Breaking: NBC News Reporting Ted Cruz Became U.S. "Naturalized" Citizen In 2014 (Not Natural-Born)

[Skylar]

When did he become an American?

22 December, 1970

No, that's when he was born a Canadian.

He was also born American:
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ...
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of w'hom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States ' or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less ' than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age " of fourteen years: Provided^ That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements " of this paragraph.

He was also Canadian at birth. There is no rule or law that makes one override the other.

How old was he when he stopped being a Canadian?

He was 43. Are you claiming he was not a U.S. citizen until that time? He certainly was not a permanent resident alien....so is your claim that he was an illegal alien until 2014?

The Supreme Court has found that the only way someone born outside the United States can become a citizen is naturalization. .

No, they have not. Rogers v Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971) confirms that children born overseas can be U.S. citizens at birth.

Yes, they have.

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

US v. Wong Kim Ark

Rogers v. Bellie never contradicts this. Nor even addresses it. Rogers is about the removal of citizenship for one who has already received it via a naturalization act. Though Rogers does go into elaborate detail as to the difference between constitutional citizenship and citizenship created by congressional statute.

Which is one of the reasons that in this discussion you really don't want to be citing Rogers; it weakens you case. Not strengthens it.

Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those "born or naturalized in the United States," and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful.

Rogers makes it clear that citizenship for those children born outside the US does not come from the Fourteenth amendment, nor meet its definitions. It explicitly states that the source of citizenship is statute, specifically Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a). An immigration and nationality act. And that citizens who acquire their citizdnship by statute are subject to requirements and terms of loss of citizenship....that those whose citizenship is derived from the constitution are not subject to.

Demonstrating that citizenship acquired from being born in the US is derived from the Constitution and greater, with citizenship only being lost voluntarily. While citizenship derived from statute is lesser, being subject to the terms of statute and being stripped involuntarily..

With the appellee LOSING his citizenship involuntarily. Something the Rogers court made clear could not happen for a citizen whose citizenship was derived from the constitution.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

Rogers finds that citizenship derived by congressional action does not meet the constitutional definition of citizenship. And that the appellee's citizenship was fully deniable, subject to congressional statute. While constitutional citizenship is beyond the congress's authority to deny

As natural born citizenship is undeniably derived from the constitution it could easily follow that citizenship not derived from the constitution is not natural born citizenship. As natural born citizenship is not deniable. While citizenship derived from statute is fully deniable.

 

[Skylar]

Just to be clear, so we don't argue points that are already stipulated by both sides......you recognize that Cruz's citizenship doesn't meet the constitutional definition of citizenship, yes?

 

[pinqy]

Just to be clear, so we don't argue points that are already stipulated by both sides......you recognize that Cruz's citizenship doesn't meet the constitutional definition of citizenship, yes?

Sure. And you realize that no president until Calvin Coolidge met any constitutional definition of citizenship, right? So clearly that's not relevant.

 

[Skylar]

Just to be clear, so we don't argue points that are already stipulated by both sides......you recognize that Cruz's citizenship doesn't meet the constitutional definition of citizenship, yes?

Sure. And you realize that no president until Calvin Coolidge met any constitutional definition of citizenship, right? So clearly that's not relevant.

We've never had a president who wasn't born here. Thus, we've never had a president whose citizenship wasn't constitutionally derived.

Cruz would be the first who had fully deniable citizenship that wasn't derived from the constitution. While a natural born citizen's citizenship is beyond the power of congress to deny.

That's a pretty demonstrable distinction.

Made moreso with the Supreme Court's explicit finding that the only way a foreign born child of US parents can acquire citizenship is through naturalization:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

US v. Wong Kim Ark

When it comes to natural born citizenship, there's a strong argument that location is king.

 

[pinqy]

Just to be clear, so we don't argue points that are already stipulated by both sides......you recognize that Cruz's citizenship doesn't meet the constitutional definition of citizenship, yes?

Sure. And you realize that no president until Calvin Coolidge met any constitutional definition of citizenship, right? So clearly that's not relevant.

We've never had a president who wasn't born here.

We've had 8 presidents not born United States citizens. 10 including Van Buren and Taylor born after the Revolution but before the constitution.

Thus, we've never had a president whose citizenship wasn't constitutionally derived.
.

Besides the 10 born before the constitution, there were 18 others born before the 14th amendment. So that's 28 presidents who did not derive their citizenship from the constitution, either because there was no constitution or no constitutional granting of citizenship.

 

[Skylar]

Just to be clear, so we don't argue points that are already stipulated by both sides......you recognize that Cruz's citizenship doesn't meet the constitutional definition of citizenship, yes?

Sure. And you realize that no president until Calvin Coolidge met any constitutional definition of citizenship, right? So clearly that's not relevant.

We've never had a president who wasn't born here.

We've had 8 presidents not born United States citizens. 10 including Van Buren and Taylor born after the Revolution but before the constitution.

They were all born here. And anyone who was born before the US formally existed were grandfathered in by the Constitution itself. Natural born status is bound to allegiance, which is intrinsically bound to place of birth. And as Madison (AKA Publius and 'The Father of the Constitution') put it:

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

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Natural born status follows place of birth per the founders. And place of birth defines allegiance. As the Wong Kim Ark court found when they explored the meaning of 'natural-born';

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects

Tying both allegiance and natural born status of place of birth, as long as they are born under the jurisdiction of our law. None of which Cruz was.

