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:
So having been called on your incorrect assertion, and unable to back you assertion up with facts, you beg off supporting up your claims with facts. I truly understand.
The current laws of the US do in fact, make one a US citizen by birth within our borders. This was established by the Nationalization Act of 1940 and is reflected in Title 8 US code section 1401 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401). That is the “simple” (as in easy to understand, deal with, use or not complicated) fact. Disagree with that policy if you want. I know I do. I would rather see a meritocracy where citizenship is earned, not granted by the location of birth.
But again, the speculation and hypotheticals about Mr Cruz’s citizenship need to be viewed through the prism that US Laws govern US citizenship. No other nation’s laws govern. And thus, is little more than a tempest in a teapot. If US law say that someone is a US Citizen, then they are a US Citizen. If they are within the dominion of the US, then they can and often are, forced to abide by the rules and laws of the US under penalty of prosecution of our laws.
It cannot be "defined", merely recognized. Like the laws of Mathematics, the meaning is a function of reality, not of preferred description.
Any attempt to force "natural citizen" to be defined by law is no different from that attempt by the legislature of Indiana to define "Pi" as 3.2.
"Natural Law" is not subject to man-made preference.
Thank you for confirming that Cruz is a naturalized citizen of the US
Allow me to clarify that at no time have I asserted that Mr Cruz is either “natural born” or “naturalized”. My one and only assertion is that US Laws govern his citizenship.
So why doesn't "French" sovereignty account for the difference? Why doesn't "Spanish" sovereignty account for the Difference? Why are "Indian" nations treated completely different from the offspring of all other nations?
There are only two explanations as to why someone would proffer your claim above. Intellectual Dishonesty, or astonishing ignorance. I routinely point out that the standard used for "Indian" Nations applied to NO OTHER NATIONS. Yet, people simply ignore this brutal refutation of their argument, and continue repeating it.
The unmitigated truth is that "birth on the soil" citizenship is NOT supportable by our history. One must do astonishing logical backflips to argue that it is, as demonstrated by your "Indian Sovereignty" argument above.
I have constantly echoed this point. I usually say, "Wherever stands our Soldier, there is America also. " I had long thought that this idea was an oversight of the "natural law" theory of citizenship, but I discovered that it is not.
Noted.
And Canadian law?
To put a finer point on the question.
Do you agree that “US Laws govern his [US] citizenship”, and Canadian law governs his Canadian citizenship?
Good job....echoes my sentiments also!
Given all the examples I have seen from you of faulty reasoning, deceptive useage of historical facts, omission of uncomfortable ones, and an endless string of fallacies, it is no surprise to me that you continue to regard this tidbit as having some significance.
It is utterly without merit. It has the legal authority of the Mayor giving someone the "Key to the City." Symbolic and trivial.
Having a deficiency of meritorious arguments, it is but one more desperate straw at which you continue to grasp.
Which just goes to prove that some people cannot learn anything, nor do they have the facility of reason.
When Congress INTENTIONALLY SETS the criteria of "naturalization" "At BIRTH", you can be "born" a citizen, but this does not make you a "natural" citizen.
Although I confess it would've been a heck of a lot easier if they had just used the latter term instead of writing what was an old common-law term of art.
Yes, it would have been, and No, it's not an old "common-law" term of art. The American version is an EXPLICIT rejection of the "English Common Law" meaning of "natural." Let us have Lord Coke explain what the English mean by usage of the word "Natural" in their "common law" definition. Here is William Rawle quoting "Lord Coke."
Lord Coke puts the very case; "Wherefore, to conclude this point, (and to exclude all that hath been or could be objected against it, ) if the obedience and legiance of the subject to his sovereign be due by the law of nature, if that law be parcel of the laws, as well of England as of all other nations, and is immutable and that postnati and we of England are united by birthright, in obedience and legiance (which is the true cause of natural subjection by the law of nature,) it followeth, that Calvin, the plaintiff, being born under one legiance to one King cannot be an alien born."
Lord Coke is referring to a very different understanding of the "law of nature"; That the King rules by divine right, and that because of this, all men born in his Kingdom owe a natural and perpetual allegiance to the King.
