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:
Decisions of courts at every level of the judiciary stand unless and until they are reversed. Those historic decisions on major constitutional issues that stand the test of time and are cited hundreds of times in subsequent decisions become known as “landmark” decisions.
If a particular decision is “wrong,” it will be reversed at a later date. None of us may live long enough to see the reversal but bad law is eventually overturned by a different court with a different ideological majority.
Do we know if Senator Cruz was issued a Certificate of Naturalization? If he was, that is a public record.
Also, it would be helpful to know if Senator Cruz was issued a Certificate of US Citizenship.
The Certificate of US Citizenship (form N-560 or N-561) is a document issued by the United States government as proof of U.S. citizenship. Individuals who are eligible to apply for the United States Certificate of Citizenship include those who obtained U.S. citizenship while residing in the United States or individuals who were born outside the United States to U.S. citizens. Specific details of eligibility include:
Your parents are U.S. citizens, but you were born abroad.
At least one of your parents became naturalized when you were under 18 years of age and met the special conditions of the law.
Important: Only individuals who obtained U.S. citizenship either by action of law while residing in the United States or by having been born outside the United States to U.S. citizens can request a copy of their certificate of citizenship.
There is no one alive today who was “mass naturalized” by the 14th Amendment.
I realize that you find great fault with this but over the last 145 years since 1868, Article II, Section 1 natural-born citizens and 14th Amendment Citizens of the United States at Birth have merged in the minds of a majority of Americans including judges and members of Congress.
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.
You know, I've gone back and forth wondering whether you're just a nutcase, or a plain liar. This tips the scale.
In my opinion, you're just a plain liar. I have no idea what your motivation is, although honestly... I am starting to suspect that YOU might actually be paid.
And it takes a lot to push me to that place.
You've gotten your @** kicked again and again by the facts, and still you keep posting your BS.
I have no idea why JimRob tolerates you. I sure wouldn't.
You’re nothing more than a propagandist for bullsh*t.
Not all Indian tribes were located within the Geographical boundaries of the United States. Their children weren't recognized as Citizens when born within our territorial boundaries the way the Children of the naturalized French or the Spanish were.
But even so, what's that got to do with the point? If the unimpeachable rule is merely birth within the territory, what does it matter that the Indian nations existed within or without our borders?
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.
We had special treaty relationships with the Emperor of China too, but the Gray court was having none of that!
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:
And why do you regard the time it took relevant? The only thing salient is that the norm was one way, and then a law changed it. What about this argues for "natural law"? The Before or after? Which one was the "natural law" as referred to in 1787?
Oh geeze, and now he's going to quote it, as if THAT has any relevance to the point!
“BE IT ENACTED ... blah blah blah... Signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924.
Why on God's green earth do you think quoting that supports your argument? By what incomprehensible function of your mind do you conclude that the way to sway an argument is to produce excellent evidence against your position?
How is the existence of an act which specifically demonstrates that being born on our soil was not sufficient, supposed to benefit your claim?
The Indian Citizenship Act (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
Source: Charles J. Kappler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, Vol. IV, Treaties (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1929), p. 1165.
The Act even uses the phrase "non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States", and on top of that it's CONDITIONAL! Whoever heard of a "natural citizen" being Conditional upon how their rights are affected in a foreign sovereignty?
Again, why on earth do you think there is anything here to support your argument?
Vattel’s work is not US law, nor is it Treaty. One could argue that the philosophies espoused by Vattel have made it into a number of treaties and US laws. However, within the US, the method for establishment of law is set forth by the US Constitution.
Citizenship by birth is not “de facto” it is “de jure” per Title 18 U.S.C 1401 subsection a. Further, SCOTUS has ruled on a number of cases involving citizenship a birth. See Lynch v. Clarke (NY Chanc.Ct., Nov 5, 1844; 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 3 NY Leg.Obs. 236, 1844 WL 4804); Look Tin Sing ( D.Cal., Sep 29, 1884) 21 Fed. 905, 10 Sawyer’s Rpts. 353); United States v. Wong Kim Ark (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 169 U.S. 649, 42 L.Ed. 890, 18 S.Ct. 456.); Perkins v. Elg (Perkins v. Elg (1939) 307 U.S. 325 at 329, 83 L.Ed. 1320 at 1324, 59 S.Ct. 884 at 888.)
As far as preference or truth, I stated the truth by identifying specific, current US law. You have failed to provide any citation other than a book of preferences that has no basis in law.
The “stone” in our national foundation is the Constitution. By means of the Constitution, the PEOPLE established and described the authorities and powers of the different branches. These are defined by the Articles contained within the Constitution. Do you agree or disagree with that fact?
Article 1 Section 8 establishes the powers of Congress. One of the powers listed is “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,....”. Do you agree or disagree with that fact?
Congress has done so in Title 8 US code 1401 which, in subsection a, establishes citizenship by birth. Do you agree or disagree with that fact?
Further, SCOTUS has ruled in a number of cases (see above) that Citizenship in the US is obtained by birth on our soil. do you agree or disagree with that fact?
