Fox News (2014): Cruz Ineligible due to Canadian Birth

Twitter/Fox News Clip ^ | 01/18/2016 | Fox

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Short clip (17 seconds) at link above. Fox was discussing potential Presidential candidates. Discusses Rubio then brings up Cruz, but then dismisses due to not being a natural born citizen.

[Yosemitest]

Read this:

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

... Citizenship is mentioned in
Article 1, Section 2,
Article 1, Section 3,
Article 1, Section 8,
Article 2, Section 1,
and in the 14th Amendment
and several subsequent amendments.

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen?
Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
"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."
But even this does not get specific enough.
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment;
the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4,
also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"


• Anyone born inside the United States *
  * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
  This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
  
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

b>Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as
Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402),
Alaska (8 USC 1404),
Hawaii (8 USC 1405),
the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406),
and Guam (8 USC 1407).
Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
he was not actually qualified to be president.
However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
"a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

U.S. Nationals

A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.
U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

(Continued

Listen to a REAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER:

MARK LEVIN explains that Ted Cruz IS a natural born citizen ( 7:30 )
Published on Sep 17, 2013

Here's the supporting article from Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
Like most immigrants, he does a job Americans won't: defending the Constitution.

Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President
August 26, 2013., by Ilya Shapiro

As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas - - love him or hate him - - continues to stride across the national stage.
With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret:
Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

(Full disclosure: I'm Canadian myself, with a green card.
Also, Cruz has been a friend since his days representing Texas before the Supreme Court.)

But does that mean that Cruz's presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup
or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses?
Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards,
having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States
but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate?

No, actually, and it's not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law.
It boils down to whether Cruz is a "natural born citizen" of the United States,
the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency.
(The Founding Fathers didn't want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.)

What's a "natural born citizen" ?
The Constitution doesn't say,
but the Framers' understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that
the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents - - in a manner regulated by federal law - -
and birth within the nation's territory regardless of parental citizenship.
The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.

There's no ideological debate here:
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson - -
who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases
- - co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain's eligibility.
Recall that McCain --
lately one of Cruz's chief antagonists
- - was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.

In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth - -
as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later ("naturalizes"
or who isn't a citizen at all
- - can be president.

So the one remaining question is
whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth.
That's an easy one.
The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth."
In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens - -
or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere - -
citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.

That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 - - Cruz was born in 1970 - -
someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years,
including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen.
Cruz's mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.

So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there's no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen?
Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961
and so couldn't have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement.
Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn't have mattered whether that birth took place in
Hawaii,
Kenya,
Indonesia,
or anywhere else.
(For those born since 1986, by the way,
the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years,
at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)

In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House,
but his eligibility for that office shouldn't be in doubt.
As Tribe and Olson said about McCain - -
and could've said about
Obama,
or the Mexico-born George Romney,
or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater
- - Cruz "is certainly NOT the hypothetical 'foreigner'
who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief."

Now stuff that in your FEEBLE BRAIN, and STEW ON IT for a long, LONG, LONG TIME !

[Smokin' Joe]

Then, please never go to North Dakota. We have plenty of pheasants.

How come your about page sports a California flag?

[RedHeeler]

That’s a state secret.

[Smokin' Joe]

Which state?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Now stuff that in your FEEBLE BRAIN

I started to read it but then realized part way through that most of it was entirely irrelevant and based on false assertions. I didn't even bother to read the rest. Conservative constitutional scholars like Professor Rob Natelson do not make arguments like yours, which, I suspect, is not yours, but copied and pasted by someone else, whom you fail to give credit to.

[RedHeeler]

Huh?

[KGeorge]

Are you really that daft? You either don’t listen, you’re in it up to your neck, or your brain has turned to mush from all the globalist/ dominionist indoctrination.

I’m not even going to dignify that with a response.
Y’all act like Cruz is Christ. ‘Anointed king’? Figures you would come up with something like that. Makes me wanna be sick.
You people don’t FEAR God. You will.

[Carry_Okie]

OK, I checked. The words "North American Union" do not occur in the report. But there is a paragraph you should note: North America is different from other regions of the world and must find its own cooperative route forward. A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or union, such as those in Europe. We must maintain respect for each other's national sovereignty. I suggest that this paragraph basically refutes your thesis.

[P-Marlowe]

You people don't FEAR God. You will.

It is because I fear God that I cannot put my faith in Trump.

[Lexinom]

The thing that's unnerving is this, and I believe I speak for many others, perhaps you: I have not changed over the course of my life. My values were set by the time I was 20. The culture around me has changed. It seems to presume that I'm going to change along with it. It has these ideas about "progress" (which it confuses with "change") and "evolution" (which is in fact "devolution", even at the biological level). Yet I have no intention of changing. I am an American. In an earthly sense I belong to, and will always be a part of, that nation that I know as "America". I have no intention of changing at all because I refuse to accept the underlying presuppositions of change.

