CRUZ releases birth certificate

Dallas Morning News ^ | 8-18-13 | Todd Gillman

[praytell]

WASHINGTON — Born in Canada to an American mother, Ted Cruz became an instant U.S. citizen. But under Canadian law, he also became a citizen of that country the moment he was born.

Unless the Texas Republican senator formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries, legal experts say.

That means he could assert the right to vote in Canada or even run for Parliament. On a lunch break from the U.S. Senate, he could head to the nearby embassy — the one flying a bright red maple leaf flag — pull out his Calgary, Alberta, birth certificate and obtain a passport.

[Seizethecarp]

“Persons born to US citizens abroad are United States citizens AT BIRTH, and before any documentation of the fact is ever issued.”

You appear to have missed that bit in the statute about the residency requirements needing to be met for the US citizen parent.

If Cruz’s mom had been age 18 at his birth (like Barry’s) instead of age 27 (IIRC), Cruz would NOT have been a statutory citizen at birth due to his mom failing the residency requirement of 5 years US residency after age 14 that was in effect at the time of his birth.

[Ray76]

Also overlooked/ignored are the requirements for retention of citizenship - to return to the United States prior to becoming 23 years old and to be continuously present for five years thereafter:

Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(b)

Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United States for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.

[Nero Germanicus]

Here in the 21st century, sixteen court decisions have ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen and he published a book about his Kenyan born father 13 years before he ran for president. No court decision and no act of Congress has found him not to qualify. I predict that it will be the same with Senator Cruz.
Allen v. Obama, Arizona (2012)
Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana (2009)
Fair v. Obama, Maryland (2012)
Farrar v. Obama, Georgia (2012)
Freeman v. Obama, Illinois (2012)
Galasso v. Obama, New Jersey (2012)
Jackson v. Obama, Illinois (2012)
Paige v. Obama, Vermont (2012)
Powell v. Obama, Georgia (2012)
Purpura, et. al. v. Obama, New Jersey (2012)
Strunk v. N.Y. Board of Elections, New York (2012)
Swensson v. Obama, Georgia (2012)
Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto), Washington, D.D. (2010)
Tisdale v. Obama, Virginia (2012)
Voeltz v. Obama, Florida (2012)
Welden v. Obama, Georgia (2012)

[Plummz]

No, that would make him a stautorily born citizen. Not a naturally born citizen.

[taxcontrol]

My source is Article 1 section 8 and in addition to the clause about creating the rules for naturalization, the final clause of section 8 reads:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

In addition, your cited reference from heritage, you apparently forgot to read the paragraph that starts “In Rogers v. Bellei (1971), however, the Court did uphold a statute requiring that if a person acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to an American citizen,...” That clearly shows that SCOTUS believes that 1) A person can acquire US Citizenship at birth though born abroad and 2) that citizenship at birth only requires one US Citizen parent.

Now as to your first citation. Please take the effort to look down on that page and find the URL “Citizenship Through Parents” and follow that link. Then look down to left hand side to the third case (Mr Cruz was born December 22, 1970). IN YOUR OWN CITATION, The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least ten years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, at least five of which were after his or her 14th birthday.

Mr Cruz’s mother was a US Citizen, attended college in Texas and graduated with a Bachelors. It therefore follows that Mr Cruz acquired his citizenship from his mother at his birth and as such, has never need to be naturalized and is therefore, a natural born citizen.

[taxcontrol]

There is no such thing as a statutorily born citizen. That category does not even exist. So, please, quit making things up. Stick to the facts and if you can, please site the Constitution, historical facts and laws of the land to support your position rather than continuing to spout your unsupported opinion.

[Ray76]

You’ve previously and repeatedly trotted out this circular nonsense: Cruz acquired by naturalization statute citizenship and therefore doesn’t require naturalization.

[DiogenesLamp]

What is nonsense is your attempt to deny Congress a power expressly reserved to them by the Constitution.

