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.

[Lexinom]

None so blind... yet so many cannot see the gay pro-abortion anti-poor pro-eminent domain mogul for what he is...

Cruz people are idol worshippers... they cry from their crouched position before the golden calf of Trump...

Cruz is a flip-flopper... say the supporters of the pro-choice/pro-life, consistently pro-gay, anti-2A/pro-2A candidate from New York...

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

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.

You are an idiot. The "expediting trade" includes the unlimited flow of labor.

None of what you quoted implies that people will freely immigrate to the United States.

It even states: "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"

It then goes on to recommend the formation of a common security barrier and joint training of law enforcement, the annihilation of the visa system and all physical barriers and its replacement by a single Bio-Metric pass for Canadians, Americans and Mexicans for the purpose of free movement between the three nations (open borders), a North American Inter-Parliamentary group among other Inter-governmental institutions, among many other nefarious things.

IOW, a North American Union modeled after the European Union. That is why Ted Cruz himself called the CFR a "den of snakes," and lied to his supporters by claiming that Heidi was a dissident to the CFR's goals.

[KGeorge]

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.

---

Be careful with this. These symbols are occult & not from God. I have a link that addresses mingling truth with lies, but maybe tomorrow.

[FredZarguna]

Doesn't matter if Trump has ever defended US sovereignty. He's gonna defend US sovereignty. And it's going to be great. Great, great, wonderful sovereignty. Going to be the best sovereignty we've ever had. Terrific sovereignty. But he can't say how or when, because he doesn't want to give it away. He's been negotiating his whole life, and he doesn't want to give away his bargaining position. But it's going to be terrific when he does whatever he's going to do. Terrific. Terrific. Absolutely fabulous sovereignty.

[P-Marlowe]

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

[Lexinom]

The broader point is, no one knows their origins. God himself references the bear and Pleides in Job. Read your Bible.

[Carry_Okie]

He's gonna defend US sovereignty.

After he transforms 11-15 million illegal aliens into future Democrats?

No way Jose.

[Carry_Okie]

You are an idiot. The "expediting trade" includes the unlimited flow of labor.

From Ted Cruz' immigration plan:

Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high. The purpose of legal immigration should be to grow the economy, not to displace American workers. Under no circumstances should legal immigration levels be adjusted upwards so long as work-force participation rates remain below historical averages. So, you have said that Heidi Cruz' document was promoting the NAU. It does not; it holds sovereignty sacrosanct. You said that it was about unlimited labor. Ted's website says not and in writing. You call me an idiot. I call you a liar.

[FredZarguna]

I think you missed the sarcasm in my Trump impersonation.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

So, you have said that Heidi Cruz' document was promoting the NAU. It does not; it holds sovereignty sacrosanct.

Wow, you are incredibly stupid. First of all that is not Heidi's document. It is the CFR's report for establishing a North American Union. It contains their recommendations for how to reach its ultimate goals for that particular year. Claiming that it holds "sovereignty sacrosanct," even after everything I've quoted, reveals how big of an idiot and/or liar you are willing to be. Very sad.

[Carry_Okie]

I think you missed the sarcasm in my Trump impersonation.

Yes I did, sorry.

[FenwickBabbitt]

So you want someone who supports abortion (Hillary) to win over someone who does not support abortion (Trump)? Forgive me if I don’t see your logic. If you actively work against Trump if he is the nominee, as you said you would, then that serves no other purpose than to help Hillary get elected. It seems to me that you will be promoting a de facto pro-abortion stance in reality, regardless of how you want to portray yourself. Words don’t matter; what the end result will be is what matters. It seems that you hate Trump so much that you want the pro-abortion Hillary in there instead, regardless of the dire consequences for the country. And by the way, once the Dems have legalized 20 million new voters, you can kiss any idea of conservatives ever winning again goodbye.

[Yosemitest]

Professor Rob Natelson ?
You haven't research him, have you, to see what his peers think of him ?
You should.
You might change your mind about "Progressive" Rob Natelson.

Rob Natelson Perverts the Necessary and Proper Clause
and Thinks in Circles

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

You haven't research him, have you, to see what his peers think of him ?

You are stupid and desperate. He's been cited 17 times by the Supreme Court. He is an originalst and even his errors are more scholarly than you.

[Lexinom]

All the economic problems and balkanization are symptomatic of heart-issues at the core of the American fabric. Even homosexuality and abortion are only symptoms, albeit telling ones closer to the root. Unless we remove the rotting corpse from the pool of the spring of liberty, we will have rancid and polluted water, no true freedom at all. It's not without accident that John Adams wrote that our system of government is only suitable for a moral and religious people.

America's leaders - indeed, any nation's leaders - are a reflection of the people: yes, even dictators. I do not see Donald Trump as a man with the strength of character and humility and godliness needed to bring about the "greatness" that once was our treasured possession. I hence do not see that God has any intention of rescuing this nation, nor has He any obligation to do so.

This battle must be fought on our knees, I fear, with a disposition of gratitude for merely another day of light and air, another day not confined by razor wire and guard towers. "Give us this day, our daily bread."

That is my position.

[Yosemitest]

READ THE LAW YOURSELF, "USEFUL IDIOT" !

The CURRENT LAW at U.S. Citizenship And Immigration Service. and through their references to IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, then to the Citizenship Through Parents page, which read:

....

...


