Ted Cruz' eligibility is really quite murky.

[rogerashton]

A lot has been written and posted on this, but I got curious and did some googling on dual citizenship. It is now commonly acknowledged that before Ted Cruz' birth, Eleanor Cruz applied for and obtained Canadian citizenship. Thus, at the time of his birth, she was either a Canadian citizen or a dual citizen of the United States and Canada.

The United States does permit dual citizenship, and in fact, renunciation of US citizenship is apparently a cumbersome process, involving the filing of papers with the embassy. If, for example, Ted Cruz wanted to renounce his US citizenship in order to run for president of Cuba, he would have to go through that process. But the purpose of this process is to assure that the renunciation is voluntary. If, for example, another country were to require an American citizen to renounce American citizenship to avoid some penalty, the US would not recognize that renunciation and would recognize the person as a citizen on the person's return to the US. At least, that is my best understanding of what I read.

However, travel information (not a legal document) posted by the Department of State says,

U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another nationality does not risk losing U.S. nationality. However, a person who acquires a foreign nationality by applying for it may lose U.S. nationality. In order to lose U.S. nationality, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. nationality.

http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-and-dual-nationality/dual-nationality.html

I think it depends on Canadian law whether such an intention existed. The reported fact that Eleanor Cruz voted in Canadian elections before Felito's birth may or may not be relevant. NB, to be a Canadian citizen one is declaring loyalty to a foreign monarch -- strictly speaking Canadians are subjects, not citizens -- and does this, per se, imply intention to give up American nationality?

In that case, Ted is not even a citizen.

So even if one does not buy this argument by a Delaware legal historian:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html


which argues that he is a citizen but not natural-born -- even if one does not buy this argument, Ted's status is murky.

[saltpoint]

1. I've been asking myself if I would fear Cruz

less if he were unintelligent.

He's a very intelligent -- if malevolent. He reinforces the Dominionist/generic fundie Bible-thumping Christians who hate secular government, hate science, and hate the Other.

Recent news suggests that Ted will have to devote some time and money to resolve this eligibility issue. I doubt if it will alter his demographic support all that much, given that a voter drawn to his candidacy is probably crazier than a shithouse rat to start with.

But I'd like to see significant chaos visited upon the Republican Party between now and November. May their convention in Cleveland be highly stressful for the GOP power-brokers and just as off-putting to voters.

[MiniMe]

5. Depends on if anybody could get a court to hear the case

And the court doesn't really want to be involved in this question

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. No, it really isn't "murky" at all

his mother is a US citizen, and was a US citizen at birth (because she was born in Delaware). If she did acquire Canadian citizenship, it pretty clearly wasn't done with any intent to give up US citizenship; she moved to Canada with her husband in 1969, and they returned to the US in 1974...which doesn't demonstrate the level of commitment to Canada one would expect had US citizenship intended to be relinquished. Further, since she moved to Canada in 1969, and Ted Cruz was born in 1970, she couldn't have met the residency requirements for Canadian citizenship at the time and thus was a non-citizen Canadian resident.

[403Forbidden]

7. I read she moved to Canada in 1967.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. You read wrongly then

and even if she had it would be irrelevant as she was still a US citizen when Cruz was born.

[403Forbidden]

11. How do you know I read it wrongly?

It's possible the author of the article was wrong...which means I read it correctly. It's also possible the author was correct.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Every source I've seen says "1969"

after Cruz' parents were married (in the USA, as it happens), so no, it's not possible that the author was correct (if they did say "1967", at all).

[403Forbidden]

17. ..."and she moved to Canada in December 1967 — only three years before Sen. Cruz’s birth..."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-birth-certificate-mother-217524

[EdwardBernays]

29. 1967

“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"

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-mother-birth-certificate/

"Rafael Cruz is quoted as saying, "I worked in Canada for eight years. And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen." Since multiple sources state that he moved to Texas in 1975, this would suggest that his time in Canada stretched from roughly 1967 to 1975, and this 1974 Calgary voters list offers at least some substantiation.'

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8937948

There's also a Macleans article that says 1967.

[Jenny_92808]

47. Edward laws have changed since then...

They lived in Canada for 8 years - 1966 to 1974

Residency requirements = 3 to 4 years (they lived in Canada for at least four years)

Per Cruz Sr, they received Canadian citizenship in 1970, so if it was prior to Dec. 22 that year, they had CAN citizenship when Ted was born.

