If Ted Cruz Was Born in Canada, He Cannot Be President: PERIOD

[WorldWatcher]

i had read that Jefferson travelled on a French passport signed by Louis XVi when he left France, assumed it was a move by Louis to ingratiate himself to the popular Jefferson. I don't know now that I think about it if that has citizenship implications. Looking into it a bit I did find this;

"In recognition of their services to liberty, the Legislative Assembly in August 1792 bestowed French citizenship on three Americans, Madison, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton—the last two of whom did not respond to the award—as well as on a number of European supporters of the French Revolution (Archives Parlementaires, 1st ser., xlix, 10)"
I.found no similar mention of Jefferson being given that honor.but it does make it more likely. Madison in his correspondence indicated some gratitude for the honor. Washington and Hamilton both diplomatically seemed to regard it as a non-event. I wonder if Honorary citizenship is like being awarded an Honorary PHD in Mathematics, it looks good on the wall but doesn't get you any closer to solving Goldbach's conjecture.

Just wondering were you got "honorary" in that quote. It says the King bestowed citizenship, not "honorary" citizenship.


>>>>

 

[Searcher44]

i had read that Jefferson travelled on a French passport signed by Louis XVi when he left France, assumed it was a move by Louis to ingratiate himself to the popular Jefferson. I don't know now that I think about it if that has citizenship implications. Looking into it a bit I did find this;

"In recognition of their services to liberty, the Legislative Assembly in August 1792 bestowed French citizenship on three Americans, Madison, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton—the last two of whom did not respond to the award—as well as on a number of European supporters of the French Revolution (Archives Parlementaires, 1st ser., xlix, 10)"
I.found no similar mention of Jefferson being given that honor.but it does make it more likely. Madison in his correspondence indicated some gratitude for the honor. Washington and Hamilton both diplomatically seemed to regard it as a non-event. I wonder if Honorary citizenship is like being awarded an Honorary PHD in Mathematics, it looks good on the wall but doesn't get you any closer to solving Goldbach's conjecture.

Just wondering were you got "honorary" in that quote. It says the King bestowed citizenship, not "honorary" citizenship.


>>>>

I thought it was self-evident but....

"On August 26, 1792, during the early stages of the French Revolution, the National Assembly of France granted honorary French Citizenship to "men who, through their Writings and their Courage, have Served the Cause of liberty and prepared the freedom of the people."1 The individuals who were granted citizenship by the Assembly included (in the original spelling and order of the announcement): Dr. Joseph Priestley, Thomas Payne, Jérémie Bentham, William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, Jacques Mackintosh, David Williams, N. [Giuseppe] Gorani, Anacharsis Cloots, Corneille Pauw, Joachim-Henri Campe, N. [Johann Heinrich] Pestalozzi, Georges Washington, Jean [Alexander] Hamilton, N. [James] Maddisson,"
FROM:
[FONT=Mercury Text G1 A, Mercury Text G1 B, Georgia, serif]Honorary French Citizenship[/FONT]

 

[WorldWatcher]

i had read that Jefferson travelled on a French passport signed by Louis XVi when he left France, assumed it was a move by Louis to ingratiate himself to the popular Jefferson. I don't know now that I think about it if that has citizenship implications. Looking into it a bit I did find this;

"In recognition of their services to liberty, the Legislative Assembly in August 1792 bestowed French citizenship on three Americans, Madison, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton—the last two of whom did not respond to the award—as well as on a number of European supporters of the French Revolution (Archives Parlementaires, 1st ser., xlix, 10)"
I.found no similar mention of Jefferson being given that honor.but it does make it more likely. Madison in his correspondence indicated some gratitude for the honor. Washington and Hamilton both diplomatically seemed to regard it as a non-event. I wonder if Honorary citizenship is like being awarded an Honorary PHD in Mathematics, it looks good on the wall but doesn't get you any closer to solving Goldbach's conjecture.

Just wondering were you got "honorary" in that quote. It says the King bestowed citizenship, not "honorary" citizenship.


>>>>

I thought it was self-evident but....

"On August 26, 1792, during the early stages of the French Revolution, the National Assembly of France granted honorary French Citizenship to "men who, through their Writings and their Courage, have Served the Cause of liberty and prepared the freedom of the people."1 The individuals who were granted citizenship by the Assembly included (in the original spelling and order of the announcement): Dr. Joseph Priestley, Thomas Payne, Jérémie Bentham, William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, Jacques Mackintosh, David Williams, N. [Giuseppe] Gorani, Anacharsis Cloots, Corneille Pauw, Joachim-Henri Campe, N. [Johann Heinrich] Pestalozzi, Georges Washington, Jean [Alexander] Hamilton, N. [James] Maddisson,"
FROM:
[FONT=Mercury Text G1 A, Mercury Text G1 B, Georgia, serif]Honorary French Citizenship[/FONT]

It wasn't self-evident from the first post, but this does clarify.

