• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

IMO, he's more concerned with the constitutionality of rulings that go against the will of the state's people.

this foreigner wouldn't know the constitution if he broke into the national archives so he could add his signature and add to his 'credentials' - "founding father"
 
He also gave up his Canadian citizenship.

as he will renounce his american citizenship as president right as he's sneaking across the russian border to trade our nuclear launch codes

obviously someone like this who spits on his homeland isn't to be trusted
 
IMO, he's more concerned with the constitutionality of rulings that go against the will of the state's people.

Anything supporting the Constitution is the definition of a "bastard" to the left, except when it suits them of course.
 
You were being evasive and your posts were long and boring when you could have just answered the questions. I skipped over your posts. Life is too short.

I'm with you here. My eyes glazed over trying to read his replies on page 22. Clearly, he prides himself on being the forums' foremost legal authority on America birth rights. :roll: If that's what give him his hardcore jollies, so be it. :shrug:

Regardless of the size of his ego, he and I can agree on one thing: Ted Cruz doesn't meet the constitutional eligibility requirement to be POTUS which was the point of this thread. Anything else he has to say regarding the subtopics that have sprung up in the thread...let's just say he's entitled to his opinion. Nonetheless, I'm more than willing to let the Supreme Court or Congress define who is and is not a natural-born U.S. citizen should either body ever formally take up the issue.
 
I'm with you here. My eyes glazed over trying to read his replies on page 22. Clearly, he prides himself on being the forums' foremost legal authority on America birth rights. :roll: If that's what give him his hardcore jollies, so be it. :shrug:

Regardless of the size of his ego, he and I can agree on one thing: Ted Cruz doesn't meet the constitutional eligibility requirement to be POTUS which was the point of this thread. Anything else he has to say regarding the subtopics that have sprung up in the thread...let's just say he's entitled to his opinion. Nonetheless, I'm more than willing to let the Supreme Court or Congress define who is and is not a natural-born U.S. citizen should either body ever formally take up the issue.

I liked your post, although I disagree with you on Cruz's eligibility.... just wanted to mention that my like was for the rest of it.
 
I liked your post, although I disagree with you on Cruz's eligibility.... just wanted to mention that my like was for the rest of it.

Here's an article from Yahoo.com that at least tried to shed some light on the "natural-born" citizen argument and Sen. Cruz eligibility. I'm still of the opinion that where he was born remains the disqualifying factor for his "natural-born" citizen status, but there's something else that occurred to me: Were Ted Cruz' parents married at the time of his birth? If not, then he'd likely have to be found eligible under the same "born abroad/born out of wedlock" INA requirements for which Pres. Obama's mother was so heavily scrutinized. Per current INA, Section 1401(g), "Born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent":

a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom 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 five years, at least two 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, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person.

And Secton 1409(c), "Born out of wedlock":

Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

So, just to clarify the matter, does anyone know if his parents were, in fact, married at the time of his birth OR if his mother lived in the U.S. for at least 5-years prior to his birth? I'd hate to see this country go through the same birther crap all over again.
 
So, just to clarify the matter, does anyone know if his parents were, in fact, married at the time of his birth OR if his mother lived in the U.S. for at least 5-years prior to his birth? I'd hate to see this country go through the same birther crap all over again.

Yes, they were married; his mother was born and raised in Delaware, went to college in Houston and later worked in Houston, so she had definitely lived in the US for more than 5 years.

(note, yes, I got my data from wikipedia, but I have no reason to think it is incorrect based on other sites I have read about Cruz' life. Ted Cruz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
)
 
Yes, they were married; his mother was born and raised in Delaware, went to college in Houston and later worked in Houston, so she had definitely lived in the US for more than 5 years.

(note, yes, I got my data from wikipedia, but I have no reason to think it is incorrect based on other sites I have read about Cruz' life. Ted Cruz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
)

Yup, his mother was born and raised in Delaware and went to I believe Rice University, and she graduated in the 1950s. Ted was born in 1970. His mother was a US citizen.

His father came here on a student Visa in the late 1950s. Not sure exactly when he married Mrs. Cruz but his Visa ran out (it was a 4 year Visa) and I think he married her at around that time (early 1960s) when he got his green card.

There are a lot of reasons to not like Cruz. This isn't one of them.
 
Yup, his mother was born and raised in Delaware and went to I believe Rice University, and she graduated in the 1950s. Ted was born in 1970. His mother was a US citizen.

His father came here on a student Visa in the late 1950s. Not sure exactly when he married Mrs. Cruz but his Visa ran out (it was a 4 year Visa) and I think he married her at around that time (early 1960s) when he got his green card.

There are a lot of reasons to not like Cruz. This isn't one of them.


I agree. I hope no one makes any more of an issue about it.
 
Yes, they were married; his mother was born and raised in Delaware, went to college in Houston and later worked in Houston, so she had definitely lived in the US for more than 5 years.

(note, yes, I got my data from wikipedia, but I have no reason to think it is incorrect based on other sites I have read about Cruz' life. Ted Cruz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
)

Yup, his mother was born and raised in Delaware and went to I believe Rice University, and she graduated in the 1950s. Ted was born in 1970. His mother was a US citizen.

