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:
Great, remind me to 1)not join the military because the government will not recognize my children, born on station, as US citizens much less NBC. 2) Ditto Diplomatic Corps (besides they won’t even defend me from attack!)
In short, as the retired Calvary officer and Ranching father said in “Legends of the Fall”....
“Screw the Government”
The logical fallacies that you employ to support your position are glaring.
The Roberts Court did not rule on Roe v. Wade. An equivalent ruling would be the Roberts Court’s upholding of the ban on partial birth abortion. Were they right then?
I’m betting that it is possible to name far more majority decisions of the Roberts Court that you agree with and consider “right” decisions than the few that you consider “wrong” decisions.
There is no such thing as 100% correct in any branch of government, never has been, never will be. Humans are fallible.
Good news!
I just found conflicting information that may make your original post correct and mine wrong or at least open to question.
From the US Code, Title 8, Section 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
That looks to me like if military parents stationed overseas have ever had a US residence, their offspring are Citizens of the United States at birth.
We've been over this several times already, so don't pretend you haven't heard it before.
Obviously the Framers of the Constitution believed that, in accordance with past practice in the common law, the legislature had the power to specify exactly who, born outside of the country, was to be considered a natural born citizen (and thus eligible to the Presidency).
Because the First Congress and First President, which included 40% of the Signers of the Constitution, did exactly that.
And of course Bayard, and Chief Justice John Marshall ("The Great Chief Justice") agreed that persons in Cruz's situation WERE ELIGIBLE.
All of this means that your desire for Ted Cruz not to be eligible, is hogwash.
I know. Your posted excerpted law, which references the 14th amendment, concerns children of non US citizens born on US facilities outside the US. It does not apply to children born of US citizens....
Still nice info... thanks for the effort and correction!
Firstly, my “desire for Ted Cruz not to be eligible” is a product of your imagination. I do not place political power above rule of law. I think Cruz has an outstanding record of accomplishment and it is unfortunate that there aren’t more who are of like mind and as capable as he. He is not Art. II eligible however.
Secondly, by your own standard: “the legislature had the power to specify exactly who, born outside of the country, was to be considered a natural born citizen” Cruz is not eligible. There is no current statute specifying who, born outside the country, is to be considered a natural born citizen. Every statute regarding that class specifies “citizen”.
Bayard said, and Chief Justice Marshall agreed with him, that those who were citizens by birth, INCLUDING AMERICANS BORN OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY, AT THE TIME WHEN CONGRESS HAD ALREADY CHANGED THE STATUTE TO SIMPLY SAY, "CITIZEN," were eligible to be President.
Throughout our history, our law has only considered TWO kinds of citizens: "natural born citizens," and persons who went through some kind of naturalization AFTER THEY WERE BORN NON-CITIZENS.
That's the law.
And we've presented enough evidence here for you to UNDERSTAND that that's the law.
There's no rational reason for you to deny it, except that you don't want Ted Cruz and people like him to be eligible to be President.
Aside from that, as far as I can tell, every real legal scholar of any stature in the country considers Cruz eligible.
So everyone with any authority in the matter says Ted Cruz is eligible.
If you don't agree, then sorry, but your opinion really doesn't count for anything.
Not too long ago your definition of natural born citizen was:
Pretty much anybody born in the country was considered a "natural born" subject or citizen of the country, because they were BORN INTO that country.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3016232/posts?page=151#151
Now your definition has expanded to include birth in foreign countries.
What country was Ted Cruz born into?
Were Rafael Cruz and Eleanor Darragh under the authority of Canada? or the US?
Was Ted Cruz a jus soli citizen of Canada?
According to the law of the land of his birth, Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen of Canada.
According to the law of the land of his mother, Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen of the US.
What you refer to was never a complete "definition" on my part. It was an analysis of the origin of the term.
And historically, that's how it went.
When the term was coined, it referred only to those born within the country (which at that time was England).
As the centuries went by, the English refined the term and expanded it to include those who were born subjects of the realm by virtue of being born to subject parents abroad.
It started, in fact, with royal progeny born abroad. For some pretty obvious reasons, they were considered "natural born subjects" of the realm as well.
As time went on, the children born abroad of less royal members of the realm were added in as well.
And exactly which of these foreign-born children were considered to be born members of the realm in spite of their foreign birth, was given over to Parliament to decide.
