"Ineligible" - Cruz' former Harvard Law professor

[Dianne]

Because "the GOP apparatus" are anti-American scumbags who are delighted to have an ineligible foreigner in the White House. Hope this helps.

And Cruz is top three for Wall Street money, the same money that wipes the GOP's apparatus' ass. Bush, Clinton and Cruz are the top recipients of bankster money. No way the apparatus going to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[Jan2017]

Okay, let's say it's true and Cruz is ineligible. Why did the GOP apparatus not check this out before investing time and money into his campaign? (debate time, etc)

Cruz, while ineligible, would still be just a great wrecking ball to liberty in the end of course.

James Madison himself said in 1789 that the U.S. used the place of birth rather than parentage.

Discussing a legislative house member/South Carolinian

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage,
but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
...
So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.

[SIZE=-1]22 May 1789 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Papers 12:179--82[/SIZE]
The Papers of James Madison. Edited by William T. Hutchinson et al. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962--77 (vols. 1--10);
Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977--(vols. 11--).

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Constitutionally is the strongest case against Cruz of course . . .

James Madison himself said in 1789 that the U.S. used the place of birth rather than parentage.

John Jay and Benjamin Franklin returned from France, where in the 1780's they were demanding France recognize their independence.
Mr. Franklin made it to the "top-secret" Constitutional Convention, but the Secretary of Foreign Affairs was in New York City.

A couple of New York delegates left the convention in mid-summer with the news that the Articles of Confederation were being replaced,
and may have been the ones to tell Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay.
Or it may have been Hamilton who rode back to New York City several times, who told Jay of what they were doing in Philadelphia, dismantling the Articles.

The low-key, presiding officer of the Convention received a letter from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs within the first week of talking about the new national executive -
Jay in NYC didn't know exactly what was going on in Philly, but he wrote to his good friend General Washington about the command of the Army -

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide as a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government;
and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Very good research! If I knew how to +rep I would.

Here he underlines "born", clearly stating that naturalized citizens must not be commander in chief, else they may have some hidden alliengence to their former soverign. So the issue, still comes down to this:

If only persons born on American Soil are Natural Born, then that includes Foreign Nationals born here (anchor babies ect)

If only persons born on American Soil to an American Citizen are Natural Born, then you are excluding American Citizens from their birthright solely because their parents happened to be out of country, on vacation or diplomatic assignment for example. I just dont think that is just.

If only persons born with to an American Citizen, regardless of Soil, then honestly, I think the loopholes fix themselves from both of the above examples.

The problem is, American women used to solely reside in America, and we didn't face issues of travel. Now that we do, there is a question raised that the Founding Fathers never forsaw....how will we respond?

I say afford Natural Born based on blood. I think it's the logical continuation of the Founders Principles.

 

[spudea]

John Jay had terrible penmanship. We can't read half the words in that letter. Is the date 1707 or 1787??? Thus we shouldn't believe anything he has to say

 

[jkob]

My understanding of 'natural born citizen' is that it is somebody born on US territory be it the continental United States or some military base or embassy overseas, Cruz's dad was a Cuban refugee and Canadian citizen I believe at the time of his birth which to me implies conflicting loyalties. I don't believe Cruz to be eligible. I mean, if he is eligible then why was there ever any question about Obama? I thought that was the whole point, that he was born outside the country thus ineligible. Definitely something that should be clarified.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Its something that the Supreme Court has never clarified.

I agree, Teds father was not a US Citizen. In my interpretation...the only person who Ted could then get Citizenship from is his Mother....who it seems either renounced her citizenship or was also a Canadian Citizen.

I personally dont think he is eligible.

Obama...i think he was born in Hawaii to an American mother, thus a natural born citizen....but his youth growing up in Indonesia and in the care of known Communists; that should have sent off red alarms to any and every American.

Honestly....if you ever renounce your Citizenship or claim Duel Citizenship, you should be exempt from Natural Born Status....

