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

FOXNEWS.com ^ | October 28, 2013 | unknown

[BuckeyeTexan]

Off the top of my head?

• Call a Constitutional Convention to pass Levin's proposed Liberty Amendments.
• Sue the Federal government over the rules of legal standing defined within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the 10th Amendment leaves everything not defined in the Constitution to the deference of the States and The People thereby making it unconstitutional for the courts to deny standing that has been granted by state law.

That was a long sentence. Whew.

[CodeToad]

“It is BEYOND THE AUTHORITY of US Law to define a constitutional term. “

We define free speech. We define terms of the 2nd amendment.

[xzins]

Really, all the Scotus said was that residency requirements are valid in claiming US citizenship for one who’d never lived here before. (Wasn’t there an age by which it must be claimed?) Until that time, I suppose it could have been viewed as sitting in an inactive file. Failure to act on it, could be seen as the individual acting to drop his citizenship.

It seems to me the principle is that despising your citizenship is the equivalent of renouncing it.

[CodeToad]

“then that citizenship is not going to be taken away by some future act of Congress or by a future court or whatever.”

No a future act of Congress, perhaps, but a future act y the person, yes. There are laws that say when Congress can strip a person of their citizenship including treason and foreign allegiance.

[Nero Germanicus]

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.” —Supreme Court of the United States, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

[BuckeyeTexan]

Exactly. 14A citizens have an advantage over statutory citizens. That’s the whole point.

SCOTUS said that advantage was legal in Rogers v. Bellei.

[xzins]

Summing it up by facts:

Cruz Sr is not a Canadian citizen.
Cruz Sr is not a Cuban citizen.
Cruz Sr is an American citizen.

Cruz Jr is an American citizen.
Cruz Jr might be a Canadian citizen.
Cruz Jr is not a Cuban citizen.

[CodeToad]

“
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.
“

That is your assumption, a wrong one at that. A law may have been created to clarify what some like you did not understand but it doesn’t change the fact that the mother confers citizenship regardless of birth place. Read my previous posts about a mother visiting a country.

I have lived many years of my life overseas and it was well known that a mother confers citizenship and that anchor babies are not always accepted.

[SoConPubbie]

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.” —Supreme Court of the United States, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

Exactly.

There is not definition of Natural Born, in the US Constitution, US Law, or Supreme Court Ruling that defines Natural Born as requiring 2 citizen parents at birth for a citizen to be President.

It is the combination of the US Constitution, related (hopefully ;)) US Law, and Supreme Court Rulings that HAVE to be the determination of the definition of Natural Born.

Those arguing that the definition is settled by some outside authority are wrong.

[butterdezillion]

Wow. This gets complicated.

I think I’ll do something a little easier for a while: learn how to program a computer. lol (My son has been wanting me to get the Processing textbook read for a while now...)

[BuckeyeTexan]

Butter, you would be an EXCELLENT DBA with your attention to detail and desire for well-defined rules.

[Nero Germanicus]

Minor v. Happersett also explicitedly states that the Constitution does not say “in words who shall be natural born citizens.”

[butterdezillion]

Yeah, but I feel like I could use a lot better and faster-accessed RAM in my head right now. lol

[Cboldt]

-- If having one's case appear in a statute is "citizen by operation of statute", then all of us are such, even those born in the USA to 2 citizen parents. ALL appear in the law. --

The case law makes a distinction between those who obtain citizenship without a need to resort to statute (similar to most of us being in the militia by dint of meeting the age and ability criteria), and those whose citizenship depends on a statute. I was referring to the class of people whose citizenship depends on the operation of a statute. If you are born in the US to two citizen parents, then your citizenship does not depend on a statute, although it may be enumerated in a statute.

Unless your position is that citizenship (not via naturalization) ALWAYS depends on an act of Congress, then the distinction I just delineated is relevant; and hopefully clears up any misunderstanding you had about what I meant.

-- "Natural born citizen" is no place defined in US law with the only exception being the Naturalization Law of 1790. --

Also the 1795 version.

[xzins]

I agree, with the exception that 14a are also statuatory citizens in that they appear in the statute.

They have an advantage over those who are “statuatory only” citizens.

However, the word “born” in “natural born citizens” suggests that “born” citizens who are statuatory are also constitutionally protected.

[Cboldt]

-- So how DO we know what the Founding Fathers meant? --

That task is sometimes easy, the plain language of the constitution sufficing, and other times impossible to determine because the founders agreed on words but differed as to what those words meant.

The Federalist and anti-federalist papers, as well as the contemporaneous writings are helpful to discern the intention of the drafters and ratifiers.

[BuckeyeTexan]

In fact, I recommend you take up data modeling.

[xzins]

There is, however, one former US law that does define “natural born citizen”. That is the law of 1790. It defined natural born to include those born overseas to US parents. So, blood descent was also considered “natural born” by that law.

And, reading the congressional testimony about the 1790 law, it’s fairly clear they took that almost directly from Blackstone’s comments on “natural born subjects” of Great Britain.

[Cboldt]

-- ... tell me more about how TX was able to require Eisenhower to provide a birth certificate in order to get on the TX ballot. Did the law at the time say that the SOS was authorized to demand a BC? --

I think the law authorized (and still does) that is all states, by virtue of charging the SoS with a responsibility. CA SoS did not allow Eldridge Cleaver on the ballot, due to not being of qualifying age.

As for Eisenhower, I don't know the details. Here is a fun conspiratorial read - parts of it have citation to corroborating evidence: Eisenhower 1952 Birth-Certificate Fraud Revealed By Don Nicoloff

[Brown Deer]

Summing it up by facts:

Cruz Sr is not a Canadian citizen.
Cruz Sr is not a Cuban citizen.
Cruz Sr is an American citizen.

I believe that my original reply was a much clearer summary of the facts:

www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3084995/replies?c=673

lj wrote, "Rafael Sr became a US citizen a few years ago. Up until that time, he was, from what I’ve read, a Cuban citizen."

and I replied, "Rafael Bienvenido Cruz came to the US from Cuba in May of 1956 when he was 18 years old to attend the University of Texas. He moved to Calgary, Canada in the 1960s and while living there for eight years, he became a Canadian citizen. He was not naturalized in the US until 2005.

So he was a Cuban citizen for about 30 years, a Canadian citizen for another 35 years and a US citizen for only the past 8 years, although he moved here over 57 years ago. "

I wonder how that could be considered a "transparant, snide, snarky little campaign against Rafael."