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.
Yep.........it's a nail-biting period right now..............
Judith M. Green, fascinating what you dug up. I imagine, once the judge realized the decedent was 79, it was practically a no-brainer. Why she selected heart-attack as the cause is very interesting, too. Not everyone dies of such. A coroner or medical examiner should have had a look at Scalia. This is getting really weird.
It is, isn't it? Apparently, the JOP also spoke with Scalia's doctor.
We as Citizens of the United States, in the First Amendment of our Constitution, are protected as outlined below, from our Government. abridging the
freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
This is given to us, as Citizens, to make a showing, and have our demands heard by our Government, without fear of reprisal from them against a peaceful assembly and march.
. redress, re·dress [ri dréss]
1. compensation: compensation or reparation for a loss or wrong a party has experienced
2. act of compensating: the compensating of a party for a loss or wrong experienced
vt (past re·dressed, past participle re·dressed, present participle re·dress·ing, 3rd person present singular re·dress·es)
1. make up for something: to provide compensation or reparation for a loss or wrong experienced
2. impose fairness or equality on: to adjust a situation in order to make things fair or equal
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
We had the opportunity to do this once, when you Harry Riley had set up a non -violent march on Washington DC a few months back. you had received pledges of attendance from over 2 MILLION persons, groups, and organizations to participate in this sit in, and walk to the Whitehouse to let them know our displeasure with our representatives, up to and including the Dictatorial PINO.
It turned out that a few radio and TV personalities of relative renown, told those who had planned to be part of this organized event, that they would be committing suicide by taking place in such a event. Even though each and every one would have been within their Constitutional rights, to attend and take place in the march and sit in. When people protesting, within their legal right, as laid out plainly in the Constitution, in a non violent protest begin being shot down, then the law of the Constitution becomes null and void. How can one be shot at for doing what they are legally allowed to do?.
Even the protestors at Ferguson were not shot, or killed for their participation in the riots, looting, and burning out of their own businesses. This was not by any stretch of the imagination, considered a peaceful demonstration. Not one of them was killed by attacking forces, which all used non lethal means of attempted dispersal. They were plainly breaking the law, by their destruction, and actions against the forces trying to break up their lunacy. They did not even have evidence that a wrong had actually been done, and they protested like so many crazy people, just the same.
Now I would like to make notice of the thousands which were involved in that fiasco, and the mere handful which ended up at the Washington non aggressive event. Hardly any attended the Washington event, why, because they were scared into submission by the voices of the Government through threats of personal harm, and or death if they did participate. How is it even possible that thousands of protesting vandelous thieves were allowed to destroy, loot, and have their message heard, without a lethal shot fired, but a march on Washington was squelched before it ever had a chance to develop, by threats of death from the media?.
I guess there is a obviously huge difference between a bunch of uninformed black folks protesting supposed police brutality, and a peaceful bunch of American Patriotic Citizens, protesting against a out of control, and Tyrannical Government.
Yes, it is possible some may have been killed, but have not Patriotic American Citizens been killed for 239 years or so, to protect our freedoms as a Government of, for, and by, the People?. I believe had a shooting gallery been performed at such a event, that even the liberal news could not hold back, or cover up the reality that a non violent people were gunned down, protecting their Constitutionally given rights.
I believe that had such a event been successful, that we would have received many, many more truly Patriotic Americans who would have joined the cause, and it is just possible we could, right then, have made all the difference. Fear is a natural enemy of the average person, but it is just that, which keeps our freedoms, Patriotism, and Country from being ours, as it should be. When true Americans fear the Government which is supposed to work for them, then there is a terrible injustice being done to us, by them.
Points well made FF. Interesting that there were more FBI and federal agents assigned to the Oregon (Burns ) Wild Life Refuge stand off than there are military personal sent to Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS/ISIL.
And there the Government did shoot and kill one of the protesters unlike Ferguson Mo.
There are now more than 86 federal warrants out for others who took place in the Bundy Ranch stand off in 2014.
If this is NOT intimidation and oppression by this federal government I'd like to know what it is.
I'm not nail biting Harry. But I am spending a lot more time at the range.
Speaking of Oregon, I have also run across some additional info on that front - jeez, y'all think I spend too much time on the Internet??!!?? LOL! That will change since I am starting a part-time job at a vet clinic here in town so some of my hours will be filled. My American Legion is up for sale and dances have ended so... In any case.....
Some additional BLM reports having to do with wind-farms and Sagegrouse Conservation Partnership:
FF, That "shadow Government" has been in operation since WW-II.
Michael M. Regan, I don't doubt your word for a minute. I also found it interesting that in a news report on Fox and Friends just this morning, Scalia was found in his bed with a pillow over his head. However, there were no apparent signs of foul play. The judge who called the cause of his death a heart-attack, has apparently changed her mind. She now calls it natural causes. On the surface, there ARE those who sleep with a pillow over their heads, for various reasons; blocking out noise, light, etc. . But, there was no mention of any patikia (forgive me I have no idea how to spell that word) that would indicate death by suffocation. Whoever did it, was a professional, if indeed it was murder. Certainly, the timing is very suspect.
It's entirely possible, since the conversation has been diverted, that the name of the thread should be changed.
April, why not start a new thread dealing with the topic of this ultra-secret group who handles the dirty work for the global elitists in control of the US government? Perhaps someone with specific intelligence on that group may decide to come forward to expose them, though that is largely wishful thinking on my part.