Trouble For Ted Cruz: Here's Why He Doesn't Meet The Natural Born Citizen Requirement

[Mojo2]

I don't think he is eligible.

And Obama birthers cannot state that Cruz is eligible unless they want to directly contradict themselves.

Both had non-citizen fathers
Both had American mothers
Obama was born in a U.S. state
Cruz was born in a foreign country


There's no way to claim Cruz is legitimate while Obama is not.

There's no way to claim Obama is legitimate while Cruz is not.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Foster died of another-inflicted act of suicide.

Maybe.

Sure is odd that his thumb is on the trigger instead of the normal finger you use to pull a trigger. Nobody I know holds a gun like that and uses a thumb to pull a trigger.

 

[JakeStarkey]

photo shop

let's move on

 

[HenryBHough]

photo shop

let's move on

"move on"!

Congratulations, when did you get your membership card and decoder ring?

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't think he is eligible.

And Obama birthers cannot state that Cruz is eligible unless they want to directly contradict themselves.

Both had non-citizen fathers
Both had American mothers
Obama was born in a U.S. state
Cruz was born in a foreign country


There's no way to claim Cruz is legitimate while Obama is not.

There's no way to claim Obama is legitimate while Cruz is not.

Of course there is: Obama was born in Hawaii, so he's a native born citizen - the purest form!

 

[HenryBHough]

Of course there is: Obama was born in Hawaii, so he's a native born citizen - the purest form!

Admirable faith!

Of the sort that sends one to The North Pole to visit his uncle Santa.

Of the sort that believes he can eat Easter Bunny eggs for breakfast.

Of the sort that can see a fumbling surfer wannabe as walking on water.

Admirble! Especially when it's done in a club as an improv act.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I find your conclusions contradict your statements and your thread title.

Which one are you endorsing?

Cruz IS qualified to be POTUS?

Or, Cruz IS NOT qualified to be POTUS?

He’s qualified in accordance with the Constitution.

He’s not qualified as a consequence of his reactionaryism and advocacy of failed conservative fiscal dogma.

Where is there an ideological test to become president? Yeah, nowhere. Cruz espouses the successful policies of Ronald Reagan, not the failed policies of Barack Obama.
As for the OP, it is total bullshit. Cruz is a native born American citizen.

Indeed, the OP is flat-out wrong. But, no, Cruz is not a native-born citizen of the United States.

He was born in Canada.

Until recently, before he renounced his Canadian citizenship, he was a citizen of Canada by birthright. Nevertheless, from the very moment of his birth, he has also always been a natural-born citizen of the United States. And his natural-born status is ultimately anchored in the soil of our nation via the blood of our nation due to the fact that his biological mother, a U.S. citizen, had a duly established claim on the soil of the nation prior to his birth in accordance with the Constitution coupled with the terms of the congressional statute that prevailed at the time of his birth. As such he is duly qualified to run for the presidency.

Presumably you meant natural-born citizen. I'm not quibbling over semantics. I merely clarify the matter for those who don't know or understand the law, and might think the OP is right. The OP is gibberish.

 

[oldfart]

I find your conclusions contradict your statements and your thread title.

Which one are you endorsing?

Cruz IS qualified to be POTUS?

Or, Cruz IS NOT qualified to be POTUS?

He’s qualified in accordance with the Constitution.

.

No he isn't. Ted Cruz is a statutory citizen. A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Exactly how do we get a ruling from God on an issue of citizenship in the Constitution? Is that Article Zero?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

He’s qualified in accordance with the Constitution.

He’s not qualified as a consequence of his reactionaryism and advocacy of failed conservative fiscal dogma.

Where is there an ideological test to become president? Yeah, nowhere. Cruz espouses the successful policies of Ronald Reagan, not the failed policies of Barack Obama.
As for the OP, it is total bullshit. Cruz is a native born American citizen.

Indeed, the OP is flat-out wrong. But, no, Cruz is not a native-born citizen of the United States.

He was born in Canada.

Until recently, before he renounced his Canadian citizenship.

Please provide evidence Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I don't think he is eligible.

And Obama birthers cannot state that Cruz is eligible unless they want to directly contradict themselves.

Both had non-citizen fathers
Both had American mothers
Obama was born in a U.S. state
Cruz was born in a foreign country


There's no way to claim Cruz is legitimate while Obama is not.

This is false. That is to say, you don't rightly understand the matter. Obama had to be born in the United States in order to be a natural-born citizen. Period. His mother did not have the required period of residency in the United States past a certain age at the time of his birth as was required by the law that prevailed at the time of his birth. That's why she stayed in the United States until after he was born in order to secure his U.S. citizenship at birth. The birthers are out of their minds. He was not born abroad.

