with bulls####. Overwhelm them with nonsensical arguments and KNOW that enough of the SHALLOW non-thinkers will fall for it.

Jeff subscribes to the Goebbels school of propaganda. REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT!

He lies big, he lies long, and he lies often. He claims that everything from the Bible to the Theory of Relativity proves he's right, and he doesn't care that this makes him look like a psychotic.

[taxcontrol]

The one and only time Congress used the exact words “Natural Born Citizen” is in the very FIRST Naturalization Act of 1790 during the second session of the 1st Congress. The specific wording is, in part:

“...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....”

The first naturalization acts have been replaced by others and others subsequent to them, so that now the governing law is encoded in Title 8 Section 1401. Further, this clearly shows that the founding fathers established that children born to US Citizens are considered natural born Citizens. In addition, it shows that there is not physical birth requirement on US soil, possession or jurisdiction to qualify as a natural born citizen.

Further title 8 section 1401 reads as it’s starting sentance - The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

Thus the status of citizenship is obtained at birth. A person who has citizenship at birth has no needs to be naturalized. There are only two categories of citizenship - naturalized or natural born. There is no “statutory” citizenship or any other type, class, or qualification of citizenship. Since there are only two types of citizenship, a person who is a citizen at birth has no need for, and can not further benefit from naturalization.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why the heck would I want to read your profile page? Did you say something intelligent?

How would YOU be able to tell if he did?

[DiogenesLamp]

So they passed a law to make it absolutely clear that black Americans were US citizens, and had rights too.

If the law isn't working, what we need is ANOTHER LAW! I would ask if you are serious, but I know better. Deluded people ARE serious even when they talk crazy.

How about "they weren't citizens until they were MADE citizens?" Is that too complicated for you? They created a law to MAKE them citizens because existing law did not do so.

Again, something we've been over many, many times. Because Indians in tribes were not in American society. They were members of separate nations with their own governments, and our laws did not apply to them except to the extent that they interacted with our society.

And this explanation cracks me up every time you propose it! The INDIANS were separate NATIONS you say, but you have asserted all along that the father's NATIONALITY has no BEARING on citizenship?

How do you speak with such a forked tongue? (Or forked understanding. Either way, you're "forked!")

(Jeff's forked tongue depicted below.)

Yup, according to you "nationality doesn't matter" except with Indians, of course. Then it matters.

Since it took much more time, expense and danger to travel internationally than it does now, anchor babies were not contemplated in the historical context that gave rise to the phrase "natural born citizen."

Yes, the Children of British Loyalists born here were obviously beyond the comprehension of our founders. How could they have contemplated such a rare event which only occurred @ 100,000 times during the founding era? And of course, they simply couldn't understand the subtle nuance of the WAR OF 1812. Poor stupid founders.

I think there's a legitimate argument to be made for excluding them from citizenship.

More Jeff Fork Tongue here.

You can't have it both ways Jeff. If you claim soil as the basis of your citizenship, you have to eat the anchor baby soup you ordered.

Obviously Bingham wasn't as smart as you. Poor dumb Bingham who wasn't smart enough to think of "anchor babies" when he wrote:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.

The vast majority of our early legal authorities all go one way when it comes to the meaning of natural born citizenship.

Yes, they go AGAINST YOU! You have to go to secondary and worse "authorities" to come up with your stuff. People like Rawle, that French Valet, the Spanish Janitor, and those English Lawyers.

What have you got from Delegates or members of ratifying legislatures? Nothing! You got exactly NOTHING! That's why you don't want to talk about them.

Why do you adamantly ignore or brush off all of our best early legal experts, to instead push the claims of folks like David Ramsay (who was directly contradicted 36 to 1 by James Madison, other Framers, and our first House) and Samuel Roberts (who cited no authority and had very little of his own)?

And here is where Jeff the LIAR comes out.

You mischaracterize the Vote to seat Williams as something it is not, and you deliberately lie about the fact that the Book Roberts compiled is the work of the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, not just Roberts. You ignore the fact that it was used for at least FOUR DECADES by all state legal authorities in Pennsylvania, and that it is based on principles espoused in Pennsylvania's first constitution by Franklin, Wilson, and other Delegates.

Look through the book. You will see where the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania cites English laws by Monarch and number. The cited laws are those which remained in Effect in Pennsylvania.

Guess which English law cite they left out of their report? Yup. That one you are always going on about. The one that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on English Soil.

Stupid Judges. They just don't go along with your narrative, do they?

[DiogenesLamp]

So let's consider: a percentage of the birthers on FR actually are DNC plants meant to make birthers look like idiots. If so, they are doing a fine job of it.

Coming from you, that's hardly a matter for concern. Monkeys screech and point, but who cares what intellectual monkeys think?