Ted Cruz, 100 Percent American

I've decided, after many painful hours of reflection, to come out of the closet. I hope when I've told you my secret you won't think less of me, and remember that our shared humanity provides us with bonds that should be secure enough to overcome the repulsion you might feel at learning who I really am. Here goes: Like future presidential candidate and Texas senator Ted Cruz, I too was born in Canada to an American mother. Whew! Feels great to get that off my chest.

I've lived in the States (that's what they call America up there) since I was 2, unlike that highly suspicious Cruz, who waited all the way until he was four-years-old to depart for the U.S. of A. What was he doing during those years? Training as some sort of spy for the maple-syrup cartel? Acquiring goods and services with currency stamped with a picture of a foreign monarch? For the love of George Washington, was he playing hockey?

These questions obviously need answers if we're to decide whether Cruz's particularly cruel brand of right-wing extremism is right for America, or if he'd be better off running for mayor of Yellowknife.

Constitutional experts agree that as an American born abroad, Cruz qualifies as a "natural-born citizen" and is therefore perfectly eligible to be president. This is what my high school history teacher, the redoubtable and compassionate Ms. Pinder, informed me when I asked her the same question about myself those many years ago. So far, the only person questioning Cruz's eligibility seems to be the cretinous Donald Trump, but that hasn't stopped Team Cruz from going into full crisis mode. First they released his birth certificate, despite the fact that no one was actually questioning the circumstances of his birth (unlike Barack Obama, Cruz freely admits to having come into the world on foreign soil). But I guess that's what we do now. And then, having learned that by virtue of being born in the Great White North the Canadian government may still consider him one of their own, Cruz has vowed to renounce his Canadian citizenship. Having long ago abjured the Canadian qualities of modesty and politeness, it should be a relatively simple process. By the time this is over, Cruz may well buy time on national television so we can watch him crush a pile of Bryan Adams CDs with a steamroller.

You might remember that the "natural-born citizen" question came up briefly with regard to John McCain, who was born on a Navy base in Panama. The collective response from supporters and opponents alike was, "Whatever," because even though the Founders didn't foresee the possibility of Panamanian naval bases, as long as you're a Republican, nobody really cares whether you can be excluded from running for the presidency based on some tendentious reading of three words in the Constitution. It is ironic, though, that this nation of immigrants is one of the only ones that has such a requirement for its highest office; there have been plenty of leaders of other countries who were born abroad.

And remember just a few years ago when Republicans were proposing amending the Constitution so Arnold Schwarzenegger could become president? Maybe they could renew that campaign, to show Hispanic voters that they really do love immigrants.

Comments

As much as I admire Sen. Cruz for his stance against ObamaCare; I, and much of his Tea Party base, admire and respect the US Const. even more.

Sen. Ted Cruz is absolutely correct when he states he is a "US Citizen at birth". But Sen. Ted Cruz is a US Citizen at birth by positive law (Title 8 USC §1401 (g)). Unfortunately, the US Const. calls for our presidents to be "natural" born Citizens, by natural law, not by positive statutory law. If the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const. had wanted simply "US citizens by birth" as the requirement, they could have easily said:"US citizens at birth", but they didn't; they said: '"natural" born Citizens. In the US Const. words mean something, each and every one.

The fact that a definition of a "natural born Citizen" is missing from the US Const. wasn't an oversight, or a simple laps in judgement, as our courts have assumed. The founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const., even the colonial (man) in the street, knew perfectly well what a "natural born subject" was before the American revolution.

After the War of Independence, the republican constitutional theory conceived of the individual as a Citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people. Therefore, to find the proper definition of a "natural born citizen", we must look at this enigmatic phrase, not through the eyes of a subject, but through the eyes of a sovereign, using natural law.

As sovereigns, their offspring would inherit their sovereignty from their fathers (partus sequitur patrem). As sovereigns, their offspring would also be natural born subjects wherever their birth occurred, as natural law dictates. As de Vattel points out in this work: 'Law of Nations', the minimum requirement to meet natural law criteria is that the child born inherits the citizenship of its father. Once this requirement is met, other restrictions can also be applied, such as 'place of birth' and the allegiance of the mother, as long as it doesn't interfere with the child's natural right to inherit its father's citizenship.

