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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trumpist or Cruzer? There is no political solution. Stop believing in the happy ending and start standing up for Liberty. I know it is hard but the choices are not political; the choices are freedom or slavery.
David DeGerolamo
h/t frLaroose2
Let the Cruzites yelling begin.
I always found the dual citizenship thing crap. You cannot serve two masters.
JB Williams is a nutcase. He has invented a wholly imaginary distinction between “native born citizens” and “natural born citizens,” of which there is no hint in the American Constitution or laws. What’s more, he imagines that “Soon, “natural born Americans” will be in the American minority,” because, he claims, you can only be a natural born citizen if your father was also a natural born citizen, and his father before him, etc., etc.
It is complete nonsense. There is no question that Cruz and Rubio were U.S. citizens from birth, which the vast majority of legal scholars agree is and always has been the definition of a “natural born citizen,” as used in the U.S. Constitution, which means he is eligible to run for President.
The consensus of legal scholars, regardless of their school of Constitutional interpretation, is that “natural born” simply means a citizen from birth, by virtue of the circumstances of that birth.
That’s what it has always meant in the United States. It has always been understood that anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. That’s been settled at least since 1790, when the first Congress enacted a statute declaring that children born overseas of U.S. parents are natural born U.S. citizens.
That statute was signed into law by President George Washington.
As a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett affirmed there are exactly two classes of citizens: “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” The former are called natural born, the latter are called naturalized. There’s no halfway-between class of citizens, who are citizens from birth but not natural-born.
There’s no evidence at all, in the language or history of the U.S. Constitution, to suggest that the Framers envisioned a third class of citizens, who were citizens from birth but not to be considered “natural born.” Only crackpots like Mario Apuzzo and JB Williams, and opportunistic liars like Donald Trump, claim such a thing, and they have no evidence to support it.
If the First Congress had meant to define some other sort of citizen, they certainly would not have used the exact term used in the new Constitution: “natural born.” They would not have said, “shall be considered as natural born citizens” if what they’d really meant was “shall be considered as citizens, but not natural born.”
There’s no suggestion in any known historical or legal document that any of the Framers thought there could be a third sort of citizen, who was neither a natural born citizen nor a naturalized citizen.
Nor has any Congress ever enacted any law suggesting that someone who is born a U.S. citizen might not be a natural born citizen of the United States.
Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled, in any decision, that someone who was born a citizen was not a natural born citizen.
Here are four references:
1. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf
(For the provision covering Ted Cruz, see Sec. 301(a)(7) on p.236, which is p.74 as Acrobat Reader numbers the pages in that file).
2. http://tinyurl.com/NatBornHarv
3. http://tinyurl.com/natz-chart-a
4. http://tinyurl.com/natz-chart-b
Reference #1 is the statute which specifically applies to Ted Cruz’s circumstance, though it’s the current version, rather than the 1970 version.
Reference #3 is a chart which takes into account how the law has changed over the years. (What matters is what the law was when a person was born.)
Reference #2 is a Harvard Law review article about the meaning of the term “natural born.” It was written by two former Solicitors General of the United States, one Republican and one Democrat.
Reference #4 doesn’t apply to any of the current candidates, but might have applied to President Obama if he’d been born overseas, and if his parents’ brief, illegal, bigamous marriage had been declared invalid.
Read it and weep Dave. Below is a definition of a natural born citizen and a citizen from the men who FOUNDED this country.
“And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.” — An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)
Weep why, Tom? It proves my point. It’s the very law I referred to in my 4th & 5th paragraphs.
So are you saying a court can create law?
What are you talking about?
If you have some question about my meaning, please quote what I wrote that is unclear, and I’ll try to explain it better.
“It is complete nonsense. There is no question that Cruz and Rubio were U.S. citizens from birth, which the vast majority of legal scholars agree is and always has been the definition of a “natural born citizen,””
It is clear form the law posted that the founders believed that both parents had to be citizens for the child to be a natural born citizen.
“The consensus of legal scholars, regardless of their school of Constitutional interpretation, is that “natural born” simply means a citizen from birth, by virtue of the circumstances of that birth.”
The law posted contradicts most so called scholars.