[EdwardBernays]

49. I'm not commenting on that

simply saying that MULTIPLE sources, including ones with interviews with Cruz, say it was 1967...

I have no belief one way or the other about his citizenship... though I'd love it if he was disqualified, considering what a scumbag he is.

[Jenny_92808]

57. I have to agree on the scumbag part...

If we can trust Cruz Sr.'s statements on NPR Site (not another site that says it was from an interview) and if we can trust what Cruz said that he moved to the US when he was 4 years old. This gives us the approximate dates.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

51. Wrong again

1. You can't apply today's citizenship requirements to the 1960s and 1970s. When the Cruzes lived there, there was a 5 year residency requirement for citizenship.

2. I've seen nothing, and you've provided nothing, that shows that Cruz senior said that he obtained citizenship in 1970. And I've seen nothing, and you've provided nothing, that shows that Cruz senior ever said his wife obtained citizenship.

Why do continue to post information that is, at best, completely unsubstantiated and at worst, outright lies?

[403Forbidden]

56. woops my bad, I confused you for a different poster nt

[Jenny_92808]

58. 5 year residency requirement

I stand corrected. I had read otherwise elsewhere.

(1947 act) Immigrants could apply for citizenship after residing in Canada for five years...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Canadian_nationality_law

[Jenny_92808]

48. That date 1969...

was given by a Cruz strategist. I don't trust it and have read otherwise (dates given by Cruz Sr.)

[Jenny_92808]

54. This should help us with the dates a little...

If you trust the NPR interview with Cruz Sr.

Cruz Sr. NPR Interview

"I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration

[Jenny_92808]

53. Approximations

It was reported that Cruz Sr. said they lived in Canada for 8 years and they moved to the US when Ted was 4 years old.

Approximation (lived in Canada ~1966-1974):
Dec. 22 1974 Ted turned 4
Dec. 22 1966 (subtract 8 years)

[DefenseLawyer]

12. Until there is a Supreme Court decision

As to the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" in Article 1, Section 2, it will remain unsettled. You are entitled to your interpretation, that someone born in Canada to an American mother meets the requirement. I tend to come to the same conclusion. Unfortunately you and I don't get to interpret the Constitution for the country. So until there is a decision it's unsettled. Doesn't mean you're wrong, but I wouldn't be confident in anything Scalia and company might do. The irony is that the strict constructionists that Cruz favors are the very ones that might rule against him.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. It's already been settled

not by the Supreme Court, granted, but there is ample precedent in statute--"natural-born subjects" under English law going back to the 14th century were those born outside the kingdom whose fathers were subjects, for instance; the 1790 Naturalization Act defined "natural-born citizen" in the same way, and it's frankly rather bizarre to assume that the original intent and meaning would have been something contrary to that, considering the terminology and concept derived from English law. And in any case the "original intent" is irrelevant to the current application of law (which treats "a natural-born citizen" as one born to a citizen parent anywhere in the world, ie one who has citizenship at birth).

[DefenseLawyer]

19. If you think that is stare decisis

It's not. It's a good argument. One I agree with. However, confidence in your argument is not the same thing as "settled law". I invite you to re-read the "Hobby Lobby" decision if you need a reminder that the rational, reasonable argument doesn't always carry the day.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. In the absence of a Supreme Court ruling on the matter...

the established precedent here would be the judgement in Robinson v Bowen (Federal Court for California's Northern District, 2008) which found that John McCain was a "natural-born citizen" by virtue of having citizenship at birth through his parents.

[DefenseLawyer]

21. That action was dismissed

For lack of standing and isn't precedent on the underlying issue. In addition, McCain was born in the Canal Zone, which was a U.S. Territory at the time, and there was a specific statute in place that declared persons born in the Canal Zone to be natural born citizens. 8 USC 1403. So it's distinguishable. Again, I'm not saying your analysis is wrong, only that the issue is not settled law by any stretch.

[rogerashton]

26. The second link responds to that argument, I believe

On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.”

In this election cycle, numerous pundits have declared that Cruz is eligible to be president. They rely on a supposed consensus among legal experts. This notion appears to emanate largely from a recent comment in the Harvard Law Review Forum by

names deleted

In trying to put the question of who is a natural-born citizen to rest, however, the authors misunderstand, misapply and ignore the relevant law.

