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:
Any person regardless of nationality can be compelled by the nation state in which they are physically located to serve in that nations armed forces. This is because that person is within their dominion. While uncommon, unwise and rarely done, it has been done by nation states. This is because the nation state can force the individual to serve or suffer punishment.
If Mr Cruz were to be “compelled” by Canada and is not within their dominion, he can renounce his citizenship and then Canada would no longer be able to force his service as they would not be able to enforce their laws.
Again, US law governs US citizenship. Looking at any other nations laws is speculation of a hypothetical.
It is still US law, not Canadian law that determines US citizenship.
The difference between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen is that the first can be so by naturalization statute while the latter requires no statute.
I don’t know of a single legal scholar who has advocated for a different point of view from the one expressed in the majority opinion in 1884’s Elk v. Wilkens: “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”
SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all cases under the Constitution. Whether you or I like their ruling or not is beside the point. You can gripe about it or work to change it, but it’s the law. Absent a ruling, there are just conflicting claims.
Interesting that in Ark Gray rejected Elk when he himself wrote the majority opinion in Elk.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada.
In other words, one is defined by law and the other is not. "I know it when I see it" isn't much of a legal standard.
If Canada possesses legitimate legal jurisdiction over Ted Cruz, then there’s no way he’s eligible. That’s a big “if.”
Why anyone believes that this country would have ever given another country jurisdiction over our affairs via legal power over the President and Commander-in-Chief of the entire US military is beyond me. It would have been a nightmare and still would be.
The People would be at the mercy of an unelected third party with access to the military, veto power, Executive Order... it’s just wrong on so many levels. And dangerous. Such an individual would be disinterested at best in the good of the nation.
Come to think of it, isn’t this exactly what we’re seeing and experiencing right now?
SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" in a binding ruling to anyone, ever. They have discussed the term a few times in the dicta of cases that did not turn on natural born citizenship.
“I know it when I see it” isn’t much of a legal standard.
Please clarify.
What do you have, that indicates an ability of Congress to make any legal determination as to the meaning of the term?
If you reside in Canada, thereby subjecting yourself to Canadian laws, you can if Canadian law says so. Look into the history of the Vietnam-era draft, when non-US citizens could be and were drafted. Even today, immigrants are required to register for the draft. See Registration Information from the Selective Service System itself.
You make two assumptions: First, that non-citizens cannot be drafted as a general rule, which is false. Second, that Canadian law should determine US citizenship status, which is absurd.
Yes.
But they are collectively naturalized.
They were collectively naturalized in 1917. No one born in Puerto Rico after that day has been or has needed to be. Black people and American Indians were also collectively naturalized at different points in American history. Are all members of those groups not natural born citizens?
So citizen at birth does NOT equal natural born Citizen. This some made up definition.
Yes. You made up a definition.
And US law should determine Canadian citizenship status? Cruz was born in Canada, not the US.
His father was Cuban, his mother a US citizen. Canada, Cuba, and the US could all make claim.
The top of the thread shows the law declaring Cruz a natural born citizen of Canada. The US could claim Cruz is in a class collectively naturalized. I haven’t investigated the laws of Cuba.
What is clear is that Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the US. Without statute he wouldn’t be a citizen at all.
It doesn’t determine citizenship status, a naturalized citizen has the same rights and obligations as a native born citizen, who has the same rights and obligations as a natural born citizen. Statutes governing US citizenship make no such distinction among citizens. The Constitution, however, does.
There are numerous restrictions placed upon those who would be eligible for various national offices, which are increasingly restrictive as the level of authority increases. Do you argue about age restrictions not determining citizenship? Do you argue about length of residency requirements not determining citizenship? No, you don’t because these Constitutional eligibility restrictions do not restrict citizenship, they place preconditions upon individuals who would be eligible to various offices.
The natural born citizenship requirement is the same.
Let me see if I have this straight. Your argument is that, because the Constitution does not define the term, it would be unconstitutional for it to be defined? By anyone? Ever?
What do you have, that indicates an ability of Congress to make any legal determination as to the meaning of the term?
Its existence as a legislative body. The Constitution is filled with terms intentionally left vague, because the Framers knew lawmakers would, you know, make laws.
No.
His father was Cuban, his mother a US citizen. Canada, Cuba, and the US could all make claim.
No claim other than the US's is relevant.
What is clear is that Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the US. Without statute he wouldn’t be a citizen at all.
The statute defines who is a US citizen at birth. To claim that he would not be a citizen without that statute -- and that there is some class of "naturals" who would be -- is to assume a definition that is not in the law or the Constitution. You can invoke natural law, and so can anyone, on anything; Nature hasn't handed down any statutes.
John Mc Cain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. He was eligible but he didn’t win enough Electoral votes.
The US Code Title 8, Section 1401:
The following shall be Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth:
(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...
American Indian sovereignty accounts for the difference.
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.