Cruz may not be legally a Senator, much less a Pres. candidate.

[dixiegrrrrl]

Last edited Tue Feb 9, 2016, 10:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Canada did not recognize dual citizenship in 1970 when Cruz was born in Alberta.

The only way Cruz could have been a US citizen was if his mother had filed a document called a Consular Report of Birth Abroad.
Cruz has never admitted to having that document.
This is the legal equivalent of a US Birth Certificate and Cruz either has one from the time of his birth or he does not.
If he does not then he is not a US Citizen as he was never naturalized by his own admission
and at birth the nation in which he was born did not recognize dual nationality.

With 2 Canadian parents, and being born in Canada in 1970 when Canada did not recognize dual citizen citizenship, he was born Canadian and is not a natural born citizen.

In order to run for US Senate, you have to be a US citizen for 9 years.
Cruz ran for US Senate in 2012.
In 2014, he renounced his Canadian citizenship.[/b
thus admitting he WAS a Canadian citizen when he was born.

UPDATE:
I have edited to reflect that his father was a citizen of Cuba until 1973, when he became a Canadian citizen ( and later an American citizen in 2005)
and his mother's available voting record was from 1974 BUT the Canadian process for being on the voting registration requires a person to affirm they ARE citizens of Canada, which is then checked by the Voting Registrar.

[merrily]

1. He may not be a natural born citizen under the US Constitution. I agree with Lawrence Tribe: "murky"

However, I do not believe that what Canada does or does not recognize can possibly control, or even impact, the requirements of the US Constitution to be a US Senator or POTUS.

[seaotter]

6. Uless, of course, Mrs Cruz gave up her US citizenship for a Canadian citizenship.

[dixiegrrrrl]

54. Funny thing about that....

She was on the 1974 Canadian voter roll.
Now the thing about that voter roll is, ...well, TPM said it pretty clearly:

In accordance with the Canadian Election Act, such lists were compiled in the 1970s by a pair of officials, called enumerators, who went door-to-door together in an electoral district to ascertain the name, address and occupation of any person qualified to vote.
The statute states that enumerators who “willfully and without reasonable excuse” added a name to the list “of any person who is not entitled to have his name entered thereon” forfeited pay for their services and were be subject to other punishments.

Another election official, called a returning officer, then reviewed the list.
The statute states that the returning officer could not certify the document if he believed the list contained the name of any person who shouldn’t be included.
The document obtained by TPM was certified in Calgary by a returning officer.

In 2013, a Canadian elections official told TPM that in the process of compiling the list, enumerators asked people to affirm that they were Canadian citizens.

"So when they knock on doors, they ask them: are you Canadian citizens,
are you 18 years of age or older, and are you a resident in this facility and how long have you been living here?" Drew Westwater, the director of election operations and communications for Elections Alberta, told TPM. "If they meet all that criteria then they add them to the list, take their name and addresses and anyone else who's living there. And they ask, is anyone else living here a Canadian citizen 18 years of age or older? And if they are, then they take their names from them at the door. And that's the way it worked in those days."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ted-cruz-mother-canadian-voter-list

[SickOfTheOnePct]

57. So she was a Canadian citizen four years after his birth

So what? She wasn't in the country long enough prior to his birth to become a citizen, and what she did afterwards is irrelevant.

It's a shame that the Democratic party actually has birthers.

[dixiegrrrrl]

83. So what is this puzzle:

When Cruz was born, IN Canada, the Canada law at the time said you could only have ONE citizenship.
You were automatically deemed to be a Canadian
or
you could be another countries' citizen
IF
your parents filed a form choosing some other citizenship for you.

So, IF Cruz's mother was a US citizen and filed a form for HIM to be counted as a US citizen,( which is the normal process for out of country births) then that is what he was.
He could not be BOTH.in Canada, since Canada did not allow that at the time, and he could not be both in the USA if she had filed the form which told the USA to count him as an American citizen.
When he was 4, the family moved to USA..
So he is USA Citizen as far as both Canada and USA are concerned, when they move to USA.
Fine and dandy.

So WHY did Cruz make a big deal, after the press confronted him, of RENOUNCING his Canadian citizenship, in 2012,
AFTER he became a US Senator, if he was not Canadian?
And if he was NOT Canadian when they moved in 1974, why and when would he have become one while living in the states,
since he had no ties to Canada?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

105. Your premise that dual citizenship was prohibited prior to 1977 is flawed

From the Wikipedia article that you referenced previously:

Although Canada restricted dual citizenship between 1947 and 1977, there were some situations where Canadians could nevertheless legally possess another citizenship. For example, migrants becoming Canadian citizens were not asked to formally prove that they had ceased to hold the nationality of their former country. Similarly children born in Canada to non-Canadian parents were not under any obligation to renounce a foreign citizenship they had acquired by descent. Holding a foreign passport did not in itself cause loss of Canadian citizenship.

So yes, Ted Cruz could and did have dual citizenship in both Canada and the U.S. Canadian, by virtue of being born there, and American by virtue of being born to an a mother who was an American citizen at the time of his birth.

[MH1]

156. Doesn't matter what Canada did or didn't do, what matters is US law.

That said, I have exactly ZERO problem with drawing attention to Cruz's questionable allegiances.

The problem with the birthers attacking Obama is that their arguments are based on false statements of what supposedly happened.

The difference here is that the facts of what happened are generally not in dispute, it is what that means, that is open for discussion.

That discussion doesn't go anywhere with the actual facts of Obama's birth. It's a bit murkier for Cruz. I personally think that in the end it doesn't go anywhere legally, but I don't have a problem with pointing out the questions.

[merrily]

58. Sure. I am not familiar with renouncing (yet--kidding), so I don't know if there would be a paper

trail of her renunciation.

[MADem]

85. And she was listed on the Canadian voter rolls....so......!!!! nt

[Volaris]

103. This seems to be the key question.

If she were required to do so under Canadian Law, but not file paperwork with the USGovernment, it becomes a question for the courts (only another candidate for president would likely have standing to bring the issue)

If she were not required by the USGOVERNMENT to renounce USCitizenship, then it seems likely the courts response would be:

Who the fuck cares, this is a non-issue, Please Procreed, Senator.

[FreakinDJ]

13. All mute unless his parents filed the Consular Report

And 1 of them does have to be a US Citizen

[Thor_MN]

39. moot. nt.

[merrily]

62. I wish any problem could be sorted out soon, but the SCOTUS does not give

"advisory" opinions because of the way it has interpreted the "case or controversy" language in the US Constitution.

If this isn't a controversy worth deciding, though, I don't what is.

[dixiegrrrrl]

81. Missing the point.

When Cruz was born, IN Canada, the Canada law at the time said you could only have ONE citizenship.
You were automatically deemed to be a Canadian
or
you could be another countries' citizen
IF
your parents filed a form choosing some other citizenship for you.

So, IF Cruz's mother was a US citizen and filed a form for HIM to be counted as a US citizen,( which is the normal process for out of country births) then that is what he was.
He could not be BOTH.in Canada, since Canada did not allow that at the time, and he could not be both in the USA if she had filed the form which told the USA to count him as an American citizen.
When he was 4, the family moved to USA..
So he is USA Citizen as far as both Canada and USA are concerned, when they move to USA.
Fine and dandy.