They "stand" as far as the courts are concerned, they do not stand as far as History is concerned. Plessy v Fergusson is an example of a decision in which the "court" eventually caught up to what was correct.
Those historic decisions on major constitutional issues that stand the test of time and are cited hundreds of times in subsequent decisions become known as “landmark” decisions.
Again, like Plessy v Fergusson. Made by the Same Court, and with an even stronger majority! History has written it's verdict on that court decision and I expect some day History will also render it's verdict on the reliance of the Wong Kim Ark Precedent. I expect that court to enjoy a perfect record regarding it's "landmark" decisions, but first the populace needs to be educated to the fact that the courts are Arrogant, Ignorant and Stupid.
If a particular decision is “wrong,” it will be reversed at a later date. None of us may live long enough to see the reversal but bad law is eventually overturned by a different court with a different ideological majority.
Which just goes to show that court decisions often enough have little to do with law in the first place! It is a pleasant illusion to believe that anything like accuracy or justice is the impetus behind the courts. Again, the courts are often worthy of Disrespect and Ridicule, and their opinions should hold no interest but in cases where their facts and reasoning are unassailable.
And this is exactly correct, and descriptive of the Problem. It is the false conflation of the Wong Kim Ark ruling with "natural", coupled with endless repetition of this false application of precedent, with numerous inputs from other erroneous sources, about an issue that has only come up four times in the last 200 years. (Arthur, Hughes, (George)Romney, and Obama.)
The Vast Majority of the Public has a simplistic understanding of this subject, and most have no interest in understanding it more accurately. Even those people who's job it is to get this right, simply don't care if they get it wrong, or more accurately, will not even entertain the notion that they could possibly have gotten it wrong.
They are "Certain" with so little reason to be certain.
I agree that US laws govern his US citizenship and any other nation’s laws are irrelevant to his US citizenship. Thus US laws are exclusive to the US.
Each nation state governs it’s own laws of citizenship and as such, Canadian laws govern Canadian citizenship (again, exclusively).
Plessy v Ferguson stood, until it didn’t. There are many conservatives today who believe Brown v. Board led to affirmative action, racial quotas and forced busing; infringements on individual civil rights.
Supreme Court decisions have everything to do with law. Different people can have very different opinions on legal issues.
In my opinion, you're just a plain liar. I have no idea what your motivation is, although honestly... I am starting to suspect that YOU might actually be paid.
And who would be the beneficiary of my efforts? Obama? I've been on his @ss since BEFORE he ran for the Illinois Senate. I have right this very minute, in my desk drawer an FEC (Federal Election Commission) Complaint filed against me by the Losing Democrat Candidate for an election in which I worked very hard to make sure that Democrat Bastard did not win. That Year, my Land upon which I lived, was twice set on fire, and I received countless threatening phone calls. I spent thousands of dollars, and hundreds of hours worth of work, all to receive a notice that I was being charged with Transgressing against Federal Election Law because I was so effective in attacking the Democrat Candidate.
Fortunately for me, they dropped it eventually, but I still have the letter.
I certainly have motivation from the strength of my beliefs about what is in the best interest of the nation, but for you? Motivation is much easier to suggest. There are plenty of people who want to believe what you sell rather than what might be the unpleasant truth.
You've gotten your @** kicked again and again by the facts, and still you keep posting your BS.
No Jeff, you just keep PROCLAIMING that you've won some argument or other, but it is of a kind with your PROCLAMATIONS that all the founders were on your side, and that there never has been any evidence otherwise! Basically the shriekings of a clown.
I have no idea why JimRob tolerates you. I sure wouldn't.
It is the nature of Fascist bastards to silence opposition to their desired narrative. You demonstrate another identifying characteristic of an Authoritative dominated Mindset. Jim Robinson believes in Freedom of Speech, while you just believe in protecting your own desired narrative.
My side has been silenced in the Media, is hardly tolerated in the Courts, Hated by both Democrat and Republican establishments alike, and actively fought in any corner of the internet where someone dares to point out the truth, and of course if you had your way, you would silence it in this corner as well, because THAT'S HOW TOTALITARIANS THINK!
Cruz was born in Canada. By Canadian law he is a natural born citizen of Canada.
US law are naturalization statutes.
Cuban laws.... ?
Fixed it for ya.
US Supreme Court: UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION et al.
Some commentators have theorized that the Framers understood those terms in relation to the precisely defined categories, fashionable in the contemporary literature of international law, of accords between sovereigns. See, e. g., Engdahl, Characterization of Interstate Arrangements: When Is a Compact Not a Compact?, 64 Mich.L.Rev. 63 (1965); Weinfeld, What Did the Framers of the Federal Constitution Mean by "Agreements or Compacts"?, 3 U.Chi.L.Rev. 453 (1936). The international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel. 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826). In 1775, Benjamin Franklin acknowledged receipt of three copies of a new edition, in French, of Vattel's Law of Nations and remarked that the book "has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting . . . ." 2 F. Wharton, United States Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence 64 (1889), cited in Weinfeld, supra, at 458.
