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:
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. In other words, who does and who does not require naturalization in order to be considered a citizen. 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.
Again you are projecting. I never stated that British laws govern the US or Canada. In fact, what I said was that each nation is governed by it’s own laws.
“Common Law” is a theory in jurisprudence where greater weight is given to precedence under the concept that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. It is one of the three forms of law; common law, statutory law and administrative law.
The British body of precedents (rulings) is different that the US body of precedence. A US court is expected to follow US common law and a British court is expected to follow British common law.
Really, have you ever studied law?
“Natural law” was cited in support of the divine right of monarchs. As often as not, a claim based on national law is a fancied-up “because I say so.” The definition of pi can be mathematically and objectively determined; citizenship status cannot.
Invoking “natural law” is fine as a philosophical construct, but laws enforced by humans should be limited to those written by humans.
Ted Cruz was born in Calgary in 1970. Details and sources are in the article at the top of the thread.
See Title 8 USC 1401 subsection G
You cite a naturalization statute (8 U.S.C. § 1401) which makes one a “citizen at birth” and then claim since he “was a citizen at birth and was never in need of naturalization. As such, he would qualify as a natural born citizen.”
Is this your claim?
Is that why you said early on in our conversation that if I could be taken out and shot, you would cheer?
I have a long memory, jerk.
And anyone who actually looks at the facts can see that virtually all of the evidence is on one side, and it isn't your side. All significant early authorities - ALL of them - say you're full of it. Virtually every argument you make is fallacious BS. I have about 40 BS arguments from you so far, with explanations to the unwary of why they're BS. Hopefully one of these days I'll get around to publishing them all in one place.
Even if I don't, I don't think it matters very much. If Cruz runs, you're not going to be able to hold back his candidacy.
You claim both Obama and Cruz are natural born citizens
Obama was (allegedly) born to a foreign citizen father and a US citizen mother, in the US.
- jus soli
- jus sanguinus
Cruz was born to a foreign citizen father and a US citizen mother, outside the US.
- obviously not jus soli
- jus sanguinous
The common factor appears to be jus sanguinus by way of a single US citizen parent.
You have often claim English common law jus soli to be the basis of US law, yet the only principle discernible is jus sanguinus. Do you apply a principle or take an expedient position?
Exactly my point. Please inform Jeff. The ENGLISH version of "natural law" is that everyone owes allegiance to the King. The AMERICAN version of "natural law" is "...and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
In other words, no man made laws.
As often as not, a claim based on national law is a fancied-up “because I say so.” The definition of pi can be mathematically and objectively determined; citizenship status cannot.
I disagree. 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 whole. Take some unknown child. You can tell who it's parents are, but can you tell where it was born? The Pro-Life movement counts a child as a Person from the moment of conception, it doesn't recognize "birth" as the criteria which makes someone a person.
"Birth" is a convenient boundary for recognizing a child, but it is a poor boundary for establishing the nature of the child. Just as a child inherits the characteristic of it's parents, so too does it inherit the National Character of it's parents. If the Parents love their country, then so too does the child. If the Parents love another country, then so to must the child.
Citizenship can be established by math, it's just a higher level of math.
Invoking “natural law” is fine as a philosophical construct, but laws enforced by humans should be limited to those written by humans.
Such as laws governing Slavery and Abortion? No, I would rather trust laws written by God. We cannot change them, but we can recognize them.
The common factor is - just as stated by James Bayard and approved by Chief Justice John Marshall - citizenship by birth.
There are two routes to citizenship by birth. Jus soli is the primary one, jus sanguinis is the secondary one. Both are pathways to natural born citizenship.
It's not totally official in the case of the second route (though it is in the case of the first), but I'm sure the Supreme Court would approve a Ted Cruz candidacy.
And yes, the PRINCIPLE is: Citizenship by birth.
Those who are citizens by birth are eligible. Those who are born non-citizens, and are naturalized later, are NOT eligible.
It’s really not complicated.
Cruz is not a “citizen by birth”, he is by US law a “citizen at birth” by naturalization statute.
Without naturalization statute would Cruz be a legal US citizen? If “yes” then what is the necessity of the statute? The answer must be “no”.
Discern the difference between “citizen by birth” and “citizen at birth”.
We know with certainty that “citizen at birth” is by naturalization statute - read the law.
“Citizen by birth” requires no such statute.
Once again, you're parsing differences that don't exist.
For whatever reason. You claim that you'd like for Ted Cruz to become President. So why do you keep inventing barriers that aren't there?
James Bayard said - and this was AFTER the change in which "natural born" was dropped from the wording in the 1795 Naturalization Act - Bayard said that PERSONS BORN IN CRUZ'S SITUATION WERE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
And Chief Justice Marshall agreed.
"Citizen at birth" and "citizen by birth" are the same thing.
Whether I like or dislike Cruz is immaterial. You are injecting diversionary topics.
I’m just trying to work out why you repeatedly ignore the facts.
It seems to me that you have to have an agenda in doing so.
Any unbiased person would have recognized by now that, judging from the historical standard that applied from early in our nation’s history, Ted Cruz is eligible.
Any unbiased person would’ve recognized by now that it’s not a choice between jus soli or jus sanguinis, historically, it’s either one.
8 U.S.C. § 1401(G) “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:”
Fact: “citizen at birth” is by naturalization statute
Fact: Article II specifies “citizen” at the time of adoption of the constitution, and “natural born citizen” thereafter.
Fact: “Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen”.
Fact: If a “citizen at birth” by naturalization statute is (as you contend) a “natural born citizen” what would be the point of Article II’s distinction of “citizen” and “natural born citizen”?
Fact: Contending that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” do not have distinct meanings creates a pointless redundancy in the Constitution, it is an impermissible construction.
He is responsible for creating the nation. Had he not wrote his book, we likely would still be part of England. "American Independence was then and there born."- John Adams.
John Adams:
And what was it that had Motivated James Otis to take up this cause of Independence?
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 "Rules of Naturalization" do not govern the status of "natural" citizens. They are already "natural citizens" and do not require naturalization.
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”.
Exactly right, they have no effect on Citizens, so the obvious corollary to your statement is that the laws ONLY AFFECT ALIENS.
The RULES include who is and is not a citizen at birth.
But that is because Congress PUT that there.
A citizen at birth is a “naturally born” citizen as they have never needed nor required to be naturalized.
Then what do you call the law making them a citizen? A "Natural born" law? Again, it equates to congress redefining the term, which I think you will admit is not tolerable. That they have to fill out no paperwork of naturalization is immaterial. That they have no ceremony is immaterial.
This in no way alters the Constitutional requirements for President.
If Congress passes a law which CHANGES the requirements for the Presidency from what they were originally, to something different, then it is altering the constitution without going through the amendment process, and it is strictly forbidden.
Congress can pass a law "naturalizing" all the citizens of Belize. Will this make such citizens "natural" citizens? No. The idea is ridiculous. So is the Idea that Congress can "naturalize" others, at birth, or otherwise, by whatever criteria, and have them regarded as being "natural" citizens.
Since we are both entrenched in our own perspectives of the issue, there does not seem to be any further agreement possible. Therefore we will have to agree to disagree.
You cite a naturalization statute (8 U.S.C. § 1401) which makes one a “citizen at birth” and then claim since he “was a citizen at birth and was never in need of naturalization. As such, he would qualify as a natural born citizen.”
Is this your claim?
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.