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.
Far too many of us are so blinded by desire for one candidate that they eagerly attack other good candidates. I recently had words with and had to block a guy on facebook for going on a rampage insulting Dr Ben Carson, saying he was scum, tried to murder his own mother, stabbed a man trying to kill him and a host of other rabid comments and it made me sick. Not that I even plan to vote for Carson but I do thank God for him as he's a national treasure, one of the smartest doctors of all time without a doubt, and for someone to take stories from his childhood about lashing out in anger and make such conclusions is delusional. Most small children have taken a swing at a parent (usually only once because a good parent will make sure the kid is sorry as in Ben's case)... but this is just one example. Here we have an assault on Cruz that is based on a person's own interpretation of the intent of the founders, a good argument, but one to bring to a court, not one to claim as law and influence people not to vote for someone. The fact is according to all existing US law and precedents Ted Cruz is as eligible as anyone other candidate to run for the office. We debated this in school in the 1970s and understood that there was no legal definition of "natural born citizen" and no about of arguing will change that as ultimately only the supreme court can determine the intent of the founders and decide the qualifications and in this current court and this current president we'd be foolish to even try to change it. It should have been done decades ago and at this point we'll need more justices that support the constitution before we can make the case.
@freedomfighter, Very well put and thank you. To any I may have offended with any of my words, I beg your forgiveness. United We Stand. Or else we WILL fall.
Do I hate to say this, but didn't we hash all this crap out in the last 7 years. Sorry for the bluntness, but come on people, you have to do your own research....Listening to other idiots that don't have any idea other than someone else quoting " Scripture" and then not researching the facts to make sure they match up. Damn, we should all be in agreement on NBC.... If you are new to this site, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read back through other discussions on this site addressing this issue.
I like trump, he could be a good president, but he's not what most of his followers believe him to be. I believe he wants the best for our country, but if he wins the nomination you will see a different trump running in the general election as his audience changes, then if he is elected we will finally see who the real Donald Trump is... a negotiator, a deal maker... and a good one, but many of his current backers may be upset if he trades away things like our right to own AR15s, or wait to see what kind of deal he makes on immigration with the left. Negotiators always compromise, it's what they do and he can't change who he is any more than a tiger can change his stripes. A good president, perhaps... and I'd even vote for him, but a conservative cornerstone? not so much IMO.
Agreed, this whole case falls back on "intent of the founders" and none of us are allowed to make that determination for others, so it's a moot point. If one truly respects the constitution they have to respect the process to get a court to rule on the intent of the founders instead of using FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to slam one candidate in hopes it will support another. There are much bigger issues at hand.
Getting a court to rule is the issue many are disturbed about. "We the people" can arrive at reasoned analysis on the issue of NBC . I view Cruz and Rubio well gifted to occupy the White House, it's not personal. It's about the U.S. Constitution. Consider Senator Marco Rubio. I think it's a safe assumption that "NBC" means something other than "citizen". Fact: Marco was born in Miami in 1971 to Cuban parents. Marco's parents were naturalized in 1975, four years after Senator Marco's birth.
Senator Marco was born a citizen of the U.S. since he was born on U.S. soil.
Does being born to non-US Citizens on US soil make Senator Marco a "natural born citizen". Isn't there a valid, important question relating to status as Commander-in-Chief?
The courts and the media will not even recognize there is a serious question that undermines our Constitution. Without undergirding of our Constitution as our rudder, we become a lawless nation. I view the attitude of politicians in the White House, Congress, and the courts considering the US Constitution as the "bump in the road" toward their personal or ideological wants.
It only gets worse the longer we ignore the constitutional frame-work.
No doubt you have a very valid point Harry, but there really isn't much we can do right now as trying to define NBC as a third higher standard above naturalized and citizen at birth would be problematic since we have a seated president who's legitimacy could be negated by the outcome and a supreme court that would never let that happen, so waiting is our only hope IMO. Not only do we have to wait until obama is out of office, but also wait till some or all of these justices are out of office because they won't likely enter a ruling that could make them look like hypocrites for not hearing the case in 2008. We also have the unchallenged law written to affirm McCain as a natural born citizen which takes the US soil arguement off the table, but in a decade or so we could argue all three, born on us soil, born to one or both citizen parents and get the court to rule on what the founders intent was, then we'd have none of this nonsense, however if we do this hastily, we'll end up with what we have now as a defacto law engraved in stone which would be much harder to change.
