Ted Cruz is NOT a Legal U.S. Citizen at all
© JB Williams
The debate over whether or not Senator Ted Cruz is eligible for the U.S. Presidency is about to end. It has now been confirmed that Senator Ted Cruz is neither a “U.S. natural born Citizen” or a “legal U.S. citizen.”
According to all relative legal citizenship documentation available at present, Senator Ted Cruz was born Rafael Edward Cruz, a legal citizen of Canada on December 22, 1970 and maintained his legal Canadian citizenship from birth until May 14, 2014, 43 years later.
The Cruz Campaign for the U.S. Presidency has claimed that Senator Ted Cruz was a “citizen at birth” via his U.S. mother and a “dual citizen” of both Canada and the United States in 1970 and that by renouncing his Canadian citizenship in 2014, he would become eligible for the Oval Office.
There are several problems with this claim… which make the claim false
Senator Cruz was born in Canada, subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. Further, any U.S. citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment only, is a “citizen” and not a “natural born Citizen,” as you will see below. (Source is Cornell Law on the 14th)
From May 22, 1868 until December 31, 1946, all residents of Canada were British subjects. There was no such thing as a Canadian citizen or Canadian citizenship until January 1, 1947.
From January 1, 1947 until February 15, 1977, Canadian law prohibited “dual citizenship.” Foreign parents giving birth to a child in Canada in 1970 were forced to choose between Canadian citizenship only, or citizenship in another country, and to declare that with Canadian officials at the time of birth. The parents of Ted Cruz chose and declared “Canadian citizenship” for Rafael Edward Cruz.
a) NATURAL BORN CITIZEN – “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” (The Natural Law as understood by the Founders in Article II of the US Constitution)
b) NATIVE BORN CITIZEN - 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 14th Amendment definition for “citizen”)
c) NATURALIZED CITIZEN - the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual (aka anchor baby), or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities, (such as a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) form filed with the US State Department at the time of birth). (This includes “anchor baby” or “citizen at birth” born here or abroad, under the 14th) Source is U.S. State Department
As the stated purpose of the Article II “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office is to prevent anyone with foreign allegiance at birth from ever occupying the Oval Office, and all “dual citizens” at birth are born with “dual national allegiance” at birth. The mere condition of “dual citizen at birth” would be a direct violation of the known purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen requirement in Article II. Source is a letter from Founder John Jay in proposing the NBC requirement for t....
Now, Senator Ted Cruz has repeatedly stated that he has never “naturalized” to the United States, which eliminated the possibility that Ted Cruz is a “naturalized” U.S. Citizen.
Senator Ted Cruz has also documented the fact that he was not a “native born citizen” of the United States, but rather a “native born citizen” of Canada on December 22, 1970, who maintained his legal Canadian citizenship until May 14, 2014.
The Harvard opinion letter written by two of Senator Cruz’s Harvard friends, Neal Katyal & Paul Clement, a mere “commentary” on the subject, relies upon the 14th Amendment naturalized citizen at birth concept, despite the fact that Ted Cruz was not “born in or under the jurisdiction of the United States,” was never “naturalized” to the United States, and completely ignoring the fact that Canada prohibited “dual citizenship” in 1970, as well as the fact that “dual citizenship” alone would prevent him from “natural born U.S.” status.
All of this explains why Senator Ted Cruz has no legal U.S. citizenship documentation of any kind. He is not a “natural born” – “native born” or “naturalized” citizen of the United States. Because someone must be one of the three in order to be a legal citizen of the United States, Senator Ted Cruz cannot possibly be a “legal U.S. citizen” of any form.
Only days ago, a 17-year-old first time voter at a New Hampshire town hall meeting for Senator Ted Cruz asked a very reasonable question… “How and why, until recently, were you unaware that you were a Cana...
As the young man explained, this is not an eligibility question, but a credibility question… which Senator Cruz refused to answer, preferring instead to regurgitate the talking points carefully crafted by his Harvard friends and eventually, shouting the young man down, after a Cruz fan in the audience shouted “better a Canadian than a Kenyan!” (VIDEO) Meanwhile, a growing number of Constitutional Law Professors agree, “Cruz is NOT eligible.”
Of course, Senator Marco Rubio is also “ineligible,” as a “native born citizen at birth” by virtue of 14th Amendment “anchor baby” policies only.
In the end, the only possible way to consider Senator Ted Cruz eligible for the Oval Office is if every “undocumented resident alien” is eligible for the Oval Office, which I personally believe is the real agenda of both political parties, as they work to meld the USA into the global commune where there is no legal difference between “natural born Americans” and “undocumented aliens.”