So WHY did Cruz make a big deal, after the press confronted him, of RENOUNCING his Canadian citizenship, in 2012,
AFTER he became a US Senator, if he was not Canadian?
And if he was NOT Canadian when they moved in 1974, why and when would he have become one while living in the states,
since he had to ties to Canada?

[lapislzi]

159. My daughter has this form

She was born in South Africa, to me, an American living abroad (NOT a dual national). The document doesn't just magically appear. You need to report to the consulate and provide evidence of the citizenship of the parent applying. After the consul has reviewed applying parent's documents (U.S. passport and birth certificate, for example), only then is the Consular Report of Birth Abroad issued to the child. Even with this document, the consul couldn't tell me at the time (1994) whether my child would be eligible to become president. I think yes, but I'm sure there are better legal minds on this board who know for sure.

Edit: PS--THANK YOU to my heart donor. I love you, whoever you are!

[elleng]

55. I agree, whatever he or his parents may have done,

imo he's not eligible to serve as POTUS. and maybe not as Senator either! LOVE IT!

[seaotter]

2. THIS is something DUers should put some energy into.

But some would rather red-bait one of their own.

[gcomeau]

33. Only if you think...

...it's bad Cruz becomes the nominee.


Since he'd get annihilated in the General, I say "shhhhh...."

[A Simple Game]

66. Do you really think it is wise to wish someone like Cruz

is in a position to be one step away from the Presidency? What if the Democratic candidate is indicted for some reason or has a plane crash?

I can remember when people wanted the best two choices to be running against each other, now we want a fruitcake to be one of the options?

[gcomeau]

80. That question contains the implicit assumption...

...that there is a palatable alternative GOP candidate anyone sane would prefer to win and who has a chance in hell of taking the GOP primary.


Lacking that, the only question is "which of the horrible people is more likely to lose"?

[dixiegrrrrl]

94. Cruz was elected Senator in 2012. Senators have to be American citizens.

He renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014.

If he was an American in 2012, he could not have been a dual citizen by birth in 1970 because Canadian law only allowed ONE citizenship,
and his mother could only declare him as an American by filing a Consular form upon his birth.
so if he was American, he had no Canadian citizenship to renounce.

[metalbot]

147. You're being intentionally obtuse here

By US law, children of American citizens are also citizens. Canadian law has absolutely no bearing on that, whatsoever. Canada may not have "allowed" dual citizenship, but the fact that it happened is on Canada, not the US.

Let's look at this another way with concrete example.

Helmi is a Malaysian citizen. He works in tech, and is transferred to the US, obtains a green card, and after five years, applies for US citizenship. He passes the interview and is sworn in as a US citizen. Using your logic, Helmi is not in fact a US citizen, because Malaysian law does not allow that, and he would not really be a US citizen until he gives up or has his Malaysian citizenship revoked.

[dixiegrrrrl]

150. The question seems to be...... is Cruz a "natural born" citizen....

In your example, Helmi is not native born or natural born citizen. He is a naturalized citizen.

[metalbot]

158. That's a slightly different question

I'm open to the constitutional discussion (though natural born citizen is well defined under British law, and certainly influenced the wording). I'm debating your logic that "He was born in Canada, is therefore Canadian, Canadians cannot have two citizenships, therefore Cruz is not American".

The point is that Canadian laws have absolutely nothing to do with US citizenship.

[FBaggins]

153. "Canadian law only allowed ONE citizenship"

Still incorrect. Canadian law only recognized one citizenship. They had zero ability to "allow" or "disallow" US Citizenship. They could refuse to grant Canadian citizenship based on citizenship elsewhere, but they didn't (nor would that impact the case).

[Downwinder]

3. Forward to TRUMP.

[FBaggins]

4. More of this birther-type nonsense?

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether Canada recognized dual citizenship.

[etherealtruth]

8. IKR?

[-none]

11. Why not?

Is Rafael Eduardo Cruz a US citizen or not? This does need to be settled one way or the other. At this point it has not been.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. It has been settled that he is an American citizen

To a few people, it hasn't been settled that he's a natural born American citizen.

[seaotter]

17. Please cite the court docs that expressly state that Ted Cruz is a citizen.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. He was born to an American citizen abroad

You don't need a court to decide that he's a citizen.

[Stonepounder]

79. In order for a person born abroad to a US Citizen or Citizens to become a US citizen,

A parent MUST, as soon as practical, go to the nearest US Consulate or US Embassy and file a form registering the birth of a child born to US Citizen(s) abroad. If this form is not filed, the child is not considered a US Citizen.

If Mr and/or Mrs Cruz did not file this form, then he would not be considered a US Citizen and would need to be naturalized if he wanted to become one.

[dixiegrrrrl]

84. Exactly.

And by Canada law, if she did NOT choose a citizenship for him, he auto matically became a Canadian.

So, IF Cruz's mother was a US citizen and filed a form for HIM to be counted as a US citizen, that is what he was.
He could not be BOTH.in Canada, since Canada did not allow that at the time, and he could not be both in the USA if she had filed the form which told the USA to count him as an American citizen.
When he was 4, the family moved to USA..
So he is USA Citizen as far as both Canada and USA are concerned, when they move to USA.
Fine and dandy.

So WHY did Cruz make a big deal, after the press confronted him, of RENOUNCING his Canadian citizenship, in 2012,
AFTER he became a US Senator, if he was not Canadian?
And if he was NOT Canadian when they moved in 1974, why and when would he have become one while living in the states,
since he had no ties to Canada?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

109. That is simply not true

My child was born abroad but is a U.S. Citizen, what do I need to do?

Most children born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s) acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. As soon as possible after the birth, the U.S. citizen parent(s) should contact the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

If the consul determines that the child has acquired U.S. citizenship, a consular officer prepares a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (Form FS-240). This document is recognized in the United States as proof of acquisition of U.S. citizenship, and it is acceptable evidence of citizenship for obtaining a passport, entering school, and most other purposes.

Failure to document a child promptly as a U.S. citizen may cause hardship for the parents or child later on when attempting to obtain a passport or register for school.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies.html

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html

The CRBA makes life easier, but citizenship is not dependent upon it.

[Jim Lane]

140. Thanks for your research!

I was pretty sure that the law was as you state. I felt on the one hand an obligation to look it up and refute the erroneous OP, but on the other hand felt that I'd already wasted too much of my life dealing with birtherism, whether of the right or the left.

The nonfiling of the form is a nonissue. The only avenue for attacking Cruz's citizenship would be to question whether his mother met the residency requirements referred to in your excerpt. I learned recently that she spent at least some time living in Europe with her first husband before getting divorced, returning to the U.S., and then moving to Canada with her second husband (Cruz's father). That makes it at least remotely conceivable that she didn't live in the U.S. for the requisite time period.

[dixiegrrrrl]

145. I am confused about taht, can you help me understand it?

The mother's residency as a US citizen, that is the issue, correct?

If she were born in the US, which Cruz claims, and grew up here until she married the first time and moved away, is that not sufficient time?

I just assumed since she had been born in the US, she was a citizen, no problem.

[Jim Lane]

149. That's almost certainly right but the exact dates haven't been published AFAIK

First, I think there's no good-faith dispute about Cruz's mother's initial citizenship. She was born in Delaware and neither parent was a diplomat, so she was a citizen at birth.

