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.
Instead of spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, we should base our opinions on actual law.
a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:
•The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and
•The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision. 
"acquiring citizenship at birth" and Natural Born Citizen are two different issues.
That opinion is not backed by US law.
You'll notice this article lists three types of citizens, two backed by US law and the first "natural born" by natural law as understood by the founders, however only the supreme court has the power to decide the intent of the founders, so until they do, or other law is passed, natural born and citizen at birth are the same class of citizenship
The present supreme court would have no clue as to the intent of the founders, they are owned by the global elite NWO. All of them need to be removed from their benches.
that is my point, so we have zero chance of defining a 3rd class of citizen and we now have only two backed by law and precedent.
I'm beginning to hate this whole system. We the People have next to no say in who we elect. Please, somebody, "Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!"
The RNC can call for a brokered convention to try to stop a candidate, but they already said they wouldn't do that, and Trump has stated that if they did something outrageous like that that he may go 3rd party, so you can rest assured if trump wins the nomination, he will be the republican candidate, although I don't believe he would be the best choice, I'd gladly vote for him.
What are you talking about? Why do we need to define a 3rd class of citizen, or do you mean have the whole thing defined more clearly?
April, look at the article we are commenting on, the author states there are three classes of citizenship, a. natural born, b. native born, c. naturalized, however the law only recognizes two and they have been referred to as 1. citizen at birth 2. naturalized. We've known about this problem for a very long time, in fact debated it in the '70s in school and exactly what "natural born citizen" meant. This author claims it's backed by "natural law" and defined by "the understanding of the founders", however this author is not empowered to interpret the intent of the founders, US law dictates only the courts are, and ultimately only the US supreme court, so until they put an exact definition on the requirements to be a "natural born citizen" we have to base the rules on existing law and precedents. Some tried to challenge Obama and failed, and congress passed a law declaring that birth on US soil was not a requirement in 2008 so that John McCain could run and for precedents we have a seated president with only one citizen parent, so these are the only facts that matter to a court. The arguments put forth in this article would make a good faith argument before the supreme court, but to present this as if it was representing fact and US law is either disingenuous, or completely ignorant, and is certainly divisive... what a great idea, to divide the conservatives at a time when our nations future was never under greater threat (sarcasm).
The bottom line is this is negative campaigning, instead of writing an article about the person the author wants us to vote for, he writes one to turn people away from others they perceive as a threat. Anyone who seriously cared about suring up a definition of Natural Born Citizen would know that it could never be done in our favor with this president in office, nor with this supreme court seated. The only option is to give up these silly rants and move on to the real problems we face... Those of us that fought this battle 8 years ago and lost, understand the futility of bring it up again now.
Thank you for clarifying that. Believe it or not, I actually read the article in its entirety before I commented the first time. However, that was days ago, and lots of other comments and stuff has gone on in between. I call it "Memory Falloff", but it's not due to age, but rather, I attribute it to the ruptured brain aneurysm I survived, nearly six and half years ago. Some information just drops off, and I'm confronted with not knowing what I don't know— at all! Blank slate. It would be funny were it not so serious a thing. Like wondering what the hell else I've forgotten. :O
I've about had all I can stand of this current election cycle. I'm still undecided as to whom I should cast my vote. Knowing in my heart it matters little anyway. I'm far better off watching the skies and waiting vigilantly for Christ's Return. At least, I may have a chance with Him, to join Him in Eternal life. This world has gone to Hell in a hand basket. I'm dangerously close to no longer caring what happens.
Stick a fork in me, I'm so done.