Thank you.

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Cruz was given a plain old Canadian birth certificate. Nothing honorary about it. He is quite simply a natural born Canadian.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cruz was given a plain old Canadian birth certificate. Nothing honorary about it. He is quite simply a natural born Canadian.

Are you ever going to give the top 3 reasons you WISH you could vote for Cruz?

 

[Skylar]

Cruz was given a plain old Canadian birth certificate. Nothing honorary about it. He is quite simply a natural born Canadian.

He is indeed a natural born Canadian citizen. He's also a citizen at birth of the United States. And I argue that the Supreme Court when assessing the difference between 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' will find no relevant distinction under current US law.

 

[Skylar]

First of all British Common Law was not beloved by all Founders, George Mason, a little obscure but a hero for some, he demanded the bill of rights and refused to sign the final document because the Constitution had not ended slavery, he said;
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

So a guy who wouldn't sign the constitution vs. the guy that *wrote* it? Not a difficult choice on who would know what they were talking about.

Ask yourself, why did the Founders use the exact term 'natural-born citizen'? It seems rather specific. It wasn't Vattel. It wasn't Law of Nations. Random chance seems highly unlikely.

Easy: 'natural-born' was a specific legal term in British Common Law. With a specific meaning: those born in the allegiance to your nation. Centered exclusively on place of birth. Not parentage.

You're trying awfully hard here to come up with an alternative explanation for something that isn't particularly complicated. And the evidence is all on one side of this issue.

And from a Federalist blog, "Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
"It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their sole allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen".

I direct you again to Madison, in the very conversation we drew the 'place of birth' quote that you dismissed as 'too far' from the discussion. Which again bears fruit in this conversation. Allegiance follows place of birth. You have a 'right of birth' which acknowledges your allegiance follows the community you were born into. This was the assumption the founders were working on, in fact the foundation of their transition from British Subjects to American Citizens:

What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country.

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

This is why the founders put such an emphasis on allegiance following *location*. As it was their legal and philosophical basis for their allegiance to the new United States rather than their former British Empire. That the new Americans had allegiance to where they were born first. And why adults who wished to become US citizens and weren't born here had to jump through so many hoops. Because they didn't carry with this this first, fundamental allegiance of 'right of birth' being born into the community to which they would have natural allegiance.

Bingham is irrelevant to any originalist understanding of the meaning of the term. As he's nearly a century too late, with his comments coming in 1866. Not 1766. Bingham wasn't an itch in his grandpappy's pants when Madison and the Founders wrote the constitution.

I've replied to this post already so this is basically a P.S. I'm slightly confused, you seem to be arguing that Ted Cruz qualifies as a "natural born citizen". Yet your posts are arguing that place, (or jus soli), is the only factor we have to take into account to determine who has that citizenship status. For instance you say

"Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other criteria" You include many lines of evidence to support this claim in your posts. All this energy expended to try to prove a person has to be born on U.S soil to be a "natural born citizen" while everybody acknowledges that Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada. So how do you get from here to there? You tried to use the 1790 Naturalization Act but that led nowhere because the 1790 Act was reversed by the 1795 Act. And even if it hadn't been there would be strong argument that a Congressional statute could not override a Constitutional Provision unless it was an amendment. That's a moot point now any way. So do you have a plan "B"? Plan "A" was a pretty weak attempt to neuter a clause which the framers thought important enough to use only once in an attempt to erect an exclusionary barrier to persons who may have through some factor of birth the potential of having or developing loyalty to a foreign power. "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government" As John Jay put it.

Its not in question that the founder's understanding of 'natural born' at the time of the ratification of the constitution was predicated exclusively on place of birth. As Madison argued, the community you were born into and had allegiance to by 'right of birth'. Everyone from the Supreme Court to the State department recognizes that citizenship by blood is not embodied in the constitution. With the Supreme Court recognizing that those born outside the US to US parents and granted citizenship are naturalized.

The only relevant question related to Cruz's citizenship was the one I raised at the end of my post:

Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

Did you even read my post? It's so simple to just go to Wiki and brush up on the facts. As I told you the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the 1790 Act. One of the major changes....

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.....The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen.

And what relevance does that have with the fundamental issue of whether the founders intended natural born citizenship to be embodied exclusively by the constitution or if it could be something extended by congress?