To transmit citizenship to Cruz, she needs to have lived in the U.S. for ten years before his birth, at least five years of which came after her fourteenth birthday. Cruz was born in 1970. It's known that his mother got an undergraduate degree from Rice sometime in the 1950s. In the information that I know of, there's no indication of her having lived outside the U.S. at any time before that.

I don't know exactly when she moved away and when she returned. It's remotely conceivable that she skipped a grade or two, entered Rice early, live abroad for a year as part of an undergraduate study-abroad program, completed her coursework in less than four years, married right after graduation, etc. Of course, the residency years don't have to be continuous, so she'd also be entitled to count however much time she spent living here after returning from Europe and before moving to Canada (they moved there in 1967).

In sum, you could construct a scenario wherein she couldn't transmit citizenship, but it's virtually certain that she could.

This might come down to the question I mentioned in #141 -- the burden of proof. Even if any sensible person looking at the known facts would conclude that she almost certainly met the requirements, would Cruz be required to prove it? Does his mother still have her utility bills and rent receipts from the 1950s and 1960s to prove where she was? What if she just gives a sworn affidavit? What if she says, "Oh, all right, I'll give you an affidavit," and then dies before she can do so? (There are some instances in law where a party does have to go to the trouble of proving something that's quite obvious and not seriously disputed.) The Constitution doesn't say who has the burden of proof on the eligibility issue, or what sort of evidence is acceptable.

[lapislzi]

164. That's correct.

I know. I did it for my own kid.

[-none]

26. What is the proof he is an United States citizen?

Or is he just an American citizen because he was born on the North American continent?

It all comes down to what is the proof that his mother was a US citizen at the time Rafael Cruz was born in Canada? All I have seen are people's opinions, one way or the other.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

30. Well, she couldn't have been a Canadian citizen

So of which country do you believe she was a citizen?

[truebluegreen]

40. "couldn't have been" Canadian?

Did you actually read the OP?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

46. Yep

But the OP doesn't change the fact that Cruz's parents moved to Canada in 1966 and he was born in 1970. She would had to have been in Canada for five years in order to apply for citizenship.

[truebluegreen]

59. Or not:

"grant of citizenship to a foreign woman married to a Canadian man after one year's residence as a landed immigrant"

Sounds murky to me. When did Dad become a citizen? When was Mom eligible to vote? And why haven't we heard one word from Mom and Dad?

And last I heard the courts or Court have never ruled on the dual-citizenship issue as it relates (or doesn't) to natural-born citizens.

But whatever. It's fun to poke the bears...and if there is anyone I'd like to run against more than tRump it would be Cruz.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

64. Dad couldn't have become a citizen by 1970

because he hadn't lived in Canada for the required five years at the time.

[dixiegrrrrl]

90. Rafael Cruz became a Canadian citizen in 1973

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/ted-cruz-made-in-canada/

[SickOfTheOnePct]

108. Three years after Ted Cruz's birth

So what?

[Katashi_itto]

31. Cite this.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

32. Birth to an American citizen abroad n/t

[Katashi_itto]

76. Your not citing anything. Your expressing an opinion. Nothing more.

[FBaggins]

115. Here's one

The IL state board of elections just ruled on the issue this past week.

http://www.elections.state.il.us/Downloads/AboutTheBoard/PDF/02_01_16SOEBAgenda.pdf

[Katashi_itto]

119. A state board?

[FBaggins]

120. Yes. That's who decides who is eligible to be on the ballot

NH said the same thing a few weeks ago.

Do you have a single citation to the contrary? Of course not.

[Katashi_itto]

139. Interesting, you are going all out to defend something like Cruz

The state does not declare who is eligible to run.

The section of the Constitution regarding POTUS eligible citizens is specific and very distinct as compared to other aspects of American Citizenship. The case has been raised by respected Constitutional scholars not party hacks.

As for citing:

http://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-canadian-citizen-415430

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ted-cruz-mother-canadian-voter-list

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/harvard-law-professor-ted-cruzs-eligibility-to-be-president-is-murky-and-unsettled/

[SoCalDem]

88. Can Americans vote in Canadian elections?

[pnwmom]

71. It hasn't, actually. A number of constitutional scholars dispute it.

And ironically, the originalists -- the ones whose philosophy he says he believes in -- are the most likely to dispute his citizenship.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

73. I've heard no one dispute his American citizenship

A few people question the natural born status of his citizenship, but I've heard no one, outside of this thread, question his actual American citizenship.

Or is there a little known exception, just for him, that denies citizenship even though he was born to an American mother?

Birtherism is just as ugly on the left as it is on the right. Uglier really, because I expect more from Democrats.

[pnwmom]

74. You're right -- I meant his natural born status. n/t

[dmr]

99. I think it's insulting to use "birthism" on DUers.

From reading this thread, no one is acting foolish like the right wing has done with President Obama.

What I'm reading from the OP is honest questions regarding the man's citizenship.

Sometimes things nag at you until you have a clear understanding & you can square it away in your mind. The OP and others should be able to come to their DU community & pose questions & have an open discussion without being insulted with a derisive birther accusation.

That said, hope you're having a great evening.

[dixiegrrrrl]

102. Even more ironically, his Dad was an anti-Obama birther.

Nonetheless, the questions about Cruz’s legitimacy are rich with irony, since the senator’s own father — Rafael, who appears at public events regularly on behalf of his son — once raised doubts about Barack Obama’s birthplace.

In 2012, the pastor argued Obama should be sent “back to Kenya.”

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/calgary-born-ted-cruzs-presidential-run-raises-questions-again-about-eligibility/

[FBaggins]

60. Because Canada has no say in US citizenship?

This does need to be settled one way or the other. At this point it has not been.

Which is just what the birthers say about the President.

No valid claim has been put forward that he isn't eligible - and he isn't guilty until proven innocent.

[-none]

112. Obama has nothing to do with this, except deflection by those on the Right.

Was or was not the mother a Canadian citizen at the time baby Cruz was born? Yes or no?

[FBaggins]

116. Nobody said that Obama had anything to do with it

It's the nuts who are behaving exactly the same way as the birther nuts that are the problem.

Was or was not the mother a Canadian citizen at the time baby Cruz was born? Yes or no?

Almost certainly no... but also irrelevant. The question is whether she was a US citizen - and there's no reason to think that she wasn't.

[Mariana]

137. Because Canada has no say in US citizenship.

Period. You're right, Canadian law is utterly irrelevant. Only the US gets to decide who is and who isn't a US citizen. And, Canada gets to decide who is a Canadian citizen. One has nothing to do with the other.

[Bucky]

21. Thank you. Besides the fact that Cruz is EXACTLY who we want to run against in November

it's waste of time and effort. If the people elect someone, they should hold they job they're elected to. Democracy's sposed to work that way. Whining to a nonexistent ref to invalidate the other side's points is poor sportsmanship.

[plus5mace]

36. If the people vote for Cruz, they should get Cruz.

This natural born citizen requirement is silly. Let's say conservatives had it exactly right and Obama wasn't really born in America. Would that negate the fact that the American public elected him president?

[eggplant]

65. Absolutely.

The Natural Born requirement was from the founding of our nation. Its intent was to prevent foreign powers from usurping our government.

As absurd as the idea of preventing foreign influence in our elections seems in our modern age, what with Citizens United.