Congress does not, nor have they EVER HAD, the ability to CHANGE THE MEANING OF WORDS in the US Constitution.

This power is FORBIDDEN. Not only is it NOT ALLOWED, it can NEVER be allowed. It would be an open door to tyranny.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress cannot repeal the law of nature. It is not among their powers.

But enough of me citing the Constitution, historical facts, and laws of the land. Your turn to start citing references to support your position.

Please. You've barely scratched the surface, and what bits you do cite, you get completely wrong. You are in the kiddie pool of this debate, and until you move into deeper waters, i'm not really interested in trading historical cites with you.

[taxcontrol]

First off, it is not circular, second, it is the same section of the law (subsection A) that states if you are born in the US, you are a citizen. Mr Cruz acquired his US Citizenship by his US Citizen Mother at birth therefore he has never needed to be naturalized.

Now I have cited specific sections of the Constitution, historical facts, and the laws of this land. It is now time for you to start citing one of those three to support your opinion.

[MHGinTN]

Was the French citizenship conferred at the actual birth of each, or granted later?

[Ray76]

Your “rationale” is entirely circular.

[Ray76]

Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(a)(7), Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(b)

Cruz is defined in law, “citizen”.

[taxcontrol]

You state that I’ve barely scratched the surface with my citations yet you are unable to make any citations to support your opinion. You claim that I’m in the kiddie pool but brother, you are not even wet.

No one (other than yourself) is asserting that Congress is attempting to alter the meaning of words.

No one (other than yourself) is asserting that Congress is attempting to alter or repeal a law of nature.

You say you don’t want to trade historical cites ... fine, start citing laws, or the Constitution. Until you can do that you are just spouting off with your unsupported opinion.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Here in 6 minutes is the true definition of the founders original intent as stated by a Constitutional lawyer and scholar well versed on the subject. His credentials are impeccable. He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Watch and listen real good taxcontrol.

Part 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=esiZZ-1R7e8

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xoaZ8WextxQ

[DiogenesLamp]

And that meaning was revealed when in 1790, George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, and the Congress, many of whom helped produce the Constitution just 3 years earlier, decided to pass and sign the Naturalization Law of 1790 in which they used the expression "natural born citizen" to describe a child born overseas to US citizen parents.

Your point would be correct if the Naturalization Law of 1790 used the word *are* instead of "Shall be considered as".

That is a fact. It is an irreversible fact. The Founders used natural born citizen to describe a born overseas citizen.

Yes, as something to compare this newly created class of citizen with. Once again, "naturalization " is to make "like natural. " It's not the same thing as being natural.

Significantly, though, when Congress was making the initial laws of the land, when they had to be concise, precise, and get right to the most important issues, they recognized bloodline citizenship as natural born citizenship.

But they only recognized the bloodline of the FATHER. The citizenship of the mother was irrelevant prior to marriage because Women automatically became citizens of their husband's country when they married.

Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

Dual citizenship didn't exist until 1922. Prior to that, both parents were always the same nationality.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

None of those cases went to trial and had Constitutional scholars and lawyers take the stand to discus the merits of presidential eligibility. The cases never even made it to the discovery phase.

[Plummz]

You just said he was a born a citizen because of a statute. Do you even read what you post?

[taxcontrol]

Yes, Mr Cruz was a citizen of the US at his birth and thus was naturally born as a US citizen. He never was an “alien” and never was in need of naturalization and he never immigrated.

I would also point out that in Title 8 section 1401 section A, anyone born in the US is defined by law as “citizen”.

[Ray76]

Remove that statute - POOF! No more citizenship.

You read words into the law that are not there.

[taxcontrol]

All who are born in the US are citizens by that statue. Laws and statue is how we run this land. Congress expresses it's will by passing laws. The Constitution in Article 1 section 8 specifically empowers Congress to establish the laws necessary for executing and governing this nation.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.