His father came here on a student Visa in the late 1950s. Not sure exactly when he married Mrs. Cruz but his Visa ran out (it was a 4 year Visa) and I think he married her at around that time (early 1960s) when he got his green card.

There are a lot of reasons to not like Cruz. This isn't one of them.

Thanks to you both.
 
Ted Cruz is a secret muslim...
 
I said that the issue of where he was born was only important to people who oppose the idea of him being elected President. The people who plan to support him don't care, as long as it's confirmed that he's qualified.
In your statement, one presupposes the other. The interest in his birth is predicated on "only" those who oppose the "idea" of him becoming President.
Yes, that is a blanket statement concerning "only" those who oppose the "idea" of him becoming president, which is false.


Cruz had dual citizenship. His mother was an American citizen, and his father was a Cuban refugee. Cruz was raised and educated in the United States. And he was a citizen of the United States from birth. He got Canadian citizenship because Canada grants citizenship to people born there. There isn't any reason to think he has allegiance to Canada. His parents left there when he was 4 years old.
He was a Canadian and was born owing Canadian allegiance.
We are talking about his condition at birth. It doesn't matter that he later renounced that allegiance/citizenship. He was born with it.

But more to the point.
No Constitutional citizenship was conferred upon Cruz at birth or later.
Being a "natural born citizen" is a Constitutional requirement and depends solely on what the framers meant by that.
No Statute (law) or regulation can confer that upon him. His citizenship is, and was, by Statute only.

The Supreme Court already recognized that there are two possible categories that fit within the natural born citizenship clause.
One of which there is no doubt that it applies, which was those born of citizen parents on US soil.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

But there are doubts if the other category applies, which was those born on US soil regardless of the parents citizenship.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

Both the above require being born on our soil, neither of which Cruz falls into.


There are a lot of reasons to not like Cruz. This isn't one of them.
It isn't a matter of like. It is a mater of whether he meets the criteria of natural born citizen, which he clearly is not.





McCain's parents were in Panama working for the US government.
And a law was later passed giving those born there citizenship.


He also gave up his Canadian citizenship.
Matters not one bit to this argument.
 
Clearly, he prides himself on being the forums' foremost legal authority on America birth rights. :roll: If that's what give him his hardcore jollies, so be it. Regardless of the size of his ego,
Wow. The audacity of some people. :doh
You have pages upon pages of posts on this subject, some far more lengthy than what I posted, and you have argued as confidently as I do, yet here you are now trying to cast aspersions on someone else for doing exactly what you have done.
Truly ****en sad. That is called being hypocritical.
Wrongly focusing on the individual and not the topic just confirms that you have no valid argument.


I discovered a previous reply you made years ago that clearly confirms this is nothing more than an emotional issue for you and not one born of logic.

What is even more sad is that your arguments are wrong, which you have to know. Yet argue away as if they are not. :doh

Once one understands that the Constitution is not beholden to any Statute they should then know that no law has any authority in this argument.
But obviously not you, as you continually make such false arguments. :doh

The only thing that matters is what the Founders meant by natural born citizen.


I'm more than willing to let the Supreme Court or Congress define who is and is not a natural-born U.S. citizen should either body ever formally take up the issue.
Willing? No. You will be resigned to accede to their decision as legal authority on the issue, just as everyone else would.


And Secton 1409(c), "Born out of wedlock":

So, just to clarify the matter, does anyone know if his parents were, in fact, married at the time of his birth OR if his mother lived in the U.S. for at least 5-years prior to his birth? I'd hate to see this country go through the same birther crap all over again.
See. Here you are doing it again. The Act applies to his being a citizen. Not a natural born citizen.
No law has any control over what the Constitution means.

He is a citizen by law.
 
In your statement, one presupposes the other. The interest in his birth is predicated on "only" those who oppose the "idea" of him becoming President.
Yes, that is a blanket statement concerning "only" those who oppose the "idea" of him becoming president, which is false.



He was a Canadian and was born owing Canadian allegiance.
We are talking about his condition at birth. It doesn't matter that he later renounced that allegiance/citizenship. He was born with it.

But more to the point.
No Constitutional citizenship was conferred upon Cruz at birth or later.
Being a "natural born citizen" is a Constitutional requirement and depends solely on what the framers meant by that.
No Statute (law) or regulation can confer that upon him. His citizenship is, and was, by Statute only.

The Supreme Court already recognized that there are two possible categories that fit within the natural born citizenship clause.
One of which there is no doubt that it applies, which was those born of citizen parents on US soil.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

But there are doubts if the other category applies, which was those born on US soil regardless of the parents citizenship.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

Both the above require being born on our soil, neither of which Cruz falls into.



It isn't a matter of like. It is a mater of whether he meets the criteria of natural born citizen, which he clearly is not.






And a law was later passed giving those born there citizenship.


Matters not one bit to this argument.


He was born an American citizen, and he was granted Canadian citizenship because they grant citizenship to anyone born there. He left the country when he was 4 years old. If you think he has allegiance to Canada, then don't vote for him.