Cruz's mother, on the other hand had the required period residency in the United States past a certain age under her belt when he was born abroad. So he did not have to be born in the United States in order to be a natural-born citizen, he just needed to be tied to the soil of the nature through her.

The nationality of their fathers, as far as their U.S. citizenship is concerned, is utterly irrelevant. However, had Obama been conceived just a few months earlier, she could have given birth to him in Nigeria with the required period of residency past a certain age under her belt too, and Obama would have been a Nigerian citizen and a natural-born U.S. citizen at the moment of birth.

 

[Appeonts48]

I do not see why it matters anyway – is there anyone that would want to see Cruz run for real? I mean we have to think here for a second, just because he is able to run does not mean that it is smart to run. While he may energize the Republican base, the Democrats are capable of making him the ‘big bad’ as to why congress shut down. Not a good idea.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

I don't think he is eligible.

And Obama birthers cannot state that Cruz is eligible unless they want to directly contradict themselves.

Both had non-citizen fathers
Both had American mothers
Obama was born in a U.S. state
Cruz was born in a foreign country


There's no way to claim Cruz is legitimate while Obama is not.

This is false. That is to say, you don't rightly understand the matter. Obama had to be born in the United States in order to be a natural-born citizen. Period. His mother did not have the required period of residency in the United States past a certain age at the time of his birth as was required by the law that prevailed at the time of his birth. That's why she stayed in the United States until after he was born in order to secure his U.S. citizenship at birth. The birthers are out of their minds. He was not born abroad.

Cruz's mother, on the other hand had the required period residency in the United States past a certain age under her belt when he was born abroad. So he did not have to be born in the United States in order to be a natural-born citizen, he just needed to be tied to the soil of the nature through her.

The nationality of their fathers, as far as their U.S. citizenship is concerned, is utterly irrelevant. However, had Obama been conceived just a few months earlier, she could have given birth to him in Nigeria with the required period of residency past a certain age under her belt too, and Obama would have been a Nigerian citizen and a natural-born U.S. citizen at the moment of birth.

Not true on Cruz's part. He is a statutory Citizen but not a natural born Citizen. Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."

ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with any natural born citizens who are only American born to two U.S. citizen parents within U.S. jurisdiction ensuring sole allegiance to the United States.

 

[auditor0007]

Cruz is qualified by the Constitution to be president but not by his political philosophy and hatred of America.

Oh, I don't believe that Ted Cruz hates America. He just loves his version of America much better than my version.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Where is there an ideological test to become president? Yeah, nowhere. Cruz espouses the successful policies of Ronald Reagan, not the failed policies of Barack Obama.
As for the OP, it is total bullshit. Cruz is a native born American citizen.

Indeed, the OP is flat-out wrong. But, no, Cruz is not a native-born citizen of the United States.

He was born in Canada.

Until recently, before he renounced his Canadian citizenship.

Please provide evidence Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship?

I read a report that he was in the process of doing so. Did he not follow through? I'll look it up tomorrow. It's late now. But, you see, I really don't care one way or the other. His Canadian citizenship has absolutely no legal bearing on the matter. The concern would be strictly political, though technically no president should have any kind of allegiance whatsoever to any other nation but the United States. He is a natural-born citizen of the United States. Period. He is not now, has never been, or shall he ever be a naturalized citizen of the United States.

Sir, there are only two classes of citizenship under the Constitution: (1) natural-born citizenship, which is conferred at the moment of one's birth and (2) naturalized citizenship, which is conferred subsequent to the moment of one's birth. Period. Cruz has been a U.S. citizen since the very moment of his birth. Indeed, that is the pertinent constitutional distinction between the two, though natural-born citizenship can only be conferred on those who have a claim on the soil of the nation, either because (1) they were duly born of the blood of the nation (of a person who has a duly established claim on the soil of the nation), or (2) they were duly born on the soil of the nation.

In the first case, their claim on the soil of the nation is granted them at birth by Congress via jus sanguinis (the law of the blood). In the second case, I say duly born on the soil of the nation because while the United States indisputably grants birthright citizenship since Wong Kim Ark, not all persons born on U.S. soil are citizens of the United States at birth. Those born on U.S. soil of American citizens, of course, or even common foreigners, whether the latter be here legally or not, are natural-born citizens of the United States by birthright; but those born on U.S. soil of foreigners officially delegated/engaged by their governments to conduct foreign affairs with our government are not.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Indeed, the OP is flat-out wrong. But, no, Cruz is not a native-born citizen of the United States.

He was born in Canada.

Until recently, before he renounced his Canadian citizenship.

Please provide evidence Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship?

I read a report that he was in the process of doing so. Did he not follow through?