I hope, Sen Cruz, at some point in time, can see the error of his ways and step up to the plate and lead the charge in restoring our most cherished American birthright from the gutter it has been placed by our courts to where even the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country can run for the US presidency. If he does such a thing, I am sure he will find himself sitting on the bench of the US Supreme Court, perhaps even as its chief justice. He would most certainly have my vote.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Relatively few countries allow jus solis - citizenship based solely upon birth within that country. All countries follow jus sanguinis - citizenship by blood - whereby the child takes the citizenship of its parents at the time of the child's birth. Some countries *only* allow child's citizenship to be solely that of its parents' - absolutely no rights based on birth within that country.

Any child born to US citizen who has actually resided in US for a minimum of 5 years (at least 2 years of which were after age 14) has a birthright to US citizenship wherever it is born, or if it is born within US, then it can also claim US citizenship under jus solis regardless of parents' citizenship. So as a US citizen, your child has a right to US citizenship wherever it is born, but you must register birth to US while abroad & get your child a US passport.

Child born to a Canadian citizen would have a right to Canadian citizenship; if born to a citizen of some other country, it would likewise have a right to citizenship in that country.

It is possible to have 3 or more citizenships under limited circumstances, but some countries will restrict multiple nationalities by requiring a child who has multiple birthrights to choose one citizenship or some other by the age of 18 or 21. Many countries do NOT allow dual or multiple citizenships, so a child born to parents with different citizenships would be forced to choose or lose the right to citizenship. E.g. Germany, Singapore, India, etc, do not allow multiple citizenships. Those who naturalize automatically have all prior citizenships revoked/renounced.

You have to check the specific laws of each country involved. Also, to protect their child's rights, parents must promptly register their child's birth with their country/ies of citizenship, especially if born outside parents' country/ies of citizenship.

Regarding the bolded phrase, did Cruz' mother do that?

And I have a feeling the above birther who referred to partus sequitur patrem as "natural law" is reaching beyond logic and reason.

The ONLY true natural law about inheritance that can be proven beyond a doubt is inheritance through the mother. That's why royal sovereign rights of succession were witnessed during the queen's or queen consort's labor and delivery. And that's why matriarchial societies were much less filled with strife and murder.

Natural law, as articulated by de Vattel in his work: "PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS:" § 212-215, defines an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen as follows:

§ 212. Citizens and naturals.

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 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 society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

ex animo
davidfarrar

> In the US Const. words mean something, each and every one.

...except for "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

Someone on another site pointed out that subjects born abroad to a US citizen parent, or their parent as guardian if the subject is under 18 years, should fill out Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services: http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/n-600instr.pdf

Paul
"Constitutional experts agree that as an American born abroad, Cruz qualifies as a "natural-born citizen" and is therefore perfectly eligible to be president."

Who are these bogus "experts" who make this BS claim - the rule of jus soli applies to the US and to Canada. If you are BORN in the US to ANYONE legal or illegal you are a US Citizen, likewise if you are BORN in Canada to ANYONE who is a US Citizen or for that matter a citizen of ANY country, you are CANADIAN.

Natural Born does not apply to Ted Cruz. I know because MY Mother was/is American - born on the 4th of July - and I was born in Canada. I was NOT AUTOMATICALLY deemed an American Citizen! Nor am I to this day considered to be a "natural born" American Citizen.

My mother had to petition for me and I had to apply for a green card,and upon receipt of the card I then had to live and work in the US for 5 years before I was given the opportunity to apply for citizenship. I now have dual citizenship and do not intend to renounce either citizenship. However if the alleged constitutional experts contend that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen - then let them fight for my sisters right to be deemed a US Citizen and have her given her 'birthright" US citizenship- as a some one born to an American mother in Canada.

FYI - The rule that states you are "automatically " granted US birthright if you are born to an American parent outside of the US ONLY applies to those born AFTER 1984. Ted was born in 1970.
You are ONLY deemed a natural born citizen IF you are born out of the US ON land that is deemed to be US SOIL - as in Panama or Guam or Puerto Rico - NOT if you are born in Canada.