As you're arguing that that for the second time, natural born status was within the realm of congress to extend or deny. The first time being the Naturalization Act of 1790, when they *did* extend natural born citizenship. As elegant a demonstration that the founders intended natural born citizenship to be within the realm of Congress to grant. As the First Congress IS the Founders.

You've insisted its a 'mistake'. But your assessment doesn't magically transform history, change the text of the 1790 Naturalization Act, nor eliminate the Founders establishing that natural born citizenship is well within the authority of Congress to extend. That all still happened.

As far as I can see you're left with what is essentially Madison's opinion, as I said yes he is important but his opinion is just that, an opinion.

We're having two different discussions. The first is on the founder's conception of natural born citizenship at the time of the ratification of the Constitutoin. And for that I've cited Madison's opinion, Wong Kim Ark, British Common Law, and the very concept of cause preceding effect in dismantling your claims regarding Vattel and the Law of Nations. And you've essentially abandoned your every claim on that front, I can only assume we now agree.

The second discussion is if the founders intended the intended natural born citizenship to be embodied exclusively by the constitution or if it could be something extended by congress. In that I haven't cited Madison as he has nothing to say on the topic.

So I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. If you're referring to our first discussion, I've obviously cited far, far more than 'Madison's opinion'. Making your claim inaccurate. And if you're referring to the second discussion, I haven't cited Madison's opinion as evidence. Making your claims inaccurate.

Pick one.

And you brought up the Wong Kim Ark case and now seem to have conveniently forgot all about it.

The issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Justice Gray explained in that case:

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.

And as I tried to explain British common law involving "natural born subjects"
(not citizens, subjects) is not transferable without interpretation to the citizens of the new republic that was The United States of America. There is a large difference between a citizen of a Republic and the "subject" of a Monarch.

That's what you've claimed. But the quote of Wong Kim Ark you just offered simply didn't say that. Or even mention 'subjects'. And in terms of the application of the standards of British common law with the founders in their understanding of the term 'natural born citizen', its a difference with no significant distinction. As 'natural-born' subject and 'natural-born' citizen are effectively interchangeable in a discussion of the meaning of 'natural-born'.

As Madison's comments make ludicrously clear.

If it goes to SCOTUS they may side with you. If they do it will be interesting to read the opinion.

I've not only read the opinion, I've actually cited that exact passage. In this thread, I believe. As far as the founders original conception of natural born, its obvious that citizens born outside the US weren't included. Which I've stipulated......perhaps 4 times. That's actually my argument, one that I've cited Wong Kim Ark for, British Common Law for, James Madison for, what I've dismantled your claims regarding Vattel over.

The founders based natural born status on PLACE of birth. Not parentage. I don't know how much clearer I can be on the topic.

However, we're also discussing if the founders intended the natural born citizenship to be embodied in the constitution alone. Or if its something that can be extended by Congress. With the latter case obviously involving a conception of natural born citizenship AFTER the ratification of the constitution and beyond their understanding of the meaning of the term.

And as the 1790 Naturalization Act, passed in the first session of congress, signed by George Washington himself demonstrates, yes, that's what they intended.

Wong Kim Ark doesn't address this topic specifically. Given the current state of the USC on the topic, I think that the Supreme Court today would find 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' to be explicitly analogous. But this is thoroughly debatable. Our first discussion on the founders original meaning of 'natural born' and where they derived the term.....much less so.

Okay, keep citing that 1790 Act that was repealed 5 yrs. later and keep treading that Madison mill.

You're still not reading a thing you're responding to. Madison has nothing to say on Cruz's citizenship. Nor have I cited Madison on why Cruz is a likely a natural born citizen.

We're having two different discussions:

Conversation 1) the meaning of natural born at the time the constitutions was passed.
'
Conversation 2) And why Cruz is likely a natural born citizen under current US law.

You're mixing them together. And you're obviously wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

Cruz was given a plain old Canadian birth certificate. Nothing honorary about it. He is quite simply a natural born Canadian.

He is indeed a natural born Canadian citizen. He's also a citizen at birth of the United States. And I argue that the Supreme Court when assessing the difference between 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' will find no relevant distinction under current US law.

Well Skylar, I can't say I'm surprised at your pretzel logic here. I suppose theoretically one could be "citizen at birth" in as many as three separate countries 1. The country the child was born in proper (natural born) 2. The country the father claims citizenship to and 3. The country the mother claims citizenship to.

Of course if grandparents or other guardians are squabbling over custody we could also have up to five, six, seven?... declarations of "citizen at birth" of any number of foreign countries.