Besides the 10 born before the constitution, there were 18 others born before the 14th amendment. So that's 28 presidents who did not derive their citizenship from the constitution, either because there was no constitution or no constitutional granting of citizenship.

The grandfather clause makes it clear that the citizenship of every of the 10 you cited was constitutionally derived. The 14th amendment didn't create constitutional citizenship. It merely articulated the definition.

"Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent."

With Cruz undeniably failing to meet the constitutional definition of citizenship, instead holding an inferior citizenship that is fully deniable and can be stripped against his will. While natural born citizenship is beyond the authority of congress to take without consent and cannot be denied.

The Roger court only affirms the distinction. A distinction the Wong Kim Ark court had recognized generations earlier:

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."

That's standing precedent. No case contradicts it. So the question is....can a naturalized US citizen who holds citizenship NOT embodied in the constitution be president?

If the court took the case up and applied an orignialist interpretation, Cruz would probably be in trouble. They won't. So its largely a moot point.

 

[Synthaholic]

He was also Canadian at birth. There is no rule or law that makes one override the other.

You can't be natural born to two different countries.

 

[Synthaholic]

And the baby is also an American. Just not natural-born, and is ineligible to become POTUS.

If he is not natural born- when did he become naturalized?

When did he become an American?

Good dodge- again my question- you claim he is not a natural born citizen- when did he become naturalized then?

Did I claim he was naturalized?

There are 2 ways to be a citizen: birth and naturalization. You are claiming he does not get his U.S. citizenship from birth, so your claim must be either that he was naturalized or never a U.S. citizen.

I'm claiming he's not a natural born American, he's a natural born Canadian.

 

[Synthaholic]

Rogers v Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971) confirms that children born overseas can be U.S. citizens at birth.

That doesn't speak to natural born, which is the Constitutional requirement.

 

[Synthaholic]

We've had 8 presidents not born United States citizens.

Irrelevant. They were born on this soil. Not that it matters, since they passed a law back then covering that.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Stick a fork in Ted, he's done. A naturalized Citizen (Bestowed by man made law) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (Bestowed by God/ natural Law).

Law professor challenges Cruz on citizenship, candidacy

I can't see how he Can claim particular and concrete damages since he has no chance of becoming pres whether Teddy is in the race or not.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Stick a fork in Ted, he's done. A naturalized Citizen (Bestowed by man made law) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (Bestowed by God/ natural Law).

Law professor challenges Cruz on citizenship, candidacy

Cruz should be ineligible simply because he looks like a grown up version of Eddie Munster.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He was also Canadian at birth. There is no rule or law that makes one override the other.

You can't be natural born to two different countries.

Based on what law?

 

[Synthaholic]

He was also Canadian at birth. There is no rule or law that makes one override the other.

You can't be natural born to two different countries.

Based on what law?

Natural law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He was also Canadian at birth. There is no rule or law that makes one override the other.

You can't be natural born to two different countries.

Based on what law?

Natural law.

I looked through the Constitution and missed the part where it says that.
Or says you have to be born on US soil.
Can you post that section? Thanks!

 

[Syriusly]

He was also Canadian at birth. There is no rule or law that makes one override the other.

You can't be natural born to two different countries.

Based on what law?

Natural law.

And where is that "natural law" written down?

 

[Syriusly]

If the court took the case up and applied an orignialist interpretation, Cruz would probably be in trouble. They won't. So its largely a moot point.

Which of course is fascinating since Cruz claims to be an originalist. So if we held Presidential candidates to standards of consistency(which we largely don't) Cruz would be seen as a hypocrite for running for President.

I agree though that it is unlikely that any court is going to find him ineligible, and it is also unlikely that he will actually be the Presidential candidate.

BUT if Cruz gets the nomination- and not Trump- I fully expect Trump to go full Birther on him- and just like he is now decrying the corrupt GOP system, he will attack Cruz and the GOP for supporting an illegal candidate, and be tossing law suits right and left, while he starts his third party run.

Teddy Roosevelt started the "National Progressives" aka the Bull Moose Party.

Trump could start the "National White Guys" aka the Bull Crap Party.

 

[Synthaholic]

He was also Canadian at birth. There is no rule or law that makes one override the other.

You can't be natural born to two different countries.

Based on what law?

Natural law.

And where is that "natural law" written down?

Can one be natural born to two different mothers? If not, why not?

 

[Synthaholic]

Which of course is fascinating since Cruz claims to be an originalist. So if we held Presidential candidates to standards of consistency(which we largely don't) Cruz would be seen as a hypocrite for running for President.

Which I've pointed out, and backed up with links from law scholars. But our USMB armchair lawyers know better than Lawrence Tribe or SCOTUS!

 

[Syriusly]

He was also Canadian at birth. There is no rule or law that makes one override the other.

You can't be natural born to two different countries.

Based on what law?

Natural law.

And where is that "natural law" written down?

Can one be natural born to two different mothers? If not, why not?

Hmmmm exactly how your fantasizing a person could be born to two different mothers?