But even Lord Coke realizes that Allegiance CANNOT be divided, even under the English Usage of "Natural Born."
So you see Jeff, even if you USE English Law, it precludes multiple allegiances and multiple claims upon someones' citizenship.
He has never been correct. If you listen to him, you will be misled. That is his only goal in these discussions; To confuse people as to what is the actual truth.
If you are serving the Military, your children are "natural born" even if born in a foreign country. As stated in the Law of Nations.
Yes there is, and you make a point to ignore or denounce all of it. Even the obvious stuff, like the Children of British loyalists remaining British though born here, and the status of Slaves and Indians throughout history, none of this breaches your walls of denial.
The thing that really simplified it for me was reading James Bayard's comments on the matter in his Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1834), in which he described the term as being a "citizen by birth." He was talking about people in the exact situation as your son, and his specific point was that such people were eligible; one only had to be born a citizen.
No he wasn't. During a time when the only way to be "born a citizen" was by being born to citizen parents, (Once again note that Indians, Slaves and British Loyalists did not gain citizenship from being born here.) the term "born a citizen" had the same provenance as "natural citizen."
His book was reviewed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who dominated the US Supreme Court for 34 years, starting just 13 years after the Constitution was ratified. Marshall basically said he found only one point in the whole book to correct - that Congress didn't seem to need permission from the States to build military and post roads, they already had it. Here is where Jeff is being deceitful again. He deliberately leaves out the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall, applied Vattel throughout his entire Career, And he SPECIFICALLY APPLIED VATTEL to the citizenship status of Indians!
John Marshall also explicitly singled out and quoted the Vattel description of citizenship as the best available.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
Jeff's contention that Chief Justice John Marshall supported him is a lie, and Jeff knows it.
I figure if anybody ought to know, it would be him.
This is Absolutely correct, and Chief Justice John Marshall absolutely disagrees with you. He explicitly said so. You don't get a harder b*tchslap than the one Chief Justice Marshall gave you!
See what kind of problems you run into when you rely on manmade law to determine what is "natural"?
Vattel had this covered 250 years ago.
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.
And beyond that, they are "natural" citizens at birth.
Does the legislature have the power to specify exactly what are "arms"? Inquiring minds want to know! Can the legislature RE-DEFINE the meaning of words in our Founding document?
Tell us Jeff! Tell us Whether there is any Solid Rock in our National foundation! Tell us Jeff! Where does the "legislature specifying" what words mean ever end?
Why on God's Earth would you WANT the meaning of Words used in our Constitution to be malleable?
Supporting this idea is tantamount to supporting the Liberal Doctrine of a "Living Constitution", and it counts you among our enemies, not our friends.
Congress DOES NOT, the Courts DO NOT, have the POWER to change the meaning of words in the US Constitution. The meanings are FIXED and IMMUTABLE, and can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment in which, the Change is explicitly described and ratified by the consent of the governed.
Because the First Congress and First President, which included 40% of the Signers of the Constitution, did exactly that. And now Jeff is Claiming EVERYBODY AGREES WITH ME again. To this I have to credit him with delusion rather than deliberate lying. His mind is so twisted up with garbage that he ACTUALLY believes this. No they didn't Jeff. They explicitly disagreed with you, but you have a mental block to realizing this.
And of course Bayard, and Chief Justice John Marshall ("The Great Chief Justice") agreed that persons in Cruz's situation WERE ELIGIBLE.
But this is mostly a deliberate lie, with a good helping of delusion mixed in as well. As Demonstrated to you COUNTLESS TIMES, Chief Justice John Marshall EXPLICITLY and with malice aforethought B*TCHSLAPPED YOUR CLAIM INTO THE NEXT UNIVERSE! 
All of this means that your desire for Ted Cruz not to be eligible, is hogwash.
It means that little deceitful minds ought to be kept far away from mommy's computer. They simply spread disinformation and nonsense; an act which serves us all ill.
A Fact which Jeff deliberately refuses to recognize.
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.