[jwirr]

77. Well in that case all you Canadians can come down here and

help us elect our president. Because it doesn't matter.

There is a difference between birtherism and established laws of eligibility.

[FBaggins]

87. Neither type of birther has trouble with "established laws of eligibility"...

... it's reality that they struggle with.

Not one valid claim of ineligibility has been put forward. Merely demands for proof and claims that, absent that proof, he must not be eligible.

[jwirr]

89. And is that what the law states?

[FBaggins]

92. Yes

There is no "prove your 'natural-born citizen' status with appropriate paperwork" step in running for President.

Nor is he guilty of ineligibility until he proves himself innocent.

The pull-your-hair-out wing-nuttery here is precisely the same as the rw birthers demanding a long-form birth certificate.

[Jim Lane]

141. AFAIK the law is completely silent on the question of burden of proof

Does a candidate have to prove s/'he's eligible, or does a challenger to ballot status (or to counting those electoral votes) have to prove that the candidate is ineligible? The Constitution doesn't specify, and the question has never been litigated, at least in any case I've heard of.

The Obama birther cases are precedents for the proposition that the people making noise about Obama's status, including a military reservist who was contesting an order to deploy to Afghanistan, do not have standing to raise the question. Those precedents would be a problem for anyone seeking to disqualify Cruz.

My personal opinion is that the Constitution, by directing Congress to count the electoral votes, makes Congress rather than the courts the ultimate arbiter of compliance with the natural born citizen clause. If, at the counting of the electoral votes, someone (I think by rules it takes at least one member of each house) challenged the electoral votes cast for Cruz, on the ground that he wasn't eligible, then Congress would have to decide how to allocate the burden of proof.

[merrily]

128. There is a difference between falsely claiming Obama was born in Kenya and truthfully

claiming Cruz was born in Canada and therefore may not meet the Constitutional requirement to be President.

Conflating the two isn't clever.

[FBaggins]

129. Nope

The claim in both cases is that the candidate is not a "natural-born citizen" due to ignorant misunderstandings (to outright falsehoods) re: the facts of the case.

Cruz was born in Canada and therefore may not meet the Constitutional requirement to be President

The claim here is not just that he may not meet the requirement because he was born in Canada. It's a claim that his parents weren't really US citizens because Canada didn't allow dual citizenship.

[merrily]

130. Then, your ability to make distinctions needs work, as does your knowledge of

constitutional law. Read Tribe's article, then read one of the dumbass birther briefs in one of the dumbass birther lawsuits.

[FBaggins]

131. Read Tribe's article?

Tribe agrees that he's eligible. He merely teases Cruz that by an "originalist" interpretation, Cruz shouldn't think so.

then read one of the dumbass birther briefs in one of the dumbass birther lawsuits.

Lol... they read just like the OP and many of the arguments on this thread.

[merrily]

132. An originalist interpretation is impossible with this Court? Um, O.K.

But that was not my point. My point is that there is a difference between birtherism and questions about interpreting a provision of the Constitution as to which no controlling SCOTUS case exists.

[FBaggins]

133. You obviously didn't read the OP.

Let's take them one at a time:

Canada did not recognize dual citizenship in 1970 when Cruz was born in Alberta.
Irrelevant

The only way Cruz could have been a US citizen was if his mother had filed a document called a Consular Report of Birth Abroad.
Factually inaccurate.

Cruz has never admitted to having that document.
Just like Obama never provided the long-form birth certificate

This is the legal equivalent of a US Birth Certificate and Cruz either has one from the time of his birth or he does not.
Factually inaccurate and irrelevant. A Canadian birth certificate and a US Citizen mother is sufficient.

If he does not then he is not a US Citizen
Still wrong

as he was never naturalized by his own admission
His own "admission"? Laughable. If he had been naturalized, then he wouldn't be natural-born.

and at birth the nation in which he was born did not recognize dual nationality.
Repeating these claims multiple times doesn't make them any more relevant or any less ridiculous. It doesn't matter what Canada's stance on dual citizenship was or is.

With 2 Canadian parents,
Not demonstrated and almost certainly inaccurate.

and being born in Canada in 1970 when Canada did not recognize dual citizen citizenship, he was born Canadian and is not a natural born citizen.
See above.

In 2014, he renounced his Canadian citizenship.thus admitting he WAS a Canadian citizen when he was born.
That means nothing of the sort - and his statement at the time directly refutes any claim that he was "admitting" Canadian citizenship.

and his mother's available voting record was from 1974 BUT the Canadian process for being on the voting registration requires a person to affirm they ARE citizens of Canada, which is then checked by the Voting Registrar.

More birther nonsense. The entire thesis is a massive stretch, but even assuming that it were true proof that his mother was a Canadian citizen years after his birth has no impact on her status at his birth - and again assumes without any evidence that she must have renounced her US citizenship - which the US didn't require.

The entire Gish gallop reads exactly like the original birthers (and, in fact, are the same nonsensical claims that those same birthers also make about Cruz).

On edit -

An originalist interpretation is impossible with this Court?

It's really just teasing a former student. Originalism doesn't really say what Tribe is hinting at. There's really little question what the Founders' "original intent" was in this case because there are contemporaneous writings (as well as existing British Empire usage of the term and what the Founders said that it meant when they codified it just a couple years later).

[MagickMuffin]

5. Please, please, PRETTY PLEASE

make it so!

[Gregorian]

7. We need to ask the expert, Orly Taitz.

I just checked, and she agrees! Yeehaw. I feel yucky being in agreement with the Taitz creature.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/natemcdermott/ted-cruz-inherits-obamas-birthers#.yl3r8XAqD

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. Aside from the fact that it doesn't matter what Canada does or doesn't recognize

His mother couldn't have been a Canadian citizen when he was born - she hadn't lived in Canada long enough to become a citizen.

[roguevalley]

16. but she is on the voting rolls in 1974 4 years after ted's birth

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. LOL true n/t

[CajunBlazer]

10. But I won't Cruz to win the Republican nomination

Trump would be okay, but Cruz better. Both have zero chance in the general election, put Cruz would be easier to beat.

[IdaBriggs]

12. Any chance his illegal immigration status was forgiven? nt

[CajunBlazer]

15. But I won't Cruz to win the Republican nomination

I don't agree with the logic; besides I want Cruz to win.

Trump would be okay, but Cruz better. Both have zero chance in the general election, put Cruz would be easier to beat.

[hobbit709]

19. He may be disqualified because I'm not sure he is actually a homo sapiens sapiens.

[dixiegrrrrl]

61. Ok..I grant that with no problem.

Seeing as how the Tea baggers were so dedicated to questioning our President's legal status, they have no room to talk if we have a more legitimate question about Cruz.

An interesting aside: in 2008 the US Senate passed a motion declaring that John McCain is a natural born citizen.
McCain was born in the Panama US territory to two natural born US citizens, so there is no issue of his parents standing.
Clearly he should be eligible.

Sooooo....
Why would they go to the trouble to do that if there was no ambiguity?

[Jim Lane]

142. About McCain

It's been almost eight years since I delved into Obama birtherism and the natural born citizen clause in general, in the course of editing Wikipedia on the subject (in the process earning myself a denunciation from Orly Taitz herself!). What I remember about McCain may be a bit inaccurate, but I think this is what happened:

Under current law, someone born today in McCain's circumstances would be a natural born citizen. It's not that the Canal Zone was U.S. territory (we don't extend citizenship to everyone born in the Zone, because it's part of Panama); it's that both his parents were citizens. Note that that's current law. At one point the law was more restrictive, but even under that earlier law McCain would have qualified because his father was in the military or diplomatic service of the United States at the time of his birth.