As for rubio, he was a citizen at birth if his parents were legal residents simply because he was born on us soil. I think it would be best if we had stronger qualifications and would fight for the most conservative definition of NBC before the supreme court, but fighting between ourselves is only serving to take our own house down as a house divided cannot stand. We must unite and fight the important battles. IMO Cruz is one of the few willing to stand up to the establishment on behalf of the people as was Rand Paul. Trump has done a brilliant job taking on both the liberal dominated media, and the GOP dominated media and although I don't trust him to be a strong constitutionalist like Cruz and Paul, I have no fear of him as president.
I do see your point about ignoring the constitutional frame-work, however we've already been doing that for so long and that is the problem. There was no demand to nail down the intent of the founders as to exactly what a NBC is and now the "Fit" has hit the proverbial "SHan" and we have a seated president who clings to nbc status by birthright alone (his mother being a citizen isn't a factor since she was a minor and if he was born off shore, he would have gotten the nationality of his father and his minor mother's guardian who is also his father). In fact assuming obama was telling the truth about everything it seems to me that he would be dual american-british citizenship, but has he renounced his ties to britain? and how about indonesia? did he have to renounce either when there? and if so does it count since he was a minor? but you know, it's all water under the bridge since no court will touch any of it, but that doesn't mean we can't eventually get answers and if we are going to discuss obama, we could go back to his Senate race where he won by leaking the divorce records of his opponent, the ex-husband of Star Trek's Jeri Ryan that was so embarrassing the GOP forced him to step down and had no one to replace him except alan keyes... nice man, good Christian, but zero chance of winning. Just how the divorce records found their way out of the sealed file and in the hands of the press in Chicago remains a mystery, and the fact that virtually all obama's records remain sealed is really telling, but the bottom line is that we are just spinning our wheels and taking our own house down with articles like this one designed to conviince people Cruz is a fraud when in fact he is qualified by all us law and precedent, and until we can change that it's pointless to argue something as "fact" when it's not. The real fact is we lost that battle in 2008, and probably because we didn't address it decades earlier.
I hate to keep rattling on, but it's similar to the fact that we never had a legal definition of "torture", probably because everyone assumed we didn't need one, but in the mid '00s we found the word being used to describe people who had their feelings hurt and I was shocked because I "knew" a torture victom had to have scars, missing parts, horrible things had to happen, more than being stripped naked and walked like a dog, but whatever... now thanks to liberals and the NYTs the world thinks we torture people and when we complain about isis burning people alive and cutting off heads, the liberals are quick to remind that the usa tortures too.
The world has gone insane.
While in the military, some of that in direct combat with the enemy, I never relied or assumed the enemy would fight on my terms or would tell me when he was going to attack. My approach was to select the best offensive approach I could muster to win the fight....because it was simply a life or death situation.
Our nation is in a death spiral and I don't believe a defensive posture will win.
My sixth great-grandfather became a rather adept Indian fighter in his time. I know some will be offended at this, but history is history. He is attributed with 35 battles, 35 wins. He took time to know his 'enemy' and rather than simply being defensive, he went on the offense. If the Cherokee burnt mills, he would often times go down to the Nations and destroy their towns, burning their corn and their mills. Mind you, he never harmed children or women, but he did capture a few to hold as hostage to bring about a Treaty.
One time, in particular, he captured several Indians (mostly women and children) and having nowhere to contain them, he brought them to his own plantation. Mind you, they never wanted for anything and nothing was asked of them, either. They never wanted to leave.
My point in this story is I totally agree. To quote someone: The best defense is a good offense. It works. Plain and simple.
GuardianEagle: "The world has gone insane."
Hence my reference to my being better off watching the skies… I will do my part, but I don't expect much to change.
Please review and list to the video on this URL https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/natural-born-citizen...