Cruz says he is a US citizen 'by birth' despite being born in Canada

FOXNEWS.com ^ | October 28, 2013 | unknown

[txrangerette]

Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.

"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.

[DiogenesLamp]

Prove it, in context.

How much time do you want to spend on it?

Don't cherry pick your proof like most do on this issue.

How about this? Let us first agree as to who would be most in a position to know the correct answer to the "natural born citizen" question.

I argue that only the Delegates to the US Constitutional convention, and the subsequent ratifiers in the State ratifying conventions, knew exactly what it was that they intended with that article II provision. (i.e. the Lawmakers.)

I argue that any statements by actual Delegates or Ratifying legislators, constitute the best actual authority regarding what was their intentions in passing that requirement.

I further argue, that any citation of authority ought to demonstrate some linkage to the delegates or ratifying legislatures, or it can only be regarded as merely hearsay from people who were not there.

Do these seem like agreeable terms to you?

[BuckeyeTexan]

The states can grant legal standing for people so that the courts HAVE to address an issue on the minds of the people, can't they?

No, they can't ... apparently. In CA, the proponents who put Prop 8 (no gay marriage) on the ballot were granted the right to defend Prop 8 in court because the State refused to do so. Under CA law, that is legal. They have standing because they initiated the proposition for the ballot. When the case got to SCOTUS, the court said those same proponents lacked standing to bring the case in the federal court system.

[BurningOak]

Children of immigrants (born outside of US) DO have to go through a naturalization process. It is bundled with their parents application but the children certainly do need to be declared and allowed residence followed by citizenship.

[SoConPubbie]

Do not understand what you are trying to say here.

I do. But I think the irony of your statements currently escapes you.

[xzins]

I know from that many think Congress power deals only with non-Americans becoming Americans. But, it is obvious that one must define US citizen in order to determine those who require being naturalized.

The final lines of section 8 are enormous, “make all laws necessary”. When it comes to determining naturalization laws, Congress is empowered by the Constitution to make all laws necessary.

[DiogenesLamp]

But the people who claim that Ted Cruz is Canadian NOT AMERICAN because his mother gave birth to him on Canadian soil, would have a hard time reconciling THAT claim, with the position virtually all we conservatives would claim on anchor babies.

Nobody is claiming that He is not an American Citizen. He is most certainly an American citizen who was granted citizenship by the authority of a Congressional statute in which they exercise their power of naturalization.

We are just arguing that citizenship which flows from Congress is not NATURAL citizenship.

Congress can pass a law which says every third Chinese baby named "Lee" is an American citizen at birth. This will make these babies "citizens at birth" but it will not make them "natural" citizens.

Congress can't create "natural" citizens. Natural citizens are created by nature, not man made law.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I get your point, but statutory citizenship has been revoked before. It likely wouldn’t be done today and almost certainly not for Cruz.

But ... if he pushed them (his enemies) far enough and they had control of both houses and passed a revision to the citizenship statutes the same way they shoved Obamacare down our throats, they could revoke his citizenship. (In which case, I’m headed to D.C. in open rebellion.)

[DiogenesLamp]

Everything outside of current US law is simply opinion for debating societies.

Everything INSIDE current US law is simply opinion for debating societies.

Once again, US Law cannot change the meaning of the US Constitution. US Law does not have that authority. A Constitutional amendment is required.

[butterdezillion]

Hmm. So even if a state says something is your business, the feds can say it isn’t?

How can a state deliberately inflict damage that would have to be recognized as granting standing in the federal courts? All with the intention of forcing the feds to do their job.

[SoConPubbie]

I argue that only the Delegates to the US Constitutional convention, and the subsequent ratifiers in the State ratifying conventions, knew exactly what it was that they intended with that article II provision. (i.e. the Lawmakers.) I argue that any statements by actual Delegates or Ratifying legislators, constitute the best actual authority regarding what was their intentions in passing that requirement.

I further argue, that any citation of authority ought to demonstrate some linkage to the delegates or ratifying legislatures, or it can only be regarded as merely hearsay from people who were not there.

I'd be agreeable to your stipulations if it led to any proof from the US Constitution, US Law, and/or Supreme Court Ruling that corroborates your understanding of what it means to be Eligible to be President of the US.

However, as with all those who remain adamant that it requires 2 citizen parents at time of birth for a citizen to be eligible to be President, you will attempt to use authorities outside of the current US Constitution, US Law, and/or US Supreme Court Ruling to establish your definition as correct.