Title 18 U.S.C 1401
Does not change the meaning of constitutional terms written in 1787. It is a liberal belief that the terms are malleable, not a conservative one.
As far as preference or truth, I stated the truth by identifying specific, current US law.
To the Contrary, you identify what is NOT the truth by citing current US Law. Once again, your theory is that Constitutional terms are malleable, a theory which the Liberals have been using and abusing since Roosevelt took over the Federal court system. Congressionally enacted laws cannot change qualifications for President. It DOES. NOT. WORK. THAT. WAY. An Amendment is required, and it must explicitly address the point being changed.
Article 1 Section 8 establishes the powers of Congress. One of the powers listed is “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,....”. Do you agree or disagree with that fact?
I agree wholeheartedly! It explicitly empowers congress to "naturalize" people according to a uniform set of rules. Again, the operative word is "naturalize" which means to make "like natural". Now do you believe "naturalize" and "natural" mean the same thing?
The “stone” in our national foundation is the Constitution. By means of the Constitution, the PEOPLE established and described the authorities and powers of the different branches. These are defined by the Articles contained within the Constitution. Do you agree or disagree with that fact?
Oh, I agree. It is YOU, who disagrees. You seem to think the meaning of the document can be re-written by an act of Congress. From your perspective, Congress has the power to be a continuously ongoing constitutional convention that can change the meaning of eligibility requirements as it suits them.
Again. CONGRESS. CAN. NOT. CHANGE. THE. QUALIFICATIONS. FOR. PRESIDENT.
Congress has done so in Title 8 US code 1401 which, in subsection a, establishes citizenship by birth. Do you agree or disagree with that fact?
Once More. CONGRESS. CAN. NOT. CHANGE. THE. QUALIFICATIONS. FOR. PRESIDENT.
Further, SCOTUS has ruled in a number of cases (see above) that Citizenship in the US is obtained by birth on our soil. do you agree or disagree with that fact?
SCOTUS has ruled that the status of "citizen" is established by domiciled birth upon our soil. They didn't establish that "natural born citizen" was the result of birth on our soil. As a matter of fact, they conspicuously omitted those words, in both the 14th and the "Wong" decision. Furthermore, the same court which made such a ruling also ruled that Blacks and Whites were "Separate but Equal", (Plessy v Fergusson) so i'm not impressed much with their judgement.
Apart from that, Here's a slightly different one. SCOTUS. CAN. NOT. CHANGE. THE. QUALIFICATIONS. FOR. PRESIDENT.
While I do not know the details of Mr Cruz's birth, it would appear that he is both a citizen and national of the US per subsection G. According to Mr Cruz's bio, his mother attended college in Texas and earned a degree in Mathematics. If we assume that it was a four year degree and we combine that with the fact that she grew up in Deleware, it might qualify for the resident for 5 year with the United States prior to the birth of Mr Cruz.
If such facts are proven, then Mr Cruz is and was a citizen at birth and was never in need of naturalization. As such, he would qualify as a natural born citizen.
Regardless, the point is that US law determines US citizenship per title 8 USC 1401. The laws of Canada or Cuba have no bearing on the the determination of the US citizenship.
And apparently from your perspective, British law governs us both. What is a "British Common Law" advocate to do when two different countries follow the exact same Common law?
How is a third country supposed to figure out which British law has the better claim? Or is he up for grabs by anyone?
Plessy was wrong, but so was Brown, though for different reasons. Again, the Supreme court is often like a meat cleaver when it needs to operate more like a rapier. It went too far in Plessy, and it went too far in Brown. As a matter of fact, the hallmark of the Supreme court's landmark decisions is that they generally go too far.
Supreme Court decisions have everything to do with law.
In the manner that Actors represent Doctors on Television. As i've mentioned, often the Supreme Court decisions have little to do with law, and a lot to do with politics. Not even Liberal legal scholars try to defend Roe.
Different people can have very different opinions on legal issues.
But they can't all say they are correct. The one which is, must necessarily renders the rest incorrect.
He is a "citizen at birth" because CONGRESS passed a law naturalizing him a "citizen at birth".
CONDITIONAL N-A-T-U-R-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N.
It does not matter how many books Vattel wrote or how many times he was quoted. Vattel did not make US law.
I agree that law does not change the Constitution but when the Constitution specifically enumerates the power of Congress to set the rules of naturalization, that is a direct exercise of Constitutional authority.
The term “naturalization” has a meaning of granting the rights and privileges of a citizen to an alien. Congress is specifically empowered by Article 1 Section 8 to “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.
The RULES include who is and is not a citizen at birth. A citizen at birth is a “naturally born” citizen as they have never needed nor required to be naturalized. This in no way alters the Constitutional requirements for President.
You are again projecting on to me something that I have never said. I have never altered the meaning of words and have been clear from the very beginning. US laws govern US citizens. That authority is specifically enumerated within the Constitution as a power of Congress. Congress has exercised it’s Constitutional authority per title 8 section 1401.
Your assertion that Congress and SCOTUS have attempted to change the requirements of the office of President is false.
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.