First, although ... correctly declare that the Supreme Court has recognized that common law is useful to explain constitutional terms, they ignore that law. Instead, they rely on three radical 18th-century British statutes. While it is understandable for a layperson to make such a mistake, it is unforgivable for two lawyers of such experience to equate the common law with statutory law.

Hey, I'm no expert. But it seems that the experts disagree.

[Spider Jerusalem]

39. The second link is quite simply wrong (n/t)

[rogerashton]

40. You are entitled to your opinion.

[Spider Jerusalem]

42. It is not an "opinion", it is a fact.

She's wrong about Blackstone:

When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions.

(snip)

To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so 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.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html

And is quite simply wrong, therefore, about the status of Cruz re "natural born", as well; in the late 18th century and up until the 19th, the child of an American mother and a non-American father born outside the US was not a US citizen; changes in the law meant that citizenship could derive from either parent, not merely from the father, which pretty clearly makes Cruz a "natural-born citizen" by expansion of the criteria given by Blackstone (see above) and understood by the authors of the Constitution (and explicated in the 1790 Naturalization Act).

[rogerashton]

44. It remains a matter of your opinion.

Perhaps you are a professor of constitutional law. So is she. I am not, so all I see is a difference of opinion among people at least one of whom is an expert. That, to me, is very murky.

Anyway, your rebuttal does not speak to her argument at all, since you cite statute law:

it was enacted by statute

which the linked essay explicitly dismisses as irrelevant.

Perhaps she is wrong. Perhaps you are. Vigorous assertion does not create fact.

[Spider Jerusalem]

45. Nope, she's wrong

I quoted Blackstone's Commentaries at length, and the passage I quoted? Refutes her assertion about what he said re "natural-born".

[former9thward]

35. There has been a Supreme Court decision and recent (1971).

The definitive case concerning children of one U.S. citizen parent born overseas is Rogers v. Bellei. The case specifically involves a foreign-born person, born of a U.S. citizen parent and a non-U.S. citizen parent, who had not established a relationship with the United States as was required by law, who nevertheless objected to his U.S. citizenship being revoked. The case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which took the occasion to speak at length about citizenship, the powers of the Congress to determine the conditions for natural born citizenship and for naturalized citizenship, as well as to decide this particular case.

The Court looked at the entire history of citizenship, from English common and statutory law preceding the formation of the United States, to the citizenship act of the First Congress, and subsequent changes to the act, and to the history of Supreme Court decisions on citizenship. But, importantly, the Court ruled that it is entirely within the power of Congress to determine conditions under which a person is a natural born citizen, and it has now been doing this for more than two hundred years. In particular, the Congress has decided that children born overseas of two U.S. citizens are natural born citizens, those born overseas of one U.S. citizen are also natural born citizens provided some residency requirements are met, and that citizenship by lineage ends with the first generation of children born overseas.

[DefenseLawyer]

36. The issue isn't citizenship

That is settled law. I don't think anyone has said he isn't a citizen. The issue is the meaning of "natural born citizen" as used in article 1, sec 2 of the Constitution. Whether a person born in Canada to an American mother meets that requirement to be qualified to be President has never been decided. I'm not saying it wouldn't be decided in his favor, it probably will, but there has never been a case that holds that "natural born citizen" as used in article 1, sec. 2 (not elsewhere in statutory law and immigration rules) includes someone in Cruz's situation.

[rogerashton]

43. That's persuasive but

it does not speak to the question as to whether Eleanor Cruz may have renounced her American citizenship in applying for Canadian citizenship -- if indeed she did, on which there seems to be no very reliable report either way. My point was not that Cruz is known to be ineligible -- only that there are a number of questions about it, and the opinions vary, as yours differ from mine.

If Cruz were to be elected, the issue would surely be taken to court. Now, we all know from experience how the Supremes balance the precedents created by earlier court decisions (such as the ones you describe) against partisan advantage.

[Jenny_92808]

46. Deduction

They lived in Canada for 8 years - 1966 to 1974

Residency requirements = 3 to 4 years (they lived in Canada for at least four years)

Per Cruz Sr, they received Canadian citizenship in 1970, so if it was prior to Dec. 22 that year, they had CAN citizenship when Ted was born.

