Posted on 05/21/2013 9:52:10 AM PDT by Ray76
Ted Cruz was born "Rafael Edward Cruz" December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
His mother is US citizen Eleanor Darragh.
His father is Cuban citizen Rafael B. Cruz. (naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2005)
Eleanor Darragh and Rafael B. Cruz were residents of Canada for at least four years from 1970, possibly earlier, until 1974. They conducted business there as Rafael B. Cruz and Associates, Ltd.
Where they "permanent residents"?
Is Ted Cruz a "natural born citizen" of Canada?
Revised Statutes of Canada 1970:
You don't know what the words "Jus Soli" mean, do you? And here you are expressing an opinion anyway.
“As far as Article II eligibility requirements for holding the office of President, requiring that a candidate be born in the country to citizen parents”
It says no such thing. It simply says a president must be natural born. It did not define the term. Legislation establishes how citizenship is gained, in effect defining the terms the constitution used.
There are two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized. A person doesn’t have to be born in the US to be natural born, but the child has to be born of a US citizen and the parents have to obtain a Consular Report of Birth Abroad in order to convey US citizenship. Without that, there is no record of foreign birth of a US citizen.
I understand the mistake I made, but I stand by my overall analysis.
No, i understand perfectly. I only don’t know who you are working on behalf of. The GOPe im sure has a strong desire to see Jeb Bush advance. And they supported Cruz’s opponent Dewhurst.
So my guess is that you will settle for Cruz being in the senate, while you push for someone else.
And that explains this thread.
That is a false analogy. Israel and Ireland have an extended invitation to grant citizenship to anyone of that nation's bloodline, but that is a very different thing from compelling you to serve that nation.
In the various wars fought between the French and the British, men have been EXECUTED for Treason because they were captured by a side that claimed their allegiance.
Italy also has a long standing policy of granting citizenship to the children of Italian descent. During World War II Italy and the United States were on opposite sides. Had someone been born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother (Aldo Mario Bellei comes to mind) he would have been COMPELLED to fight in the Italian army against the United States.
Had he claimed to be an American, and was therefore exempt, they would have thrown him in the army or they would have thrown him in prison.
There are real world consequences to getting moral and principled clarity on this issue. The Notion that someone who could have been compelled to fight in a Foreign Army against us is qualified to be our President is nonsensical and ridiculous.
The Current Administration ought to make it obvious why it is a disaster to allow a non natural citizen to get control of our country. He has no loyalty to us, nor our principles, and he shows us this every day.
It may surprise you to learn that there are some people more interested in stating the truth than they are in developing a strategy of political expediency.
Absolutely right. He could very well be a citizen of Canada by birth, but US law doesn’t consider that. He is a US citizen born abroad of one US citizen parent and one alien parent, both married, and the US citizen parent having lived in the US at least five years after age 14.
End of story. The debate will begin anew over the phrase “native born.” However, he still qualifies.
Boy that’s a real stretch! The only place that the Constitution mentions NBC is in Article II. NBC is a quality of Born citizenship. Besides born citizenship the only way to be a citizen is through Naturalization.
Because all Natural Born Citizens are born citizens does not mean the reverse is true, In fact it isn’t. Not all Born Citizens are NBCs. That quality is lacking in many born citizen circumstances.
That provides great comfort.
And of course, you cut out all the parts that don't fit with this narrative.
It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind, have obtained in some of the states; if such a law existed in South-Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us;
And:
Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
Madison said that it was a "General Principle" that if you are born somewhere, you are a citizen thereof, and this is true. Many states having made no statutory law on the subject, continued relying on English Common Law to define their citizenship.
This is not the same thing as Federal Citizenship, and Madison said so in his letter to the Alexandria Herald in 1811 in the case of James McClure.
All citizens who only became citizens through an act of congress are "naturalized" citizens. Ted Cruz owes his claim to American citizenship to the "Citizenship act of 1934." Without that law, or one like it, Ted Cruz would have no claim on American citizenship.
He is only a "citizen at birth" because congress SPECIFIED that his citizenship would commence at birth. Again, congress can specify any criteria they want, but it's not "natural" citizenship when they produce such a citizen.
It's "naturalization".
The answer is "maybe." Obviously had Ted Cruz chosen to live in Canada as a Canadian citizen, and had he been compelled into their Army and fought against us, it would certainly be difficult to argue that he's eligible to lead our country.
Treason sort of affects American Citizenship doesn't it?
And you are a fool, and so is anyone that believes such utter nonsense. Yeah, no foreign allegiance problems with this scenario!
No. Because US LAW says that anyone who joins the military forces of another nation loses their citizenship. US law governs US citizenship.
401(c) of the Nationality Act 1940, which reads:
“ A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by:
(c) Entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state unless expressly authorized by the laws of the United States, if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state...
That’s nice to know.
Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment there are still only two types of US citizens: at Birth and Naturalized. The law of the land as codified in the US Code says that Ted Cruz is a Citizen of the United States At Birth.
And no, the 14th Amendment didn’t overrule Article 2, Section 1, it further defined it.
“The Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be ‘natural-born citizens.’ Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”—Minor v. Happersett (1875).
Nonsense. He was naturalized at birth by the Citizenship act of 1934. (and subsequent variations thereof)
Congress SET the act to apply at birth. Of COURSE it applies at birth. Congress has no power beyond naturalization.
Here, read the D@mned thing! It even SAYS it's an act of "naturalization."
Ted Cruz is a "naturalized" citizen, who was "naturalized at birth", by an act of congress.
NBC is a quality of born citizenship. NBC had a well known and accepted definition in the western world of the 1700s, 1800s and 1900’s. It is only in the early 2000’s, in an attempt to qualify an ineligible candidate by muddying the waters, has the definition of the term come to question in popular circles with mounds of misinformation abounding.
Ask yourself the question of why Nancy Pelosi felt it necessary to delete the Phrase “....meets the Constitutional requirements...” to “...is the Democrat Party candidate for..” in certifying Obama in the 2008 election to the SOSs of all 50 states??? It’s the 59 million dollar answer to the question....
The Founders did not coin the term as it has existed since Roman times with varying definitions, nor did they feel the need to define a term already understood and defined in 1700s texts. Congress has nothing to do with it at all, unless it is to amend the Constitution and change the requirements of Article II.
NBC... the definition of is, is.....
A law which declares him to be a "naturalized" citizen. Here you are again, spreading crap, and contradicting people who actually know what they are talking about.
Do you think you are serving the interests of your Country by intentionally interfering with efforts to create an accurate understanding of this issue?
Some People are Ignorantly, and others are Deliberately, confusing the difference between "naturalization at birth" and "natural citizen" at birth. You are behaving like the later.
And here the truth comes out. You are no better than a Democrat in putting your own political best interests above that of truth and accuracy. We know THEY don't care what is the law.
I like Ted Cruz, and as near as I can tell, he's the only one in the party who is worth a sh*t, but a "natural citizen" he ain't. Do we believe in the rule of law, or do we believe in whatever benefits us is acceptable?
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.