Canadian Born Gov. Jennifer Granholm Was Naturalized In 1980. When Did Ted Cruz Naturalize?

Cold Case Posse Supporter | July 21, 2013 | Cold Case Posse Supporter

[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.

[Ray76]

Eligibility is hardly trivia.

[thackney]

They did say “like”, they said “as”.

The words are not the same.

Cheers and good night.

[Jeff Winston]

I’ve traveled for work to other countries. I find the concept of my child being born a month earlier or later, corresponding to US or foreign soil, would change her status of being able to be president silly.

You're correct, of course.

I find no evidence in the writing of the Founding Fathers thought that way as well. Children of ambassadors and military born overseas would have the same standings as children born in the US.

If you can show me where in the Constitution it defines Natural Born citizen, then we can hold it above the congressional law. Otherwise, the Constitution set up the powers of Congress to make applicable law.

I'm not sure whether you've read any of my previous posts on the Naturalization Act of 1790.

Previously, the English Parliament had possessed the power to declare that children born overseas to English subjects were also natural born subjects. So that's the context the Constitution was written in.

As you noted, the first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

Obviously, that Congress believed they possessed the Constitutional power to make that declaration.

And the obvious implication of that was: Such children will be eligible to be President.

The First Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," and a bunch of other Framers. Between Congress and our first President, a full 40% of the Signers of the Constitution signed off on that bill.

To me, this makes it absolutely clear: the idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is simply false. In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Cruz is NOT eligible, but he might be able to run if nobody files a challenge. If they do, he's going to get tripped up by Rogers v Bellei.

After a quick skim of the decision, I find I'm tending agree with you. Regardless of whether indisputably natural-born citizens have ever been stripped of their citizenship, the Rogers decision seems to pretty clearly say that acquiring citizenship by being born abroad to an American mother is a form of naturalization. I may have argued against that in the past, but if so I have to reconsider.

At the same time, I also note the decision says

We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.

I believe you've recently been arguing that our law in this area does not follow English concepts, and that place of birth is not the determining factor. Time to reconsider?

[Jude in WV]

Natural born citizenship cannot be taken away by any statute made by men.

Any other citizenship can.

This is why there is no definition. It is not needed.

I think the 1790 law was taken away in 1795 because they realized that anything given by lawmakers could be taken by lawmakers. They did not want that.

If you have to sift through definitions and statutes to prove you are a natural born citizen...then you aren’t one.

It is that simple to me. But apparently not to everyone. It wasn’t in the beginning and it isn’t now. There will always be some who want their own way in things. There will always be some who follow them.

[Nero Germanicus]

I never said that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on any presidential eligibility appeal. I said that since 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States has refused to grant any petition to be heard before the Court or application for a stay or an injunction related to presidential eligibility.
I was discussing dismissals on grounds of standing, non-justiciability, and political question in original jurisdiction state and federal courts.

[Ray76]

Eligibility is not a political question. That would be absurd. It’s a matter of law not politics.

[DiogenesLamp]

After a quick skim of the decision, I find I'm tending agree with you. Regardless of whether indisputably natural-born citizens have ever been stripped of their citizenship, the Rogers decision seems to pretty clearly say that acquiring citizenship by being born abroad to an American mother is a form of naturalization. I may have argued against that in the past, but if so I have to reconsider.

It is my understanding that Congress has since moved to prevent a re-occurrence of the outcome in Rogers v Bellei, but the salient point remains. If your citizenship is created by Congress, it isn't "natural" citizenship.

At the same time, I also note the decision says

We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.

I believe you've recently been arguing that our law in this area does not follow English concepts, and that place of birth is not the determining factor. Time to reconsider?

Two points.

1. My position has long been that something isn't true just because a court says so. I believe in Primary sources, and I regard subsequent courts to be Secondary sources. I don't accept their statements as authoritative, especially because i've seen the courts make so many mistakes.

2. I believe that the basis of Federal citizenship did not follow the English concepts (for a variety of reasons) but among the states there is a patchwork of Doctrines, some which Follow English Law, and some which didn't.

.

The Topic is very convoluted because of inconsistencies between these various governing authorities, and the possibility exists that they could all have been using the exact same term, but not with the same criteria.

