Posted on 07/21/2013 5:34:04 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Since Canadian born Ted Cruz has emerged on the scene in Washington as a future presidential candidate for 2016, attention has turned to whether he is Constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1, the presidential qualification clause. This is what we know. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Many say that disqualifies him to be eligible for the presidency. Enter former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. She was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I came across an interview she did with Fox News's Chris Wallace in February of 2010. During the interview Wallace brought up the fact that since she was born in Canada, she wasn't eligible to be president. Here is the transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/21/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-future-gop/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529
"GRANHOLM: No, I’m totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment. December 31st at midnight is when I’ll stop. So I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.
WALLACE: Yes, that’s true. We should point out Governor Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president.
GRANHOLM: I’m American. I’ve got dual citizenship.”
With that said, I went to the biography of Jennifer Granholm and found that she was born to one American citizen and is indeed a dual Citizen who became 'NATURALIZED' as a U.S. Citizen in 1980 at the age of 21. Now this raises a question. How can a naturalized U.S. Citizen become president of the United States?
Continued below.
Larry (Moe and Curly). You're either diilibertly trying to to miss represent my point or you simply missed my point.
The Nat Act of 1790 contradicts two arguments that I've seen here.
It shows some of the founders and their colleagues using statutory law to define the meaning of the term "natural born citizen".
It shows some of the founders and the colleagues using the criteria of the citizenship of only one parent to define natural born citizenship.
Ohhhh, the horror. You do realize that a woman had so little legal standing that she couldn't even RUN for the office of President during that time, don't you?
Of course I do and my point still stands.
All of which is immaterial to Cruz. US law at the time of Cruz’ birth makes Cruz a naturalized US citizen.
Totally irrelevant.
Yet telling everyone what they already know is no 'point' at all.
So that must make you point-less.
8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(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;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
“It shows some of the founders and their colleagues using statutory law to define the meaning of the term “natural born citizen”.
It shows some of the founders and the colleagues using the criteria of the citizenship of only one parent to define natural born citizenship.”
I don’t think I missed your point. I think I caught your point exactly, which was to try to convince some unsuspecting, not-so-knowledgeable FReeper that you can create a “natural born” citizen by statute.
Kind of negates the word “natural” don’t you think?
And then, you (giving you the benefit of the doubt) didn’t know about the Naturalization Act of 1795 where many of those same founders and colleagues deleted the words “natural born” in the new act where they repealed the NA of 1790.
Yes. Your point?
Why?
Well, if you want to know the truth, I slightly misread the passage and thought it contained information about both of her parents.
The whole thing started, though, when YOU made a BS post. You claimed that Jennifer Granholm has an American parent but still had to naturalize - based on some comment you read on some blog from someone who obviously doesn't know a damn thing about it.
This is the problem with birthers. You don't check your information. And you don't THINK.
Anytime anyone posts any BS that you happen to like, you just pass it on it and claim it's true.
And if anyone tells you the truth, then you call them a "liar."
There are other sites out there that note that Granholm IMMIGRATED TO THE UNITED STATES WITH HER FAMILY from Canada when she was 3 or 4 years of age.
And there doesn't seem to be a single remotely authoritative source anywhere that says she had an American mother.
And no, some random blog, backed up by no reference whatsoever, is NOT an authoritative source.
It is a simple fact that if Jennifer Granholm had had an American parent, she would have been born an American citizen. In that case, she would never have naturalized. There was no need.
So one of three things HAS to be true.
1. Either she doesn't have an American parent, or
2. She didn't naturalize, or
3. She went through the naturalization process erroneously because she was already a US citizen and didn't realize it.
The latter, of course, is extremely unlikely. Especially given that she has widely been reported as being a naturalized citizen and therefore ineligible. If matters had been otherwise, someone would surely have corrected that.
So you tell me. Which one of the three was it?
Please cite a US Legal source that defines ‘natural born” and a LEGAL definition that defines it in such a way as to exclude anyone born to only 1 US born parent.
Like it or not there is not one which is why we ended up with that POS 0dumbo.
That is not why we ended up with 0bastard. They all knew for years the actual meaning of NBC and that is why it was being looked into for years before he ran for president; and attempts were made/talked about to change the “definition” of NBC but didn’t pan out.
They know the definition, and they all know he isn’t one, even with the mythological life, what to speak of his real parentage etc.
They all know what a NBC is, and that 0thugga is not one. The real point is they broke the law (many laws actually), they know it, the Rs know it, everyone knows it. So we have a coup, no opposition, and they constnatly break the laws without a single peep from any “opposition” in deecee.
They had a revolution, and no one fought back.
The rule of law is now over, kaput, broken, the Constitution is some old irrelevant thing written by dead white male slave owners.
The question we should all be asking is - how to get back the rule of law? FOR EVERYONE????
That’s what we should be asking.
That is completely wrong. 8 U.S.C. §1401 has consistently been used to establish the natural born citizenship of Barack Obama and Senator McCain. If Senator Cruz ever decides to run, it will be used to confirm his natural born citizenship as well.
Do you have a specific cite where §1401 has been used to establish the natural born citizenship of Barack Obama and McCain?
You summarize it quite nicely
and to answer your question about how to we get back to the rule of law AND intent of our Constitution sadly I don’t think we can.
It would likely take a constitutional amendment to define Natural Born and restate it as a requirement for Pres and VP
Just like we missed the opportunity to make English our official language and we missed to opportunity to repeal the anchor baby statute
we probably have missed on this as well
The ballot box, electing principled conservatives is our best hope now
My point is that Senator Cruz is a “National and Citizen of the United States
At Birth.”
Here are the qualifications for being a Citizen of the United States At Birth while being born outside of the U.S. to a citizen parent and a non-citizen parent who are married:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=32dffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=32dffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD
Those are NOT the qualifications for being a nationalized citizen. The qualifications for naturalization come under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. (Which is included in the U.S. Code of Laws).
I hold out little hope that sanity will prevail in this issue or any other important portion of the Constitution, since most politicians ignore it in any case.
Concur. High overlap between them and Romneybots.
The problems with elections are as follows:
1. Massive coordinated election fraud. Massive. Which brings us to point 2:
2. Rs are either on the gravy train until the wheels fall off, liberals themselves, or fearful little eunuchs. The very few with principles and guts can do nothing against the vast majority.
3. There isn’t time to gradually, over a decade or so, try to turn this thing around.
4. I think the next box will be forced upon us by them using it against us.
I think we are tearing ourselves up over this and the only people who will benefit from it will be our enemies, the enemies of our republic.
Being a conservative, I tend to take a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the law. But, the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”, is not well-defined in law. We can and must go back to the founders’ intent for guidance. I really hope that I can find some way to prove that Cruz is eligible for the office of president. However, I would not vote for him to that office until I can resolve that issue in my mind. I am a Texan and I think Cruz would make an excellent president, but I don’t want to be guilty of the same expediency that supporters of Obama used to get their man with questionable status elected.
A “nationalized citizen”?
//
Cruz is a citizen at birth by statute.
On the page you linked “USCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens” explains the authority for each scenario. For Cruz, INA 301(g) is cited.
Naturalization statute may assign citizenship at any point. It may be at birth; or upon the naturalization of the parent(s); or, for those after 18 years of age, upon completion of a process.
Cruz is naturalized by INA 301(g) at birth.
BTTT
The fear of Cruz is strong. Once again, let him file with the Secs of State and see who objects and use that objection against zero.
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.