By the way, please show me all of the people who plan to or want to vote for him and are supporters who are having massive concerns about where he was born.
 
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien ; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]

Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
He was born an American citizen, and he was granted Canadian citizenship because they grant citizenship to anyone born there.
:doh
He was born a Canadian Citizen.
Here is his one and only Birth Certificate.

CRUZ_0819NAT_32638724.JPG



Being born in another country to a US citizen, he was granted citizenship under our laws.
He is a citizen by statute. Not a natural born citizen.


He left the country when he was 4 years old. If you think he has allegiance to Canada, then don't vote for him.
:doh
He was born with the allegiance.
That is the condition of his birth.
Matters not one bit that he later renounced that citizenship.


By the way, please show me all of the people who plan to or want to vote for him and are supporters who are having massive concerns about where he was born.
Don't need to.
Your statement was a blanket statement as shown.
 
:doh
He was born a Canadian Citizen.
Here is his one and only Birth Certificate.

CRUZ_0819NAT_32638724.JPG



Being born in another country to a US citizen, he was granted citizenship under our laws.
He is a citizen by statute. Not a natural born citizen.


:doh
He was born with the allegiance.
That is the condition of his birth.
Matters not one bit that he later renounced that citizenship.


Don't need to.
Your statement was a blanket statement as shown.

Nobody said he wasn't given Canadian citizenship at birth. I could deliver a child in Canada tomorrow and he's automatically granted citizenship. That doesn't prove he has allegiance to Canada.

So I guess by your last statement you can't show me any Cruz supporters who are worked up about or concerned with the fact he was born in Canada. In other words, the people who are concerned about Cruz's country of birth are either not going to vote for him anyway for any number of reasons, or they truly believe the birther nonsense about him and won't vote for him because of it. Like I said.
 
:doh
He was born a Canadian Citizen.
Here is his one and only Birth Certificate.

CRUZ_0819NAT_32638724.JPG



Being born in another country to a US citizen, he was granted citizenship under our laws.
He is a citizen by statute. Not a natural born citizen.


:doh
He was born with the allegiance.
That is the condition of his birth.
Matters not one bit that he later renounced that citizenship.


Don't need to.
Your statement was a blanket statement as shown.

The people that would vote for Cruz despite the fact that he was born in Canada with Canadian citizenship, are probably that same crowd that had their knickers in a knot about Obama. Selective constitutional adherence.
 
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien ; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]
Wrong.
The weight and legal authority says exactly the opposite.

The 14th Amendment construes who is a Citizen. Not a natural born citizen.

Again;
88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett ()
Argued: February 9, 1875
Decided: March 29, 1875

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.​

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
 
Wrong.
The weight and legal authority says exactly the opposite.

The 14th Amendment construes who is a Citizen. Not a natural born citizen.

Again;
88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett ()
Argued: February 9, 1875
Decided: March 29, 1875

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.​

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162

Also from Cornell.

A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States. Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII.

Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen." One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.
 
Nobody said he wasn't given Canadian citizenship at birth. I could deliver a child in Canada tomorrow and he's automatically granted citizenship. That doesn't prove he has allegiance to Canada.
He wasn't granted. He was born with it.
And his allegiance to Canada is a condition of his birth. HE was born with it.

He was granted US citizenship by law.



So I guess by your last statement you can't show me any Cruz supporters who are worked up about or concerned with the fact he was born in Canada.
Don't need to. Your statement was a blanket statement as shown.


In other words, the people who are concerned about Cruz's country of birth are either not going to vote for him anyway for any number of reasons, or they truly believe the birther nonsense about him and won't vote for him because of it. Like I said.
:lamo
You did not say that. You said "only".
You made a blanket statement.
It was false.
 
The people that would vote for Cruz despite the fact that he was born in Canada with Canadian citizenship, are probably that same crowd that had their knickers in a knot about Obama. Selective constitutional adherence.
As I already pointed out.
Those who are willing to vote for Cruz but opposed Obama because he owned multiple allegiances, are hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
He wasn't granted. He was born with it.
And his allegiance to Canada is a condition of his birth. HE was born with it.

He was granted US citizenship by law.



Don't need to. Your statement was a blanket statement as shown.


:lamo
You did not say that. You said "only".
You made a blanket statement.
It was false.

Okay, well, carry on with your Birther theories.
 
The people that would vote for Cruz despite the fact that he was born in Canada with Canadian citizenship, are probably that same crowd that had their knickers in a knot about Obama. Selective constitutional adherence.

They're called "Birthers". From the Hillary supporters who started it to Donald Trump who continued it to the people who are trying to use it against Cruz. Indicative of what's wrong in this country.
 
Okay, well, carry on with your Birther theories.
:doh

The Constitutional requirement that one be a "natural born citizen" is not a theory.
That the Constitution is not beholden to any law, is not a theory.
That the Supreme Court already recognized two categories of those who may be natural born citizens is not a theory. That one of those categories is covered by the 14th is not a theory.
A clause of the Constitution can not be left without effect by another, is not a theory. Thus the natural born citizenship clause must mean something beside what is covered by the 14th is not a theory.
 
Back
Top Bottom