McCain, however, is really old. You have to go back even further to reach the time of his birth. Once upon a time, Congress didn't have armies of staffers drafting legislation. The statutes were sometimes a little slapdash. The law in effect as of McCain's birth was badly worded and was therefore open to interpretation. At some later point -- after McCain's birth but before he was thought of as a possible President -- Congress passed a law to tidy things up, and made it retroactive.

There's a good argument -- IMO, a persuasive one -- that eligibility is to be assessed as of the moment of the prospective President's birth, without reference to later naturalization proceedings or changes in the law or anything else. (For example, under current law, a child born in Kenya to an 18-year-old American like Stanley Ann Dunham Obama would be a citizen, but under the law in effect in 1961, such a child would not have been a citizen, which is why the whole birth certificate issue arose.) So the question as to McCain is how you regard the statute that was passed after his birth. If it merely clarified the law that existed when he was born, then he was a citizen at birth. If it retroactively granted citizenship to such people, then arguably he was a citizen but not a natural born citizen.

Thus the answer to your question is that there was at least some ambiguity. There was an interpretation of the law that wasn't completely fanciful and under which McCain was ineligible. The Congressional resolution was to dispel that interpretation. No similar action was needed as to Obama because there was no serious interpretation of the law under which he was ineligible.

[dixiegrrrrl]

144. Actually, the Senate passed that resolution in 2008.

the year he inflicted Palin upon us when he WAS a Pres. nominee, and I am pretty sure that was the reason for the "clarification".

In McCain's case, as you state, the law when he was born is something to be considered, and I have no problem with the idea of him being considered qualified, since he did not hold DUAL citizenship.

It makes sense to me that the framers of the Constitution were intent of wanting American citizens and not citizens from another country to be eligible for office. Citizenship and birthright were important issues back then.

God save us from the Ahnolds who want to re-write the Constitution so they can run.

[herding cats]

22. Was a Consular Report of Birth Abroad needed in 1970 if his parents filed for a US passport for him?

I know it's not today. Now either document will work just the same if one is born in Canada to a parent with US citizenship.

I'm not saying his parents did either thing, since I have no clue what they did or didn't do. I'm just pointing out there are other ways to obtain the same citizenship status without filing a Consular Report of Birth Abroad.

[dixiegrrrrl]

25. Was a Consular Report of Birth Abroad needed in 1970?

Yes.
That's the whole point.

The other point is that if he HAD been a US citizen, there was absolutely no need for him to have taken the highly publicized step of
renouncing his Canadian citizenship.,which he could only have gotten BEFORE 1977 when Canada did not recognize
dual citizenship.
So as far as Canada was concerned, he was born a Canadian citizen, unless his mother filed US citizen papers.
If she did that when he was born, then he had no Canadian citizenship to renounce in 2012.

[herding cats]

34. Was it required if the parents did not apply for a passport for him was my question.

Now, it's one of the other, but you don't need to do both. The parent provides the supporting documents to the US Department of State and it's all done. No Consular Report of Birth Abroad is required if the parents apply for a US passport.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

67. Where are you getting that Canada didn't recognize dual citizenship until 1977?

My ex-wife was born in the U.S. in 1966 to an American father and a Canadian mother, and she had dual citizenship. She didn't know about until she was much older, but she was definitely a dual citizen.

[dixiegrrrrl]

70. from Wilipedia's history of Canadian citizenship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Canadian_nationality_law#Creation_of_Canadian_Citizenship.2C_January_1947

The part where people born IN Canada were considered to be Canadian unless a parent obtained the discussed Consular form.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

72. Yes, someone born in Canada would be Canadian

And if they were born to at least one American parent, they would also be American.

Canada doesn't dictate American citizenship rules, nor does the U.S. dictate Canadian citizenship rules.

I'm still waiting to see where you get the idea that Cruz's mother was a Canadian citizen when he was born.

[dixiegrrrrl]

146. "Cruz's mother was a Canadian citizen when he was born."

Never said that.

[FBaggins]

151. You never said that?

Did someone steal your password and post the OP?

[dixiegrrrrl]

154. ooops....I DID include that in the OP......my bad..

Migraine and meds......not good combo when posting...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

161. Really? Then what did this mean?

"With 2 Canadian parents, and being born in Canada in 1970 when Canada did not recognize dual citizen citizenship, he was born Canadian and is not a natural born citizen. "

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. "children born in Canada to non-Canadian parents were not under any obligation to renounce a foreign

Although Canada restricted dual citizenship between 1947 and 1977, there were some situations where Canadians could nevertheless legally possess another citizenship. For example, migrants becoming Canadian citizens were not asked to formally prove that they had ceased to hold the nationality of their former country. Similarly children born in Canada to non-Canadian parents were not under any obligation to renounce a foreign citizenship they had acquired by descent. Holding a foreign passport did not in itself cause loss of Canadian citizenship.

[Nay]

28. Cruz's passport was issued when he was 14, and no one has

produced his Consular Report of Birth Abroad. It would seem so simple to produce whatever document it was that he used to get a passport, but neither Ted nor his parents seem to be able to proceed logically or rationally in this situation. This isn't unusual for crazy RW religious nutters, but you'd think that they would want to straighten this out ASAP.

The Consular Report of Birth Abroad can be fairly easily issued retroactively before the child is 18, but after that the process requires certain documents and proofs from the parents.

Anyway, Cruz is probably a natural born citizen, but you'd never know from the ridiculous stuff he's released: (1) his Canadian BC (we already know you're Canadian, you twit!), (2) his mother's BC (OK, that helps, but not if she renounced her US citizenship in Canada, which is very unlikely).

So, the Cruzes are beating around the bush with nonsensical stuff when a simple Consular Form is all they need.

[herding cats]

38. I wonder what documents were required then to obtain his US passport?

Now it's just the Canadian birth certificate and the parent(s) legal documents proving their citizenship. Which now negates the need to fill out a Consular Report of Birth Abroad if you decide instead to apply for a passport. I've no idea if this was the case back then, though. All I have to go on is my knowledge of the current process.

Sadly, I imagine we're stuck with the nut. There's no way we could force Canada to take him back now, and there's not a very convincing case that he's not a natural born US citizen. Unless we get lucky and someone digs up papers showing his mother renounced her citizenship while she lived in Canada! Which I agree isn't likely, but a person can always dream.

[Nay]

47. Yeah, if his parents had gotten a US passport for him at birth,

there would be no question. If he produced his FS-240, there would be no question. But his only paper proof of citizenship is a US passport issued when he was 14. Now, I don't think the US State Dept would give some 14-yr-old a passport with no paperwork proving the 14-yr-old was a citizen, but what do I know. Maybe his parents only used his mother's BC and Ted's Canadian BC (to prove who his parents were), but they also would have had to prove that mom had fulfilled required residency laws in the US -- 10 yrs in total, 5 of which had to be after the age of 15 (IIRC). We have no idea how his passport was acquired.

I know, I wish we could get rid of this dangerous bible thumper this way, but no dice.

