Naturalization of Children on Application of
Citizen Parent? WHOA !! I though it was all
automatical and such.
As I have mentioned before, but some of you weren’t listening too closely ;
Cruz declares that he is certainly a natural born Citizen as intended and required by Art. 2 Section 1 clause 5, in the US Constitution, yet says this; “As you know, I was born in Canada. My mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of my birth. She was a U.S. citizen from birth so, under U.S. law, I’m an American citizen by birth.” “Beyond that,” he added, “I will leave the legal consequences of those facts to others to worry about.”
Yeah, the super intellect that is one Raphael Teddy Cruz will leave the legal consequences up to others to worry themselves with. I will drop a little knowledge on you about those people who should be worrying about those consequences being attended to, but instead are worrying about how best to screw you out of your birthright, out of every right, blessing, inheritance and sacrifice ever purchased for us by the men and women and yes, children who died to establish this garden of wonder in uniqueness never before imagined on this earth. Below I will post just one page in screenshot of a Joint Resolution, 2000. I will leave you to let it blossom through your mind what the consequences of this would be. And do you know what? This wasn’t the first of it’s kind. This effort began in earnest in 1970 – shortly after George Romneys failed run for being a foreign born usurper who failed because Americans back then knew what the fuck a natural born citizen was. There is a LOT more where this came from:
click to enlarge
From a commentor; “And – THIS is why the Article 2 natural born Citizen eligibility clause was written into the Constitution. As a barrier to foreign intrigue – AND so that a foreign government cannot have any legal claim on a sitting US President were he a dual citizen or native citizen of a country other than the USA.”
Thomas Lee is a professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School.
click to enlarge:
.click to enlarge:
.click to enlarge:
I will put the rest up in a page in a little bit, the screenshot panels above get the main point and the source scholar presented.
“Some commentators are dismissing as merely frivolous the claim that Senator Ted Cruz is not a “natural born citizen” as the Constitution uses that term, and therefore ineligible for the presidency.
This dismissive attitude is a serious mistake. Although Senator Cruz’s belief that he is natural born may ultimately be vindicated, the case against him is very respectable.
At the outset, we should note that the requirement that a president be a”natural born citizen” is not an arbitrary rule. The Framers added it to the Constitution because history had taught them some hard lessons about the inadvisability of allowing a foreign-born person to become a country’s chief executive. In other words, the constitutional requirement is there for good reasons, and should be respected.
Senator Cruz was born in Canada of an American mother and a Cuban father. By congressional statute, he was a citizen at birth. His citizenship is not at issue. What is at issue is whether he is “natural born” as the Constitution uses the term.
When the Constitution was written, the default rule of international law was that, although for many purposes a person’s status followed the condition of the mother (according to the maxim partus sequitur ventrem), for citizenship or “allegiance” purposes status followed that of the father. Individual countries altered the default rule, and the Anglo-American statutory and common law altered it more than most. In Anglo-American countries, nearly all children born within a country were granted “natural born” status, even if their parents were both aliens. Although for several years Parliament may have allowed foreign-born children to claim citizenship through their mothers, well before the American revolution it has been firmly established that to be â€œnatural bornâ€ such a child had to have a citizen father.
In other words, it was not sufficient, as some recent writings have implied, for the child to have a citizen mother. As I pointed out several years ago in my book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant:
We know exactly what the founders meant by the phrase “natural-born citizen” because they adapted (note: not adopted – but adapted) it from the English legal term, “natural born subject,” which in Britain defined who could serve in Parliament or the Privy Council. Essentially, a natural-born citizen was one who met either one of two requirements. First, a person qualified if born within the United States or within American territory, even if the person’s parents were aliens. Alternatively, an individual qualified even if born outside the country if the individual’s father was an American citizen not then engaged in traitorous or felonious activities.
On at least two occasions the Supreme Court has confirmed that in citizenship matters the Constitution should be read to incorporate principles inherited from Great Britain.
In arguing the contrary, recent commentators have made several kinds of mistakes. Some seem to read founding-era sources that refer to the foreign-born children of citizen parents as natural born, not recognizing that the sources mean both parents—or the father alone rather than the mother. Admittedly, the sources can be tricky on this score. By way of illustration, the editor’s headnote to Bacon v. Bacon, an English decided by the Court of King’s Bench, seems to imply that the mother can pass citizenship. But the body of the case asserts clearly that the relevant status is that of the father.