Recently I have been discovering evidence that not even the ENGLISH defined their analogous term (natural born subject) in the same manner as the Jus Soli advocates seem to think.

A prolific Author of English Law books from the 18 century (Giles Jacob) indicates that people born in England to foreign parents are *NOT* regarded as "natural born subjects" but are instead referred to explicitly as "Denizens."

Reading further through some English law, a person quickly determines that "Denizens" were second class "subjects" in England. They could not be elected to office, they could not inherit land, they paid special taxes and dealt with numerous and sundry other offenses to their status.*

It begs the question. If ENGLAND treated the Children of Foreigners born in England like second class subjects, where did we get this notion that WE should regard them as "natural born citizens"?

.

*Eventually laws were passed to normalize the differences between Denizens and Subjects. For example in the late 1600s, they created a law which thereafter allowed Denizens to inherit land.

[Jeff Winston]

At the same time, I also note the decision says

We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.

I believe you've recently been arguing that our law in this area does not follow English concepts, and that place of birth is not the determining factor. Time to reconsider?

ROTFL!

Well, THAT was smoothly done.

The fact is, Rogers v. Bellei, like so many other cases, actually blows the "two citizen parents PLUS birth on US soil" claim out of the water.

Because Rogers v. Bellei makes it crystal clear that "our law in this area [that is, the definition of citizenship] follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute."

Which is an absolute contradiction of the core birther claim: That we DIDN'T follow English concepts, that we DIDN'T adopt jus soli as our primary rule, but that instead we somehow chose a more restrictive definition for "natural born" citizenship than the words "NATURAL BORN" EVER meant in English law.

So Rogers v. Bellei, to which DiogenesLamp appeals, SHOOTS DOWN HIS CORE CLAIM just like so many other cases and historical authorities do.

It's crystal clear. It's undeniable. And yet the idiots will try to use one part of a case like Bellei, while completely IGNORING any parts they don't like.

I'm sorry, but you can't do that. If you want to use Bellei as an authority, then you have to take ALL of the decision.

Having said all that, I'm going to shift gears here.

Bellei DOES MAKE the case that a person like Ted Cruz is a "naturalized" citizen.

More so in the dissent than in the case itself.

One of the Constitutional scholars who's written on the subject, Jill Pryor, has described persons born US citizens outside of the USA as "naturalized born."

Most scholars believe people like Ted Cruz are eligible. I agree, because I think it's crystal clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended Congress' "power of naturalization" to include the ability to legally declare persons born to citizens outside of our borders as natural born citizens.

If that wasn't what they intended, and what they understood, then 40% of the signers of the Constitution would never have passed a law declaring that such people were to be considered as natural born citizens.

I also agree, because of Bayard's exposition of the Constitution, and Chief Justice John Marshall's reaction to it.

I also agree, because while a lot of early commentators on the Constitution described the Presidential eligibility clause as requiring that a person be "born in the United States" (note no mention whatsoever of the "both/and" idea insisted on by birthers), a lot of them described the Constitutional requirement as being that a person had to be "born a citizen."

So if Congress had this power, to declare that persons born overseas were "natural born citizens," was it repealed in the 1795 Act that dropped the wording "natural born?"

I don't really know, and I don't really care.

Because if Congress' power of "naturalization" included this power (and I believe it's clear that it did) then I think it's clear that subsequent Congresses who passed laws declaring the children of citizens abroad to be citizens at birth, intended for those children to be equal in status to the native-born.

Or, to put it another way: The dissent in Wong Kim Ark got their main argument wrong. And the majority was correct in their main argument. The entire legal history of the United States fairly screams that the children born on US soil of non-citizen resident parents are absolutely natural born citizens, and eligible to the Presidency.

BUT - I AGREE with the Wong dissent on an important secondary point.

They said it was unreasonable to believe that the children born on US soil of the "Mongolian" and "Malay" were eligible to the Presidency, while the children born US citizens to our citizens abroad were not.

I agree.

And I think the only reasonable conclusion, based on all of the history and law, is that both are equally eligible.

In other words, yes, Barack Obama, born in the United States to one citizen parent, is Constitutionally eligible to the Presidency.

Legally speaking, that's literally a certainty, because of Wong Kim Ark. It's not controversial, in legal circles.

It's a certainty.