[dixiegrrrrl]

104. Thank you...clearly stated.

I was going for the logic of the situation, which you stated more succinctly than I did.

[Nay]

23. Nope.

The US recognized dual citizenship in 1967, so Cruz's dual citizenship is A-OK. Doesn't matter what Canada law is.

His mother was found to be registered to vote in Canada as of 1974. This may have been a clerical error on the part of Canada; whether she is/was a Canadian citizen is unknown, but she seems to have retained her US citizenship, so Ted is a US citizen, too, unfortunately.

The easiest way for Ted to confirm his US citizenship is to produce the FS-240, Report of Birth Abroad. No one seems to have this document, but it can be applied for and granted retroactively if needed. I have no idea why this was not done.

Ted has a US passport, issued when he was 14 yrs old. All Ted has to do to shut everyone up is produce the document(s) used to obtain his passport. Why he has not done so IS a mystery, but as of now, it does look like he is legally considered a natural born citizen.

It doesn't matter that Ted renounced his Canadian citizenship; it has nothing to do with his US citizenship, with ONE EXCEPTION: neither Canada nor the US will grant a renunciation of a citizenship if the person will thus be rendered stateless. So, Canada considers him a US citizen.

There are some weird things going on with Ted's citizenships, but they do not involve what you have outlined.

[rocktivity]

24. Canada's dual citizenship policies have nothing to do with America's.

If his mother never renounced HER American citizenship, Cruz is in the clear.


rocktivity

[dixiegrrrrl]

27. IF............n/t

[Iggo]

29. Box it up and send it to the birthers.

[Octafish]

35. A ''Consular Report of Birth Abroad'' long form, please.

Originals only, bitte.

[VMA131Marine]

37. Is it possible to be a natural born citizen of two countries?

because that's what Cruz is claiming. I think SCOTUS might want to weigh-in on this one. The real question is whether there's anyone with standing who is willing to sue.

[WinkyDink]

43. No. Physically nor Constitutionally. It's pretty obvious the FF meant "born HERE." NOT a tortuous

explanation of mother's heritage or birthplace, or father's same, but WHERE THE CANDIDATE WAS PHYSICALLY BORN.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

49. Absolutely untrue

My ex-wife was a natural born citizen of both Canada and the U.S.

[dixiegrrrrl]

63. There goes John McCains's claim to citizenship then.

in 2008 the US Senate passed a motion declaring that John McCain is a natural born citizen.
McCain was born in the Panama Canal territory as it was known then, to two natural born US citizens..
Why would they go to the trouble to do that if there was no ambiguity?

[WinkyDink]

166. I'm not responsible for explaining this law.

[WinkyDink]

170. Why did you start this thread, then?

[FBaggins]

125. Sorry... that bears no relationship to the truth at all

The term clearly included those born to citizens of the nation residing in other countries - both before the Constitution (it was the rul in the British Empire) and immediately after it (when those same Founding Fathers wrote the Naturalization Act in 1790).

If they meant "born here"... there would be some evidence for that fact.

[WinkyDink]

169. Interesting, that Naturalization Act. To wit:

"Consequently, the only distinction between "natural born" and naturalized citizens it made was that the latter were to be ineligible for the presidency."

http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Naturalization_Act_of_1790/

[FBaggins]

173. And he wasn't "naturalized". He was a citizen at birth.

He is therefore eligible (constitutionally speaking of course) to be President.

[Jim Lane]

143. If that's what they meant they could have said so.

Instead of "natural born citizen" the clause could require "person born in the United States" and that's that. They didn't say that, so the logical inference is that they considered some persons born abroad to be eligible, or, at a minimum, they recognized the possibility that subsequent changes in the law of citizenship would affect who was natural born.

[WinkyDink]

167. How does "born abroad" mean "natural born citizen"? Didn't they know how to say "born abroad"?

[Jim Lane]

172. My point is that they were leaving that option open

The most obvious meaning of "natural born citizen" is that it's someone who's a citizen automatically at birth, by virtue of the circumstances of his or her birth, without a subsequent naturalization proceeding or change in legislation.

The Framers knew that they were writing a Constitution, which would be hard to amend, and that many details of government would be determined by legislation. They didn't try to incorporate all the rules of citizenship into the Constitution. Even if, under the law in effect in the eighteenth century, someone born in Cruz's circumstances would not be a citizen, a later Congress could decide to extend citizenship to such persons. If so, they would be eligible for the Presidency.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

44. Yes

My ex-wife was.

Born in Michigan to an American father and a Canadian mother. She had no idea was a dual citizen until she joined the military and was having a background check for a TS/SCI clearance. She renounced the Canadian citizenship she hadn't known about until the week before.

[Recursion]

53. Yes (nt)

[VMA131Marine]

91. I'm going to add that I think there is evidence that

the founders of the nation intended the natural born citizen requirement to ensure that there was no chance of a President who had divided loyalties. What could be more divided than being a dual citizen at birth?

[Nay]

106. Yes. nt

[Mariana]

138. My daughter was born a citizen of two countries.

No naturalization, no registration, or anything like that was required to establish either citizenship. She was born with them.

[WinkyDink]

41. There's been a lot of law-contortion goin' on. CRUZ IS CANADIAN, and the Constitution means NOTHING.

[PWPippin]

42. A man with no nation.

I've often wondered where he fits in.

[Jack Rabbit]

45. As far as I am concerned, Cruz is a US citizen and can run president

I'm not really concerned about him becoming president, either. The only path I see by which he could become president is:

• If Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee; and
• The Corporatist wing of the Democratic Party revolts and runs Hillary or Bloomberg or Biden on a third party ticket, in which case, as recent polls show, the corporatist wing would draw enough votes away from Bernie to tip the the balance to Cruz; OR
• Bernie wins primaries but is robbed of the nomination by the convention votes of superdelegates, causing a progressive revolt in which progressives stay home on election day or cast a vote for a third party candidate like Jill Stein of the Green Party.

[mdbl]

48. I am concerned because I think Cruz is an alien from planet crazy

[Jack Rabbit]

52. Well, on that I agree at least in the proverbial sense

But I'm still not worried about him becoming president, for that exact reason, unless the corporatists try to pull something cute in the event that Bernie legitimately wins the nomination.

[Turn CO Blue]

95. Agreed, as far as I'm concerned he is a US citizen. He's a creepy-as-hell US citizen. n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

96. On that I agree absolutely

!!

[world wide wally]

50. DepoRt him to the Yukon!

[Blueguyinthesky]

117. The problem is that he's given up his Canadian citizenship in order to pretend he's American

So we can't deport him to Canada. He is an illegal immigrant in the United States and a citizen of no country on earth. Literally our only option seems to be to deport Cruz to Antarctica. Alternately I guess we could give him a boat and have him sail around the world for the rest of his life, although I'm not sure how he would be able to have enough supplies without making occasional trips to land. Or else we could spend a huge ton of money keeping him in an immigration detention facility until he dies.

[world wide wally]

121. Sounds like ISIS material

[elmac]

51. Cruz is the product of

illegal waste dumping by Canada.

[silvershadow]

56. So if he didn't specifically obtain US citizenship, he's an illegal. And since he renounced his

only verifiable citizenship, he might need to report to a consular in some country to sort it out?

[dixiegrrrrl]

68. Now THERE's a happy thought.

So, we now have a possible non-citizen AND a certified robot in the race.
very interesting.

