This article is a statement of the facts, and is not meant to, or intended to, be interpreted as a political endorsement, or lack thereof, of any political candidate. Family Security Matters takes no political point of view whatsoever.
Exactly how and when did Ted Cruz obtain U.S. citizenship?
The fact that it is still an open question at this stage of the Presidential campaign is a testament either to the galactic ignorance of our political-media elite or their willingness to place political expediency ahead of the Constitution and the law.
There is no third alternative.
Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on December 22, 1970 and remained a Canadian citizen until he officially renounced it on May 14, 2014, eighteen months after taking the oath of office as a U.S. Senator. At the time of his birth, Cruz's father was a citizen of Canada and his mother was a U.S. citizen.
Legally, Cruz could have obtained US citizenship through his mother consistent with Public Law 414, June 27, 1952, An Act: To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality and for other purposes [H.R. 5678], Title III Nationality and Naturalization, Chapter 1 - Nationality at Birth and by Collective naturalization; Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; the relevant section being 301 (a) (7):
"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 ten years, at least five 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 by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph."
In that case, Cruz's mother should have filed a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate after the birth to document that the child was a U.S. citizen.
According to Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier, Cruz's mother did register his birth with the U.S. consulate and Cruz received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England.
There are two apparent contradictions regarding how and when Ted Cruz obtained US citizenship.
First, according to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the "Act of 1947," Canada did not allow dual citizenship in 1970. The parents would have had to choose at that time between U.S. and Canadian citizenship. Ted Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014. Was that the choice originally made?
Second, no CRBA has been released that would verify that Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth.
It has been reported that the then nearly four-year-old Ted Cruz flew to the U.S. from Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1974.
Ted Cruz could not have entered the U.S. legally without a CRBA or a U.S. passport, the latter of which was not obtained until 1986.
If Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth, as his spokeswoman claims, then the CRBA must be released. Otherwise, one could conclude that Cruz came to the U.S. as a Canadian citizen, perhaps on a tourist visa or, possibly, remained in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant.
It is the responsibility of the candidate for the Presidency, not ordinary citizens, to prove that he or she is eligible for the highest office in the land. Voters deserve clarification.
Even assuming a CRBA was filed, the weight of the legal evidence indicates that Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen because he was born outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. and obtained U.S. citizenship by an Act of Congress (Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution). As a naturalized citizen, he is not eligible for the Presidency (Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution).
It is disturbing to this writer that, Ted Cruz, a man who claims to be a "principled conservative" and a staunch supporter of the Constitution, should be so opaque about his personal history and unwilling to release his records.
Does that sound familiar?
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of "Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution ". He receives email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Was it determined that he was a natural born citizen or that those who sued lacked standing. Cite the lawsuits.
Please post your facts Helen............thanks.
I don't believe they were lawsuits, per se. Carson supporters filed with the State Board of Elections NOT to certify Cruz for the State Ballot: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/01/333644-2/
Court opinions do not trump THE CONSTITUTION when they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL Opinions or Rulings ….. I don't like using the term RULING since they are only OPINIONS . Rulings are made by Monarchs ! The Opinion is NOT a Law unless CONGRESS passes legislation and it should be done by the will of THE PEOPLE they are representing not according to their Whims . The only way to change THE CONSTITUTION is with an AMENDMENT !
Not lawsuits, Helen - they petitioned the State Election Board - nowhere close to a determination in the legal realm.
I like Ted Cruz, but he is a citizen, not a natural born. Same as Obama, but I am not sure
that he changed his name back from Soetoro to Obama or changed his citizenship back
to the U.S. He had to give up his law license because of some fraud statement on his
application. Which is most likely his name. Then you have Rubio and Jindal, neither of
them are natural born. Neither of their parents were citizen of this country when they were
born. They are citizen not natural born. Four supreme court cases in the 1800's on
natural born cases where held. At the end of the cases the justices all stated that the founders
intent was that a child born to both citizen parents was a natural born citizen. Dem. res. 511
to help John McCain, had a study done by Laurence Tribe, A liberal Prof. and Theodore
Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Dear Chairman Leahy. Professor Tribe and I
are in agreement that Sen. McCain birth to American parents makes him a natruarl born
citizen. So the most important law of this country is not being upheld by Dems. Or Repub.