Hence the precedent that OUR parliament - CONGRESS - had the discretion to decided which FOREIGN-BORN children were to be counted as natural born citizens (and thus eligible to the Presidency).
But they kept the term of art, even though they expanded the meaning of the term, because that's the wording that everybody was familiar with.
It all makes quite perfect sense if you look at the historical development of the law.
Because it's not JUST a legal term. It's a HISTORICAL legal term.
Someone didn't sit down one day and say, "Hey. I'm going to make up a new legal term, and set its meaning, and from now on its meaning is going to be set just exactly as I originally dictate it."
Even if they had, the meaning of terms often changes somewhat over centuries.
History makes sense if you consider the HISTORY of it.
History does not make sense if you refuse to consider... HISTORY.
Was Ted Cruz a jus soli citizen of Canada?
Probably. And it doesn't matter in the slightest.
All the evidence is that the Founders and Framers WERE NOT uptight about the idea of some other country extending citizenship to one of our potential Presidential candidates, or about such a candidate having had a non-citizen parent. Just as long as he was a US citizen at birth.
Again, 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens... while serving as President.
And the first Republican ever to run for President, did so proudly as the son of a French non-citizen.
In both cases, nobody cared.
And THAT is the history of the term, and it's the meaning of the term.
Again, Chief Justice John Marshall indicated that he agreed with Bayard's assessment that a "citizen by birth" was all it took to be a "natural born citizen."
Now, you take all of these facts, and everything that all of our most authoritative early legal sources said, and everything the court cases we have say, and put it all together, and guess what?
It's consistent.
Not 100%, of course. When you're dealing with history, there's always going to be someone who says otherwise than the generally agreed-upon understanding of history.
There are people, for example, who say the Holocaust never happened.
There are people who say the moon landings were faked.
There are people who say Jesus never lived.
But about 98% of all of it is consistent.
And no, I really do not think that's an exaggeration. Because I'm not counting fallacious arguments and hot air and BS that is OBVIOUS BS.
I AM counting people who said something like what birthers believe, but who weren't really authorities.
That's about 2% of it.
The rest of it all agrees.
And it all agrees on this: If you've been born a US citizen, then legally, you're a "natural born citizen."
But they kept the term of art, even though they expanded the meaning of the term, because that's the wording that everybody was familiar with.
Applying your standard: Congress has decided which foreign born children are to be counted as natural born citizens - NONE. There is no current statute specifying who, born outside the country, is to be considered a natural born citizen. Every statute regarding that class specifies “citizen”.
You are incorrect. It is not unlawful as the laws of that nation state allow for it. As to your assertion that it violates international law for a nation state to conscript forces during a time of war, please site the section of law which you think would be violated.
Again, my only assertion is that US law governs US citizenship. You should stop projecting on to my statement anything further than that simple statement of fact.
There you go again.
Article II specifies “citizen” at the time of adoption of the constitution, and “natural born citizen” thereafter.
The terms have distinct meanings. Contending that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" do not have distinct meanings creates a redundancy and would be pointless.
“Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen”.
If a "born US citizen" by naturalization statute was (as you contend) Article II eligible as a "natural born citizen" what would be the point of Article II's distinction of "citizen" and "natural born citizen"?
Conflating "born a citizen" with “natural born citizen” is an impermissible construction.
It has long been the custom when referring to the Supreme Court to treat it as if it were a continuous institution from beginning to end, something along the line of the Pope and the Catholic Church. I have long held that this is an inaccurate view, and that the rulings one gets from the court will often depend upon the political makeup of the court. (and not necessarily on law.)
For those of you out there who continuously espouse the notion that "The Court" did this! Or "the Court" did that! I can only say, ridicule towards the idea that there is any consistency or reason to various court decisions is the only appropriate response.
You speak of the Robert's court. Ever hear of the Obamacare tax?
As I have mentioned, our current court structure and system is a leftover of the Monarchical system of governance, and it has serious flaws of methodology, not the least of which is the concept of "precedent" being more consequential than reasoning from "first principles."
That you see logical fallacies being employed by me in my condemnation of the courts is more the result of your failure to understand my argument than that any such fallacies exist.
I’m betting that it is possible to name far more majority decisions of the Roberts Court that you agree with and consider “right” decisions than the few that you consider “wrong” decisions.