In a general, a Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth when the Child’s Parents Are Married to each other at the Time of Birth IF...	AND...
Both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth,	At least one parent lived in the U.S. or its territories prior to the birth.
One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is on or after November 14, 1986	The U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14th birthday. If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement: Serving honorably in the U.S. armed forces; Employed with the U.S. government; or Employed with certain international organizations. Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.

Then AGAIN, the CURRENT LAW can be VERIFIED at U.S. Citizenship And Immigration Service. and through their references to INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH.
Their wording is:

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 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:
Provided,
That any periods of honorable service in
the Armed Forces of the United States,
or periods of employment with the United States Government
or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288)
by such citizen parent,
or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad
as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States,
or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act,
may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph.
This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952,
to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States
of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States
who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Another article well worth anyone's time is

On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen",
MAR 11, 2015, Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement

... While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape,
at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.^15×
15. See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579494001552603692.
Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a "natural born Citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution.
Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a "natural born Citizen" even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.^16×
16. See Michael Dobbs, John McCain's Birthplace, Wash. Post: Fact Checker (May 20, 2008, 6:00 AM), http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html [http://perma.cc/5DKV-C7VE].
Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President,
wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain's birth.^17×
17. See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).
Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain's candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord.
The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency,
resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was "inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the 'natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States,
as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term 'natural born Citizen.' "^18×
18. S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008).
And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state.
Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party's presidential nominee in 1964,^19×
19. See Bart Barnes, Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies, Wash. Post, May 30, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm [http://perma.cc/K2MG-3PZL].
and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.^20×
20. See David E. Rosenbaum, George Romney Dies at 88; A Leading G.O.P. Figure, N.Y. Times, July 27, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/obituaries/george-romney-dies-at-88-a-leading-gop-figure.html.

There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle.
The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.
Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues.
To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a "natural born Citizen."
Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve.
But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization.
And the phrase "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.
Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent - - whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone - - is a U.S. citizen from birth
and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.



---



* Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of Law, Georgetown University.
** Distinguished Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University; Partner, Bancroft PLLC.

And look at this COURT RULING:

Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —
as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

But the fact is,
they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —
in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,
who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” —
he was ALSO “natural born.”

If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”
then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.


The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact found
that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.

Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,
Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.

There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
though.

It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means
“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

Note that again:
Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,
which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”


The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

“Plaintiff claims that
President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supports
that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

...

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

is a Citizen at Birth

Citizen at birth does not mean you are a natural born citizen. Congress can make you a citizen at birth. But if it has to do it as a matter of law, you are not a natural born citizen. And the Harvard Review article you seem to be citing has already been heavily debunked on many occasions. From the Supreme Court case Rogers v. Bellei (1971):

"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens," Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/01/bloody-sunday-huckabee-goes-birther.html#DxAQQcXCwUVjRPbq.99

[Yosemitest]

WRONG, AMATEUR !

[Yosemitest]

You REALLY SHOULD go back and read the FOUNDING FATHERS' DEFINITION OF "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" !



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

As Hans von Spakovsky wrote in his Commentary "An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":

... The Constitution, federal law, and the historical understanding of the Framers, as well as prior British legal traditions and law, all support this view.
In a recent article in the Harvard Law Review, two former U.S. Solicitor Generals, Paul Clement (who served under President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (who served under President Barack Obama) stated:

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning:
namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth
with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that,
subject to certain residency requirements on the parents,
someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Thus, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be eligible to run for president
because the Austrian native had to go through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen.

Certainly the Framers of the Constitution held this view of “natural born” citizen.
They had a deep understanding of British common law and applied its precepts, particularly as explained in Blackstone’s Commentaries, throughout the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama (1888) recognized that
“the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that
its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law,
and are to be read in the light of its history.”

Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States
if the American people make that choice.

One of those precepts of British law was
that children born to British citizens anywhere in the world,
even outside the dominions of the British Empire,
were “natural born” citizens of the Empire
who owed their allegiance to the Crown.
This historical understanding is explained in great detail by the Supreme Court in a well-known 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

The First Congress, which included many of the Framers of the Constitution, codified this view of a natural born citizen.
A mere three years after the Constitution was drafted, they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790,
which specified that the children of U.S. citizens born
“out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
The modern version of this Act is found at 8 U.S.C. §1401.
It contains a list of all individuals who are considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
Paragraph (g) includes:

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. 

Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970;
his mother, who was a U.S. citizen by birth from Delaware, was in her 30s at the time.
She met Cruz’s father, who was born in Cuba, as a student at Rice University.
These facts show that
Cruz’s family background clearly meets the standard set out in the federal statute for being a natural born citizen who did not have to go through any naturalization process to become a citizen.;
That was also the case for Senator Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state,
and Governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico.

The bottom line is that Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States if the American people make that choice.
The same is true of my wife, who was born in Manila.
Her father, whose family had been in America since shortly after the Pilgrims got to Massachusetts,
was temporarily working abroad for an American company—just like Ted Cruz’s father.

My wife is not likely to run for president,
but there is no question that she—like Ted Cruz, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain—is eligible to be president
and to swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”


Hans A. von Spakovsky is a a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department lawyer. 
He is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk”(Encounter 2012)
and  “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside 2014).

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.

[WhiskeyX]

“The Constitution doesn’t give ‘natural born’ standing. So where does it come from?”

Natural Law. see the definition and cited Law of Nations, common law, and case law. That is why the word, “natural,” is in the phrase.