Some writers have enlisted sources that directly contradict their thesis. For example, two writers cited Blackstone’s Commentaries to support their argument that a mother can convey natural born status to her foreign-born child. Actually, Blackstone affirms that the critical parent for these purposes is the father:
that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
Professor Michael Ramsey, while correctly concluding that the concept of citizenship was based on British law, ingeniously argues that Congress may change the definition of “natural born,” in part because the English Parliament did so from time to time. This argument is by no means impregnable, however, as Professor Ramsey recognizes. For one thing, Congress, unlike Parliament, is a legislature of limited powers. The Constitution grants Congress power to naturalize citizens, but it does not (expressly, anyway) grant power to alter the meaning of “natural born.” Moreover, allowing Congress to manipulate the definition this way would be fundamentally inconsistent with the constitutional safeguard: It would allow Congress to decree that children born in a favored foreign country or of a favored foreign family were thereby “natural born.” That may seem far-fetched today, but would have seemed less so during the founding era, when nations and at least one American state (Maryland) conferred citizenship privileges on those with whom they wished to curry favor.
The best evidence for granting natural-born status to the foreign-born child of a citizen mother and alien father derives from the Naturalization Act of 1790, adopted in the First Federal Congress. It provided in part:
And 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
Senator Cruz’s father, although a Cuban, previously had lived in the United States. (I sez: The implication that the Father be a U.S. citizen, and not merely a citizen was clear, but not specified in the law – it was a “point” that was later argued to need clarification)
Although Congress cannot alter the meaning of a constitutional provision, one may contend that this statute sheds light on the meaning of the constitutional meaning of “natural born.” It was adopted by a Congress that included important Founders and it was enacted before all of the 13 original states had ratified the Constitution. But at least four factors weaken its persuasive force:
First, the new federal Congress adopted it nearly a year after the Constitution had been ratified by eleven states. Its terms seem not to have been the subject of discussion during the ratification process.
Second, the statute is ambiguous. It applies to the “children of citizens.” That may mean children with at least one citizen-parent. But it also might mean children with two citizen-parents. As noted above, other founding era sources that, at first glance, might seem to mean the former, actually mean the latter.
Third, when Congress used the term “citizen” it may well have meant only male citizens. Taken alone, it would not seem so. But remember that the then-prevailing assumption was that citizenship status followed the father. Observe how the statute’s proviso focused solely on the father: “[T]he right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
Fourth, the presence of “natural born” language in a statute dealing with naturalization and not otherwise with natural born status”seems to demand explanation, and one likely explanation may not be good for Senator Cruz’s case:
During the founding era, certain private rights, such as inheritance and land ownership, could depend on citizenship or natural-born status. Congress may have been seeking, not to explain or define the constitutional requirement, but merely to extend private benefits to persons who might otherwise be excluded. This would explain why the statute provides that the “children . . . shall be considered as natural born” not that they literally are natural born. (I sez: I have been making this point for years)
I am an admirer of Senator Cruz, and I wish him well in the court challenges that undoubtedly will arise. But no one should dismiss those challenges as baseless or frivolous.”
I will begin by stating that I believe 95% of all career politicians are criminally dishonest. We need them however, because no one but a thoroughly corrupted dishonest self-serving dick-bag of a human would subject themselves to so much criticism and negative feedback from the public at large. For power. I sure wouldn’t, hell I don’t believe that I could. I have integrity and I have these little fists that seem to ball up all without my conscious direction.
Speaking of integrity.
This brings us to Ted Cruz and his Dilemma.
UPDATE: This is a “short” summary in case you don’t care to read all the supporting excerpts/quotes/links etc. in the full post below;
In August 2013 Ted Cruz claimed to not be aware that he was a Canadian citizen, that he learned about it from reading a newspaper article. Upon being informed he said, “assuming it’s true”, he’d renounce his Canadian citizenship. In Jan. 2016 Breitbart publishes an interview with a buddy of Ted Cruzs’ from collage, in which that friend mentioned how he and Ted had discussed Teds dual Canadian/US citizenship while attending Princeton. He told how Cruz identified as a dual citizen at the border during a trip together to Canada. 2015/2016 Cruz declares that he is certainly a natural born Citizen as intended and required by Art. 2 Section 1 clause 5, in the US Constitution, yet says this; “As you know, I was born in Canada. My mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of my birth. She was a U.S. citizen from birth so, under U.S. law, I’m an American citizen by birth.” “Beyond that,” he added, “I will leave the legal consequences of those facts to others to worry about.”
While it is public that his father became a Canadian citizen, Cruzs’ camp continues to claim his mother never did become a Canadian. Cruzs’ mother has not spoken on the issue as far as I can determine. Being that the Cruzs’ lived in Canada from 1967-1975, owned a business there, and during those years Cruzs’ father obtained his Canadian citizenship – well, it’s not far fetched to think that both parents just might have applied at the same time. Cruz’s mother’s name appears on a Canadian government document, obtained by TPM in 2013, that lists Canadian citizens eligible to vote in 1974. (Brietbart would have you believe that the enumerators just listed people on there willy-nilly). And the cherry-on-top; “Immigration attorney Joshua Goldstein told Breitbart News that Ted Cruz would still be a natural-born citizen, and eligible for the presidency, even if his mother had taken Canadian citizenship, whether before or after his birth. “She could vote in Canada, and it wouldn’t affect her U.S. citizenship,” he added.“The fact that his mother might have been Canadian at birth, as well as American at birth, would be irrelevant.”