What are we to do.
The following is a fantastic and comprehensive breakdown.
The Constitution requires that the President of the United States must be anatural born citizen: Article II, section 1, pa. 5: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
So what, then, is a “natural born citizen”? To answer that question definitively will require a full examination of the concepts and history of citizenship.
Types Of Citizenship: Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinis, Natural Born, Native Born, Naturalized
Jus soli citizenship: “Jus soli” is a Latin phrase meaning “law of the soil.” Jus soli citizenship is any citizenship that inheres in a person based on the location of his or her birth.
Jus sanguinis citizenship: “Jus sanguinis” is a Latin phrase meaning “law of the blood.” Jus sanguinis citizenship is any citizenship that inheres in a person based on his or her ancestry.
Native born citizenship: A native born citizen is one whose citizenship derives from the facts of his birth, and who becomes a citizen at the moment of birth. In both US and British law, those born within the sovereign territory of the country or born to parents who are citizens (subjects) of the country when the person is born are native citizens (subjects.) Native born persons are said to have “birthright citizenship.” Note that one can be “native born” either by the “jus soli” principle or by the “jus sanguinis” principle.
Naturalized citizenship: A naturalized citizen is one whose citizenship is granted by statute or by the decision or act of a sovereign.
Natural born citizenship: A natural born citizen is one whose citizenship is beyond dispute, not synthetic, not subject to conflicting claims, not granted by statute or by any act of a sovereign, but inheres naturally in the person according to principles that don’t depend on laws or decisions of a sovereign. [The rest of this essay will fully justify this definition]
The 14th Amendment created an implicit distinction among 14th Amendment native-born citizens, and statutory native-born citizens. A 14th Amendment native-born citizen is any person who (a) was born in the United States, and (b) was subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth. In contrast, a statutory native-born citizen is a person who does not qualify for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, but receives U.S. citizenship, at birth, by laws enacted by Congress. For example, foreign-born children of American parents do not receive citizenship from the 14th Amendment; such children acquire U.S. citizenship, at birth, by statute.
So those born outside the United States to parents who are US citizens at the time of the person’s birth are both native citizens and also naturalized citizens, since their citizenship is a) granted to them by an Act of Congress (based on Congress’ Constitutional authority “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”) and b) effective from the instant of their birth, based on the fact that the person’s parents were US citizens at that moment. <p>Similarly, it is necessary to distinguish between Constitutional andstatutory natural born citizens:
These distinctions are not my invention. The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual—7 FAM 1130 (page 9) says:
…the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes
If we were to define “natural born citizen” to mean anyone who is a “citizen at birth”, our definition of “natural born citizen” would be statutory because it would depend on the statute or law which defines “citizen at birth”. Under existing law, all children born in the United States (except the children of foreign diplomats) are “citizens at birth”. Therefore, under existing law, almost all children born in the U.S.—including children of illegal immigrants—could be regarded as statutory natural born citizens. This is just part of an article that breaks it down anyone interested could read the entire article …. google Excellent Article on Natural Born Citizenship and Lots of related bits
Unfortunately, there is no righteousness in politics Edward. Of all the screaming by "we the people" about the rule of law, the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary fail to honor and abide by the US Constitution. Self-service, greed, corruption, et al rules. Assuming we find a righteous leader or two, it will take generations to clean it up. May take a Sodom and Gomorrah type event.
The problem with that argument is ... Natural Born Citizen is not DEFINED in the Constitution.
This is affirmed by the key document referenced: U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual—7 FAM 1130; Section 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency, Point C:
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... 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.