No!

 

[Unkotare]

This McGutless character is starting to sound like the nut who keeps insisting the United States Constitution forbids the practice of Islam in America.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I don't think he is eligible.

And Obama birthers cannot state that Cruz is eligible unless they want to directly contradict themselves.

Both had non-citizen fathers
Both had American mothers
Obama was born in a U.S. state
Cruz was born in a foreign country


There's no way to claim Cruz is legitimate while Obama is not.

This is false. That is to say, you don't rightly understand the matter. Obama had to be born in the United States in order to be a natural-born citizen. Period. His mother did not have the required period of residency in the United States past a certain age at the time of his birth as was required by the law that prevailed at the time of his birth. That's why she stayed in the United States until after he was born in order to secure his U.S. citizenship at birth. The birthers are out of their minds. He was not born abroad.

Cruz's mother, on the other hand had the required period residency in the United States past a certain age under her belt when he was born abroad. So he did not have to be born in the United States in order to be a natural-born citizen, he just needed to be tied to the soil of the nature through her.

The nationality of their fathers, as far as their U.S. citizenship is concerned, is utterly irrelevant. However, had Obama been conceived just a few months earlier, she could have given birth to him in Nigeria with the required period of residency past a certain age under her belt too, and Obama would have been a Nigerian citizen and a natural-born U.S. citizen at the moment of birth.

Not true on Cruz's part. He is a statutory Citizen but not a natural born Citizen. Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."

ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with any natural born citizens who are only American born to two U.S. citizen parents within U.S. jurisdiction ensuring sole allegiance to the United States.

You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About. At. All.

The phrases born within the jurisdiction of the United States and not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty do not mean what you think they do in this instance at all. I don't need you to tell me what Rep. John Bingham said. I know what he said and why. You don't know anything about the context. "The jurisdiction of the United States" for constitutional purposes includes the congressional prerogative of jus sanguinis, and no citizen of the United States, naturalized or otherwise, who officially declares his allegiance to another country or officially entangles himself as an agent of a foreign country can retain his citizenship here. These are acts of renunciation under constitutional, statutory and case law, and only an adult can renounce his U.S. citizenship. Now, it's not necessarily a crime to do so, unless of course one comes here on behalf of the nation to which he has switched allegiances and engages in espionage. Also, the United States reserves the right not to revoke his citizenship, for, depending on the circumstances, it may wish to continue to treat him as a citizen who has committed treason. In any event, duel citizenship is not a problem unless one officially renounces one's citizenship accordingly.

It is the moment of conferral and the nature of one's claim on the soil of the nation that determine the difference between a natural-born citizen and a naturalized citizen. There is no other kind of citizen under the Constitution. Period. A natural-born citizen of the United States is a person who is conferred U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth because he has either a direct claim on the soil of the nation or an indirect claim on the soil of the nation via the blood of the nation. Period. The fact that the citizenship conferred at the moment of birth in the case of the latter via a statutory decree of jus sanguinis is utterly irrelevant. Whatever other citizenship one may hold as a result of being duly born abroad to a U.S. citizen(s) is utterly irrelevant.

A naturalized citizen of the United States is a person who is conferred citizenship subsequent to the moment of his birth because he has no prior claim whatsoever on the soil of the nation.

I am an expert on citizenship and nationality law. This is not a debate.

Prufrock's Lair: A Compendium of the Statutory History of Jus Sanguinis

Prufrock's Lair: The Natural-Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution

Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I do not see why it matters anyway – is there anyone that would want to see Cruz run for real? I mean we have to think here for a second, just because he is able to run does not mean that it is smart to run. While he may energize the Republican base, the Democrats are capable of making him the ‘big bad’ as to why congress shut down. Not a good idea.

It matters to the extent that it serves as a political barometer, where the partisan climate has gotten to the point where debating facts and evidence as to the merits of a given presidential are thrown out the window and replaced with such idiocy as questioning the citizenship of a potential candidate.

 

[Nutz]

Kudos to MD Rawlings, but you are wasting your time with McPussy.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I will be "thanking" you for this very soon, buddy. Always appreciate for the good material you provide for which you can be "thanked"!

Translation:

Me and my good buddy will bombard you with neg rep. Right out of the glory days of CB radio!

NEVER would I ask anyone to do such a thing. Alas, what IS a bully without at least one toady?

Cute thing is that all plays back to the Becket discussion and how it relates to who might or might seek the Marx-O-Crat nod for 2016 and how that might actually be won.

Your translator doesn't work right. Never mentioned a buddy about anything, ever. Poor thing, your paranoia is fun to watch. So, not only are youi eternally butthurt, you are paranoid to the nth degree. FUN!!!