Yes, you read that right. Now the very exclusive and restrictive natural born Citizen clause is being interpreted as birth anywhere, to anyone who once upon a time had citizenship in the USA.
Ted Cruz. He lied HARD in 2013. This will set it up:
One of the Republican presidential hopeful’s college friends said he remembers talking with the future senator about his eligibility to serve as president.
“I do recall specifically Ted once commenting that when he was a kid and he first learned about the natural-born citizen clause in the Constitution, like I suspect every other American child born abroad, he inquired whether or not he was eligible to be President. snip said Michael Lubetsky, a Canadian who was on the Princeton debate team with Cruz.
“Lubetsky said he remembered one occasion at a border crossing where Cruz identified himself as a dual citizen, “because I pointed him to and said he was a dual citizen.”
“I think his normal routine was to identify himself as an American,” he said.
Cruz and his Canadian collage friend discussed his being a Canadian dual national when they used to go on jaunts back and forth across the Canadian border while they were class mates. He knew.
Yet in 2013 we have Cruz giving a statement that he learned from the newspaper that he was a dual citizen.
By Aaron Blake August 19, 2013
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) announced Monday evening that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship, less than 24 hours after a newspaper pointed out that the Canadian-born senator likely maintains dual citizenship.
“Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship,” Cruz said in a statement. “Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator; I believe I should be only an American.”
Remember that this is a fellow who has audio-graphic memory, he is in fact, a human tape recorder. And he is a genius attorney. “Assuming that it’s true.” Fucking WOW.
He had his spokesperson do this weird thing a few days before the newspaper informed him that he was a Canadian American? This thing:
“Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. “To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship.”
Now, I can’t find the original article (this article mentions it, I think: pink link) where he says he never had Canadian citizenship. I can find pages and pages of results with all the main media and many progressive sites proclaiming Ted Cruz perfectly eligible as a natural born US Citizen born in Canada. But I have to ask, did he lie to his team, or were they all conspiring and trying to keep this a mystery? Maybe to give Mark Levin time to prepare a show to declare that he had discovered this whole issue to, in fact, be a non-issue and is, in fact, settled law in the dual-citizen Canadians favor. In fact! (Even Salon agrees *giggle*) Then Levin calls people who question Cruzs eligibility due to the Canadian birthplace ASSHOLES!
As to this “he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen” it is in part true. HE didn’t have to go through a naturalization process, but his mother had to do so on his behalf in order for his American citizenship to be approved and registered.
Birth of U.S. Citizens Abroad
A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.
According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.
The child’s parents may choose to apply for a U.S. passport for the child at the same time that they apply for a CRBA. Parents may also choose to apply only for a U.S. passport for the child. Like a CRBA, a full validity, unexpired U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship.
Parents of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen or citizens should apply for a CRBA and/or a U.S. passport for the child as soon as possible. Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the child’s U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, including entry into the United States. By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.
Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA, or Form FS-240)
If you are a U.S. citizen and have a child overseas, you should report his or her birth as soon as possible so that a Consular Report of Birth Abroad can be issued as an official record of the child’s claim to U.S. citizenship. Report the birth of your child abroad at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. Check the American Citizens Services portion of the webpage for the nearest Embassy or Consulate in the country where your child was born for further instructions about how to apply for a CRBA. Please note:
A Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. citizen is only issued to a child who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and who is generally under the age of 18 at the time of the application.
The U.S. embassy or consulate will provide one original copy of an eligible child’s Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen.
Asked about his presidential eligibility at the Texas Republican Convention last week, Cruz said, “I’ve disclosed all the relevant facts. As you know, I was born in Canada. My mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of my birth. She was a U.S. citizen from birth so, under U.S. law, I’m an American citizen by birth.”
“Beyond that,” he added, “I will leave the legal consequences of those facts to others to worry about.”
“by birth” Cruz? By blood and by virtue of a statute. And you know I really do loves me some lofty cocky condescension; “Beyond that,” he added, “I will leave the legal consequences of those facts to others to worry about.” Heh.
Anyway, there well may be a bit of a question about his mothers citizenship. Turns out his father did indeed obtain Canadian citizenship while still living with Teds mother in Canada. And Teds campaign gives the following winding and weird statement, emphasis mine:
(Jason) Johnson added: “Eleanor was never a citizen of Canada, and she could not have been under the facts or the law. In short, she did not live in Canada long enough to be a Canadian citizen by the time Cruz was born in 1970: Canadian law required 5 years of permanent residence, and she moved to Canada in December 1967—only 3 years before Senator Cruz’s birth.” snip
NOTE: It has never been implied she obtained Canadian citizenship before Ted was born- an answer to a question not asked
Cruz’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, has confirmed taking Canadian citizenship.