The fact that so many Americans do not know or care to know the truth about the Constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office, demonstrates just how far down the road of “hope and change” for the destruction of the Constitutional Republic, the enemy within has already achieved.
Soon, “natural born Americans” will be in the American minority… and they will be ruled by foreigners who have no legal U.S. citizenship at all.
Even I, with my simple high school education, can read the Constitution and what I see is Vattel's "Law of Nations" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 9, to wit:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"
"No evidence that the Founders, Framers or Ratifiers used Vattel period?" Uh, huh!
Reading is not your strong suit . . is it. Or maybe you are repeating the Trump site talking points as this is maybe the 5th time I have seen this reference made?
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
That has zero to do with Vattel it is referenced to all nations laws on piracies, felonies.
Try again but there is not a Single reference to Vattel being used to direct Constitutional items.
Let me begin, If I may be allowed a opinion on this topic, by saying that I am not a Constitutional Scholar, and certainly was not in 1776. I do have a fair IQ rating of 145, which allows me a certain degree of ability to deduce on some things, as they are presented. The language of the 1700’s was much different than that we have today. It was not littered with slang, or words synonymous with other words. The language was pretty much straight forward. The framers of the Constitution in my humble opinion, being of that time, and the language of that time, laid down a pretty good Document in our Constitution. Yes, there are discussions at times, which attempt to blur the wording, to make it fit a certain scenario/criteria/meaning, but seeing as how they were pretty direct in their meanings, and writings for a relatively new Nation, I would think that the wording they used would correspond to those criteria.
It is my own personal opinion, that being a newly created Country at the time of the writing, it is highly possible that they made it simple to understand, under those circumstances. If I were one of those in that time frame who wrote the words Natural Born Citizen, for a Country, newly established, would I not be making my wording accordingly?. That quite simply that wording, Natural Born Citizen, breaking down the meaning of each word, would likely mean A Birth to a man, and a woman of naturalized US Citizenship, both being born here, and Natural, or native if you will, status as Natural Born Citizens?. Would it not then, make perfect sense, to allow that a Child being born to to Naturally Born US Citizens, would also be a Naturalized Citizen?. Even if the parents were traveling, at the time of birth, in another Country, the child being born of two Naturalized US Citizens, would automatically become a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, as are both parents.
Now suppose that this couple went to another Country, denounced their American Citizenship, and became a Citizen of that Country, would not a child at that time being born, be a Citizen of that Country, but not a Natural born Citizen of it?.
Our Country was built upon the backs of many who immigrated here from other Countries, took the appropriate tests, and oath, and became Citizens of this Country. But in my opinion, and in the books of law, they are not considered Naturalized Citizens, unless their Parents were born here.
This is merely my own personal opinion, and what my mind conceives to be the reality of thought, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, using the wording of that time.
It occurs to me, that at the time written, had the framers any question that what they wrote could, or would be confused to mean other that what was said, they would have went into further detail to describe their exact meaning of the words Natural Born Citizen. They were confident, I am sure, that they believed the meaning was self explanatory.
They were in a time, when things were much different than they are now. They knew the law, quite well, and were able to relate matters of it well. But can you imagine them trying to describe a space shuttle, what it was for, and how it worked?.
You, sir, are pathetic; please, look for my dissertation. It's interesting that you had to go back in history to find "a Hebrew scholar"...
Furthermore, you have no idea about my C.V., and you would be wise to discontinue your "on-line" attacks, lest you find yourself sitting among a pile of ashes.
Let's have a look at your "Constitutional" qualifications.
Sir, I fear not bullies that say they are strong - provide your dissertation and I will read same. By the way did the Academic board approve it?
You paper proves nothing of knowledge. Your life work product is missing? Are you really Ed Watts?
Which one are you?
I've heard more than enough of this nonsense.........GB and Ed please take this discussion off-line or establish a new thread.
Harry Riley ; Sir , Please ; no more Illegal Cruz . Please Consider the Message Below .Thank You Sir .
Wrong guys. This is beginning to look like stalking.
Yes it does!
The Illinois Board of Elections recently ruled that Cruz and Rubio are allowed to remain on the ballot in Illinois..
Of course the majority of Illinois Board of Elections are Democrats and the same ones who allowed Barack Obama to become a State Senator, a U S Senator and the first illegal US President.
Ah, you know what? They also allowed Obama on the ballot. This is not a strong argument you've made.