I'm not recommending that anybody like it. But legally speaking, it's as certain as that if you throw an apple up in the air, it's going to fall to the ground.

This is why you don't hear any major conservative Constitutional commentators, like Mark Levin, even talking about it. It's why it's not even a matter of discussion for bodies such as the Heritage Foundation.

The only people who fail to recognize this REALITY are some yahoos on the internet.

The more important thing, for OUR purposes, is:

So is Ted Cruz.

Bayard was right. One doesn't have to be born in the country to be a natural born citizen. Being born a citizen is enough.

And Fuller was right. It is unreasonable to think that Obama is eligible, and Cruz is not.

[ZULU]

Look, he’s as eligible as Juan McCain or the Keynsian Kenyan on that point, and he is rock solid on every important issue as possible to all the posters on this board.

And that should be more than sufficient to all of us.

I really can’t stand to watch a good solid conservative ripped apart by people who pretend to give a damn about the direction this coountry is moving in.

THAT is ‘TRIVIA”!!!

[Ray76]

That he “is rock solid on every important issue” is immaterial to eligibility.

The “Keynsian Kenyan” is, by his story and unsubstantiated claims, ineligible.

[Nero Germanicus]

Not according to the courts that have ruled him eligible and the 51 state and federal district Chief Election Officials (usually a state’s Secretary of State) who approved him as eligible for the state’s ballot in 2008 and again in 2012.

---

For example:
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
and:
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012

[Ray76]

Most scholars believe people like Ted Cruz are eligible. I agree, because I think it's crystal clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended Congress' "power of naturalization" to include the ability to legally declare persons born to citizens outside of our borders as natural born citizens.

Arguendo, you must then accept current law which declares people like Cruz to be a "citizen", not a "natural born citizen". The law could have declared such persons "natural born citizen" using the same power as in 1790, yet they did not declare such persons "natural born citizen". Congress has legally declared persons born to citizens outside of our borders as citizens.

//

The "both parents" idea is premised on the fact that in 1790 the husband and wife were one person in law.

[Ray76]

Political decisions based on facts not in evidence.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

The justices got it wrong in Rhodes. They were covering for Obama. No judge wants to be responsible for opening up a can of worms that will lead to events that will cause Obama to be declared Ineligible. That is what we are dealing with here. Now we have to wait on what Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore does. He and another AL Supreme Court Justice named Tom Parker have in the past officially questioned Obama’s eligibility. Ton Parker stated Obama’s birth certificate would present problems if entered in court.

[Nero Germanicus]

In a trial on the merits held at the request of the plaintiffs, with expert testimony, exhibits and evidence entered into the record: Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings ruled in Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b).”
The Secretary of State of Georgia took Judge Mahili’s ruling under advisement and cleared Obama for the Georgia ballot. The plaintiffs then appealed Secretary of State Kemp’s decision to the Georgia Superior Court who refused to overturn the Secretary of State’s ruling. Several of the plaintiffs (Farrar, Lax, et. al. v. Obama, et. al.) then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States; first to Justice Thomas for a stay, which was denied and then to the full court. SCOTUS refused to grant a Writ of Certiorari to hear the appeal. Obama then lost Georgia to Romney 53% to 45%.

[Ray76]

The judge citing Ankeny is more stupid than the judge in Ankeny.

[Ray76]

An administrative hearing is not a judicial hearing. Just sayin

[Nero Germanicus]

Many states adjudicate candidate eligibility challenges through administrative law courts because candidate eligibility falls under state administrative statutes. In this particular instance it was the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.),
The Georgia Obama eligibility lawsuit went on from the Administrative Law Judge to the “real judges” of the state Superior Court and then on to the “even more real” Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

[Nero Germanicus]

There were three judges on the Indiana Appeals Court in Ankeny and the ruling was unanimous. If they were “stupid” they would have been overturned on appeal at the Indiana Supreme Court. They weren’t.
The Ankeny ruling has been cited by other Judges in other states. When a ruling is cited by other judges, that means it was probably on firm legal footing even if some folks disagree with the ruling. More importantly, since 2009 no JUDGE or JUSTICE has written a dissent from Ankeny.

For example here is a direct quote from the Ankeny decision: Voeltz v. Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that ‘persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.’”—September 6, 2012