[olddots]

69. he would have a have a hard time proving he is human

to anyone but a turd maggot repukian facist dip shit .

[Kip Humphrey]

78. Do you think evangelicals believe in karma?

oh, yeah!

[Ferd Berfel]

82. THis NEEDS wings!!!

Fly my precious....Fly.....!

[X_Digger]

86. Fuck this birther shit. n/t

[Ford_Prefect]

93. This is NOT bitherism. It has genuine legal foundation and does indeed impact Cruz being POTUS.

The section of the Constitution regarding POTUS eligible citizens is specific and very distinct as compared to other aspects of American Citizenship. The case has been raised by respected Constitutional scholars not party hacks.

He may be a US Citizen although not one Naturally Born by the terms applied to the POTUS requirements. This is NOT Birther drama. It matters because the GOP were gonna try to change this detail back when they wanted "Ahnold" to run for POTUS. This is genuine serious shit.

[dixiegrrrrl]

107. I was living in Cal. when Ahnold bragged he could be Pres.

by getting the law changed.
My blood ran cold.

[X_Digger]

110. Birther.Shit. Leave this stupidity to Orly Taitz. n/t

[blue_moo]

97. Natural born citizen of Cuba

When did Ted renounce his Cuban citizenship?

If anyone claims that Ted was a natural born citizen of the USA because of his mother, then they should also claim that he was equally a natural born citizen of Cuba because of his father.

A CRBA document had to be filed to make Ted a citizen of the United States.

Could Ted's parents have waited until he was 5 or 10 years old before submitting the CRBA document? What if a CRBA form was never submitted?

Ted Cruz is at best a "naturalized" citizen of the United States (via a properly submitted CRBA form).

I think Trump and Sheriff Arpaio need to track down Ted's "long form" CRBA document, and share their findings with everyone.

[dixiegrrrrl]

98. His father became Canadian in 1973, and US citizen in 2005.

My point is.....

if Ted had been born American, since Canada at the time only allowed ONE citizenship declaration, why would he then renounce a Canadian citizenship unless he WAS Canadian?
And do THAT 2 years after he was elected Senator, which requires an American citizenship?

He screwed up doing that.

*http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/ted-cruz-made-in-canada/

[SickOfTheOnePct]

111. No, a CRBA is not required to attain citizenship

And a CRBA is not a naturalization document - it is proof of citizenship at birth.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1043/~/birth-abroad-of-a-u.s.-citizen

[Yo_Mama]

100. You've got some facts wrong. First, she wasn't a citizen at his birth.

Cruz was born in 70. His mother had a child who died in 66 in England (she had traveled there to live and work with her first husband).

There seems to be NO WAY his mother could have been a Canadian citizen at his birth, because how could she have fulfilled the residency requirements? She was an American citizen, thus giving him American citizenship at birth.

The fact that Canada would recognize him as a citizen also has nothing to do with it, legally. Plenty of people are eligible for dual citizenship.

The consular report of birth makes it easier, but it does not confer or deny citizenship on the child of American citizens who is born abroad. I know this for a fact because of a family member who was born in France. Her parents were poor at the time, and couldn't afford the consular fee. It never raised a question as to her citizenship! It's enough to have a birth record showing that that you were born to an American citizen.

I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is wrong.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

113. Well said

I've been saying the same thing, but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

I guess people would rather stick with birther conspiracy theories than actual fact and law.

[WillowTree]

157. To paraphrase an old adage........There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.

[dixiegrrrrl]

122. Here are some sources .............

The arguments being made by people like Mary Brigid McManamon, a constitutional law professor at Widener University Delaware Law School, and the estimable Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law who is a former professor of Cruz's, are that his birth on Canadian and not American soil makes him a naturalized citizen, rather than a natural born citizen.

"Let me be clear: I am not a so-called birther. I am a legal historian," McManamon writes in the Washington Post. "President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference."

She notes that numerous pundits have declared that Cruz is eligible to be president, but the basis for that consensus -- that the Supreme Court has recognized that common law is useful to explain constitutional terms-- is faulty because they confuse common law with statutory law.

McManamon concludes that:

"When discussing the meaning of a constitutional term, it is important to go beyond secondary sources and look to the law itself. And on this issue, the law is clear: The framers of the Constitution required the president of the United States to be born in the United States."

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/01/canadian-born-ted-cruz-thin-ice-will-he-go

[FBaggins]

124. That's just nutty

Here's a far better source (two solicitors general writing for the Harvard Law Review):

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children. These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever. The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries, a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.

No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “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:

[Yo_Mama]

134. No, no. The phrase "natural born subject" is of long etiology in British law.

It appears in the Constitution and many early American statutes as "natural born citizen", because there was no longer an individual ruler, so subject became citizen.

But the phrase was clearly understood at the time the Constitution was written, and it meant what it had meant since the 1350s - children born of British citizens abroad were considered natural born citizens, as were children born of foreign citizens in lands or any area under the jurisdiction of the Crown, or persons born to British parents within the jurisdiction of the Crown. That is the source of our "birthright citizenship" difference from the laws of most other lands, in which citizenship is determined by citizenship of the parents, not the "accident" of birth.

"Natural born subject" in English legal tradition and therefore American legal tradition meant a person having citizenship by circumstances of his/her birth.

You want sources? Try Lynch v Clarke, which is a NY chancery court case from the 1840s. It contains a rather detailed review of the common law meaning of the term "natural born citizen" or "natural born subject" - its precursor in English common law.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/lynch_v_clarke_1844_ocr.pdf

I also will refer you to the 2011 Congressional Research Service analysis:
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

See the discussion of the two classes of citizens in the US - born and naturalized - beginning on page 33.

The REASON people are putting out bullshit such as is incorrectly cited in your OP is that they know that the claim that Cruz is not a natural born citizen due to his foreign birth directly contradicts the SC's reasoning in a number of cases. You will find those cites in the CRS report linked above.

Cruz, under our laws, is a natural born citizen. That he wasn't born in the US is not the point. He had citizenship by right of birth.

Who decides this? Not law professors. The SC could decide it, but the SC has deferred to Congress, because the power of naturalization is given to Congress in Article I of the Constitution, and that logically mandates that Congress may determine who does not need to be naturalized because they are citizens at birth.

Lastly, there is textual evidence within the Constitution that pretty clearly indicates that a "natural born" citizen might have spent the majority of his life elsewhere. I quote Article II, Section I:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

The relevant portions are those bolded. The age requirement for presidential eligibility was 35. The natural born 35 year old had to be a resident of the United States for 14 years. 35 - 14 is 21 - i.e. if the person were born abroad but returned to the US at majority (21 then) and made his adult life here, then he was eligible as long as he had birthright citizenship.

That is further supported by the eligibility rules for senators:

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

There you have an age minimum of 30 and a citizenship term of 9 years, and 30 - 9 is 21.

Finally, it is quite bizarre to claim that being able to claim dual citizenship or being born to a person with dual citizenship disqualifies anyone from becoming president if that person is a citizen at birth. At the time the Constitution was written, virtually all those children who were going to be born citizens were born to parents who were British citizens under English law, and therefore their children were British citizens under English law. If being able to claim foreign citizenship by right of birth meant that a person wasn't eligible for the presidency, very, very few of the children born in the US after the adoption of the Constitution would have been eligible. That theory makes no sense under English or American law.