Cruz Citizenship Timeline
1964-1966
Cruz Sr. takes a few odd jobs, marries and moves to Canada to work in the oil fields. The Cruz family resides in Canada for the next eight years.
“I worked in Canada for eight years,”
Rafael Cruz says.
“And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.” –

1970
Ted Cruz is born in Canada, to two parents who had lived in Canada for at least four years at that time, and had applied for and received Canadian citizenship under Canadian Immigration and Naturalization Laws, as stated by Rafael Cruz. As a result, U.S. statutes would have voided the prior "green card" status which re4uires among other things, permanent residency within the nited !tates and obviously, not becoming a citizen of another country during the time frame of the U.S. green card.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/256409078/Cruz-Citizenship-Timeline-documented

[Downwinder]

3. If it comes down to Trump or Cruz,

based on Trump's record, it will go to court. And Trump has a better record in court than Cruz.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. I'd like a link that shows

"It is now commonly acknowledged that before Ted Cruz' birth, Eleanor Cruz applied for and obtained Canadian citizenship."

I've seen that claim here a few times, but no one has ever provided any links to any information that shows this to a true statement.

[DrDan]

31. I would also - I have asked several posters for a link, but to no avail

I have yet to find a link myself that she applied for and was granted Canadian citizenship

only that she shows up on some list of voters as a spouse

[rogerashton]

32. Here is what I saw

although it was not a scribd (self-published) document, when I saw it previously, I believe.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/256409078/Cruz-Citizenship-Timeline-documented#scribd

It attributes the claim that Cruz' parents both had Canadian citizenship at the time of Felito's birth to Raphaei Cruz. How reliable? Can't say I am certain of that. It has also been posted on Facebook, for what that is worth (not much.) All very murky.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. I just read that timeline on Facebook

And it provides no documentation or proof of the claim whatsoever.

[rogerashton]

41. That's right but

I haven't seen much evidence for the contrary claims that have been made in this thread, either.

I actually saw reference to it in the Baltimore Sun

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/topic/263318-ted-cruz-not-american-must-show-his-naturalization-papers/

But they cite the scribd document. I think I was hasty in supposing that the Sun was actually reporting this -- they are only reporting the rumor.

Murkier and murkier.

[Jenny_92808]

50. I agree...but one thing for sure is...

I do not trust the 1969 date given by that Cruz Strategist.

[403Forbidden]

6. Very Murky indeed

[librechik]

9. Never mind. They'll re-cast that character in the second season. n/t

[prayin4rain]

27. Haha.... ain't that the truth. What a shitshow. n/t

[NV Whino]

10. Thank you for posting this

This (the mother's citizenship at Teddy's birth) is the crux of the matter rather than interpretation/definition of the term "natural born."

[DefenseLawyer]

15. I wouldn't be so sure

Without precedent, I would never been 100% confident on where the Court might come down on anything. Particularly this Court, that has shown itself willing to wade into politics at any opportunity.

[unc70]

18. Mothers citizenship not relevant to natural born

Did you read the article? Natural born is dependent on where Cruz was born. Natural born Canadian, not US. From the Constitution.

His citizenship is another matter. Because of current statutes passed by Congress, Cruz was presumed a citizen when he was born and had an abbreviated process to later complete the naturalization process. He was a citizen at birth, not a natural born citizen by birth.

[UCmeNdc]

25. You make a good point.

I would hate to think the United States has a foreign national as its President just because we were too lazy to investigate his background.

[treestar]

14. I have gotten to thinking: Suppose we elected a 34-year-old

to the Presidency - I wonder what would happen - would the Veep serve until the President-elect turned 35? Or the opponent sue to be President as they were the one with the most votes eligible?

That just got me thinking about how, if we elected Cruz, and there is a real question and there is someone with standing to sue, then that wrinkle in the law could be interpreted.

With Obama no one with standing was willing to sue because it was so ridiculous. Obama was born in the US. A few tried to spout a theory that a native citizen can be found not to be a natural born one if one of their parents was not a US citizen (like Obama's father). But no one was willing to take that up. Thus there was only the likes of Orly Taitz to do it and she had no standing.

