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.
O.K:. If we are rejecting Cruz with these arguments then everything enacted while Obama was in office should be recalled immediately. We know that Obama's citizenship is false as well. We are doomed...with Cruz and Rubio deposed, Trump waltzes into the 'White house' to become the dictator we deserve.
This is an argument the LEFT is using to spin us all up when something much more sinister is about to be put upon us.
Hitler kept the Germans totally off track by distracting them with classical music and sports.
Focus on the immediate threats like enemies pouring over our borders with Obama's help.
When the SHTF few will be ready for what is coming.
DO NOT GET DISTRACTED !!!
Agreed, "The Bouncing Balls". If you have nothing else more pressing, such as the Korean aggression that is now equipped to launch disaster to our West & East Coasts, then worry about eligibility. They flew their affair over the Super Bowl...........coincidence, believe not. Why are we not worrying about that??
...And that is why the left/media are cramming Cruz and Rubio down America's collective throat.
Ed, where are you getting you news?
I don't "get news"; I do research.
Try it -- you might change your mind about a few things.
Robert, so true many are willing to tell you he is a winner but fails on how and I really think that a dictator scenario by Trump would be very possible. Trump is no different from Hillary or Obama, all are liberal as hell. There are plenty of instances where Trump proves it.
There you go again Ray...........throwing out "there are plenty of instances..." but failing to identify what you speak.
I'll give you several and if you check they are legit:
He was being interviewed and was ask did he believe in Partial Birth Abortion, he said yes.
He contributed to Planned Parenthood.
He, just a couple of months ago, was for The Canadian healthcare which is single payer.
He supports Eminent Domain
He supports Gay rights when it came to marriage and the Gay Rights Movement.
Did you know that he has never voted in a Republican Primary.
He is a liberal as much as Hillary and, by the way, I can offer more instances.
For some reason I thought this was primarily a TP site and it was conservative. How many will abandon their conservative principles for someone who is willing to say what they want to hear but are incapable of giving any answer to how. The people in Iowa can be admired, they were able to define exactly what Trump was, a snake oil salesman.
I'm not going to check........I know what you're position is now. Most of the points you makeI don't know if accurate..... I believe he has fully explained eminent domain........he supports the law and expects any eminent domain action to be for a legitimate cause. I have been a subject of eminent domain for a valid reason.
They are not accurate, Harry. He used to be very pro-choice but went through an experience with friends over a possible abortion that, thankfully, didn't happen and he changed his mind. He is supportive of rights for gays but not to the exclusion of the rights of Christians and he does NOT support gay marriage. He said government healthcare worked for Canada and the UK but would not work in the US. Yes, he HAS voted in Primaries and, in fact, supported McCain, I believe, and served on a committee for him. Yes, he donated to PP but believes the abortion portion of the business should be separated out from women's health services and taxpayer funds should not be used to fund abortion.
Thank you for amplification Judith...................