[dixiegrrrrl]

135. What a marvelous, reasoned, well thought out explanation.

I appreciate it so much.
And appreciate what it tells me of you.

thank you.

[bravenak]

101. If he wins the Supreme Court will probably just let him stay.

[Nye Bevan]

114. Please just stop with this nonsense.

He was a US citizen from the time of his birth, regardless of whether his mother filled out the form. Does anyone really think that someone's citizenship should depend upon whether his or her parents remembered to do the paperwork?

[Bonx]

148. It's annoying when people abandon reason for partisanship.

But it's a great way to identify agendas.

[KamaAina]

118. "Canada did not recognize dual citizenship in 1970 when Cruz was born in Alberta."

That is not the issue. The issue is whether the U.S. did. And it did. Next!

[Sam_Fields]

123. BS. He is an American by birth. Birthers left or right are wrong about this.

[Ford_Prefect]

127. He is a Citizen but not the kind described in the Constitution as POTUS Eligible.

You are conflating the terms Native Born and Natural Born. The Constitution makes that particular distinction and it has NEVER been changed or challenged. Cruz is a US citizen by virtue of his mother. But he wasn't born on US soil which is the specifically defined legal distinction demanded by the Constitution. It is substantial enough that the GOP thought of trying to alter it in order that Arnold Schwarzenegger might run for POTUS. Constitutional scholars of both parties at that time were in agreement about the strength of that clause and how it applied.

Tribe argues that under Cruz's own logic, he's ineligible to be president.

"Senator Cruz contends his eligibility is 'settled' by naturalization laws Congress enacted long ago," writes Tribe in the Boston Globe. "But those laws didn’t address, much less resolve, the matter of presidential eligibility, and no Supreme Court decision in the past two centuries has ever done so. In truth, the constitutional definition of a 'natural born citizen' is completely unsettled. . . . Needless to say, Cruz would never take Donald Trump's advice to ask a court whether the Cruz definition is correct, because that would in effect confess doubt where Cruz claims there is certainty."

I'm not sure that Cruz cannot be a Senator. I suspect he would have been challenged on it before now. I am certain that he doesn't qualify at this time to be POTUS. Baring a lawsuit that does settle it in his favor I don't see how he can become POTUS legally. I am sure he could be elected and still be barred from the job, though I doubt he will get that far.

If you want to argue that he is eligible please show us an interpretation of that section of the Constitution that favors him.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

162. I think you're confusing

the terms native born and natural born.

Native born would be born on American soil (or the soil of whichever country one hails from).

Natural born doesn't necessarily mean born on American soil.

But he wasn't born on US soil which is the specifically defined legal distinction demanded by the Constitution.

You should provide the citation from Constitution where "natural born" is specifically defined as being born on U.S. soil. That would definitely prove he's ineligible and settle the whole question moving forward.

[Ford_Prefect]

163. It helps if you read the fine print...and occasionally the Post.

Law professor: Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president
Mary Brigid McManamon, The Washington Post Jan. 12, 2016, 12:54 PM

Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.

Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President."

The concept of "natural born" comes from the common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept's definition.

On this subject, the common law is clear and unambiguous.

The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England," while aliens are "such as are born out of it."

The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one's country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the "father of the Constitution," stated, "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

Cruz is, of course, a US citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens.

Because of the senator's parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth.

This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.

Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power to naturalize an alien. That is, Congress may remove an alien's legal disabilities, such as not being allowed to vote. But Article II of the Constitution expressly adopts the legal status of the natural-born citizen and requires that a president possess that status.

However we feel about allowing naturalized immigrants to reach for the stars, the Constitution must be amended before one of them can attain the office of president. Congress simply does not have the power to convert someone born outside the United States into a natural-born citizen.

Let me be clear: I am not a so-called birther. I am a legal historian. President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference.

In this election cycle, numerous pundits have declared that Cruz is eligible to be president. They rely on a supposed consensus among legal experts. This notion appears to emanate largely from a recent comment in the Harvard Law Review Forum by former solicitors general Neal Katyal and Paul Clement. In trying to put the question of who is a natural-born citizen to rest, however, the authors misunderstand, misapply and ignore the relevant law.

First, although Katyal and Clement correctly declare that the Supreme Court has recognized that the common law is useful to explain constitutional terms, they ignore that law. Instead, they rely on three radical 18th-century British statutes. While it is understandable for a layperson to make such a mistake, it is unforgivable for two lawyers of such experience to equate the common law with statutory law. The common law was unequivocal: Natural-born subjects had to be born in English territory. The then-new statutes were a revolutionary departure from that law.

Second, the authors appropriately ask the question whether the Constitution includes the common-law definition or the statutory approach. But they fail to examine any US sources for the answer. Instead, Katyal and Clement refer to the brand-new British statutes as part of a "longstanding tradition" and conclude that the framers followed that law because they "would have been intimately familiar with these statutes."

But when one reviews all the relevant American writings of the early period, including congressional debates, well-respected treatises and Supreme Court precedent, it becomes clear that the common-law definition was accepted in the United States, not the newfangled British statutory approach.

Third, Katyal and Clement put much weight on the first US naturalization statute, enacted in 1790. Because it contains the phrase "natural born," they infer that such citizens must include children born abroad to American parents. The first Congress, however, had no such intent. The debates on the matter reveal that the congressmen were aware that such children were not citizens and had to be naturalized; hence, Congress enacted a statute to provide for them.

Moreover, that statute did not say the children were natural born, but only that they should "be considered as" such. Finally, as soon as Madison, then a member of Congress, was assigned to redraft the statute in 1795, he deleted the phrase "natural born," and it has never reappeared in a naturalization statute.

When discussing the meaning of a constitutional term, it is important to go beyond secondary sources and look to the law itself. And on this issue, the law is clear: The framers of the Constitution required the president of the United States to be born in the United States.

http://www.businessinsider.com/law-professor-ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president-2016-1

[SickOfTheOnePct]

165. Perhaps you should follow your own advice

And read the post I responding to.

[WinkyDink]

171. The topic is not whether or not Cruz is an American citizen. Sorry to be nuancel (tm A. Haig).

[saltpoint]

126. It should first be determined whether

he's clinically human.

I've seen no evidence from his words and actions to suggest that he is.

We can worry about the Canada stuff later.

[Snobblevitch]

136. I don't know all the legalities of citizenship at birth.

I do know that it does not matter what Canada thinks about Cruz' U.S. citizenship. It only matters what the U.S. thinks. The U.S. does not care what citizenship a person claims to have outside the U.S. either you are a U.S. citizen, or you're not.

[Rex]

152. This is a funny thread.

Poor Teddy...good thing he has defenders! I love the knee jerk reaction to controversy! Even Pavlov's dog could not be more well conditioned. I could almost run the trains on time by some of the replies in here.

[Nye Bevan]

155. Yes I'm a secret Cruz supporter, hoping he becomes our next president,

therefore I'm defending him against the accusation that he is not a US citizen in the hopes of persuading more DUers to vote for him.

Bwahahahahaha, they will NEVER suspect my true agenda!

[sellitman]

160. Heck, I'm not even sure he's of this planet?

You call that lying sack of poop human?

[libodem]

168. Time to let Mr WooHoo loose