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.

[Nero Germanicus]

Do you know of any court ruling that differentiates between a Citizen of the United Ststes AT birth and a Citizen of the United Sates BY birth?

Using your own words, a person who at a point in time (birth) was a Citizen of the United States doesn’t seem in any way distinct from a person whose birth caused them to be a citizen or a person whose citizenship was caused by the circumstances of their birth.

[Ray76]

A person born in country to citizen has always been a citizen in law, without statute.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I would put it slightly differently. I would say that native-born necessarily implies natural born.

That's probably a worthwhile distinction. All I meant was that trying to claim that a court meant one thing when it said "native born" and something else when it said "natural born" requires torturing the language in ways that just assuming they mean the same thing (in most contexts) does not.

So, in other words, you're going to limit your involvement to just an hour or three a day. :-)

I'm trying to cut down.

But I mean things like claims that the US does not permit dual citizenship, or that the Minor decision offered the full and complete definition of NBC. Things that are false on their face. Fortunately, there are a lot fewer of those than there used to be.

[Jeff Winston]

That's probably a worthwhile distinction. All I meant was that trying to claim that a court meant one thing when it said "native born" and something else when it said "natural born" requires torturing the language in ways that just assuming they mean the same thing (in most contexts) does not.

The discussion is a bit complicated by the fact that people who have commented on the issue throughout history have not always been 100% precise and thorough in their comments.

The biggest example of this is those who have said you have to be "born in the United States" in order to be President. Strictly speaking, that's really not the case. According to Bayard (and Marshall), and according to our First Congress which with President Washington included 40% of the Signers of the Constitution - the biggest known group of Framers ever known to have assembled outside of the Constitutional Convention itself - you only have to be born a citizen. Whether you were born a citizen in the US, or born a US citizen abroad.

But I mean things like claims that the US does not permit dual citizenship, or that the Minor decision offered the full and complete definition of NBC. Things that are false on their face. Fortunately, there are a lot fewer of those than there used to be.

The problem is that almost everything the birthers say is false, or a fallacy. There are a few legitimate points (I was rather shocked a day or two ago when DiogenesLamp actually made one - I can't remember what it was offhand) but not many.

[Jeff Winston]

Do you know of any court ruling that differentiates between a Citizen of the United Ststes AT birth and a Citizen of the United Sates BY birth?

Great question.

I'd bet there is none.

Using your own words, a person who at a point in time (birth) was a Citizen of the United States doesn’t seem in any way distinct from a person whose birth caused them to be a citizen or a person whose citizenship was caused by the circumstances of their birth.

Or, to put it another way:

If a person isn't a citizen by birth, then how is it even possible for that person to be a citizen at birth?

I just don't see that it is. And I don't see that any judge or court would EVER see it differently.

[Tau Food]

If a person isn't a citizen by birth, then how is it even possible for that person to be a citizen at birth?

Pixie dust, Swiss pixie dust.

[Jeff Winston]

Pixie dust, Swiss pixie dust.

Ah! Of course. I forgot about the Swiss pixie dust. How could I forget that?

In my defense, though, I'd wager that our court system and judges aren't terribly impressed by Swiss pixie dust.

[Tau Food]

Hey, I can picture Madison and the other founding fathers sitting around discussing the subtle distinctions between citizens "by birth" and "at birth" (while sniffing glue).

But, then, it may not have happened at all.

[Jeff Winston]

Hey, I can picture Madison and the other founding fathers sitting around discussing the subtle distinctions between citizens "by birth" and "at birth" (while sniffing glue).

Don't be silly. They didn't have intoxicating glue in those days.

They drank Samuel Adams beer.

[Nero Germanicus]

You seem to have a problem with statutes.

[Tau Food]

When we find ourselves trying to distinguish between citizens "at birth" and citizens "by birth," a more fundamental question arises: just how important is it for us to try to technically disqualify a candidate who receives the support of a majority of voters/electors? Is there really a possibility that a majority of voters/electors might elect someone who is not a citizen or who is a citizen, but has little or no political connection to this country?

All of this crazy, inherently speculative extra-constitutional scrutiny is situational. If Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal or Nikki Haley gets the nomination in 2016, there will be lots of new left wing birthers who will replace the current crop of birthers and who will benefit from all of the present "research."

Ted Cruz - 2016 (a natural born citizen by birth and at birth)

[Jeff Winston]

When we find ourselves trying to distinguish between citizens "at birth" and citizens "by birth," a more fundamental question arises: just how important is it for us to try to technically disqualify a candidate who receives the support of a majority of voters/electors? Is there really a possibility that a majority of voters/electors might elect someone who is not a citizen or who is a citizen, but has little or no political connection to this country?