It only takes one "wrong" decision to do colossal damage, with consequences far beyond what should be tolerated. Again, ever hear of the "Obamacare tax?" How many billions of Dollars will be destroyed, and how many lives will be lost as a result of that idiocy? The Roberts "Obamacare Tax" decision is unsupportable. Reason will not stretch so far.
There is no such thing as 100% correct in any branch of government, never has been, never will be. Humans are fallible.
I can forgive someone for trying and failing, I cannot forgive someone for not even trying. All those courts you keep citing didn't even try. They simply accepted the pap they've been told all of their careers, and rubber stamped a nonsensical result. And that is only of the courts that even ALLOWED a claim to proceed. Most of the sorry bastards used a disgusting legal dodge to avoid even looking at the issue; The argument that No American would ever have sufficient Injury as the result of an ineligible President to bring suit demanding he prove his eligibility.
Again, the courts deserve nothing but ridicule and contempt, as do those who keep demanding we take these silly bastards seriously.
Would I get something in return for having gone to the trouble of looking this up? I am not of a mind to do it without some sort of benefit other than having been proven correct once more. And again, you are misstating my point. It is a violation of international law to compel someone to fight against their own country during a time of war.
Again, my only assertion is that US law governs US citizenship. You should stop projecting on to my statement anything further than that simple statement of fact.
The "simple" part is indeed correct. It is demonstrably devoid of any deep thinking, very much like the notion that mere birth within our borders makes one a "natural" citizen. We can see the consequences to the nation of believing this nonsense; Several millions of "Anchor Babies" who have no loyalty to this country, a massively booming "Birth Tourism" Industry, and a "Precedent" with more loyalty to any other nation but ours.
You are simply refusing to see that the bad consequences of such an idea are not "simple" at all.
The grandfather clause was put in place NOT for the sake of people like George Washington, but for those of foreign birth who had helped in our Revolution. Men like James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton (who was born in the Caribbean, and who probably would've later become President except for the unfortunate fatal duel with Aaron Burr, Vice-President of the United States.)
So the "citizen" grandfathered in were those of foreign birth. Yet now those of foreign birth are "natural born citizens".
The link for your definition of the grandfather clause.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3016232/posts?page=121#121
I do not perceive any dispute with this point. If you are only a citizen by the function of a Congressional law, you can only be a "naturalized" citizen. If you are a citizen by nature, and not by law, you are a "natural" citizen.
The point remains, subsequent laws cannot make one "natural", they can only make you "like natural." i.e. "Adopted."
As Abraham Lincoln had once told a Judge who had bemusedly asked him why he had successfully argued one side of a legal point that morning, but was arguing the opposite side of that same legal point in the afternoon;
"Your Honor, this morning I believed myself to be correct, but this afternoon, I have realized that my argument is even more correct."
It's all about Politics. Gray was a Republican and a Northerner. (Boston Massachusetts) Most of the people who sided with him were Republicans and Northerners. The Two opposed were one Northern Democrat and one Southern Democrat. This was during the Era when the Republicans were still trying to stomp out Democrat racism, and I suspect the ruling had more to do with that than any real point of law.
One does not need to research all the way back to Calvin's Case when one has an Amendment passed just 30 years earlier. Gray was "rationalizing" a decision he knew would produce anger and controversy, and consistency was not something he was terribly concerned with.
But it is an attempt to promote a FALSE understanding to claim that the 14th amendment was intended to address "Presidents and Vice Presidents."
The 14th amendment was quite explicitly intended to grant former slaves a path to citizenship, and it deliberately omitted usage of the words "natural born" to describe such citizens it created. In addition, we have the words of Justice Waite not but seven years later proclaiming the 14th does NOT address that point.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Are you suggesting the man is SO STUPID as to have failed to notice the 14th amendment? The Very Amendment by which Minor's argument was based?
I regard Justice Waite's comment to be the most authoritative voice explicitly declaring that "natural citizenship" is not addressed by the 14th amendment.
The 14th Amendment was an act of Mass Naturalization, targeted at Former slaves. Anyone who is a citizen by operation of the 14th, is NOT a "natural citizen." Their Children are, but they themselves are not. They are "naturalized" citizens.
You misstate the point. One is defined by an act of law passed by men, the other is a citizen by their nature. Born to citizens and especially in their own country, they can be citizens of no other nation.
There is no Confusion as to whom they owe their allegiance, which is explicitly what the founders intended in creating Article II.
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.