But as you can see, this is an incredibly complex topic in Constitutional Law

 

[Jan2017]

Its something that the Supreme Court has never clarified.
. . .
But as you can see, this is an incredibly complex topic in Constitutional Law

It is not complex at all . . . Cruz wants to muddle the issue and make it complex.
No more complex than an Immigration and Naturalization Service deportation hearing I guess.

In 1789, by Madison's analysis in the South Carolina election to the new federal legislature,
the Canadian-born dual citizen would not have been eligible for even the legislature.

Cruz says the 1790 Naturalization Act applies to him, whereas every court would say wtf?
It was even changed in 1795 to Cruz' further disadvantage in his creative interpretation of the constitution's President Eligibility Clause.

Cruz can not admit he was naturalized as a US dual citizen, his status until 2014.
He was elected to the US Senate as only a dual citizen, by international law conscriptable from every corner of the globe by Canada
until he renounced his Canadian-by-birth citizenship.


.

 

[AngryCanadian]

It is not complex at all . . . Cruz wants to muddle the issue and make it complex.
No more complex than an Immigration and Naturalization Service deportation hearing I guess.

In 1789, by Madison's analysis in the South Carolina election to the new federal legislature,
the Canadian-born dual citizen would not have been eligible for even the legislature.

Cruz says the 1790 Naturalization Act applies to him, whereas every court would say wtf?
It was even changed in 1795 to Cruz' further disadvantage in his creative interpretation of the constitution's President Eligibility Clause.

Cruz can not admit he was naturalized as a US dual citizen, his status until 2014.
He was elected to the US Senate as only a dual citizen, by international law conscriptable from every corner of the globe by Canada
until he renounced his Canadian-by-birth citizenship.


.

In other words friend dispute what Teddy Harper Cruz says he is still a Canadian by birth and Canadian inborn. Even with all this i dont think he is eligible. If anything dems would be using this ineligible, and his Canadian birth as a tactic in the general election.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Full citizens that do not meet requirements of a US citizen living abroad lose more rights and privileges when renouncing that US citizenship.
Her partial/dual citizenship causes the most problems when she disregards US laws.

But even allowing the mom consideration as a full US citizen, albeit disregarding US law,
Ted only got naturalized with derivative citizenship through one parent.

You keep making the claim about dual citizenship for his mother but present zero evidence she ever had it or applied for it. When did she apply for Canadian citizenship? According to their rules, even if she applied as soon as she was eligible, her son would have already been born (they have a six year residency requirement before one can even apply- she went to Canada in 1967 so she could have applied in 1973- three years AFTER the birth of her son Ted in 1970). They moved back to the US in 1974- before any such paperwork could have been processed (it can take two years or more to process).

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Jan and I disagree slightly to the semantics of all of it...but we reach the same conclusion.

He isn't eligible.

Now, lets pretend that he is. Lets say his mother is full blown US Citizen, living in Canada, and that Jan is wrong and that the child doesn't have to physically be born on us territory.

There is still a glaring conflict of interest towards a Foreign State that should give us all pause. Just as Obama had connection to Indonesia, Cruz has connection to Canada.

And, perhaps more importantly, both his and Rubio's disdain from Cuba is a direct result of their family connections to Cuba. It prevents reasonable and constructive diplomacy from taking place.

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." - Washington's Farewell Address

 

[Jan2017]

You keep making the claim about dual citizenship for his mother but present zero evidence she ever had it or applied for it. When did she apply for Canadian citizenship? According to their rules, even if she applied as soon as she was eligible, her son would have already been born (they have a six year residency requirement before one can even apply- she went to Canada in 1967 so she could have applied in 1973- three years AFTER the birth of her son Ted in 1970). They moved back to the US in 1974- before any such paperwork could have been processed (it can take two years or more to process).

It would be the USA that evaluates her degree of US Citizenship, in order to confer the derived US citizenship to the alien son.