Well, I don't know. I think it's hard to overestimate people's stupidity. I mean, they elected Clinton. They elected Obama. They're baying for George Zimmerman's blood. And until a couple of days ago, they looked set to elect Anthony Weiner.

So I think there's a balance. You have to have the rules. But at some point, in the end, you also have to trust the People to do the right thing.

Or at least, to do the wrong thing and then realize they've screwed it up and fix it.

So as long as the system works, it should be at least somewhat self-correcting. But the integrity of the system is important. And for that reason legitimate eligibility questions are important.

If Ted Cruz runs and wins, he'll probably be challenged in court. And the courts will say he's eligible.

And that's all fine. It's as it should be. And I'll tell you this: It's a helluva lot better than martial law.

[Tau Food]

If Ted Cruz runs and wins, he'll probably be challenged in court. And the courts will say he's eligible.

If we've learned anything from the last five years, we've learned that the Supreme Court will not declare him ineligible. I suspect that if Ted Cruz runs and is elected, the Supreme Court will continue to avoid jumping into these inherently uncertain waters by continuing to avoid such cases.

The most important question may be whether the left wing will be willing to send money to "lawyers" like Orly Taitz (assuming she is still licensed then) or whether the left wing will insist upon having its own crackpot counsel. More broadly, how will Ted Cruz change the birther industry?

[Nero Germanicus]

The Supreme Court did use “citizenship BY birth” in its landmark ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898):
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship BY birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;’ and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides…”

[Jeff Winston]

If we've learned anything from the last five years, we've learned that the Supreme Court will not declare him ineligible. I suspect that if Ted Cruz runs and is elected, the Supreme Court will continue to avoid jumping into these inherently uncertain waters by continuing to avoid such cases.

There's a difference between Obama and Cruz. Obama's case has already been decided by the US Supreme Court, in Wong.

That's the biggest reason why the Court has ignored these birther challenges and let the lower federal and state courts handle it. It's already been adjudicated. They don't need to waste their time. There's no new precedent to set.

A Cruz case would be different in that it's never been definitively decided by the Supreme Court. For that reason, they might take the case.

Based on the reasons I've gone over in this thread, I think they would find Cruz eligible.

[Jeff Winston]

And surely there are as many crackpots on the left as there are crackpot anti-Obama birthers.

Of course, the leftists don’t care as much about the Constitution. The current crop of birthers at least pretend to care about the Constitution, although they savage it at every step.

[Jeff Winston]

They certainly did. That’s a good observation.

I think there’s at least some case to be made that the children born US citizens overseas might be considered citizens “at” birth rather than citizens “by” birth. Although I think the distinction is so trivial, and the case so weak, I just don’t see it making any difference.

[Tau Food]

One problem for the Supreme Court would be something like, "Well, although no one can be absolutely certain about the exact contours and boundaries of the meaning of "natural born citizen," we prefer to define it to mean . . ."

And, then apply that rule to overturn a presidential election by a 5-4 vote. Not likely.

I suspect that if it is ever somehow forced to rule, the Court will rule that, under the Constitution, the Court has no power to overrule the selection of a majority of electors.

[Tau Food]

Of course, the leftists don’t care as much about the Constitution.

Yeah, that may be, but lots of them like to make money and if there is a market for crackpot books and DVDs, they'll produce them. Without the financial incentives, this "movement" would have been a complete dud from the outset.

[Jeff Winston]

I see your point. Although personally, I can’t say I really agree with it.

I can see that the Court wouldn’t like to be caught in a position of invalidating the choice of the People for President. Particularly by a narrow vote such as 5-4. That would be bad.

Still, the Court has been charged with the task of interpreting the Constitution. The exact meaning of “natural born citizen” is a Constitutional interpretation question that falls within their purview.

For that reason, I can see them taking on the Constitutionality of a Cruz Presidency.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they would take a straw poll or having a bit of a discussion before taking on the question, though.

I would also think that the importance of the question might outweigh any reluctance to take it on for “political” reasons. And the Court has certainly taken on controversial questions in the past. The Dred Scott case attempted to resolve some of the Constitutional questions surrounding slavery. Minor v. Happersett, which was about whether women had the right to vote. The Court said they didn’t. Plessy v. Ferguson. Brown v. Board of Education. Roe v. Wade.