No Jeff, Marshall said he didn't recollect anything in the book with which he disagreed. I likewise pointed out to you that during this time, the only way to be "born a citizen" was to be born "To Citizens" so usage of the term was not a conflict back then. There were no such things as "Dual Citizens" and the Women were always naturalized Americans on marriage to an American Male.
You are simply trying to conflate a lack of specificity to equaling agreeing with your argument, but the History demonstrates that they didn't.
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.
Nope. They were "naturalized" at birth. The 14th amendment does this, and so does the Citizenship act of 1934. Here, let me show it to you again. It SAYS "Naturalization" right there in the description of it. It says "Bureau of "Naturalization" is the designated authority regarding it."
Do you have one of these Jeff? You know, a document that specifies "Natural born"? I have one that says "naturalization" but do you have one that says what YOU want it to say?
Do You Jeff?
Jeff, the Reason I think you are employed by some Republican Agency is because you keep getting sliced up into giblet meat, yet you keep coming back and spouting things that you know are wrong, have been beaten down on repeatedly, and would embarrass any non-employee to have to address once more.
You see, when someone is being paid to lie and misrepresent for the political benefit of their employers, they just don't care what is the truth. They will continuously repeat discredited claims, and they will continue soliciting the naive to follow their chain of pseudo arguments so as to sway them towards their established goal.
It is evident in the 2008 election that the Republican Party officials wanted no discussion of the correct meaning of "natural born citizen." They and others who followed them went to great efforts to spike any discussion of the issue, and they employed any and all efforts and allies to insure that no real discussion would be permitted to take place.
Having signed on to this position so as to promote the political expedience represented by John McCain, they are now in the position of having several other prominent Republicans who would get tripped up by a correct understanding and application of Article II.
Given that this group has basically agreed to Democratic Principles of Lying to get what they want politically, it is not a far fetched idea that they would send out teams of people to engage troublemakers such as myself, so as to cloud the issue and divert attention from it.
Again, I name you an Agent Provocateur for the Republican Establishment, and not someone who is interested in discussing this issue honestly. You are doing a Job, as far as I can tell.
As far as sovereignty goes, Spain and France are not located within the geographic boundaries of the United States, unlike Indian nations.
The US has had special treaty relationships with the indigenous peoples born on the land that was to become the United States of America that go back to the time before the Revolution and the Articles of Confederation. Because of the treaty and statutory status of American Indians, they were considered as not being born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” if a person was born on a reservation and was an enrolled member of a tribe or nation.
The Supreme Court decision to exclude John Elk from US citizenship in Elk v. Wilkens in 1884 was rendered moot forty years later by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924:
“BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.” Approved, June 2, 1924. June 2, 1924. [H. R. 6355.] [Public, No. 175.] SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. CHS. 233. 1924.”
Signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924.
No you don't. I have the facts as listed in the book "Law of Nations" by E. Vattel, I'm just not going to bother looking through the book to find that section where it describes this circumstance. I can already see that it would have been a waste of my time just judging by your attitude.
I deal with various incarnation of "birth" apologists all the time, and I have been developing less and less patience for their ignorance and/or deliberate misrepresentation of history and law.
The current laws of the US do in fact, make one a US citizen by birth within our borders.
More like "Defacto" and only as a result of ignorant misinterpretation of prior precedent. Even so, the dispute is not whether these people are "citizens" but whether they are "natural citizens." Again, if it requires a special law, it's not natural, it's "naturalization."
That is the “simple”
Again, "simple" is not commensurate with "true."
I would rather see a meritocracy where citizenship is earned, not granted by the location of birth.
Preference has nothing to do with it. I don't know about you, but my "Preference" is not how I determine what is the truth. What we prefer to be the truth is not always the truth, but those of us who possess intellectual honesty must admit to an unpleasant truth when we encounter one.
But again, the speculation and hypotheticals about Mr Cruz’s citizenship need to be viewed through the prism that US Laws govern US citizenship
It needs to be specifically rejected if claimed on the basis of any US Laws. Again, "natural citizenship" is a condition of nature, not of man made law. It is not subject to be defined and redefined by the latest opinions of Congress (who are attempting to pass Amnesty this very day as we speak.)
Again, as I asked Jeff,
Is there any Stone in our national foundation?
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.