But in real terms, the only things that count are the Current US Constitution, current US Law, and/or Current US Supreme Court rulings.

Everything else is immaterial, no matter how correct you believe you are in your opinion. Anything outside of those authorities have no bearing, no strength in determining whether or not someone like Senator Cruz is eligible to be President.

Now, if a challenge ever made it to the Supreme Court, your outside list of authorities might be taken into consideration(dependent on the politicization of the court case), but only in the context of the current, not in the context of the founding of the country.

Outside authorities were meant to provide a basic framework, not to act as the AUTHORITY for our laws. Our Constitution, our laws are the authority, not the other way around. No one is going to throw you into prison because you violated some idea from an outside authority. Violate one of our laws, however, and that's where the authority comes into play.

[DiogenesLamp]

Gotta go. Be back in an hour or so.

[SoConPubbie]

Once again, US Law cannot change the meaning of the US Constitution. US Law does not have that authority. A Constitutional amendment is required.

Please show us, from the US Constitution, where it definitively defines eligibility as requiring 2 citizen parents at time of birth from someone to be President of the US.

[xzins]

“Natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution or anywhere, for that matter, except in the Naturalization Law of 1790. And, as the constitutional body with the power to tell the supreme court that it has no jurisdiction, then Congress is the constitutional interpretation body of final resort. Therefore, it has every right to define “natural born citizen” to carry out its constitutional role.

[xzins]

Please show us, from the US Constitution, where it definitively defines eligibility as requiring 2 citizen parents at time of birth from someone to be President of the US.

Exactly.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

True that.

I saw the Obama “legal records” team in action when I was in Chicago from 2001-2011.

Funny that the complicity of the media was never called into question. (seriousness of the charge and all that...)

[SoConPubbie]

Now, if a challenge ever made it to the Supreme Court, your outside list of authorities might be taken into consideration(dependent on the politicization of the court case), but only in the context of the current, not in the context of the founding of the country.

Let me modify this somewhat.

If a case made it to the Supreme Court, there would probably, dependent on the Justice (i.e. Scalia vs. Ginsburg) and their political leanings and their fidelity to the correct purpose of their position, will take the original interpretation into consideration.

I'd believe that Scalia would probably be the most honest in application of outside authorities. Ginsburg, on the other hand, would filter any decision she made through a political filter of what would most protect her political world view. She might see Cruz as a threat and so would lean most heavily on one of your outside authorities, or, she might think that allowing Cruz to be considered eligible would benefit Hillary Clinton or whomever was the Democrat Nominee as she might think he would be the easiest to beat.

To a Marxist like Ginsburg, rules don't mean anything, it is the outcome that matters.

[Graewoulf]

” - - - By the time we respond to one attack on liberty and everything that is American, they’ve already done 5 more attacks, and the media has made sure the lie has traveled around the world twice before the truth can get its shoes tied. - - - “

Thanks for making my point:

“The ONLY way to win in Politics is to ALWAYS BE ON OFFENSE !
Attack, Attack, ATTACK!”

What your above quote documents is that the Libs KNOW how to keep us on NO-FIRE-IN-THE-BELLY Defense: THEY NEVER STOP ATTACKING!

BTW, Defense may win football games but Defense in Politics just produces smiling, sobbing losers making “coulda-woulda-shoulda” speeches.

For example: Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, Cornyn, Romney, McCain, Graham, - - - did I mention Romney?

[Brown Deer]

Nope, this says what I've explained, with the exception that US should probably read Canadian right before the "otherwise".

Either it says what you explained with no exceptions or it doesn't say what you said.

It is possible I meant that doing the one at that time meant he would have also renounced the other, but it's more likely I meant the US to read Canadian.

Maybe you did, but I'm not a mindreader.

The "otherwise" sentence makes clear what I was saying.

Nope, not really. In any case, you obviously didn't say, "that his NOT renouncing his Cuban citizenship at the time he renounced his Canadian citizenship is circumstantial evidence that it had already been renounced."

and even if you did, it's not evidence.

btw, 0bama had a bio that said he was born in Kenya. Maybe you should try presenting that as evidence. ;-)

[Nero Germanicus]

It’s in 8 USC SECTION 1401 {point “g”
8 USC 1401
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(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:”

[SoConPubbie]

Take a page from your own book. The Naturalization Law does not supersede the NBC requirement of the Constitution.

Please post the DEFINITIVE phrase from the US Constitution that establishes that it requires 2 citizen parents at birth for a citizen to be Natural Born and therefore eligible to be President of the United States.