Posted on 01/09/2016 8:42:14 PM PST by randita
OTTUMWA, Iowa — Donald J. Trump sharply escalated his rhetoric about Senator Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president on Saturday, suggesting that because he was born in Canada there were unanswered questions about whether he met the constitutional requirement to be a “natural-born citizen.’’
“You can’t have a person who’s running for office, even though Ted is very glib and he goes out and says ‘Well, I’m a natural-born citizen,’ but the point is you’re not,†Mr. Trump said while campaigning in Clear Lake, Iowa.
Mr. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, to an American mother, which automatically conferred American citizenship. Most legal experts agree that satisfies the requirement to be a “natural-born citizen,’’ a term that was not defined by the founders.
Mr. Trump, who began raising questions about Mr. Cruz’s ability to be president earlier in the week, said on Saturday that Mr. Cruz would have to go to court to get a “declaratory judgment†about his eligibility “or you have a candidate who just cannot run.’’ (Mr. Cruz could need a judgment if someone filed a lawsuit to challenge his candidacy and a court agreed to take up the question.)
With polls showing the race in Iowa tightening, and Mr. Cruz leading Mr. Trump by 4 percentage points in a Fox News poll released on Friday, Mr. Trump has returned to an issue that first gained him notoriety years ago when he challenged President Obama’s citizenship.
On Saturday night, before the final stop on a six-day bus tour of Iowa, Mr. Cruz said: “Under longstanding federal law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.â€
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Maybe the bus stop was his source.
And Doug, I do consider myself an expert on US citizenship laws and I have publically posted ALL my research to prove it. I have crossed every ‘t” and dotted every “i” and left nothing in the closet.
https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/
https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/?s=%22Article+II%22&submit=Search
This “is he or isn’t he an American citizen eligible to run for POTUS” question needs to be put to rest. I have an opinion as to his eligibility, as most do, but we all know our personal opinions won’t change anything, and it will take a court to make the final decision if Cruz is eligible and better now than later because if Cruz is the nominee the Dems will sue for a court decision, and any of the Republican nominees would have standing to sue also. And what would happen in the interim? Would we be stuck with Obummer until a decision was reached (which could drag on for years)? And although I think Cruz would make a phenomenal President, it would leave the door open for some man/woman in a similar situation to run for President that may not have America’s best welfare at heart. Be warned.
Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization(1840-1950)
Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.
Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103)
The 1st major exception to this 1790 Act was that “derivative†citizenship was granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men. From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen.
(Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.) From 1790 to 1940, children under the age of 21 automatically became naturalized citizens upon the naturalization of their father.
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
It IS the father that confers the citizenship UNLESS the child is born out of wedlock and then the child follows the nationality of the mother. Cruz was born to parents who were married and therefore, it is the nationality of the father, NOT the mother, that matters.
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.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject†(January 29, 1795).
For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:
SEC.1. 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, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: —
First. He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at that time, be a citizen or subject.
Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.
Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.
Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.
SEC. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.
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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,†passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
Trump still don’t get it. He will soon enough after his crushing defeat in Iowa. The more he attacks Cruz from the left, the better Cruz does in the polls.
There was a post here earlier on that.Ted Cruz supporters in Iowa are totally unmoved by Trump’s birther antics. The common refrain being, Trump insults everybody who comes close to or starts beating him in the polls.
In fact Trump’s poll numbers on the Fox poll yesterday had him down 4% nationally and down 2% in Iowa from the last Fox poll.
You REALLY should not speak before you ACTUALLY know the facts ...
Cruz’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, has confirmed taking Canadian citizenship. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/
“I worked in Canada for eight years,” Rafael Cruz says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.”
The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 — 48 years after leaving Cuba. Why did he take so long to do it? http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration
No there is none. Rafael Cruz was a legal permanent resident (green card holder) of the United States.
This horse is truly dead, and he ain't getting back up.
And Vattel, as interesting as he is, is not US law, and never has been.
Sorry, that last comment was meant for Yosemitest
You REALLY should not speak before you ACTUALLY know the facts ...
Cruz’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, has confirmed taking Canadian citizenship. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/
“I worked in Canada for eight years,†Rafael Cruz says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.â€
The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005  48 years after leaving Cuba. Why did he take so long to do it? http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration
No he was not! He became a Canadian citizen and was one when baby Ted was born.
A green card is a permit to reside and work in the United States, without becoming a “citizen” of the United States.
A green card is NOT a valid document for ‘citizenship’ purposes. The current US Code, Title 28, states that in 1940, the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 & the Expatriation Act of 1868 were formally consolidated into one stature.
Why is this important?
Because Title 28 of the US Code is NOT positive law, therefore, Title 28 is merely evidence of the statutes that give the US Government the authority to enforce and so we must go the statutes in order to determine what the law actually says and those laws state:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.†(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))read the law: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 March 9, 1866 )14th Amendment” https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=389 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. (The latter was a citizen of a foreign country at birth, the former was not, therefore, when the latter renounced the foreign citizenship, he attained all the rights and privileges of the former except he could not become president. Being president is NOT a right, it is a privilege, a political one) see the pdf’s of the Buchanan Administration that were published nationwide. It IS the language of these official government publications that became the language of the 14th Amendment. https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/
Mr Speaker, the next point in the issue is as to expatriation. Expatriation is one of the most imprescribtible right of men. To assert it the American government waged war against Great Britain, in what is known in our history as the “second war for independence,†for three years. The right of expatriation is one of the fundamental principles of American government. (Cong. Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 2nd Session page 2791)
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=083/llcg083.db&recNum=1040
You need to become just a bit more familiar with the truth if you want to maintain a shred of credibility.
Three points:
1. Rafael Cruz held a US green card and was a permanent US resident when he relocated to Calgary. Green card holders are permitted to leave the United States for the purpose of employment so long as they register before leaving and return to the US at least annually. There is NO whatsoever reason to believe that Cruz gave up his US permanent residence when he went to Canada.
2. Ted Cruz was born four years after The Cruz family relocated to Calgary. His father would not have been permitted to as much as apply for Canadian citizenship until he had resided in Canada for five years. Therefore, it is impossible for him to have been a Canadian citizen at the time of Ted Cruz's birth.
3. None of this makes a whit of difference since Ted Cruz's US citizenship derives from his mother, not his father.
What part of Congress ONLY has authority over immigration and naturalization do you NOT understand?
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
and ...
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
When these words were written, the “we” were the ones who determined the citizenship of their household which were the male heads of the household as even the daughters of the day retained the citizenship of their fathers until they married. According to one of the founders, who was only 2nd to Madison in its drafting, and who went on to serve as a justice on the very 1st Supreme Court of the United States, when a man and woman married:
Our founding fathers were wise men. One of the wisest in my opinion was James Wilson who later went to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. Wilson wrote:
The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge.
Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.
The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction
The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.
[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good [end quote]
Therefore, as it is for those who wrote the Constitution and the 1790 Act, so it is for the ones who attain citizenship via the 1790 Act, and that Constitutional truth is, it IS the father that confers citizenship UNLESS the child is born out of wedlock.
And so now I have gone to the Canadian website and in 1970, the Canadian law stated that children born in Canada, to Canadian parents, or to parents who applied for and held permanent Canadian residency, these were the children considered to be Canadian at birth. It had NOTHING to do with Cruz being born on Canadian soil, it was the political allegiance of Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, Ted’s father, that determined Ted’s citizenship at birth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.