Consider the firmament and its zodiak: We have no idea of the origins of the names: the lion, the bear, the twins... They are shrouded in ancient antiquity and remain constant... They point to a changeless Creator, to whom we are less than ants. He rules and reigns over the affairs of men, allowing good and evil threads in the grand tapestry of history which will only be seen whole when it is completed.

America is but a tiny speck on that tapestry. All nations are. It was once an important piece and no doubt comprised part of some larger feature of history, good, noble, but that America is sewn up, and the Weaver's hands have moved beyond it.

In the end, when the great piece is finally revealed, it will become manifest, and that terrifying Divine justice of which you speak will at last be let loose, and then, only then, will every tear be wiped and every knee bow and tongue confess the name of the true King. There will be no golden calves, no pagan sex rituals, no perversion, no disease, no glorifying of any Trump or Cruz or Clinton or any man, only joy in that final, Heavenly country.

[FredZarguna]

Gee, I thought Trump supporters regarded Fox News as part of the MSM Cabal.

Oh wait, that was yesterday. Today's Trumpline is FNC is a great news source.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

OK, I checked. The words "North American Union" do not occur in the report.

“To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that ‘‘our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.’’ Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. …

Our economic focus should be on the creation of a common economic space that expands economic opportunities for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely. …

WHAT WE SHOULD DO BY 2010

• Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.” ..

To make the most of the impressive pool of skill and talent within North America, the three countries should look beyond the NAFTA visa system. The large volume of undocumented migrants from Mexico within the United States is an urgent matter for those two countries to address. A long-term goal should be to create a ‘‘North American preference’’—new rules that would make it much easier for employees to move and for employers to recruit across national boundaries within the continent. This would enhance North American competitiveness, increase productivity, contribute to Mexico’s development, and address one of the main outstanding issues on the Mexican-U.S. bilateral agenda.

Canada and the United States should consider eliminating restrictions on labor mobility altogether and work toward solutions that, in the long run, could enable the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico as well. …

WHAT WE SHOULD DO NOW

• Expand temporary migrant worker programs. Canada and the United States should expand programs for temporary labor migration from Mexico. For instance, Canada’s successful model for managing seasonal migration in the agricultural sector should be expanded to other sectors where Canadian producers face a shortage of workers and Mexico may have a surplus of workers with appropriate skills. Canadian and U.S. retirees living in Mexico should be granted working permits in certain fields, for instance as English teachers.

Move to full labor mobility between Canada and the United States. To make companies based in North America as competitive as possible in the global economy, Canada and the United States should consider eliminating all remaining barriers to the ability of their citizens to live and work in the other country. This free flow of people would offer an important advantage to employers in both countries by giving them rapid access to a larger pool of skilled labor, and would enhance the well-being of individuals in both countries by enabling them to move quickly to where their skills are needed. In the long term, the two countries should work to extend this policy to Mexico as well, though doing so will not be practical until wage differentials between Mexico and its two North American neighbors have diminished considerably."

I suggest that this paragraph basically refutes your thesis.

Considering you're quoting the same report (not Heidi) that is advocating open borders, no, you didn't refute it, though you did prove yourself to be an idiot.

[Just mythoughts]

I am sorry, and stand corrected.

[KGeorge]

Ironic. There are none so blind. Cruz is right out in the open now. Shameless.

[Yosemitest]

"... but then realized part way through that
most of it was entirely irrelevant and based on false assertions."

THE LATEST CAME FROM the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.

IF you think that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), is "entirely irrelevant, and based on false assertions", ... well you might have a point.
With the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF APPOINTING THE CEO of those governing agencies, overseeing ENFORCEMENT (or lack thereof) of the Constution and the Laws of this nation, ... you might have a point.

[Carry_Okie]

Considering you're quoting the same report (not Heidi) that is advocating open borders, no, you didn't refute it, though you did prove yourself to be an idiot.

As opposed to a flaming dissembler? There are two kinds of "open borders," those for trade and those for immigration. Expediting trade is fine. Expediting immigration is not.

None of what you quoted implies that people will freely immigrate to the United States. It does plan to facilitate guest workers.

The difference between this plan and Trump's is that he plans to make former illegal temporary workers into LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, on an expedited basis. No thank you.

[Lexinom]

It’s going to get ugly for those of us who fear God more than man. We have been punished, and will likely be punished more on any number of specious accusations. We are punished for remaining Americans as we understand America (see #130 above).

[P-Marlowe]

There are none so blind.

Indeed. Anyone who can't see Trump for the snake oil salesman that he is, is willfully blind.

What other candidate in this race has given $250,000 to the Clinton (pro-abortion) pay for play foundation?

[FredZarguna]

Trump Conspiracy Diagram. [Captions not needed for the initiated.]

[KGeorge]

You really have no idea how shallow that is, do you?