The Cruz campaign told Breitbart News on Friday that Cruz’s American-born mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson (née Darragh), had never done so.
“She was in Canada on a work permit and never became a permanent resident, let alone a citizen,” Johnson said.
“She never registered to vote and never applied for Canadian citizenship.”
Under U.S. law, Cruz would have inherited his citizenship at birth in 1970 from his mother, provided she remained a U.S. citizen. She likely would have retained her U.S. citizenship even if she had become a naturalized Canadian citizen, though Canadian law required naturalized citizens formally to renounce all foreign allegiances until 1973.
Sen. Cruz adds (p.31) that he remembers little else from his childhood in Calgary, though his parents were drinking heavily, and his father “left my mother and me in December 1974.”The elder Cruz had a religious awakening in Houston the following year and returned to his family: “Shortly thereafter they sold their business in Calgary [in 1975] and moved us down to Houston, where my mother also became a born-again Christian. snip
NOTE: Above we learned that Cruz the elder had Canadian citizenship, which must have happened before he abandoned his family for approximately one year in 1974. He came back in 1975 (ish), so is it sooo unlikely that the husband AND wife would both apply for citizenship as they had been in that country for years, and established a company there? Cruzs team has not provided the year that his father naturalized to Canada.
Immigration attorney Joshua Goldstein told Breitbart News that Ted Cruz would still be a natural-born citizen, and eligible for the presidency, even if his mother had taken Canadian citizenship, whether before or after his birth.
“She could vote in Canada, and it wouldn’t affect her U.S. citizenship,” he added.
“The fact that his mother might have been Canadian at birth, as well as American at birth, would be irrelevant.”
Oh. IRRELEVANT. Just exactly like Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
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.
I was reading Lame Cherry tonight, and came across a post which I think has profound merit. It’s the sort of thing that intuitive people pull out of the nooks and crannies where our itches most drive us nuts. It is important, very important, in that a few very overlooked things about Ted Cruz are pointed to and given daylight. I will post a snip and the pink link …
There is something off about Ted Cruz. I mean is not Ted Cruz a US Senator, and do not all US Senators pose with everyone grinning? Yet for some reason Heidi and Ted Cruz have deliberately sanitized and monitored all of their public appearances. You literally can not find Ted Cruz shaking hands or sitting down with anyone, except Jewish leader Benjamin Netanyahu and Jewish Rockefeller guardian, Henry Kissinger.
Let me explain this in Heidi Cruz worked for the Counsel on Foreign Relations and EVERY name in the world of power speaks there. She was chosen to author the white paper on ending America, and joining the United States to Mexico and Canada, and you can not find one photo of Heidi Cruz with David Rockefeller or even posing with Henry Kissinger.
That just does not happen, as in politics everyone is joined at the hip. Newt Gingrich is posing with Hillary Clinton. Look at how Donald Trump needed in business to glad hand with all types, and yet you can not find any photos of Ted Cruz. Not even a slip up like Jeb Bush posing with Rupert Murdoch and Valerie Jarrett with all of them smiling as old friends.
Lame Cherry is a thousand times right. Just today I was wondering in conversation with my husband WHY Teds mother is never spoken of – other than that he derived US citizenship through her. His Cuban daddy is fawned over as a lovely man who is now a preacher. Mama is never spoken of. Is she alive? What of his half-siblings? We know what size each of Mr. Trumps nostrils are, don’t we?
Crazy as shit FL Sen. Grayson stated that he would file a “beautiful lawsuit” over Cruz’s birth country being Canada. Googling Grayson’s famous threat? It isn’t even on the first 5 results pages, and if it ain’t there, ain’t nobody gonna see it. Yet, it made a big stink when he very recently said it.
A little more from Lame Cherry, same link as above, snip:
You have a Canadian, where liberals should be tearing him apart in retaliation of Obama being a Birther, and liberals will not attack him. I told you previously that Cruz bucked the Senate leadership….and they never retaliated as they did against other Conservatives. There is a hands off Ted Cruz label, and that is coming from the Rockefellers for the Rothschilds. Ted Cruz is the ultimate Manchurian Candidate in this race.
Cruz has told all of you that he is a political ghoul and his entire purpose is to hang around until Donald Trump is dead. His finance is from a few billionaires, so he is their bitch funded to mind a split from Donald Trump.
Ted Cruz is the Goldman Sachs boy, Wall Street big debt and big US invasion. He is connected enough to screw the Bush family over and not end up ground up in a taco. This is not someone you want anywhere near power in this life and death situation in America, and the world.
It is all crafted, and the media just happens to take photos of Ted Cruz and his doeling, while showing non stop rage photos of Donald Trump or Ben Carson looking stupid?