Pretty damn sure that's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. And in any gray areas, especially deliberating a POTUS run, possessing a birth certificate from a foreign country is going to play against "natural born".

I will also note that it is very odd that a far-lefty like yourself (run around and check his posts folks) is arguing VIGOROUSLY that Cruz be allowed to be under the impression that he could claim the nomination from the GOP... I wonder what's up behind all that?

 

[Skylar]

Cruz was given a plain old Canadian birth certificate. Nothing honorary about it. He is quite simply a natural born Canadian.

He is indeed a natural born Canadian citizen. He's also a citizen at birth of the United States. And I argue that the Supreme Court when assessing the difference between 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' will find no relevant distinction under current US law.

Well Skylar, I can't say I'm surprised at your pretzel logic here. I suppose theoretically one could be "citizen at birth" in as many as three separate countries 1. The country the child was born in proper (natural born) 2. The country the father claims citizenship to and 3. The country the mother claims citizenship to.

My logic is simple: The founders intended the meaning of natural born citizen to be within the authority of Congress to establish by statute. As the 1790 naturalization act establishes rather elegantly, when the founders did exactly that in the very first session of congress.

Current US law draws a stark delineation between 'citizen at birth' and 'naturalized'. Placing Cruz with the same class as those born in the US.

I'd argue that a court would find little difference between 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' under current US law.

I will also note that it is very odd that a far-lefty like yourself (run around and check his posts folks) is arguing VIGOROUSLY that Cruz be allowed to be under the impression that he could claim the nomination from the GOP... I wonder what's up behind all that?

Its not that complicated. My assessment of a the law has nothing to do with who it is being applied to. Merely the circumstances.

I wouldn't expect you to understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cruz was given a plain old Canadian birth certificate. Nothing honorary about it. He is quite simply a natural born Canadian.

He is indeed a natural born Canadian citizen. He's also a citizen at birth of the United States. And I argue that the Supreme Court when assessing the difference between 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' will find no relevant distinction under current US law.

Well Skylar, I can't say I'm surprised at your pretzel logic here. I suppose theoretically one could be "citizen at birth" in as many as three separate countries 1. The country the child was born in proper (natural born) 2. The country the father claims citizenship to and 3. The country the mother claims citizenship to.

Of course if grandparents or other guardians are squabbling over custody we could also have up to five, six, seven?... declarations of "citizen at birth" of any number of foreign countries.

Pretty damn sure that's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. And in any gray areas, especially deliberating a POTUS run, possessing a birth certificate from a foreign country is going to play against "natural born".

I will also note that it is very odd that a far-lefty like yourself (run around and check his posts folks) is arguing VIGOROUSLY that Cruz be allowed to be under the impression that he could claim the nomination from the GOP... I wonder what's up behind all that?

I will also note that it is very odd that a far-lefty like yourself (run around and check his posts folks) is arguing VIGOROUSLY that Cruz be allowed to be under the impression that he could claim the nomination from the GOP... I wonder what's up behind all that?

I'm curious why a supposed Cruz supporter is so against him running and so afraid to say why they supposedly supported him, before the birther issue.

I wonder what's up behind all that?

 

[Syriusly]

Cruz was given a plain old Canadian birth certificate. Nothing honorary about it. He is quite simply a natural born Canadian.

Natural born Canadian- and Natural born American.

 

[Silhouette]

Cruz was given a plain old Canadian birth certificate. Nothing honorary about it. He is quite simply a natural born Canadian.

Natural born Canadian- and Natural born American.

Don't forget "Natural born Cuban" too, if his father was a Cuban citizen. Of course their laws would be more protective of their national solvency to allow a Canadian to run their country. This test isn't limited just to Cruz or to women of US citizenship having babies abroad. Fathers are equally entitled to enjoy the new relaxed rules for "natural born" as anyone else.. A US man sires a child with a Russian woman and the baby is born on Russian soil with a Russian birth certificate. That child would also be "natural born American citizen" according to Syriusly's "logic". Remember, the 14th doesn't allow discrimination for either gender or country of origin to an otherwise equally-applied law..

Still not sure why all these far far far lefties are here defending Cruz's run for POTUS with an easy disqualifying albatross hanging around his neck...

Odd, that....

 

[Syriusly]

Cruz was given a plain old Canadian birth certificate. Nothing honorary about it. He is quite simply a natural born Canadian.

Natural born Canadian- and Natural born American.

