On Ted Cruz Eligibility . . .

Vanity | January 8, 2016 | Behind the Blue Wall

[Mariner]

"Not really. If his mother naturalized in Canada, thus renouncing her U.S. citizenship, she could’ve been born a citizen of the U.S. but not been one when he was born, thus making her unable to transmit U.S. citizenship to her son. "

She had a great deal of incentive to do so. Both her and her husband were gainfully employed...decent money...and paying Canadian National and Provincial taxes, even then much higher than US Taxes.

She, as a US Citizen would have been required to pay US Taxes even though her money was earned in Canada.

By becoming a Canadian citizen alone she would not be required to participate in the US Tax system.

I don't know if Mrs Cruz did this, but she had every reasonable incentive to do so.

There's no doubt this Cruz status issue will end up in a Federal Court somewhere. And a US Federal Court can request naturalization records for the mother from Canada. And Canada would comply. That same court can request and receive all US documents related to his status.

We will know, eventually, his firm legal status.

[taxcontrol]

The meaning of "natural citizen" is not subject to man-made law,

You are incorrect. Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates Congress with the exclusive power to establish the rules of naturalization. That includes who does and who does not need to be naturalized.

[Wissa]

You would trust his answer to that one question, but not everything he has said so far?

What has he said so far, besides that his mother was born in the US and he was born in Canada?

The documentation in the citizenship files of both countries would be released to Ted Cruz at his request. With all the discussion on this matter, only a fool would believe that Cruz and his attorneys haven't requested and received those documents already.

If that documentation would be to his favor, he'd obviously be putting it out to the press so people aren't discussing it anymore. But instead, he seems to be hoping the questions of his constitutional qualifications will just blow away with the wind. That he keeps acting that way makes more and more people wonder just what smells that he's trying to keep under wraps.

[AFret.]

“Not really. If his mother naturalized in Canada, thus renouncing her U.S. citizenship, she could’ve been born a citizen of the U.S. but not been one when he was born, thus making her unable to transmit U.S. citizenship to her son. “

---

I posted this on another thread...Go to “Scribd.com/ Cruz eligibility timeline”..pretty much lays it out..

[usurper]

Yes, he absolutely has to have an immigration file.

As an immigration officer for 25 years I can tell you that we do not issue immigration files (known as "A" files) to people born US citizens. The reason for this is because DHS or the INS as it was called have no reason to open a file on a US citizen.

An A-file simple contains information related to an aliens status in the US. It includes initial applications or apprehensions, fingerprints, criminal history's and any information related to the aliens current status.

The only US citizens which have A-files are legal immigrants who naturalized as citizens.

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

[Mariner]

"I posted this on another thread...Go to “Scribd.com/ Cruz eligibility timeline”..pretty much lays it out.."

That site does not provide documentary evidence of their assertion that both the mother and father were ever Canadian citizens at the date of birth.

It's a "fact" not in evidence.

But, a Federal Court could obtain the evidence to prove his status without any reasonable question.

It seems this would be a prudent course for the Senator.

[thackney]

“Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter,” Cruz wrote in his statement.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/19/ted-cruz-renounces-canadian-citizenship-in-statement/

Do you think he lied when he said he was an American at Birth? Do you think he secretly became naturalized as child (got a US Passport at 16 to go to England), and has kept those records hidden from every political enemy so far?

[DiogenesLamp]

You are incorrect. Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates Congress with the exclusive power to establish the rules of naturalization. That includes who does and who does not need to be naturalized.

Your statement is a logical mind warp. Congress does not have the power to make something "natural" which is not.

In case you missed it, "man made" is not natural.

[thackney]

The only legal document I’ve seen by the founding fathers describing Natural Born Citizen is the Naturalization Act of 1790 which says they are natural born citizens.

“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”

http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf

Have you found another legal document from them that states it differently?

Not an opinion of different individuals, but a legal document from the founding fathers? I can find opinions from the time written about how we should remain under the King. It doesn’t make us British Subjects today.

[taxcontrol]

The US Constitution is the first and only legal authority for all laws that govern the actions of the US government, the states and anyone, or anything subject to it’s authority.

Within that very clear understanding, in order for your argument to be true, you would have to show that:

1) Congress does not have the exclusive authority to define the rules of naturalization

or

2) there is some other “higher” authority that controls the rules of naturalization.

Since you can not do so, the best you can do is offer your opinion, which you are entitled to have no matter how wrong it may be.

[DiogenesLamp]

The only place the term natural born citizen has ever even been mentioned in a legislative act is the 1790 Naturalization Act, and they didn't even define it there. They just said children of citizens naturalized under the act that were born abroad were natural born citiz

A couple of quibbles. The term "Natural born citizen" was used in proposed legislation during the war of 1812 requiring 3/4ths of US Ships crews to be "natural born citizens."

The second quibble is that the naturalization act of 1790 does not say that children born abroad to American parents "are natural born citizens" it says they "shall be considered as natural born citizens", I would assume in the manner that adopted children are considered members of a family.

[FreeReign]

1. Because most people understand NBC to mean “born on U.S. soil as a U.S citizen” (putting aside anchor babies for the moment), so it wouldn’t matter if his parents were citizens at the time of his birth;

So then if Trump's (or any candidate's) parents weren't citizens, then how is Donald or any other candidate not an anchor baby?????

[thackney]

it says they "shall be considered as natural born citizens"

Did that make them eligible to become President?

[FreeReign]

Trump has released his Birth Certificate to the press.

Trump has not released his parents' BC or naturalization papers.

[Durbin]

If my wife and I go on vacation to Canada, and she goes into labor and gives birth to our child there. Does that automatically disqualify him/her from being able to run for president if they want to? GTFOH with this drivel.

[MamaTexan]

Have you found another legal document from them that states it differently?

That is exactly what the 1790 Act says, but the 1790 act was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act which omits the natural born language and replaces it with -

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

shall be considered citizens of the United States not Natural born citizens.

The Founders wrote both Acts. The only logical purpose for that I could think of would to stay in accordance with the Constitution's grandfather clause and limit the window for foreign 'natural' born citizens.

[pookie18]

Are you back? Go on with Mark Levin & debate him...or if you don’t like him, try Clement, Katyal, Olson or Tribe...

[Yosemitest]

The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it , too ( even though it DOES NOT APPLY) !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,

That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
Provided, that
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

[Wissa]

Do you think he lied when he said he was an American at Birth?

I think there is the possibility that someone else looking at all the documentation might have a difference of opinion from Ted on whether or not he was a citizen at birth.

I think there is the possibility that Cruz is making a statement of fact, based on one interpretation of events, the one which he finds most favorable.

I think he's doing a lot less than he could to get the question of his eligibility resolved. Up to now, he seems to be relying on people in the press and alternative media presenting his case, all of whom are relying on speculation of what the documents would actually show.