Ted is about as much of Natural Born American Citizen as Stephen Harper is!

This article is a complete LIE and you are a bunch of liars!
Ted Cruz is a Canadian/American and never went through the legalization process. I think we should deport him back to Canada and if he wants back in the make him go through the line like everyone else! Or he can Self Deport!!

The comments on this article are hilarious, because of the nit-picking and angels-on-pinheads reasoning. In common usage (i.e. unless a law or constitutional clause SAYS otherwise), the phrases "natural born citizen" and "citizen by birth" are synonymous. The Framers understood this, and did NOT feel the need to specify what everyone "understood," namely that persons born in the British colonies that LATER became the United States, including the Framers themselves, could be considered "natural born" citizens of a country that DID NOT EXIST at the time of their birth! If there had been any doubt, they would have SPECIFIED that the President could have been born in what had, after their birth, become the United States. They felt no need to specify this, however.

I was in high school when Barry Goldwater was nominated for President, and I was curious whether he was eligible, because he was born in the Arizona TERRITORY, which became a state in 1912. Nobody in the news media asked that question, as there was no "birther" movement in 1964 (most of the radically "patriotic" people were on his side anyway; the Democrats were too classy and reasonable to pick this nit).

Chester Arthur was allegedly born just across the line in Canada, not in New Hampshire, but the borders were not well marked or populated by border crossings in that area at that time. Again, only a few of his opponents raised the question, especially since he was only running for VICE President; nobody expected Garfield to be assassinated.

The original Constitution did not define citizenship by birth, because millions of "persons" who were either born in Africa or "bred" in America by slaveholders from parents of African descent were NOT citizens, as affirmed by the Dred Scott decision. The 14th Amendment added citizenship by birth IN the United States, but of course did not REMOVE the Common Law concept of citizenship by inheritance, and until 2008 the question was hardly ever raised.

The fact that Chester Arthur (and as someone posted here, James Polk, which was news to me), Barry Goldwater, and probably, if someone compared birth date with statehood of state of birth for all Presidents, Vice Presidents and candidates, several others born in territories not yet states, were accepted as eligible, even by those who voted against them, indicates that American "Common Law" (precedent) establishes citizenship either by birthplace OR by inheritance from EITHER parent. For that matter, what about candidates born in the South DURING the Civil War?

So it seems that, just by common sense, even a "war baby" born overseas to a GI parent, such as in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, as long as parenthood could be proven, would be eligible to run for President after residing in the United States long enough. Competing claims for a person's loyalty by OTHER countries are not relevant unless the person, AS AN ADULT, BEHAVED as a citizen of that other country (i.e. accepting their passport or other benefit from the other nation, serving in their armed forces, etc.).

The "birther" arguments against Barack Obama do not ARISE FROM reasonable doubts and questions; rather the doubts and questions were FABRICATED because these voters did not like him for various reasons (I suspect mostly race, or perhaps MIXED race) and applied more stringent requirements for him than anyone ever did for any earlier candidate.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as proved by the State government of Hawaii, AFTER it became a state (but using Goldwater as a precedent, and possibly others, being born in the Territory of Hawaii would have been enough). The contemporaneously printed newspaper announcement of his birth could not have been fabricated without a "time machine." His father had come to Hawaii from Kenya, which was a British colony at that time, but his inherited British "citizenship" was never used by him to obtain benefits, EVEN when he studied at Oxford, nor did their government even ATTEMPT to claim him as British during that time. The fact that he was taken to other countries as a child is irrelevant; many Americans who live abroad for many years as ADULTS are still American citizens when and if they return alive, unless they explicitly RENOUNCE America. But Americans with xenophobic attitudes somehow think that his EXPOSURE to other cultures as a child makes him a MEMBER of those cultures, and a detriment, rather than the ADVANTAGE of learning about how to deal with foreign people.

But hey, if you want to spoil the candidacy of Ted Cruz, go ahead. It will make it easier for Hillary and Elizabeth to defeat him anyway.

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)

Connect
, after login or registration your account will be connected.
Advertisement