Don't forget "Natural born Cuban" too, if his father was a Cuban citizen. Of course their laws would be more protective of their national solvency to allow a Canadian to run their country. This test isn't limited just to Cruz or to women of US citizenship having babies abroad. Fathers are equally entitled to enjoy the new relaxed rules for "natural born" as anyone else.. A US man sires a child with a Russian woman and the baby is born on Russian soil with a Russian birth certificate. That child would also be "natural born American citizen" according to Syriusly's "logic". Remember, the 14th doesn't allow discrimination for either gender or country of origin to an otherwise equally-applied law..

Still not sure why all these far far far lefties are here defending Cruz's run for POTUS with an easy disqualifying albatross hanging around his neck...

Odd, that....

What isn't odd is your insistence on not understanding the law.

Is or was Ted Cruz also born a Cuban citizen- maybe- it all depends on Cuban law- which you don't know- and don't care about.

I defend Cruz's eligibility for the same reason I confronted Obama Birthers-

1. Birthers are idiots
2. I respect an American's eligibility regardless whether I agree or disagree with him politically.
3. Unlike Birthers.

And yes- you are now a Birther.

 

[Skylar]

Cruz was given a plain old Canadian birth certificate. Nothing honorary about it. He is quite simply a natural born Canadian.

Natural born Canadian- and Natural born American.

Don't forget "Natural born Cuban" too, if his father was a Cuban citizen.

You just said that citizenship by blood isn't 'natural born'. And now you're arguing that it is? Pick one.

 

[Silhouette]

You just put words in my mouth. Hey Skylar, why are you folks from the far left really pitching for Cruz on this one? I'd like a three page paper, single spaced with an opening paragraph, body and conclusion here by 5:00pm today on that answer..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You just put words in my mouth. Hey Skylar, why are you folks from the far left really pitching for Cruz on this one? I'd like a three page paper, single spaced with an opening paragraph, body and conclusion here by 5:00pm today on that answer..

Why do you support Cruz?

 

[Silhouette]

You just put words in my mouth. Hey Skylar, why are you folks from the far left really pitching for Cruz on this one? I'd like a three page paper, single spaced with an opening paragraph, body and conclusion here by 5:00pm today on that answer..

Why do you support Cruz?

I don't. He has a Canadian birth certificate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You just put words in my mouth. Hey Skylar, why are you folks from the far left really pitching for Cruz on this one? I'd like a three page paper, single spaced with an opening paragraph, body and conclusion here by 5:00pm today on that answer..

Why do you support Cruz?

I don't. He has a Canadian birth certificate.

You said you'd like to vote for him.
Why?

 

[sealybobo]

Cruz was given a plain old Canadian birth certificate. Nothing honorary about it. He is quite simply a natural born Canadian.

Natural born Canadian- and Natural born American.

Don't forget "Natural born Cuban" too, if his father was a Cuban citizen. Of course their laws would be more protective of their national solvency to allow a Canadian to run their country. This test isn't limited just to Cruz or to women of US citizenship having babies abroad. Fathers are equally entitled to enjoy the new relaxed rules for "natural born" as anyone else.. A US man sires a child with a Russian woman and the baby is born on Russian soil with a Russian birth certificate. That child would also be "natural born American citizen" according to Syriusly's "logic". Remember, the 14th doesn't allow discrimination for either gender or country of origin to an otherwise equally-applied law..

Still not sure why all these far far far lefties are here defending Cruz's run for POTUS with an easy disqualifying albatross hanging around his neck...

Odd, that....

Arab American men go over to the middle East and father thousands of little Ted cruz' and isis raise them all to all be anti American. Are all those children American citizens?

 

[Syriusly]

Cruz was given a plain old Canadian birth certificate. Nothing honorary about it. He is quite simply a natural born Canadian.

Natural born Canadian- and Natural born American.

Don't forget "Natural born Cuban" too, if his father was a Cuban citizen. Of course their laws would be more protective of their national solvency to allow a Canadian to run their country. This test isn't limited just to Cruz or to women of US citizenship having babies abroad. Fathers are equally entitled to enjoy the new relaxed rules for "natural born" as anyone else.. A US man sires a child with a Russian woman and the baby is born on Russian soil with a Russian birth certificate. That child would also be "natural born American citizen" according to Syriusly's "logic". Remember, the 14th doesn't allow discrimination for either gender or country of origin to an otherwise equally-applied law..

Still not sure why all these far far far lefties are here defending Cruz's run for POTUS with an easy disqualifying albatross hanging around his neck...

Odd, that....

Arab American men go over to the middle East and father thousands of little Ted cruz' and isis raise them all to all be anti American. Are all those children American citizens?

Why wouldn't they be American citizens? Which part of your scenario do you think strips them of their citizenship
a) Their fathers are Arab Americans?
b) ISIS raises them?

Was this guy an American citizen?