“There’s no evidence at all, in the language or history of the U.S. Constitution, to suggest that the Framers envisioned a third class of citizens, who were citizens from birth but not to be considered “natural born.””
The law posted is the evidence. You can be a citizen at birth but not a natural born citizen.
“Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled, in any decision, that someone who was born a citizen was not a natural born citizen.”
The supreme court has no law making power. The posted law expresses the intent of the founders and was the actual law at the very beginning of the country.
That should be easy to follow.
Tom wrote, “It is clear form the law posted that the founders believed that both parents had to be citizens for the child to be a natural born citizen.”
They did not say that, but you’ve missed the point.
The point is that they wrote a statute which defined a particular class of citizens, who were born overseas, as “natural born.”
.
Tom wrote, “The law posted contradicts most so called scholars.”
Obviously not. It confirms them!
.
Tom wrote, “The law posted is the evidence. You can be a citizen at birth but not a natural born citizen.”
It says just the opposite. Did you read what you pasted? What part of, “…shall be considered as natural born Citizens…” is confusing to you? Did you misread it as saying “shall not be” considered natural born Citizens?
.
Tom wrote, “The supreme court has no law making power. The posted law expresses the intent of the founders and was the actual law at the very beginning of the country.”
Well, 1790 was actually fourteen years after the founding of the country, but that’s a nit.
The 1790 law proves that the First Congress, which had a heavy overlap with the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution, considered that someone born a citizen outside the boundaries of the United States was a natural born citizen, and thus eligible to stand for the Presidency.
There are only two classes of American citizens: natural-born citizens (who were citizens from birth), and naturalized citizens (who become citizens later).
Both Cruz and Rubio are natural-born U.S. citizens.
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”
Notice the “children of citizens”, that means both parents.
“Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: ”
This shows the father determines citizenship.
I am not sure why you have such a hard time with the English language.
Tom wrote, “Notice the “children of citizens”, that means both parents.”
Please, try to be serious. It means no such thing. It simply means the authors of the law were not illiterate. “Children” is plural, which is why “citizens” must be plural. Of course.
The 1790 law seems not to have anticipated the circumstance of two parents, one of whom is a U.S. citizen, and the other is not. (Subsequent statutes cleared up that ambiguity.)
.
Tom wrote, ” ‘Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:’ / This shows the father determines citizenship.”
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, don’t you?
Which do you really believe? Do you believe that both parents must be citizens for the child to be a citizen, or that the father’s citizenship determines the citizenship of the child?
In fact, whether a child is a citizen at birth, i.e., a natural born citizen, is determined by how the circumstances of his birth comport with the statutes which were in effect when he was born.
Cruz and Rubio were both U.S. citizens at birth, which means they are natural born citizens, under the law.
Please, try to be serious. It means no such thing. It simply means the authors of the law were not illiterate. “Children” is plural, which is why “citizens” must be plural. Of course.
The 1790 law seems not to have anticipated the circumstance of two parents, one of whom is a U.S. citizen, and the other is not. (Subsequent statutes cleared up that ambiguity.)
I meant where it says citizens was plural.
Is English you first language, are you off or not taking your meds right or are you mentally handicapped? I mean no disrespect, but you seem to not be able to grasp the simplest of concepts.
Dave Burton, you are wrong …
You said …
“That’s been settled at least since 1790, when the first Congress enacted a statute declaring that children born overseas of U.S. parents are natural born U.S. citizens.
That statute was signed into law by President George Washington.”
The Act of 1790 was repealed five years later, and changed to say simply ‘citizen’ … no longer ‘natural born citizen’.
They pulled that status out for a reason, and it was to prevent just the kind of situation we have with Cruz (and Obama).
Wrong, vietnamvet. (Thank you for your service, BTW!) There’s nothing in the language or history of the subsequent laws to suggest any such intent.
The consensus of legal scholars is that the different wording in subsequent laws was inconsequential, because being born a citizen and being a natural born citizen were understood to be synonymous. There’s never been any law enacted which suggested that there were three, rather than two, classes of citizens.
If you really think that the reason for the wording change was to prevent someone like Obama or Cruz (whose fathers were not U.S. citizens) from becoming President, then please cite the evidence, from the Congressional Record. (I predict that you won’t, because you can’t.)