Lacking a definition, this created ambiguity in our Courts of Law that require such for adjudicating claims or anti-claims. The Congress of 1790 recognized this, thus their included definition of NB/C in the INA of 1790. While not carried forward as-is ... the spirit and intent of born abroad to blood-line parent(s) has never been refuted by any court.
The argument of Statutory vs. Non-Statutory is circular thus meaningless. The author tries to create ambiguity between a lawful definition of Natural Born Citizen (which is lacking), and then use that Law to assert an NB/C can not be derived from Law (Statute).
Such are the stuff Liberals and Lawyers are made of.
One can argue many micro-points, arguments do not constitute law. We are a Nation of Laws. Laws can not be equally applied without common & uniform definitions of words that constitute a law.
If our Federalist Papers were followed as Law (aka statues) we would not be in this mess to begin with.
Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.
Paul I would have to disagree with your statement that Natural Born is Not defined in the small portion that I have provided it clearly defines the distinctions between the Types of Citizens .Natural born citizenship: A natural born citizen is one whose citizenship is beyond dispute, not synthetic, not subject to conflicting claims, not granted by statute or by any act of a sovereign, but inheres naturally in the person according to principles that don’t depend on laws or decisions of a sovereign.
These distinctions are not my invention. The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual—7 FAM 1130 (page 9) says:
…the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes this issue was and still is Defined in the Constitution ….. regardless of what the Statutory laws say it does NOT trump Constitutional Law …. That document could burn this day and our Rights would still be there because they are ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR not AFFORDED to us By Men or STATUTORY LAWS created by men . The distinctions are clearly here in the Constitution and looking further into the article it explains where the Founders based their definitions between the distinctions …. Vattels Law of Nations for one …. this Constitution was not just cooked up by the thoughts of OUR FOUNDING FATHERS but was a result of 700 years of combined struggles for FREEDOM
I have read requirements and Ted Cruz does not qualify to be a US Senator - certaintly not the President.
Everyone with a brain and a knowledge of Constitutional process, practice , procedure and principle DID whine about the apparent lack of eligibility and other credentials problems but it was not heeded. That is why Colonel Sellin's points are to be taken with eminent seriousness and examined thoroughly because we already have set a terrible precedent by allowing this President to remain in office with all the questions of credibility for his credentials remaining UNANSWERED even now, nearly 8 years after first being seriously broached and summarily dismissed by democrats and other progressive leftists!. You see the result of THAT lapse in responsibility and accountability and the LAST thing we need is another such situation; no matter what the candidate says. I trust no politician as they have PROVED by their shoddy performances.to be gutless wonders interested in ONLY two things: self-aggrandizing behavior and party agendas and this is true of BOTH parties WE NEED TO USE OUR MORAL CONSCIENCES AND UNITE TO VOTE AGAINST EVERY INCUMBENT UP FOR RE-ELECTION FOR THE NEXT 3 ELECTION CYCLES,THEREBY PROVIDING A MUCH AND LONG NEEDED GENERAL HOUSE CLEANING OF OUR HOUSES AND EMPTYING THEM OF THE TRASH CURRENTLY OCCUPYING THEM! Perhaps then, with responsible and accountable, law abiding Congressmen willing to compromise for the benefit of the AMERICAN CITIZEN constituencies, we can begin to balance a budget, live within it, cut frivolous spending drastically, rebuild our military, secure our borders, deport every illegal, surveille Every Muslim and or suspected illegal make drug smuggling an automatic death penalty and address resolution of the myriad OTHER problems created by these terminal cancers and career professional parasites. And, we can begin by making ENGLISH the official language of THIS country and cease and desist spending 2 billion a year on printing benefits information in 303 languages and 338 million for emergency care for illegals There are a lot of things we can do to ease the deficit including the end of all congressional benefits with the termination of their active service and limited to no more than two terms! This represents a good start and there are many more things that CAN be done; one only has to have the WILL to DO THEM!