Not reporting any foreign-derived income on a USA tax return for seven years would be some evidence she was breaking her allegiance to the US,
filing a joint Canada tax return with her Cuban husband and neglecting USA law for US citizens living abroad.

But it doesn't matter - either way Junior had to be naturalized to the USA after he got here, with Papa Cruz a Cuban-Canadian dual citizen.

 

[Zippyjuan]

It would be the USA that evaluates her degree of US Citizenship, in order to confer the derived US citizenship to the alien son.

Exactly. What Canada does or does not do is irrelevant. According to US law in effect at the time of his birth, Cruz was a US citizen at birth because his mother was a citizen and met the residency requirements. Filing or not filing taxes- another claim you make repeatedly and also fail to support- does not impact citizenship (do you have access to taxes they filed during those years? But again- totally irrelevant to citizenship status).

 

[Jan2017]

Exactly. What Canada does or does not do is irrelevant. According to US law in effect at the time of his birth, Cruz was a US citizen at birth because his mother was a citizen and met the residency requirements. Filing or not filing taxes- another claim you make repeatedly and also fail to support- does not impact citizenship (do you have access to taxes they filed during those years? But again- totally irrelevant to citizenship status).

Yep, exactly!
Cruz was born an alien under all USA laws since "the first days of the Republic", in his words.

In 1970, the alien born to one US citizen parent in a foreign country would not be naturalized until he met those statutory requirements,
in particular for him the 1952 Naturalization Act in effect then and still codified in Title 8 now with amendments.

 

[Jan2017]

Filing or not filing taxes- another claim you make repeatedly and also fail to support- does not impact citizenship (do you have access to taxes they filed during those years? But again- totally irrelevant to citizenship status).

If she did file her US taxes while in Canada, did she claim the alien dependent yet to the USA on those returns?

 

[Jan2017]

If she did file her US taxes while in Canada, did she claim the alien dependent yet to the USA on those returns?

Of course not . . . they came to the USA after the draft was stopped by Nixon.
I suspect a Freedom of Information Act Request about Ted's Selective Service Registration is going to catch him in a lie here - either way.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Can you share it with us? Do you have copies to show what was filed? What claims were made? (Again- completely irrelevant to citizenship claims). But since Cruz was a US citizen by birth according to laws at the time, it would be valid for his mother to claim him as a dependent on her income tax forms. Even if he is not a citizen but still her child she can still claim him as a dependent at that time.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Of course not . . . they came to the USA after the draft was stopped by Nixon.
I suspect a Freedom of Information Act Request about Ted's Selective Service Registration is going to catch him in a lie here - either way.

Irrelevant. Women were not subject to the draft and her husband not being a US citizen was also not subject to the US military draft- even though he had been a legal resident of the US since 1957.

As for Ted's own registration:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/04/revealed-us-senator-ted-cruzs-selective.html

 

[HVACTech]

I am a Natural Born Citizen Zippy.
and I find all of your arguments to be an insult. it is not difficult at all for me to understand our founders intent.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I am a Natural Born Citizen Zippy.
and I find all of your arguments to be an insult. it is not difficult at all for me to understand our founders intent.

How is the term "natural born citizen" defined in the US Constitution? How is it defined according to US laws? There are citizens I would rather not be associated with as well but that does not make then not citizens.

 

[Jan2017]

. . .since Cruz was a US citizen by birth according to laws at the time, . .

Never . . . he was an alien of course that had derived citizenship through one parent-citizen,
once he did his statutory requirement under the law of the USA he became naturalized at birth.

By birth always Canadian, but loses thu USA privilege to be a dual citizen at birth if the 1952 Naturalization Act for him doesn't get followed -
it is by the grace of USA law that he could be given dual citizenships back to "at birth" - and the USA can strip it away.
The law for a derivative citizenship, a Canada citizen by birth, naturalized alien dual citizen at birth from the US.