But with Cruz the issue of native/natural and any differences could be taken up. But who would have standing to do it? Hillary/Bernie or another candidate? The Veep (who could say he/she was the one eligible to serve where the President could not).

I think Cruz may be hampered by the question hanging over his head. We don't elect a 34 year old because we'll never have a majority of voters who would vote for someone clearly ineligible. Here, enough voters might hesitate to vote for Cruz because of this. So the Rs may try to avoid having him as nominee.

[Yupster]

30. There should be a way to qualify a person before they're put on the ballot for president

Forget Cruz, but just go with the 34 year old example. Why go through the mess.

There ought to be a government group that each candidate presents his evidence to. Then at each party's convention the head of the credentials committee could come out and say "Joe Smith, being a natural US citizen and 35 years or older has been duly certified to run for President of the United States, and all the delegates could stand up and cheer and the balloons can come down.

Eventually this will be a problem that there isn't any way to certify.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

33. I said the exact same thing

when all of this bullshit was buzzing around President Obama.

[SwankyXomb]

22. Presumably he has a FS-240 or DS-1350 form

that his parents obtained between his birth and their return to the US, and that Teddy Crazy used to get a passport. All he has to do is produce that and the whole birther thing goes away.

[403Forbidden]

23. Back in the 80's it was very easy to cross the US/Canada border w/o passport

I remember as young kid, crossing the US/Canada border multiple times. My mother was only required to show her California driver's license. And I did not have to show anything...no ID whatsoever.

[rogerashton]

24. If these existed, surely they would have been made public already.

And if they don't -- perhaps through negligence -- where would that leave the matter?

[UCmeNdc]

28. Ted Cruz is a Canadian

[Nay]

62. Presumably, Swanky. As I've said in many, many posts on the subject, the

Cruz family simply needs to produce the document that they used to get Ted's US passport when he was 14 years old. That's all. That's all. That's all. And what do we see? Ted producing his Canadian BC; his mother's BC; Ted renouncing his Canadian citizenship. None of which addresses the actual question of whether he has US citizenship from birth, which is what is required. Ted, who's supposed to be so goddamned smart, can't produce that document, but tries to muddy the waters with basically irrelevant paperwork? What's going on there? The whole family seems crazy.

[Lil Missy]

37. I just think the whole ordeal is delicious.

[Gothmog]

38. The law is not settled here

[stone space]

52. His mother was born in the USA. This birther shit is annoying. (nt)

[B Calm]

59. We'll see.

[stone space]

60. We've seen the results of anti-immigrant ferver here in Iowa before.

We'll see.

They were pretty ugly.

Xenophobia is nothing new.

[B Calm]

61. How did you spin reading the constitution to anti-immigrant ferver?

[Zynx]

63. I think the Constitutional provision is stupid, but does have to be honored.

Based on the meaning at the time, I think it would be very hard to argue he meets the definition. More recent definitions are more favorable to his position, but I don't think this matter is clear. It should be litigated and the courts should provide a clear answer.

[Yo_Mama]

64. No it isn't. Really it is not.

The mother's birth certificate was found. She was born in the US and had birthright citizenship. Also she grew up in the US - she went to school and graduated from college in the US. So any child of hers born to her until/unless she renounced citizenship would be by birth entitled to citizenship by birthright. The sole exception would be that if the mother hadn't racked up one cpntinuous year of residency before giving birth, which she obviously had.

Ted Cruz was born in 1970. His mother could not have been a Canadian citizen in 1970.

The residency requirements for Canadian citizenship seem impossible to have been met by 1970. I googled her. Her first son by another man (Michael Wilson died) was born and later died in 1966 IN ENGLAND. She and her first husband, who she had married in 1963 were working there, and got divorced in England. She and Rafael Cruz supposedly married in 1969, probably in Canada working at the company they started. There is a Selective Service card on Rafael Cruz for 1967 in New Orleans, LA, so the parents weren't in Canada yet.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20160116-cruz-family-drama-moms-first-husband-is-ex-pat-texan-in-london.ece
http://dailyscene.com/ted-cruz-and-the-question-of-natural-born-citizenship/
Therefore, his mother was a US citizen when he was born and Cruz was born a US citizen. The fact that under Canadian law Cruz could also claim birthright citizenship really has nothing to do with it.

Also, even if his mother acquired Canadian citizenship after his birth, Cruz would still have US citizenship.